Author Topic: Release the Hounds (Read 2788 times)

Eagler · « **on:** August 10, 2005, 09:30:05 AM »

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2005, 10:57:00 AM »

I think it's more like "release the dogs of war" which isn't a good thing.

Interesting that Britain, France and Germany have had no better result with Iran than the US has had with NK, despite the difference in approach.

However, it looks like Iran is going to get 1 lash with a cooked spaghetti noodle from the IAEA.

Quote

An early draft of a resolution obtained by The Associated Press expressed "serious concern" about the resumption of conversion in Isfahan and urged Iran to cooperate by "re-establishing full suspension of all enrichment-related activities."

I'm sure that will bring Iran around. However, that's not really necessary is it?

Afterall, EVERY nation should have a good sized nuclear aresenal, as all countries are equally trustworthy

Hangtime · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2005, 11:17:57 AM »

They've just offered a bribe.. 'mess with our nuclear program, we raise oil prices. Don't and we'll start dropping our support and supply for insurgents and terrorists in syria, iraq and afganistan'.

Henh. No matter what happens.. prices are going up. No matter what happens, by our current rules of identification, Iran IS a terror supporting state by it's own admission that it has info it's not sharing and terrorists it is currently supporting and supplying.

soda72 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2005, 11:48:26 AM »

The last proposal made by the E3 was reasonable, they would keep their nuclear plants for peaceful purposes and meet our min requirements for security concerns.. However even if they had accepted, I think in the end we would have another NK situation, were we find out a few years later they made a bomb, under the watchful eye of the U.N. (our heros)...

I suppose the only comfort we will have then is being able to say "we told you so!", with plenty of google examples of idiots telling everybody it's only for peaceful purposes....

Eagler · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2005, 12:25:03 PM »

the diff being NK isn't filled with a bunch of towel topped fanatics that want Israel wiped from the globe...

it is really Israeli business and I say we let them take care of it

Meatwad · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2005, 12:35:58 PM »

Oil gone up anyway. Yesterday a station went from $2.36 a gallon to $2.49/gallon in hours.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2005, 12:49:03 PM »

I say we publicly say "we warned you", step aside, and quit getting in Israel's way. Our support of them is the biggest reason we have any problems in the Middle East, and every one of the terrorist groups keeps talking about how they want a piece of Israel. I say let em. They'll get the same spanking they got last time they tried it. I also say this time, when they drive the attackers back home with their tails between their legs, we let Israel keep every inch of land they take. Lets see what happens to oil prices if they own Iran's oil.

FalconSix · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2005, 01:03:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Afterall, EVERY nation should have a good sized nuclear aresenal, as all countries are equally trustworthy

Actually all countries are equally trustworthy, i.e. not at all. Which is why we have WMDs and why everybody wants them. If my neighbor has a shotgun I sure as hell want one too. Can't trust that drunk motherfudger.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2005, 01:39:13 PM »

Ummm....if I had a drunk neighbor armed with a shotgun that I couldnt trust, I'd want a rifle so he couldnt get close enough to me to use his shotgun.

FalconSix · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2005, 05:40:26 PM »

Ah, you want a BIGGER ICBM!

beet1e · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2005, 05:43:26 PM »

More missiles, less crime!

Rino · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2005, 06:04:12 PM »

Funny thing is the US is going to smaller, more accurate guided
ordnance so that we don't have to use nukes.

I guess it would make it easier to take out Beetle's place
without wiping out half of England

One bomb, one house

FalconSix · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2005, 06:10:52 PM »

What beetle said is more or less correct. There is a valid comparison between guns and nukes. More guns = less crime, but also a few deadly shootouts once in a while. More nukes = less war, but also potentially a nuclear exchange once in a while (it will probably be very unpopular after the first incident).

Gunslinger · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2005, 07:42:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
What beetle said is more or less correct. There is a valid comparison between guns and nukes. More guns = less crime, but also a few deadly shootouts once in a while. More nukes = less war, but also potentially a nuclear exchange once in a while (it will probably be very unpopular after the first incident).

that's assuming that the people that have them are responsible individuals.

If everyone could strap C4 and 5lbs of ball bearings to their chest and walk into a crowd at disnelyland and kill all sorts of people no one would.

Crazy's out there don't care about popularity they want to kill people indiscriminantly.

FalconSix · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2005, 08:54:53 PM »

That goes for the guns = less crime theory too. Some people just snap and go on a killing spree at the local mall or post office etc.

Nations however rarely snap like that, but if one were to do that it would soon vanish in a ball of fire. Just like Iran or NK will if they somehow manage to detonate a nuke in the US.