"Which is why it concerns me that Iran may have (or get very soon) nuclear
weapons."
Exactly.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. -
Henry Kissinger
Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go
out and buy some more tun
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Trying to guess the level of self preservation instincts in addicts
> and crazy people is not a game you're going to win regularly.
Which is why it concerns me that Iran may have (or get very soon)
nuclear weapons.
--
Scott Stroz
-
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "On the other hand, people are rather worried that one or both of the crazy
> rednecks are selling guns to the guy in the trailer park who cooks meth and
> bad shit may go down when that guy ends up huffing too many fumes."
>
> Definitely.
"On the other hand, people are rather worried that one or both of the crazy
rednecks are selling guns to the guy in the trailer park who cooks meth and
bad shit may go down when that guy ends up huffing too many fumes."
Definitely.
But what about poor Crazy Joe? Is he more or less likely to sel
In this case, the two crazy rednecks oddly enough haven't gotten into
a real fight since they both bought guns because each knows how
fucking crazy the other dude is and doesn't want to get shot.
On the other hand, people are rather worried that one or both of the
crazy rednecks are selling guns
"They still seem like the most likely candidates, to me, to actually use
nuclear weapons and as of yet, they have not."
So, as an analogy: T
Two rednecks frequently see each other at the village tavern. They hate
each other and have regularly gotten into fights. Both own guns. Yet, they
have
I think that Pakistan and India set the bar for crazy + nukes. They
really really don't like each other and have fought 3 wars against one
another. The development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan was
really launched because of the last war in 1971. They still seem like
the most likely can
I understand your point.
But, in my opinion, no one else who has nuclear weapons is half as
crazy as the guys running Iran seem to be. They seem to be a special
kind of crazy - a kind of crazy that makes them unpredictable - a
kind of crazy that would make me concerned if they had nuclear
weapo
I think ultimately my point is that since the ww2 no one, except the good
guys, has been crazy enough to attempt nuking someone. Chances are very
likely, regardless of what has been said or what chest puffery has occurred,
that no one will. M.U.B.S. shouldn't dictate foreign policy.
On Thu, Jun 9
Who says I am not?
But, I should be more clear - let's say 'actions and words by those
currently in power' - yes, we used nuclear weapons, but it was over 60
years ago. These comments about Israel have been made by those
currently in power in Iran.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Medic wrote:
I understand your concern, but if you extend your logic of "based on
previous actions" then shouldn't you be living in fear that the United
States will start a nuclear war?
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> >
> > Ther
09, 2011 08:08 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: here comes a nuclear Iran
>
>
> "I would like to think Iran would not use a nuclear weapon against Israel
> (or any other country)."
>
> Maybe the biggest and only deterrent:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Op
CIA Believed...LOL...we gave them to Israel.
If Iran has them, at least there will be a power there to keep Israel in
check.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 08:08 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: here comes a nuclear
"I would like to think Iran would not use a nuclear weapon against Israel
(or any other country)."
Maybe the biggest and only deterrent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Excerpt:
The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israels alleged deterrence
strategy of massive retaliation wi
Yes they do...they can trace the origin of the fissionable material.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:50 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: here comes a nuclear Iran
Greg Morphis wrote:
>
> I also thin
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> There is indeed a difference. However the similarity (IMHO) is the neither
> will be using nuclear weapons to wipe a country off the map.
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
I would like to think Iran would not use a nuclear weapon against
Israel (
There is indeed a difference. However the similarity (IMHO) is the neither will
be using nuclear weapons to wipe a country off the map.
Sent from my iPhone.
On 2011-06-08, at 6:04 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Did not mean to imply they hold a monopoly on saying stupid shit about
> wiping coun
Greg Morphis wrote:
>
> I also think them knowing that our policy is to use nukes if us or our
> allies are nuked **should** dissuade them from using their nukes.
> Plus the fact that Israel is armed helps..
> Them having 1 nuke verses the ~10,000 that US and Israel collectively
> have... well it
Not quite as easy as fox would lead you to believe...
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 06:47 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: here comes a nuclear Iran
"On the other hand, Pakistan and India have been at loggerheads
"On the other hand, Pakistan and India have been at loggerheads (and active
war in many cases) for decades with the ability to wipe each other off the
map through nuclear annihilation and they haven't done it."
That's true. There does seem to be a "Mexican" standoff between the third
world nucle
Depends on whether the random guy in a bar has tactical nukes. If the
NRA gets its way...
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Did not mean to imply they hold a monopoly on saying stupid shit about
> wiping countries off the map, but I think there is a huge difference
> between
Did not mean to imply they hold a monopoly on saying stupid shit about
wiping countries off the map, but I think there is a huge difference
between some random guy in a bar saying it and the president of a
country saying it.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Medic wrote:
>
>>
>> 'Israel should be
>
> 'Israel should be wiped off the map'
Meh. I remember I was sitting in the Fox Sports lounge in the Detroit
airport having a frothy one waiting for a flight not long after the Iraq war
started. I struck up a convo with a nice guy after asking for a light for my
cigarette. We started talking a
On the other hand, Pakistan and India have been at loggerheads (and
active war in many cases) for decades with the ability to wipe each
other off the map through nuclear annihilation and they haven't done
it.
Am I comfortable with it? No. But current data suggests that the
actual use of nuclear w
I also think them knowing that our policy is to use nukes if us or our
allies are nuked **should** dissuade them from using their nukes.
Plus the fact that Israel is armed helps..
Them having 1 nuke verses the ~10,000 that US and Israel collectively
have... well it would dissuade me. But then agai
Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I am not so sure Iran will 'destroy the world, but when one of its
> leaders makes comments similar to 'Israel should be wiped off the
> map', it makes me pause and think if Iran having nuclear weapons is
> really a good idea.
>
eh, people say stuff. I think Japan helped
I am not so sure Iran will 'destroy the world, but when one of its
leaders makes comments similar to 'Israel should be wiped off the
map', it makes me pause and think if Iran having nuclear weapons is
really a good idea.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Michael Grant wrote:
> >
> > + lots
> >
>
> I gotta go with G-Money. It's all good.
>
Oh it's not good...its just not as apocalyptic as many would have us
believe.
Be wary when someone tells you: "We HAVE to do X or Country Y may destroy
Michael Grant wrote:
>
> + lots
>
I gotta go with G-Money. It's all good.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.hous
+ lots
Sent from my iPhone.
On 2011-06-06, at 3:11 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
>>
>> For the world's sake, I hope and pray that you are right. Sadly, I
>> don't think you are.
>>
>
> Yeah i know. Mention the work "nukes" and everyo
"So what happens next, folks?"
Bad things. Very bad things.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. -
Henry Kissinger
Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go
out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton
~~~
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> For the world's sake, I hope and pray that you are right. Sadly, I
> don't think you are.
>
Yeah i know. Mention the work "nukes" and everyone flips out like its 1962
all over again.
Look, is it good that Iran got nukes (or will get
>> So what happens next, folks?
>
> Nothing.
>
> Absolutely nothing.
>
> This is a big "so what"
For the world's sake, I hope and pray that you are right. Sadly, I
don't think you are.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology no
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> According to a RAND Corp researcher, Iran can produce a bomb within two
> months:
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078778,00.html
>
> So what happens next, folks?
>
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
This is a big "so what"
34 matches
Mail list logo
