WWIII Thread:7-10-06 Hannity & Colmes say WWIII has begun

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
So Dave, you are against military action and against nuclear weapons in Iran...
What's your solution?

No, just the opposite.

I am against our troops dying for false causes or Religious zealots.

I would've turned much of the ME to glass a looooong time ago or at least used a huge portion of our Air firepower to lay waste most of the trouble spots in the Mideast.

I have laid out my plans and solutions repeatedly and I know they would've worked and still would work.

This Vietnam II crap is just that, crap.

Lay out your solution again...I missed it with all the Republican bashing.

Well no need to re-hash and spell it our again until the said Republicans are no longer in power. Until then things will remain the current status quo and only get worse. But of course you and the rest are enjoying it.

I think you are bull$hitting your solution...if you don't say what it is, it'll be obvious you have nothing to propose except complaining.

Just from reading his posts, I think "turn the me to glass" should give you an idea...

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
So Dave, you are against military action and against nuclear weapons in Iran...
What's your solution?

No, just the opposite.

I am against our troops dying for false causes or Religious zealots.

I would've turned much of the ME to glass a looooong time ago or at least used a huge portion of our Air firepower to lay waste most of the trouble spots in the Mideast.

I have laid out my plans and solutions repeatedly and I know they would've worked and still would work.

This Vietnam II crap is just that, crap.

Lay out your solution again...I missed it with all the Republican bashing.

Well no need to re-hash and spell it our again until the said Republicans are no longer in power. Until then things will remain the current status quo and only get worse. But of course you and the rest are enjoying it.

I think you are bull$hitting your solution...if you don't say what it is, it'll be obvious you have nothing to propose except complaining.

Just from reading his posts, I think "turn the me to glass" should give you an idea...

Seems like he wants to commit genocide against the people of the ME.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Seems like he wants to commit genocide against the people of the ME.

and how is what the Insurgents, Terrists ,Palestinians and Muslims doing any different??? 😕

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DVK916

Seems like he wants to commit genocide against the people of the ME.

and how is what the Insurgents, Terrists ,Palestinians and Muslims doing any different??? 😕

Dude the Republicans here are simply just much better people than you.

 

[dmcowen674]

3-8-2006 Iran Threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs

VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday if the U.S. tries to use the U.N. Security Council as a new and potent lever to punish Tehran for its suspect nuclear program.

In comments to the IAEA board meeting, Gregory Schulte said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran "if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons."

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-8-2006 Iran Threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs

VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday if the U.S. tries to use the U.N. Security Council as a new and potent lever to punish Tehran for its suspect nuclear program.

In comments to the IAEA board meeting, Gregory Schulte said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran "if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons."

All China has to do is veto which is more than likely.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-8-2006 Iran Threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs

VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday if the U.S. tries to use the U.N. Security Council as a new and potent lever to punish Tehran for its suspect nuclear program.

In comments to the IAEA board meeting, Gregory Schulte said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran "if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons."

I imagine their "harm and pain" would be more related to the worldwide supply of oil. I doubt Iran is foolish enough to try to bomb us or anything like that, although I suspect that's what Dubya and Rove would like you to get out of Iran's threat.

 

[Aimster]

I hate extremist mullahs

 

[Jmman]

If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-8-2006 Iran Threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs

VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday if the U.S. tries to use the U.N. Security Council as a new and potent lever to punish Tehran for its suspect nuclear program.

In comments to the IAEA board meeting, Gregory Schulte said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran "if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons."

I fail to see anywhere in the article where it says, or even implies for that matter, than Iran threatened to nuke the USA. Fact of the matter is they've done no such thing...harm and pain likely means cutting off oil exports, not military action. They'd never admit to developing a nuclear bomb, so how would they threaten us with nuclear weapons if they supposedly aren't making them? Saying that would just undermine everything they've been saying since 2003.

 

[Aimster]

The President wasn't one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages.

The people who helped capture and hold U.S hostages are against the Iranian regime.

They are known as the MEK.

They are in Iraq.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

I really don't believe that our government is afraid of Iran using nukes against us or other nations. The fact of the matter is that once a nation does develop a nuclear bomb, we lose control over them, and lose the ability to do certain things. That's what we're afraid of, not them actually using it. I simply can't imagine any country using a nuke...

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The President wasn't one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages.

The people who helped capture and hold U.S hostages are against the Iranian regime.

They are known as the MEK.

They are in Iraq.

I wasn't there, but it does raise questions in my mind........

Text

Text

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

Actually, Carter had the Pentagon and the CIA plan a rescue mission. The misson had to be scrubbed while in progress because the helicopters were taking on too much sand. When attempting to turn for home one of the choppers crashed into a transport plane and many men were killed. But go ahead and say Carter didn't do anything and make sure you also blame the failure of the mission on Carter. That way you get to have it both ways.

Then we had Reagan, who everyone gives credit for getting the hostages released even though they were released the day before he took office. He starts selling weapons to the same wackos in Iran that had been holding the hostages so he can fund his band of right wing rebels in El Salvador. Now there's a really smart move.

But all of our mis-steps in the ME can be placed at Carter's feet. Yeah, right.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I fail to see anywhere in the article where it says, or even implies for that matter, than Iran threatened to nuke the USA.

Originally posted by: EatSpam

I imagine their "harm and pain" would be more related to the worldwide supply of oil. I doubt Iran is foolish enough to try to bomb us or anything like that, although I suspect that's what Dubya and Rove would like you to get out of Iran's threat.

B I N G O

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

I really don't believe that our government is afraid of Iran using nukes against us or other nations. The fact of the matter is that once a nation does develop a nuclear bomb, we lose control over them, and lose the ability to do certain things. That's what we're afraid of, not them actually using it. I simply can't imagine any country using a nuke...

It is hard to fathom, but it is hard for me to comprehend teaching your children to strap on bombs and blow up schools or churches either. When the threat of death means nothing to someone due to their idealogy or lunacy or religion, what would stop them?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Iran threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs

Umm... Where does the story at your link say anything about Iran having any complete nukes, let alone ten, let alone the means to send them as far as the U.S.? :roll:

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

Actually, Carter had the Pentagon and the CIA plan a rescue mission. The misson had to be scrubbed while in progress because the helicopters were taking on too much sand. When attempting to turn for home one of the choppers crashed into a transport plane and many men were killed. But go ahead and say Carter didn't do anything and make sure you also blame the failure of the mission on Carter. That way you get to have it both ways.

Then we had Reagan, who everyone gives credit for getting the hostages released even though they were released the day before he took office. He starts selling weapons to the same wackos in Iran that had been holding the hostages so he can fund his band of right wing rebels in El Salvador. Now there's a really smart move.

But all of our mis-steps in the ME can be placed at Carter's feet. Yeah, right.

I didn't say all our our issues in the ME can be traced back to Carter, but I have to imagine that their president was in some way influenced by the hostage crisis and our subsequent response.....

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

I really don't believe that our government is afraid of Iran using nukes against us or other nations. The fact of the matter is that once a nation does develop a nuclear bomb, we lose control over them, and lose the ability to do certain things. That's what we're afraid of, not them actually using it. I simply can't imagine any country using a nuke...

A country... probably not. But considering that Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism it doesn't take much of a leap to imagine them setting up hammas or some other group of radicals with a bomb. When Amaninijad (sp) makes statements like "Isreal will be no more" he's not talking about launching a missle from Tehran. He's talking about a nuke that detonates in a small cafe in downtown Tel Aviv.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

I really don't believe that our government is afraid of Iran using nukes against us or other nations. The fact of the matter is that once a nation does develop a nuclear bomb, we lose control over them, and lose the ability to do certain things. That's what we're afraid of, not them actually using it. I simply can't imagine any country using a nuke...

Hell has frozen over... I have to say I agree with you.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Jmman
If you ask me I think part of this dilemma can be directly traced back to Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis. By all accounts their president was one of the students who helped capture and hold our hostages, and what did Carter do about it? Absolutely nothing except quake in his boots. I get the impression that this psycho jackass thinks we are afraid of taking decisive action, but in this day and age he couldn't be more wrong. If there was even a glimmer of a chance that a nuclear weapon would be used against the US, Iran would cease to exist.

I really don't believe that our government is afraid of Iran using nukes against us or other nations. The fact of the matter is that once a nation does develop a nuclear bomb, we lose control over them, and lose the ability to do certain things. That's what we're afraid of, not them actually using it. I simply can't imagine any country using a nuke...

During the cold war the Soviet Union backed down during the Cuban Missle Crisis because cooler heads prevailed like this man Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov.

Today you have someone like this man Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who not only will not back down but also believes his religion will rule the world and will be undefeatable because of the Mahdi who he believes will be coming soon.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn global attention recently for his contention the Holocaust was a "myth," said: "We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

Riazaty, in a post on the website Regime Change Iran, said the Iranian president emphasized his current theme that the return of the Shiite messiah, the Mahdi, is not far away, and Muslims must prepare for it.

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The OP should get a weeks vacation for wasting everybodies time like that....
Topic Title: WWIII Thread:3-8-06 Iran threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs
Topic Summary: U.S. readies B2 Bombers on Iran
Created On: 02/10/2006 10:27 PM

Nothing in the title is accurate at all.....

except for the time posted.....

Wheres the proof.....

10 Nuclear Bombs???
US readies B2 Bombers???

wow.....I thought you had to be at least 13yrs of age to be a member of these forums...

 

[makken]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla

Originally posted by: realsup
hmm a former Us official says something and you start crying WWIII

What a joke.

I agree, most people in the world aren't myopic and see things as they really are. If the US was so bad, why do we tolerate Cuba's Castro when it's so damn close?

I don't know if it still holds since the USSR collapse, but in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis, we gave our assurances that the US will never invade Cuba.

I don't understand why we back isreal >.< Honestly, I believe that that nation doesn't even have the right to exist in the first place. If the Jews really wanted to pick up and move to that area, then fine, but they should've just remained a minority in Palestine. The Zionist movement was full of radicals if i remember correctly.

Unfortuneately, what's done is done, and we can't exactly ask them to just pick up and leave now.

 

[alchemize]

Why is Dave tolerated with his constant trolling?

Dave, I will paypal you $25 if you can find me 3 relevant, non-trolling P&N posts by yourself in the last 90 days.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The OP should get a weeks vacation for wasting everybodies time like that....
Topic Title: WWIII Thread:3-8-06 Iran threatens U.S. with 10 Nuclear Bombs
Topic Summary: U.S. readies B2 Bombers on Iran
Created On: 02/10/2006 10:27 PM

Nothing in the title is accurate at all.....

except for the time posted.....

Wheres the proof.....

10 Nuclear Bombs???
US readies B2 Bombers???

wow.....I thought you had to be at least 13yrs of age to be a member of these forums...

I agree the title is completely misleading. Nowhere does anyone in the article say that Iran threatened to harm the US with 10 nukes. They DID threaten to harm us, but were completely coy on how, and Schultze did say that they COULD have as many as 10 warheads based on how much enriched uranium they have, but that statement was never tied in any way to the statement from the Iranian gov't about "harm and pain" nor is there any proof they even have ten nukes, or even one.