The Economist on Iran war: "Be afraid"

timmac · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 116

I dont think Bush is going to attack Iran,, he has less then 6 months as prez and his plate is full with 2 wars now,, Israel will do the attack and we will back them, but that is about all..

Mack12345 · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 02, 2008 Posts: 52

I dunno, isnt there some sort of law or something that says a president can stay for like an extra term or something during a major war ? Maybe bush will attack Iran to "protect the american people from rogue nukes" and then try and refuse to step down after the next election ?

Anyway , the prospect of anymore resourse wars is very scary to me .

Kveldulf · Coal Joined: Jun 30, 2008 Posts: 6

AgentR

Yall are so obsessed with Bush, its funny. He's acting exactly like a president near the end of his term might; especially if he is trying to narrow the options of an incoming administration.
_________________
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.

Jenab6

Jenab6

SoylentGreen · Heavy Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 168

AP just broke this story.....IRAN tells UN to go F*># themselves in regards to Nuke inspections/negotiations. Will OIL spike tomorrow?

threadbear · Expert Joined: Jan 22, 2005 Posts: 7063

Gothor · Tar Sands Joined: Apr 14, 2008 Posts: 89

timmac · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 116

Jenab666 wrote :
It's possible, I suppose, though the Jews were not so much scapegoated as discovered. The word scapegoated implies that the Jews weren't doing what Hitler saw them doing (e.g., leading communism, promoting vice, controlling the media, corrupting government with finance), when, in fact, they were; or that their activities did not harm Germany or its people, when, in fact, they did. Americans generally don't have enough Jew-related education to understand why the Jews represent a danger to them. But perhaps Peak Oil will clarify things. As I said, it's possible.

[ OH PLEASE we dont need any Jew haters here at peakoil or any where as a matter of fact ]

Shannymara

Gothor · Tar Sands Joined: Apr 14, 2008 Posts: 89

Viper · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 05, 2004 Posts: 204 Location: MO

You know... the more I think about it the more I'm beginning to realize just how seriously some people seem to want Iran to have access to nukes.

There are also some pretty good points on just how hard it would be to get rid of Iran's nuclear program with a direct conventional attack. Maybe just maybe, Israel's best choice for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons comes from the fact that they are NOT a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel might find that it's in its interests to attempt to balance that out by secretly turning Kurdistan (currently parts of Turkey, Iraq and Iran) in to a full fledged nuclear power. Then take a step back and let the chips fall where they may...

If there are nightmares that keep Iran's leaders awake at night, I would say this is easily one of them.

"If" Israel has nukes. Those nukes which "may or may not" exist were not given to them by the United States. They were developed in house by Israel using their own technological expertise. This means that Israel can't be told what they can or can't do with them. You can't use nukes by setting them off in cities, but you can get almost the same level of effect by giving them away...

Knowing all this, Iran will wait until it gets as much as it thinks it can get from the negotiations and then give in on the nuclear issue.