When The Bombs Hit The Bunkers In Iran; World War 3 Will Be Underway.

[Nbadan]

http://www.kingofbombs.com/pictures/nuclear-bomb-explosion.jpg
Go Tell The World What You See

Why Iran will lead to World War 3
by Mike Whitney



"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News

The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace.

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.

No way.

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members (England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Nevertheless, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.

Isn't that so?

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825)

Remember that man can change his destiny, but sometimes all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

[Nbadan]

CONPLAN 8022


In January 2003 President Bush signed a classified Presidential Directive, CONPLAN 8022-02. Conplan 8022 is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits ‘no ground troops.’ It was specifically drafted to deal with ‘imminent’ threats from states such as North Korea or Iran.

Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent’s response—cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications, hacking computer networks.

Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating ‘mini’ nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran’s. In summer 2005 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved a top secret ‘Interim Global Strike Alert Order’ directing round-the-clock military readiness, to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15, 2005 Washington Post. Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces. In January 2003 Bush signed on to a definition of ‘full spectrum global strike’ which included precision nuclear as well as conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the President’s September 2002 National Security Strategy which laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of ‘pre-emptive’ wars.

The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush White House might ‘think the unthinkable’ and order a nuclear pre-emptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.

Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US strategy towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully orchestrated escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to force Iran to back down. It seems clear, especially in light of the strategic threat Iran faces from US or Israeli forces on its borders after 2003 that Iran is not likely to back down from its clear plans to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle capacities and with it, the option of developing an Iranian nuclear capability.

The question then is what will Washington do? The fundamental change in US defense doctrine since 2001, from a posture of defense to offense has significantly lowered the threshold of nuclear war, perhaps even of a global nuclear conflagration.

Geopolitical risks of nuclear war

While the latest Iranian agreement to reopen talks with Moscow on Russian spent fuel reprocessing have taken some of the edge off of the crisis for the moment. On January 27 President Bush announced publicly that he backed the Russian compromise, along with China and El Baradei of the IAEA. Bush signalled a significant backdown, at least for the moment, stating, ‘The Russians came up with the idea and I support it…I do believe people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power.’ At the same time Rice’s State Department expressed concern the Russian-Iran talks were a stalling ploy by Teheran.

Bush added ‘However, I don’t believe that non-transparent (sic) regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon.’ The same day at Davos, Secretary Rice told the World Economic Forum that Iran’s nuclear program posed ‘significant danger’ and that Iran must be brought before the UN Security Council. In short, Washington is trying to appear ‘diplomatic’ while keeping all options open.

Should Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for violations of the NPT and charges of developing weapons of mass destruction, it seems quite probable that Russia and China would veto imposing sanctions such as economic embargo on Iran for reasons stated above. The timetable for that is likely sometime around March-May, that is, after a new Israeli government is in place.

At that point there are several possible outcomes.

* The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council which proposes increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons producing while avoiding sanctions. In essence Iran would be allowed to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its sovereignty is respected, so long as it respects NPT and IAEA conditions. This is unlikely for the reasons stated above.

* Iran like India and Pakistan, is permitted to develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the growing military threat in its area posed by the United States from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates, as well as by Israel’s nuclear force. The West extends new offers of economic cooperation in the development of Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into the community of the WTO and cooperation with the West. A new government in Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine and with Syria, and a new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way for huge new economic development in the entire Middle East region, Iran included. The Mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. This scenario, desirable as it is, is extremely unlikely in the present circumstances.

* President Bush, on the urging of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks, decide to activate CONPLAN 8022, an air attack bombing Iran’s presumed nuclear sites, including for the first time since 1945, with deployment of nuclear weapons. No ground troops are used and it is proclaimed a swift surgical ‘success’ by the formidable Pentagon propaganda machine. Iran, prepared for such a possibility, launches a calculated counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla war or ‘asymmetrical warfare’ against US and NATO targets around the world.

The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon’s Hezbollah; it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within Iraq, potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there targeting the 135,000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel. Iran’s asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel ‘Great Satan.’ Alliance. Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis. Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi’ite minority which have historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth. There are some 2 million Shi’ia Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Shias do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields, making up 40 percent of Aramco's workforce.

Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million barrels of oil a day. It threatens to sink a large VLCC oil super-tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz, chocking off 40% of all world oil flows, if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action. The strait has two 1 mile wide channels for marine traffic, separated by a 2 mile wide buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for much of OPEC oil. It is Saudi Arabia’s main export route.

Iran a vast, strategically central expanse of land, more than double the land area of France and Germany combined, with well over 70 million people, and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world, is well prepared for a new Holy War. Its mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. World War III begins in a series of miscalculations and disruptions. The pentagon’s awesome war machine, ‘total spectrum dominance’ is powerless against the growing ‘assymetrical war’assaults around the globe.

Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press, the Iranian government knows well what cards they hold and what not in this global game of thermo-nuclear chicken.

Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a point of no return in international relations. Even with sagging popularity, the White House knows this. The danger of the initial strategy of pre-emptive wars is that, as now, when someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response potential, the US is left with little option but to launch the unthinkable-nuclear strike.

There are saner voices within the US political establishment, such as former NSC heads, Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush’s and the Pentagon hawks’ pre-emptive posture. The question is whether their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his exercise of Presidential power got out of hand.

It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the United States. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US pre-emptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject which neither the Bush Administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about.

Global Research: Calculating the Risk of War With Iran (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20EN20060129&articleId=1841)

[RandomGuy]

I don't think these guys know as much as they think they do. I gotta get ready for work, but I will comment in-depth later.

[xrayzebra]

So my questions: What does the world (US) do about a regime that wants the
bomb and has sworn to wipe another country off the map. Also a sworn enemy
of the United States. Should we ignore them? Is our intelligence and the
intelligence of all other countries wrong on this one. Are they really a threat?

What is the plan? Is Bush at fault on this one too? I would like to hear some
answers from all the experts on this forum. You always have plenty of criticism
but no answers to anything.

[Sec24Row7]

When we invaded Iraq, all you heard about from Democrats was...

Why are you paying attention to Iraq when Iran and North Korea are the real threats...

Now that we are dealing with Iran...

"But... Bush is a moron..."

It's getting old.

[boutons_]

"we are dealing with Iran..."

Dissidents who justifiably trash dubya/dickhead for the unjustified Repug Iraq war aren't saying we should have rather "dealt" with Iran by nuking it or invading it, are they? The Iraq war has now exposed the limits of the US military.
"You're doing a heckuva job, dubya"

Iran and NK are very difficult problems. Unmenacing Iraq was already nailed to the desert and emasculated with flyovers, embargos, intense surveillance.

I bet dubya/dickhead/Repugs do very fucking little about Iran because

1) they can't see how attacking would be immediately transformable into a Repug electoral advantage, which is their overwhelming priority (rather than the security of the USA)

2) the too-small, over-stressed US military is already incapable of putting down the Iraq insurgency, and the Afghan situation is not completely stabilized, even becoming undone.

3) Iran is much bigger and better armed than Iraq.

[velik_m]

So my questions: What does the world (US) do about a regime that wants the
bomb and has sworn to wipe another country off the map. Also a sworn enemy
of the United States. Should we ignore them? Is our intelligence and the
intelligence of all other countries wrong on this one. Are they really a threat?

What is the plan? Is Bush at fault on this one too? I would like to hear some
answers from all the experts on this forum. You always have plenty of criticism
but no answers to anything.

give them lots of candy and watch them spend all their money on dental health care... There are other ways of "defeating" countries, besides millitary option.

The real question is: What is USA doing about middle-eastern country that HAS WMD and has threatened to launch a first strike at nearby countries. (and no it's not a muslim state)?

it's too early to talk about a war in Iran - after all it's not an election year yet, is it?

[DarkReign]

Let Iran strike first. Whats so hard about that? This idiots have to enough rope, let em hang themselves. IF Iran is a true threat, and IF they truely are capable of nuclear arms, and IF they truly are so hell-bent on destroying Israel...

Thats alot of 'ifs'. Having nuclear arms doesnt make you equal. It makes you dangerous. What, does Iran expect to suddenly shoot the overwhelming gap between the West and the Middle East by simply having a bomb? Makes no sense to me.

The only reason a country would ever want nuclear arms are obvious. Offense or Deterrant. Well, they certainly arent in offensive mode. Sounds more like a deterrant. A very good play considering Iraq was only a starting point.

Iran is smart. I dont like it, but they are. Let them make the first move.

Its all mutually assured destruction anyway. We invade, they nuke. We nuke back. Russia and China wont like that (it cuts off their oil), they see opportunity in weakness, all hell breaks loose.

Its lose-lose. Im just glad I dont have children and that I just might be able to say that I lived when humanity died. Not much solace, but someone better than me once said "May you live in interesting times".

Interesting indeed.

[Phenomanul]

Let Iran strike first. Whats so hard about that? This idiots have to enough rope, let em hang themselves. IF Iran is a true threat, and IF they truely are capable of nuclear arms, and IF they truly are so hell-bent on destroying Israel...

Thats alot of 'ifs'. Having nuclear arms doesnt make you equal. It makes you dangerous. What, does Iran expect to suddenly shoot the overwhelming gap between the West and the Middle East by simply having a bomb? Makes no sense to me.

The only reason a country would ever want nuclear arms are obvious. Offense or Deterrant. Well, they certainly arent in offensive mode. Sounds more like a deterrant. A very good play considering Iraq was only a starting point.

Iran is smart. I dont like it, but they are. Let them make the first move.

Its all mutually assured destruction anyway. We invade, they nuke. We nuke back. Russia and China wont like that (it cuts off their oil), they see opportunity in weakness, all hell breaks loose.

Its lose-lose. Im just glad I dont have children and that I just might be able to say that I lived when humanity died. Not much solace, but someone better than me once said "May you live in interesting times".

Interesting indeed.

Good take... The whole thing is more complex than we could ever imagine...

[SA210]

I'll just stick to my beliefs.

War is wrong.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Good take... The whole thing is more complex than we could ever imagine...


way to piggyback. good job

[gtownspur]

^i think i've seen it all now.

[boutons_]

"Its all mutually assured destruction anyway"

It's not. Iran isn't known to have nukes.
Iran has been "5 to 10 years" away from having nukes for the past 10 years. And they still are today.

But there is no M.A.D, because even if Iran had nukes, they don't have the missles (as Russia does) to hit the USA with those nukes.

Iran could hit Israel, (but Israel is full of Islamic holy sites).
And then it would depend on whether the USA would retaliate against Iran for hitting Israel.

[gtownspur]

I think the destruction of yamukas is more important to them than second teir holy sites which were not holy until the fact that the crusades came along, when the muslim world then wanted a toy they never played with, and then somehow the israel reclaimed it's status once the jews started repopulating.

[Peter]

If it's on the internets it must be true.

[Obstructed_View]

Hmm. Has anyone actually read the IAEA reports about Iran's nuclear program, or are people talking out of their ass because they don't like the president? Mike Whitney has a political agenda that has little do do with any reality other than the one that he wishes for a Democrat to be in the White House.

The UN has very little at stake in any of this, mainly because there won't be nuclear bombs going off inside their countries first. Iran is absolutely not "playing by the rules", they have been hiding behind technicalities in the rules while spewing inflamatory rhetoric at any open microphone. Only a fool thinks that a country with one of the largest oil reserves and a fundamentalist government, legitimately working toward nuclear power for energy purposes, would NOT share information with the international community.

The reason the US does things is because the international community drops the ball. Jimmy Carter gave 4 billion dollars to North Korea to stop their nuclear weapons program. That worked wonders, kids.

[Sec24Row7]

I've said it before, and I will say it again.

I'm ready for the war to start.

There haven't been enough cool nightshot videos of blowing shit up coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan recently.

Give me something to watch on TV besides American Idol and the OC.

[DarkReign]

"Its all mutually assured destruction anyway"

It's not. Iran isn't known to have nukes.
Iran has been "5 to 10 years" away from having nukes for the past 10 years. And they still are today.

But there is no M.A.D, because even if Iran had nukes, they don't have the missles (as Russia does) to hit the USA with those nukes.

Iran could hit Israel, (but Israel is full of Islamic holy sites).
And then it would depend on whether the USA would retaliate against Iran for hitting Israel.

Whoa whoa whoa....I never said Iran would try and attack us. Like you said, they lack the ability.

What I said was Iran MIGHT attack. Period.

Of course, lets assume for one glorious moment that all the 'ifs' in my previous post were true statements (ahhhh....sweet, sweet Theory-world!)

Of course they will attack Israel. At least, most likely attack Israel.

Then the USs' hand will be forced, directly stating to the world exactly how far reaching our treaty with Israel is. Is it economic only, with only major military contributions? Or is it what everyone thinks, a Mutual Protection Policy.

If its a MPP, then we have to strike back. And lets all be honest and non-partisan for one brief moment, please....Does our President seem like the hesitant type?

Israel strikes back, almost immediately. From that point on, its anyones guess. My guess, you ask? Without being detailed (because details only get in the way)...

Iran strikes Israel (for whatever reason). Israel, also a nuclear power, strikes right back.....only its a total overkill. Im talking wasteland. Islamic world is outraged by the excessiveness, and joins in the fun.

Now, 80% of the worlds crude oil is under the control of countries in total meltdown. Vested interests of all the world's relevant players are completely inaccesible. Obviously, this creates a problem the likes of which the world has never seen.

Long standing alliances are tested. Everyone pulls whatever trump card they have been holding to discern friend from foe. The Players: Russia+China vs USA+Britain.

Thats Doomsday by my calculations.

BUT....

If the Big Players were smart (and didnt hate each other for the very act of breathing), they would sit it out. Literally, the moment someone goes nuclear, make a phone call to China and Russia.

Its time to rest control of the world's Black Blood from these radical neanderthals. Make a deal. We sell out Israel, if you sell out your allies. let them completely kill each other (literally) while we 4 Kings hang back and play politics so as they keep fighting to the death. Make any amount of excuses needed to stall your involvement. Tell them, "We got your back, we're coming" but never show. By the time they realize that no one is coming, it'll be too late. They are way too commited, absorbed so much loss, they have to continue.

Then, whomever wins (using the word 'wins' very, very loosely here), the 4 Kings show up as mop up duty. Explain to the world that its obvious these people are threats to humanity, and that their inability to control themselves by which nuclear holocaust is inevitable, they must be disarmed, disassembled and dismissed.

4 Kings setup whatever government/state/province/etc they want. One that is only populated by the militaries of each country (no civilians, or at least a limited number) as to keep the world's oil from sabotage.

Bang. Case closed. No more Middle Eastern power plays. They would have no power. They would have nothing. After the nuclear winter in the area, it will be completely uninhabitable (for something like 500 years or beyond) and under control of the only governments that actually matter. All card-carrying UN, veto-holding, nuclear powers of the world...united over their lust for oil.

Ahhhh....TheoryWorld. Its beautiful, yet such complete bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Let Iran strike first.

That is the point that GW is trying to make. Do you really want to let them do the "first strike" if that means losing a major american city to a radioactive mushroom cloud?

Not that I am agreeing with the administration, just trying to ask a pertinent question.

[Nbadan]

it's too early to talk about a war in Iran - after all it's not an election year yet, is it?

Yes it is Mid-terms, but more importantly the Israeli's will soon have any election to replace Sharon, the WH is backing the more moderate candidate, while the NeoCons, including Karl Rove and Darth Cheney, are backing the more radical Netanyahu. Conventional wisdom is that if the U.S. strikes, it will be between March 28th, or the day of Israel's election and the first week of November, or before the U.S. Congressional Mid-terms. Dubya has always favored spring raids.

[Nbadan]

Iran strikes Israel (for whatever reason). Israel, also a nuclear power, strikes right back.....only its a total overkill. Im talking wasteland. Islamic world is outraged by the excessiveness, and joins in the fun.

Since Iran lacks nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them, it would be impossible for Iran to attack anyone with nuclear weapons, however, Iran does possess a good stockpile of Chemical and Biological weapons. Whether they would use them is anyone guess. My thoughts are that the Israelis and the Neocons want to destroy Iran's stockpile of WMD's either way, so if Iran did chose to attack Israel or our troops stationed through-out the Middle-East with these weapons, I think once we attack them, Iran's Mullahs will become more indifferent toward their use. As with Saddam and Iraq, there could be some back-door deal with the Mullahs letting them know if they use Chemical or Biological weapons on their neighbors in retaliation, we will go nuclear. Of course, the use tactical nuclear weapons by the U.S. removes any incentive for Iran not to use these weapons.

[Nbadan]

Also, consider that President Mushurraf in Pakistan is already sitting on a virtual power-keg. The Cartoon riots and unrest in Penshwar and other regions have grown to a daily occurence. The real danger is that Islamic rage over the use of excessive force on Iran will lead to the over-throw of President Musharraf and the control of nuclear weapons by those friendly to Iran's Mullahs.

[Nbadan]

Differentiating between Washington's good nuclear proliferators, Israel and India, and bad proliferators, North Korea and Iran, could throw off the whole I.A.E.A. concept of 'verification is confidence-building'

Anomalies in the case against Iran


The US and Europe would be well advised to consider the anomalies in their article of faith, their self-constructed paradigm sheepishly followed by their "free and pluralistic press" regarding Iran's purported march toward nuclear weapons.

Briefly:

# In 1995, Iran voted in favor of the indefinite extension of the NPT.

# Iran has been an enthusiastic supporter of the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and, in light of the required nuclear testing for any would-be proliferators, this raises the question of why would Iran take such steps if it is not in its nuclear interests.

# Iran just reversed a two-year "voluntary and legally non-binding" suspension of its uranium-enrichment activities.

# In Brussels in January, Iran put forward a six-point proposal that includes another two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment - a novel proposal dismissed out of hand as old news by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The other points included Iran re-embracing the Additional Protocol by formally legislating for its adoption, and pursuit of an international fuel bank.

# Another proposal, still on the table and submitted last March to the IAEA and the EU-3 - Germany, France and Britain - was for a contained, monitored enrichment.

# Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a religious decree, fatwa , against the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons, a position he and other leaders of the Islamic Republic have regularly reiterated.

These points count as "anomalies" in the sense that they do not support the behavior of a would-be proliferator. Indeed, if that were the case, why would the Iranian leaders insist so much, and so frequently, on the un-Islamic and amoral nature of nuclear weapons?

On the other hand, it is impossible to isolate the Iranian nuclear issue from other developments, above all the United States' desire to defang the Islamic Republic via the nuclear standoff by isolating it and, at a minimum, weakening it considerably. This would remove a major barrier to its planned visions for the "greater Middle East". These extra-nuclear considerations are often neglected in the West.

Good news on the horizon?

What is remarkable about the Iranian nuclear crisis is how close it could be to being resolved. Iran is willing to forgo large-scale enrichment and limit itself to a small cascade of centrifuges for research and development, in conjunction with assurances of a fuel supply, mainly from the Russians.

The Russians dropped the ball on the way to Washington, yet there are strong indications that this proposal could resurface soon - if only the US would stop ignoring this option, which is viable for two main reasons.

First, the military risk posed by such a small cascade is minimal as the fissile-uranium output of 168 centrifuges would be nowhere near enough to facilitate a weapons program.

Second, the reason the IAEA favors this option is that agency safeguards would be in place and it would notice any change in Iran's agreed program.

With the potential risks of militarization thus minimized, this option is distinctly preferable to others, including the military one, which without doubt would spur a clandestine weapons program on Iran's part. And this is not to mention the collateral damage on the world economy and other grim consequences.

The cause of regional and world peace, therefore, dictates urgent attention to this viable option benefiting the cause of the overall non-proliferation regime.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times Online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak02.html)

[Extra Stout]

That is the point that GW is trying to make. Do you really want to let them do the "first strike" if that means losing a major american city to a radioactive mushroom cloud?

Not that I am agreeing with the administration, just trying to ask a pertinent question.
Iran never has said anything about striking the United States.

What they have said over and over and over again for about nine years is that once they have nuclear weapons, they can make a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, understanding that the reprisal would be fifty million dead Muslims, and figuring killing 50% of the Israelis in exchange for 5% of the world's Muslims is a worthwhile trade.

Nothing they have done in nine years would lead me to believe they have changed their minds.

[xrayzebra]

Since Iran lacks nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them, it would be impossible for Iran to attack anyone with nuclear weapons, however, Iran does possess a good stockpile of Chemical and Biological weapons. Whether they would use them is anyone guess. My thoughts are that the Israelis and the Neocons want to destroy Iran's stockpile of WMD's either way, so if Iran did chose to attack Israel or our troops stationed through-out the Middle-East with these weapons, I think once we attack them, Iran's Mullahs will become more indifferent toward their use. As with Saddam and Iraq, there could be some back-door deal with the Mullahs letting them know if they use Chemical or Biological weapons on their neighbors in retaliation, we will go nuclear. Of course, the use tactical nuclear weapons by the U.S. removes any incentive for Iran not to use these weapons.

Now how do you know they have WMD's. Have you seen them? Did
W tell you they had them. Very funny, you will accept they have them
but deny Iraq had them. You are a stranger person, my friend.

[Sec24Row7]

What get's me is...

He is taking Iran's side because they oppose Bush.

Since Bush "can't tell the truth" the truth must be coming out of Iran.

I find that Hilarious.

[DarkReign]

Iran is a shithole like any other shithole. It stinks.

Let them cut their own throats. My opinion anyway.

[Yonivore]

World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) started when the American Embassy in Tehran was seized in 1979.

[xrayzebra]

^^absolutely correct. And 9/11 was the second time they bombed the WTC.
Of course we had a President then who was busy getting his head polished.

[DarkReign]

Soooo, as much as you may be right.

Was Dubya studying for his English and Spelling test for 9/11?

I dont get it.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

When we invaded Iraq, all you heard about from Democrats was...

Why are you paying attention to Iraq when Iran and North Korea are the real threats...

Now that we are dealing with Iran...

"But... Bush is a moron..."

It's getting old.


I never heard a democrat citizen say that in person, and never read multiple democrat officials say that, however I know those of us that like to Conserve things have a knack for quoting others in the wrong time and context.


----------

I really like Dark Reign's take on this. Sweet theory world indeed. Nothing more this citizen would like than for those bastards to kill each other with us not being involved.

[Extra Stout]

I really like Dark Reign's take on this. Sweet theory world indeed. Nothing more this citizen would like than for those bastards to kill each other with us not being involved.
If only. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those quasi-people don't differentiate between Israelis and Americans, so if they're at war with Israel, they're at war with us too.

[Peter]

So the 'close your eyes and hope they go away' strategy is not a winner. What next?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hyeah thats why i said sweet theory indeed

[Extra Stout]

So the 'close your eyes and hope they go away' strategy is not a winner. What next?
Kill them until they beg for peace, or until they are too few to threaten us.

[Nbadan]

If only. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those quasi-people don't differentiate between Israelis and Americans, so if they're at war with Israel, they're at war with us too.

There are Presidents who can't differentiate between Pakistani and Arabs or democracies and non-democracies. Conservatives, especially on this board, are known for lumping in anyone who's name sounds vaguely Arab with radical Islamists. I wouldn't be surprised if they attacked Congressman Obama because his name sounds Muslim. Welcome to hell.

:lol

[Extra Stout]

There are Presidents who can't differentiate between Pakistani and Arabs or democracies and non-democracies. Conservatives, especially on this board, are known for lumping in anyone who's name sounds vaguely Arab with radical Islamists. I wouldn't be surprised if they attacked Congressman Obama because his name sounds Muslim. Welcome to hell.

:lol
There you go with your bullshit moral equivalence again.

Bush mixes these things up because he's not very smart. Some posters can't tell the difference between an Egyptian and a Pakistani because they're ignorant of the world and everything east of Florida becomes just a blur.

On the other hand, Palestinian clerics preach that Israel and the U.S. are one and the same. Saudi media publish cartoons depicting America as a puppet controlled by smarmy hook-nosed Jews.

(I'd mention the cartoon riots, but I'll spare you the trouble, since you'll probably bring up some handful of Jews who once did something violent and say that it's the same).

It's tough to say with you, Dan, whether you are just so obsessed with hating George W. Bush that you can't see the forest for the trees, or whether you are really an apologist for this nation's enemies.

[Nbadan]

On the other hand, Palestinian clerics preach that Israel and the U.S. are one and the same. Saudi media publish cartoons depicting America as a puppet controlled by smarmy hook-nosed Jews.

Blah, it's not the Jews, the Jewish people are tired of war. It's the Jewish Lukids and the American NeoCons. They are behind the current drive to attack Iran and their goal is the destruction of all of Iran's stockpile of WMD's, not just the nuclear energy part. They will likely attack Iran with conventional weapons and then wait and see if Iran strikes back with Chemical/Biological weapons and/or shuts off its 4 million barrels per day into the world oil market, and attempts to stop traffic through the Gulf, any one of these scenarios would give the NeoCons all the justification they need to go nuclear.

[mikejones99]

Nazr Mohammed sure was good tonight though.

[mikejones99]

Michigan is a shithole too, do we bomb it?

[Nbadan]

Nazr Mohammed sure was good tonight though.


Well, yeah, I mean...the Spurs have been saving him for the post season.

Mohammed would be a fool to move on from the Spurs.

[Extra Stout]

Blah, it's not the Jews, the Jewish people are tired of war. It's the Jewish Lukids and the American NeoCons. They are behind the current drive to attack Iran and their goal is the destruction of all of Iran's stockpile of WMD's, not just the nuclear energy part. They will likely attack Iran with conventional weapons and then wait and see if Iran strikes back with Chemical/Biological weapons and/or shuts off its 4 million barrels per day into the world oil market, and attempts to stop traffic through the Gulf, any one of these scenarios would give the NeoCons all the justification they need to go nuclear.
You're changing the subject. The aims of the "Likuds" and "Neocons," as opposed to everyday Israelis, have nothing to do with the hatred everyday Muslims have for everyday Jews, in general, and specifically, the murderous hatred Palestinians have for Jews AND Americans.

You can go on pretending that there is some rational basis for it based upon some foreign policy transgression, but you will continue to be tragically wrong. The basis is ethnic and religious.

[Extra Stout]

Michigan is a shithole too, do we bomb it?

Just Ann Arbor.

[T Park]

Bomb Yuma AZ.

[RandomGuy]

You're changing the subject. The aims of the "Likuds" and "Neocons," as opposed to everyday Israelis, have nothing to do with the hatred everyday Muslims have for everyday Jews, in general, and specifically, the murderous hatred Palestinians have for Jews AND Americans.

You can go on pretending that there is some rational basis for it based upon some foreign policy transgression, but you will continue to be tragically wrong. The basis is ethnic and religious.

The basis is poor education more than either of those factors. American foreign policy has exacerbated this by the fact that we have let it be driven my realpolitik rather than morality.

[jochhejaam]

Ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit.


Bush warns Iran on Israel
Mar 20 3:05 PM US/Eastern

US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.


"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.

On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped "to solve this issue diplomatically" with a "united message" to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia "hopefully" and China.

The message would be that "your desire to having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," he said.

Bush also touched on Iran's agreement to discuss Iraq with the United States, saying that "it's very important, however, for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq.

"We're using this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of interference within a democratic process that is evolving," he said, saying that the talks will not decide Iran's relations with a sovereign Iraq.

"Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government," he said.


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html

[TDMVPDPOY]

Pakistan just tested one of there ballistic missiles that could travel in the range of 500km only, which could be equip with a nuke warhead.

This is what i think about the usa and foreign policy = solve ur own internal problems b4 tryin to solve others problems. Would WW3 start? we dunno, but if USA does invade Iran, the only thing you guys will be doin is turnin iran into another iraq war, where you will be just inviting terrorists in to fight against you. Then wouldnt that war open up the opportunity of nth korea to start its nuke program and pressuring usa again, then you have china who can just attack taiwan. Can the other countries join together and try to fight 3 wars?

[DarkReign]

So the 'close your eyes and hope they go away' strategy is not a winner. What next?

My theory was not a "close your eyes theory" at all. At least I hope it didnt come off like that.

What I tried to say was, let them kill each other. Then swoop in and and take control.

Obviously, its total bullshit and would never happen that way. I was just stating what I think to be a viable strategy to rest control of the world's oil supply without nuking each other for it.

I mean, this isnt Nazi Germany or anything. If Iran (ie Germany) "wins" the war of the Middle East (ie European Theater), their next target is not the USA (ie no one wanted to get involved with WW2 in the US). This is one shithole bombing another shithole. It just so happens that one of the shitholes had dumb luck to be placed on top of a 'in-demand' natural resource.

Again, its all bullshit and I very well know it would never go down like this. But, if it did, that would be ultimate victory. Instead of all-out war, we fire maybe a few bullets AND have the backing of the only international super powers worth a damn. Again, I realize the theory is based in totality on the compliance of China, Russia and the UK (which is a stretch).

But I am confidant the 4 parties could reach an accord when the stakes of war are scary high for ALL parties. Mutually Assured Destruction is not a mtyh. If everyone involved could just act real tough through the whole ordeal, everyone would save face.

The whole world is a stage.

[101A]

Let Iran strike first. Whats so hard about that? This idiots have to enough rope, let em hang themselves. IF Iran is a true threat, and IF they truely are capable of nuclear arms, and IF they truly are so hell-bent on destroying Israel...

Thats alot of 'ifs'. Having nuclear arms doesnt make you equal. It makes you dangerous. What, does Iran expect to suddenly shoot the overwhelming gap between the West and the Middle East by simply having a bomb? Makes no sense to me.

The only reason a country would ever want nuclear arms are obvious. Offense or Deterrant. Well, they certainly arent in offensive mode. Sounds more like a deterrant. A very good play considering Iraq was only a starting point.

Iran is smart. I dont like it, but they are. Let them make the first move.

Its all mutually assured destruction anyway. We invade, they nuke. We nuke back. Russia and China wont like that (it cuts off their oil), they see opportunity in weakness, all hell breaks loose.

Its lose-lose. Im just glad I dont have children and that I just might be able to say that I lived when humanity died. Not much solace, but someone better than me once said "May you live in interesting times".

Interesting indeed.


This ain't anything compared to late '70 Breshnev Soviet Union with their 15,000 warheads pointed at us - and a single button to launch the whole damned lot of them!

We practiced "stop, drop & roll" for chrissakes!

I feared armageddon, hell, I KNEW it was eventually gonna come - my kids don't.

You want fear? Look at the interest rate trend over the past 30 + years (since the fed was given the power the gold-standard once controlled) - as the fed has controlled inflation (brought on by aging, less productive, higher taxed workers and gluttonous borrowing at the personal and national levels) by lowering rates incrementally.

What happens when the rates can't be lowered anymore (and that occurs based on the trend at the same time Social Security runs out of money)?

Unfortunately we'll ALL live through that one.

[Nbadan]

Get ready to DO THE stop, drop and roll if your in or near Vegas!!

US to test 700-tonne explosive
Mar 30 11:26 AM US/Eastern



The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said.

"I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop (Nuclear) weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

BREITBART (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/30/060330162648.wxde5ocl.html)

700-TONNES!!...that's not a conventional bomb, that's a nuke - mini-nuke to be more precise. There are no planes capable of delivering a 700-ton bomb.

[xrayzebra]

Soooo, as much as you may be right.

Was Dubya studying for his English and Spelling test for 9/11?

I dont get it.

Oh, I don't know. Was he suppose to run in circles crying "the sky is
falling, the sky is falling" Jump up and run out of the room screaming
and waving his hands. Check to be sure the fire trucks on the way.
Just what was he suppose to do. Maybe act calm and composed, like
a world leader, which he is and did.

By the way, did you happen to watch the History Channel last night.
Brother Clinton had more than one or two or three chances to get
OBL, but always had an excuse, while OBL was blowing the hell out
of everything American.

[xrayzebra]

So the 'close your eyes and hope they go away' strategy is not a winner. What next?

The Dimm-o-craps have a plan, they are going to increase troops in
Iraq, give them more equipment and guess what they are going to
go after OBL. I heard them say that. Well that is if they can fit all that
in between their Bush bashing. :lol

[DarkReign]

Oh, I don't know. Was he suppose to run in circles crying "the sky is
falling, the sky is falling" Jump up and run out of the room screaming
and waving his hands. Check to be sure the fire trucks on the way.
Just what was he suppose to do. Maybe act calm and composed, like
a world leader, which he is and did.

By the way, did you happen to watch the History Channel last night.
Brother Clinton had more than one or two or three chances to get
OBL, but always had an excuse, while OBL was blowing the hell out
of everything American.

Look, X, you can turn every argument you ever engage in into a partisan ideology debate, thats fine. That doesnt produce results, it only creates division.

This may seem foreign to sheeple like yourself, but I am not arguing FOR Clinton or AGAINST Bush. If that is the limit upon your interpretation of my postings, then that is something no one could ever change but you.

The point of my previous post, which was obviously lost upon you, was your willingness to blame everyone but the people you share ideology with. That is blind loyalty. Blind loyalty, to me, is reserved for 2 things...Family and Commanding Officers. Certainly not politicians of either corrupt party I feel the most aligned with.

So keep on keepin on with that rhetoric of yours. Blame it on Clinton/Carter/Kennedy, hail Bush Jr/Bush Sr/Reagan/Nixon. When the world becomes that Black & White, how could anyone argue with sound logic such as yours?

[Nbadan]

It seems that the stakes may have gone up for the global economy in any future battle with Iran

Revolutionary Guards air force chief says missile has ‘stealth capabilities, high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features’


"Iran on Friday successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously, the air force chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards said.

"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Gen. Hossein Salami said on state-run television.

Salami said the Iranian-made missile, which he did not name, was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

"This missile can simultaneously hit several targets, has near stealth capabilities with a high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," Salami said."

Link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3234686,00.ht...)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

From page 1 (sorry I'm late to the party)...


The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary.


:lol



Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA.

That's why Baradei has been in the news in the last two weeks calling on Iran to end their program :rolleyes



Let Iran strike first

This isn't the Cold War.



Iran has been "5 to 10 years" away from having nukes for the past 10 years. And they still are today.

Prove it croutons.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Revolutionary Guards air force chief says missile has ‘stealth capabilities, high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features’

:lol Well, we best surrender then.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

This issue is rather complicated, and could leave into a real serious world-wide conflict, with many casualties all over the world.

Iran obviously doesn't have the weapons with the range to hit U.S. soil, the furthest their missiles could do is hit a U.S. military base in the Middle East, or an American ally (like Israel). The real "problem" for the West, is not their strike-first ability, but the consequences of a potential conflict.

Even if Iran starts it (which at the moment seems very unlikely), a very significant amount of Muslims around the World would feel represented by their cause, creating all kinds of problems. Muslims living in Europe and the U.S. would protest in the streets, creating a tense climate and the very likely possibility of riots. If those riots go out of hand (a police officer goes way over the limit and kills a protestor), it will be even worse.

In the Middle East, all hell could break loose. If Iran attacks Israel and the Israelis retaliate (whether with conventional or nuclear weapons), then we are talking about a real World War. Hundreds or even thousands of Muslims will start blowing themselves up or planting bombs in the streets of Israel, Europe, the U.S., the whole Western World, and Muslim Countries that refuse to join the war. Other terrorists will try to enter Israel from their neighbouring countries, creating diplomatic problems, and in the context of a conflict with Iran, the whole region could declare war on them.

Sunni Iraqis could start civil war, in the fear of an Iranian annexation which would mean genocide for them. Turkomens would try to seek independence, creating problems with Turkey, who would have its own share of problems too. Giving logistical support to the U.S. would drive the Turkish population mad, and create unrest, where the possibility of a terrorist-foreign supported coup shouldn't be ignored. The same could happen with the population of other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan (where the U.S. would reduce the number of troops stationed there, moving them to the Iranian border).

Add to that some other possible factors like Chechenia, Dagestan, Libya, Morocco, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the Pakistani-Indian conflict. It's a scary domino effect. I believe that all the diplomatic stances should be exploited to the very last point before taking action against Iran, or else, who knows how far things could get out of control?

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I've just read my post again and it sounds like doom. Which is a possibility, but I want that the World doesn't reach that point.

We (as the West) should try to make every possible effort to avoid further conflicts with the Muslims, the question is how? How can we avoid conflict with religious extremists? How can we make the terrorists put their guns down?

[Phenomanul]

Einstein once said, and I paraphrase.

"I don't know when WWIII will come to pass, but I do know how we will be fighting WWIV... with sticks and stones."

It's frightful that anyone including the U.S. have the capability to destroy half the planet. It's not about them vs. us or us vs. them... it's about us preserving our planet.

[Vashner]

I'll be in the tunnels at Brooks. I think some of them are under the Best Buy that's there now lol...