| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Apr 2006 05:05:32 PM |
| Object: |
Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
As of April 9, 2006:
Current status of Iran's nuclear agenda: Green light.
---------------
In further developments: Five U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Iran
to visit uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants for the first time
since the country suspended surprise inspections in February.
The trip came as a New Yorker magazine report (April 17 issue) said the
Bush administration was stepping up plans for a possible airstrike
against Iran, even as it publicly pushes for a peaceful solution to the
standoff.
The report said that "bunker buster" nuclear bombs would be used on
Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz. If that be the case, the
Pentagon has reported that some senior officials at the Pentagon would
quit their posts.
The White House insists that only peaceful negotiations will be used at
this time, and will not discuss any military strategy.
---------------
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran, solely
to take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with an
all-out war against their neighboring countries, including
you-know-who.
Using nuclear weaponry as an offensive for the first time since 1945
would give Russia and China the right to label the U.S. as an
imperialistic terrorist country, and they would feel liberated in using
their nuclear weapons in any way they see fit. Russia would probably
seize the Iranian oil. And would we let them walk off with it? Mi
amigos, welcome to World War 3.
If all this transpires, forget my 2017 prediction. Make that 2010.
But if we let Iran complete their nuclear agenda, then we're back at
2017 again.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
10 Apr 2006 12:14:24 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran, solely to
take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with an all-out war
against their neighboring countries, including you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as much
as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing cold
water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
10 Apr 2006 05:23:35 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran, solely to
take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with an all-out war
against their neighboring countries, including you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as much
as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing cold
water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran
by way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear
facilities. Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would
produce the 'oil nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a
bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008,
and then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008,
Iran would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear capabilities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Bruening" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
20 May 2006 01:21:21 AM |
|
|
"" wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran, solely to
take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with an all-out war
against their neighboring countries, including you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as much
as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing cold
water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran
by way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear
facilities. Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would
produce the 'oil nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a
bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008,
and then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008,
Iran would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear capabilities.
I suggest that the air strike happen in October of this year to help the GOP hang
onto Congress!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
10 Apr 2006 06:55:55 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144707815.520662.33770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran,
solely to take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with
an all-out war against their neighboring countries, including
you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as
much as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing
cold water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran by
way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear facilities.
Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would produce the 'oil
nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a bridge
in New York I'd like to sell you.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008, and
then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008, Iran
would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear capabilities.
You know what Skippy? You're at least as nuts as the mad mullahs over
there. It's hard to tell the difference between you and them.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
10 Apr 2006 06:42:02 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144707815.520662.33770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran,
solely to take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with
an all-out war against their neighboring countries, including
you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as
much as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing
cold water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran by
way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear facilities.
Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would produce the 'oil
nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
And your hard evidence Iran is doing anything other than what they are
allowed to under the NPT?
What happened the *last time this administration went running around
screeching "weapons of mass destruction!" all over the place?
HMMMM?
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a bridge
in New York I'd like to sell you.
Again, they don't have to. Destabilize Iraq and Kuwait, maybe SA, we'll go
into a nosedive. They'll still have oil to sell and they can just start
over.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
And why couldn't it be? Because they're dirty brown people?
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008, and
then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008, Iran
would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear capabilities.
You haven't a single shred of evidence for this. Even the UK Foreign
Secretary just admitted there's no hard evidence. It's in an AP story I
have here on my desk.
You're not getting what you want. Our credibility has been destroyed. If
Bush told the world the sky was blue, they'd go check. Without hard
evidence--which you don't have--the resistance to taking any serious
action is just going to stiffen. That's what the neocons have led us to.
Even if we're right this time, nobody's going to believe us.
So if the mad mullahs really are building bombs, they're laughing at
President Frat Boy for getting his stupid ***** in this situation...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
11 Apr 2006 04:17:58 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144707815.520662.33770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran,
solely to take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate with
an all-out war against their neighboring countries, including
you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi Arabia
would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be paying as
much as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120 per
barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina, $3 per
gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that party
will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing
cold water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran by
way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear facilities.
Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would produce the 'oil
nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
And your hard evidence Iran is doing anything other than what they are
allowed to under the NPT?
It was just a few months ago that *someone* said Israel should be wiped
off the face of the earth. Then again, we always could wait for a
really loud explosion first, and then take action.
What happened the *last time this administration went running around
screeching "weapons of mass destruction!" all over the place?
HMMMM?
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a bridge
in New York I'd like to sell you.
Again, they don't have to. Destabilize Iraq and Kuwait, maybe SA, we'll go
into a nosedive. They'll still have oil to sell and they can just start
over.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
And why couldn't it be? Because they're dirty brown people?
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008, and
then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008, Iran
would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear capabilities.
You haven't a single shred of evidence for this. Even the UK Foreign
Secretary just admitted there's no hard evidence. It's in an AP story I
have here on my desk.
Do you have a map of Israel hanging on the wall as well, with a lot of
darts on it?
You're not getting what you want. Our credibility has been destroyed. If
Bush told the world the sky was blue, they'd go check. Without hard
evidence--which you don't have--the resistance to taking any serious
action is just going to stiffen. That's what the neocons have led us to.
Even if we're right this time, nobody's going to believe us.
So if the mad mullahs really are building bombs, they're laughing at
President Frat Boy for getting his stupid ***** in this situation...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Hey Sherlock, we're all in this together. Either you have a death wish
or a really nice bomb shelter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyes On Jerusalem. Pt. 26. |
11 Apr 2006 06:29:44 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144790278.712514.20320@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144707815.520662.33770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, in episode
<1144620332.118775.220910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I would think that if an airstrike were to be used against Iran,
solely to take out their nuclear facility, Iran would retaliate
with an all-out war against their neighboring countries, including
you-know-who.
They don't have to. Destabilizing Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Saudi
Arabia would drive oil to well over twice what it is now. We'd be
paying as much as $6 a gallon and the US economy would come to a near
halt.
Hell, just the strike on Iran by Bush will send oil into $80 to $120
per barrel territory. You'll be looking back on those post-Katrina,
$3 per gallon prices as "the good old days."
What you're talking about is the utter and total discrediting of Bush
and the Republican party. If they lead us into such a mess, that
party will cease to exist (unless they seize power in a military
coup).
The world survive the collapse and break up of one superpower. It can
probably muddle its way through another.
Oh, sorry. I know you enjoy fantasizing about the agonizing death of
millions in a nuclear war as you masturbate. And here I am, throwing
cold water on you...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
You'll have to choose your method of destruction. Either we stop Iran
by way of force, or, we allow Ahmadinejad to complete his nuclear
facilities.
Sanctions won't work, because that action alone would produce the
'oil
nightmare' you seem to be so keen on.
And your hard evidence Iran is doing anything other than what they are
allowed to under the NPT?
It was just a few months ago that *someone* said Israel should be wiped
off the face of the earth. Then again, we always could wait for a really
loud explosion first, and then take action.
Said? You're going to bomb people for everything they say?
Iran is not going to attack Israel. Period. Everybody knows Israel has at
least 100 nukes. Attacking Israel would be suicide. Of *course a hardliner
Iranian politician is spouting anti-Israel sentiments. What do you expect?
So, anyway, you admit you have NO hard evidence Iran is violating the NPT?
What happened the *last time this administration went running around
screeching "weapons of mass destruction!" all over the place?
HMMMM?
If we use force, and you think Iran won't retaliate against its
neighboring countries, whether they have to or not, then I have a
bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
Again, they don't have to. Destabilize Iraq and Kuwait, maybe SA, we'll
go into a nosedive. They'll still have oil to sell and they can just
start over.
If we allow Iran to finish their nuclear work, and if you believe them
when they say it's strictly for generating electricity, well, that
'bridge' is still for sale.
And why couldn't it be? Because they're dirty brown people?
What Bush might do is utilize an air strike against Iran in late 2008,
and then let the next President take over from there. By late 2008,
Iran would be about 70% - 80% complete with their nuclear
capabilities.
You haven't a single shred of evidence for this. Even the UK Foreign
Secretary just admitted there's no hard evidence. It's in an AP story I
have here on my desk.
Do you have a map of Israel hanging on the wall as well, with a lot of
darts on it?
What's that got to do with anything?
You're not getting what you want. Our credibility has been destroyed. If
Bush told the world the sky was blue, they'd go check. Without hard
evidence--which you don't have--the resistance to taking any serious
action is just going to stiffen. That's what the neocons have led us to.
Even if we're right this time, nobody's going to believe us.
So if the mad mullahs really are building bombs, they're laughing at
President Frat Boy for getting his stupid ***** in this situation...
Hey Sherlock, we're all in this together. Either you have a death wish or
a really nice bomb shelter.
Because of *IRAN?* What are they going to do to us? This country has
THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads and ICBM delivery systems that can reach any
point on this globe in about 45 minutes. We wouldn't even have to leave
our couch cushions to vaporize the entire Iranian population and turn Iran
into a solid sea of radioactive glass.
They know *that. Apparently better than you.
And this is the same ***** we were told last time. Iraq was going to spray
anthrax on us, Iraq was going to nuke a city, Iraq was going to detonate
the sun, Iraq...
So two thousand (and climbing) deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars
later, we know Iraq couldn't even launch a spit wad.
How do we know you people aren't lying your asses off *again?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
