Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mika on October 17, 2007, 03:23:11 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071017/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearpoliticsbush_071017154505
There is not much what I could say about this, I sincerely hope Yahoo News would have screwed this one up. Basically I cannot believe what I'm reading.
Mika
-
Sometimes I think Bush is like a ****ing troll in the White House and he's doing it all for the lulz.
Then I remember he's an idiot and feel sad. :(
-
Oh **** the Earth is going up in flames soon.
-
Oh **** the Earth is going up in flames soon.
about damn time
-
I think they got the Context screwed, they've worded as though he's saying 'If Iran go Nuclear, we will start WWIII', where what I think he meant to imply was 'If Iran Nuke Israel, it will be the start of WWIII'. That, in itself, is hardly new information.
Without hearing the whole speech I couldn't say for certain, but Bush does have a habit of using sentences when paragraphs are needed.
-
It things like these that make me feel embarrassed to be an American. Sorry for our idiot, rest of the world.
-
It things like these that make me feel embarrassed to be an American. Sorry for our idiot, rest of the world.
Same here.
He was born in Texas so theres no way he can be smart. :rolleyes:
-
Agreed. You know what he does most often when he invites people to his ranch? Not politics.
-
It things like these that make me feel embarrassed to be an American. Sorry for our idiot, rest of the world.
Same here.
He was born in Texas so theres no way he can be smart. :rolleyes:
Your gonna open up a can of crap if you keep on saying retarded stuff like that.
-
It things like these that make me feel embarrassed to be an American. Sorry for our idiot, rest of the world.
Same here.
He was born in Texas so theres no way he can be smart. :rolleyes:
That wasn't a very nice thing to say.
-
It things like these that make me feel embarrassed to be an American. Sorry for our idiot, rest of the world.
Same here.
He was born in Texas so theres no way he can be smart. :rolleyes:
Nice job generalizing people jackass.
I don't live in Texas BTW.
-
The whole 'not generalizing people based on country' applies to states too. There are lots of smart people from Texas, and I'm one of them. Or how about Texas Instruments? They've got to be a bunch of retards to make DLP chips and such. :doubt:
-
I didn't say all, I meant the Texas people who go for Bush...
-
Well there is the saying that "every village has its' idiot" and a town in Texas is missing their's, so it must be a pretty smart town now. Therefore, at least one place in Texas is smart...and I'm not from Texas either.
-
I didn't say all, I meant the Texas people who go for Bush...
I don't see you saying anything to that effect here.
Same here.
He was born in Texas so theres no way he can be smart. :rolleyes:
-
You know what's funny? We've already established the fact that Bush is stupid. Yet, for some reason, we're as surprised as we are by this.
-
I think they got the Context screwed, they've worded as though he's saying 'If Iran go Nuclear, we will start WWIII', where what I think he meant to imply was 'If Iran Nuke Israel, it will be the start of WWIII'. That, in itself, is hardly new information.
Without hearing the whole speech I couldn't say for certain, but Bush does have a habit of using sentences when paragraphs are needed.
Yeah, I'm not sure why everybody is surprised. Nuking things is bad, certainly. This quote, as it seems, is just Bush saying "Well, I think we should stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Because then they'll nuke Israel and then the world will once more be embroiled in a vast conflict that will know no end, until the last human on earth collapses, twitching, and on fire."
Only without the eloquence.
-
While I'm not part of the 'Bush hater' clique....
Yeah, I'm not sure why everybody is surprised. Nuking things is bad, certainly. This quote, as it seems, is just Bush saying "Well, I think we should stop Iran from getting nuculer weapons. Because then they'll nuke Israel and then the world will once more be embroiled in a vast conflict that will know no end, until the last human on earth collapses, twitching, and on fire."
Fixed.
-
Either they fixed the quote or I just understand Bushilese better than almost everyone else. What he meant, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty damned obvious. I'm no Bush fan (ooh potential triple entendre!), but I'm not a mindless hater that immediately assumes everything the guy says is a public announcement that he has an IQ in the mid-80s. Say 'hi' to reality, kids. You don't get into positions like that by being the moron the general populace believes him to be.
Bush is a snide, sarcastic ass (ironic!) that couldn't speak well in public to save his life and wouldn't know eloquence if it kicked him directly in the ass. He's practically the average joe that makes poor decisions based on bad information and puts trust in the wrong people. He's a used-car salesman with a larger-than-normal set of cojones. Used car salesmen do not need to be voted into public office. Unfortunately, the other options were just as bad, if not worse for other reasons. I can't wait until the anti-Christ gets voted into office next year!
-
Its just the usual sensationalist stuff...nothing really concrete at this point. Lets hope there isn't a WWIII. Lets hope that whoever gets in office in 2008 can make some international stuff work without resorting to starting multiple wars.
-
Hate to say it, but the comment made perfect sense to me. :nervous:
-
Its just the usual sensationalist stuff...nothing really concrete at this point. Lets hope there isn't a WWIII. Lets hope that whoever gets in office in 2008 can make some international stuff work without resorting to starting multiple wars.
Short of a war this isn't going to work. Nobody wants Iran having nukes as a far as I can tell, though Russia claims to. (Yeah ****ing right, they have Islamic terrorist problems too.)
France and Germany have already threatened dire consequences against Iran for continuing. If Russia puts its money where its mouth is, and France and Germany do as well...
...irony is a funny thing. NATO may end up serving the purpose everyone used to think it did.
-
The way I read it, he's deliberately using big language to try and drum up international support for his position on Iraq. There's no threat there, at least, not from him.
I'm intrigued by what method he expects "World War Three" to begin. I'm assuming the idea is
Iran Nukes Israel
America invades Iran
Nuclear fallout and massive refugee crisis ****s up the middle east and world oil supplies are affected.
Oil prices surge.
Resource war commences.
But, to be honest, I don't see it happening. Global oil prices would rise, yes, but net result would be people using less oil - so far we've swallowed price rises, but there has to come a point where it simply becomes too expensive to use oil for most of the things we do now. Net result wouyld probably be a 20 year recession while alternative energies come on line (with R+D hastened by desperate need) followed by... business as usual I suppose. Bad, but not world war three. Moreover, I suspect if the Iranians do nuke Israel, it'd be with a bomb designed to minimize fallout (otherwise it'd land on Iran as well), so the level of overall regional radioactive damage would probably be minimal (reducing the refugee crisis and oil supply problems).
The only other way I can see it happening is via the China-Russia-Iran love triangle, plus emerging US-russian tensions and China's Taiwan lust. However, a military response to a nuking of Israel would probably be a UN backed operation, and, in all likelihood, would have Russian and Chinese support anyway. So I think we're fairly safe on the nuking of Israel bit. We don't have to worry about WWIII until oil supplies get low enough to convince either China or Taiwan to make a serious play for the Spratley Islands. Then we're all going down.
-
Then of course that's only if Iran has the cojones to even push the button. Calling for the extermination of another nation is one thing, but signing the death-warrant for your own with the push of a button is entirely another.
That is, if they even get nuclear capability, which is still years off. IMO, this'll turn out just like the whole rigmarole with China getting nukes: A whole lot of worrying culminating in a spontaneous outbreak of nothing.
-
I recall the Iranian president saying "Israel should be removed from the world maps" but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to nuke it to accomplish that.
There are several ways to remove something from the map, but literary and figurativly.
-
In such a scenario, I'd be more worried about the consequences from Israel's inevitably disproportionate counter-attack; i.e. lobbing enough nukes in response to completely glass Iran and anyone who had the audacity to cheer for them. Take the most likely outcome of that to its final stupidity...
-
Pft...Like I ran realyl need to do anything to provoke Isreal into attacking.
The very possibiltiy of a future attack is enough to get em riled up.
didn't they bomb Syria a fe days ago?
-
When haven't they bombed Syria / Palestine / Every other arab state around them a few days ago?
-
good point. :lol:
-
as much as i would like to see the earth burn, i have no problem with iran having a nuclear deterant. how many countries out there live under the constant threat of nuclear attack. i think we have our nukes pointing at everybody theese days. and i have no problem having a few pointing back our way. the end result is always the same, nuclear stalemate. it would take a madman of hitleresque nature to even think of pushing the death button. iran may be bad, but i think worse people have had access to nukes in the past. namely stalin.
frankly i miss the good old days of constant threat of attack where little 5 year olds had totally useless duck and cover drills. and a good ol fashond world war would be good for the economy.
-
You could make the earth burn yourself, Nuke.
I think that some of the terrorists and extremists are much worse than Soviets.
-
The thing I was wondering how the hell this got to WWIII-talk? IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program, and the Western Countries are ready to stall a construction of a nuclear power plant, which other countries can usually construct without any hinderances.
Besides, it seems Iran has also suggested that there can be foreign monitors and additional safe guards (not Iranian designed) within the enrichment facilities during the processes. The need of electric power is rising in the Middle East also and they do have a right to use nuclear power. If they use up the oil themselves they are losing a single very important export article and the oil prices would go up also because of that.
Sometimes I feel this is simply to keep some Middle East nations permanently as developing countries. But the problem is that it cannot be done forever. By blocking the development in other places the Western Countries are mostly stalling their own development as there is no need to aim further. It is not any kind of solution. Overthrow the regime in Iran and in a couple of ten years you'll face the same problem all over again. Well, I'd appreciate the Israeli viewpoint here, as I can hear it on this forum also. I would mostly like to hear what are the crimes for capital offences in Iran, as there has been over 100 executions this year. The other question is the actual power structure in that country.
With current reasons and information, I cannot and will not support Bush's view.
Regarding government agencies and positions in them, I can confirm that there are far too many idiots inside government systems who think they are doing useful stuff while in reality they are making it harder to do your job. It is not a question of intelligence, those people might score well in Mensa tests, unfortunately they have no clue of doing practical work or leading which is the thing that makes the difference. Why do I say this? I work for the government myself, but not in the area of politics and need to face the regulations caused by these bureaucrats day to day. But I leave it to that.
Mika
-
IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program
Actually, they have. I read it in Readers Digest a few months back.
-
Let's all vote for Steven Colbert. And I'm being dead serious--he'd make a better president then any and all of the candidates in both parties.
-
Let's all vote for Steven Colbert. And I'm being dead serious--he'd make a better president then any and all of the candidates in both parties.
Wrong topic.
-
Bush warns of World War III if Iran goes nuclear
Here is what I have to say,
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
the world would be a better place if everyone had nukes.
-
The world would be a better place if Nuke had all the nukes.
-
IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program
Actually, they have. I read it in Readers Digest a few months back.
How come I never heard of it, or read it in any serious news paper?
Media these days are so unreliable.
If there was any solied proof Bush would have yelled it to the world on a massive conference.
-
Bush is too stupid to read a "serious" magazine. He spends his days watching Bugs Bunny, shouting "You Wascawwy Wabbit!" and playing "Let's Bomb Iraq" on his PC.
-
You don't get into positions like that by being the moron the general populace believes him to be.
You do if you have advisors who are running the show who aren't, and a lot of money in the right places.
-
well he's the president and we're not so he's got us beat.....
-
If the info I found was right , Iran has 12 milion active military personel ( including para-military , which is most of the forces ) . USA has aprox. 3 million ( including para-military ) . Iran is equiped pretty well , compared to USA . Not AS good , but still .
So USA's only hope if Iran goes "M.A.D." , is if USA launches their nukes . But if Iran has nukes , well ... USA is screwed up then ...
-
Your telling me a small third world country like iran has 12 million soldiers? excuse me but thats bull**** :doubt:
-
That's what I thought too . I still think it's bull**** . But ... Seeing as how they give every person a gun , and the para-military is about 11 million forces ( para-military is , what I understand , local people that defende the territory they live in ) . So it's kind of logical . Of course the active and reserve forces are smaller , but they're equiped pretty well . The para-military actually has a rifles and maybe grenades at best ...
-
If I recall correctly, the official reports state that US has stationed something like 160000 (accurate numbers are of course a military secret) in Iraq alone, and even then there seems to be difficulties (whether it is financial or simply lack of volunteers) in finding more.
Iran has a population base of roughly 69 million, of which 15-64 year old males make up 24.1 million. An ad hoc assumption yes, but also somewhat believeable would be to divide the number by two to reach the theoretical number of men who could participate war time actions simply on the age grounds. That would make around 12 million soldiers. However, not all of these would be seen in the front lines and not all of them are in a physical shape of being able to do military service. But still this is a lot of people to contain in a ground war.
I would suppose that either US reinstates the draft or has a huge air-to-ground campaign if there is a war between US and Iran. Air power is the only part of arms where Iran cannot match US. But I suppose also that Iran has a healthy supply of modern Russian SAMs, which will lead to some casualities by the USAF.
In the end that Iran would be ruined for a decade or two, but nothing else would happen, as the extremist Islamists would probably gain even more foothold during the campaign. A huge waste of ordnance and kerosine from my point of view for no good reason.
Mika
-
Iran can bite back in other ways too, not just conventionally (assuming it gets no nukes too)
-
You do if you have advisers who are running the show who aren't, and a lot of money in the right places.
So he's a puppet, being led around and leeched off of by other people with their own agendas? Why is the poor man blamed for so much? Please do tell some of the specifics so I can start a revolt against these parasites taking advantage of our cognitively deprived president! People preying on the mentally challenged make me sick!
-
I admit the thread title was risky here in HL, but I'm quite sick of reading Bush bashing myself. As already shown in the other thread about media, not all news agencies apply the same standards in reporting Bush's quotes. It is not necessarily him who writes the speeches. After the success of "axis of evil" -speech I suppose the writers are trying to duplicate the same strategy in making masses move, but at the moment it is not really working well. This "World War III" stuff is a little over the top already for me (Note that the argument was whether Iran can have a nuclear power plant! WWIII for that? But well, WWI started almost as stupidly.)
However, relating to the possible war in Iran, I would believe that it would be a strategical mistake at the moment, but Bush being the leader of that has nothing to do with it. To begin with, I cannot even see a justification for using military to stop a nuclear powerplant overseen by IAEA. Hasn't Hillary already promised to keep up the hard line towards Iran?
-
I'm in the same footing here. Right now, it's a terrible move on Bush's part and obviously, his advisers would notice it.
I want more transparency about this. We can't monitor each country we see. That's just, no.