Louis Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 It looks like the media are preparing us for an invasion on Iran. IAEA report: Iran working to produce nuclear bomb - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News Cyber warfare: A different way to attack Iran's reactors - CNN.com Iran worries spark fears of $200-a-barrel oil - FT.com BBC News - UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons' Iran: Nuclear Arms Tests Suspicions Say United Nations Nuclear Arms Agency IAEA | World News | Sky News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 This isn't going to be good . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 heard a big debate on the radio about it, really worried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Credible intelligence of WMD's in a Muslim nation floating on a sea of oil eh? Familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 bloody hell, is there anything they wont do for oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinalaff Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 bloody hell, is there anything they wont do for oil. That thing you're thinking ..... it won't be that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 That thing you're thinking ..... it won't be that. Wanna crack a tube of Fosters there Av? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 That thing you're thinking ..... it won't be that. you sure? i was thinking sit down with other world leaders and discuss a deal to actually buy the oil. rather than spend billions and kill lots of people on both sides and just comandeer the stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders78 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 I don't but they whole oil argument it just makes no sense. 1 GBU-12 Pathway laser guided bomb cost $20,000 to the US military. 1 barrel of oil is 39 gallons, even at pump prices here that is £200. So 1 bomb is equivalent to 100 barrels of oil (at UK pump prices) Now the Americans have dropped significantly more bombs than 1, you also have to factor in the boots on the ground, the support network they require, the warships, the helicopters, submarines and a whole host of people back in the US. Now surely it would be cheaper to just by the fucking stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Because if they were really worried about nuclear weapons getting into the "wrong" hands (who decides that btw? "we can have them because we're sensible but you can't because....um...") they'd be urgently planning to invade North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 I don't but they whole oil argument it just makes no sense. 1 GBU-12 Pathway laser guided bomb cost $20,000 to the US military. 1 barrel of oil is 39 gallons, even at pump prices here that is £200. So 1 bomb is equivalent to 100 barrels of oil (at UK pump prices) Now the Americans have dropped significantly more bombs than 1, you also have to factor in the boots on the ground, the support network they require, the warships, the helicopters, submarines and a whole host of people back in the US. Now surely it would be cheaper to just by the fucking stuff? but looking to the long term, when oil reserves dwindle the price will skyrocket and those holding the reserves will hold all the aces. This isnt a short term incentive, this is preparing for 1 or 200 hundred years down the line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders78 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 If we want to look to the longterm I would suggest alternatives to a finite resource such as oil. Much better ways to provide our energy needs for the future at a fraction of the cost, without death and destruction and being reliant upon the middle east. It just doesnt add up. What we have spent on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is astronomical. For 10% of this spend we could have run an experiment to place a gorlov helical turbine in the Gulf Stream. For me this is the most credible way of us meeting our energy needs now and in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 If we want to look to the longterm I would suggest alternatives to a finite resource such as oil. Much better ways to provide our energy needs for the future at a fraction of the cost, without death and destruction and being reliant upon the middle east. It just doesnt add up. What we have spent on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is astronomical. For 10% of this spend we could have run an experiment to place a gorlov helical turbine in the Gulf Stream. For me this is the most credible way of us meeting our energy needs now and in the future dude, i dont disagree at all, just trying to explain a potential "reasoning" for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders78 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 dude, i dont disagree at all, just trying to explain a potential "reasoning" for it Completely, I just thought we were having a discussion and then I decided to take it off on a tangent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowensda Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 it's all a bit apt, in conjunction with the release of Call Of Duty? Someone's not realised the difference between reality and computer simulation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus jones Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Wont be able to do anything with them once they produce a bomb, would not put it past them for a first strike at Israel, got to sort it now, never appease lunatics I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Wont be able to do anything with them once they produce a bomb, would not put it past them for a first strike at Israel, got to sort it now, never appease lunatics I say. But who decides who the lunatics are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus jones Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 But who decides who the lunatics are? Is a lunatic a person who shouts out '' I'm going to kill my next door neighbour'' and goes out to buy a gun on the black market or the one who beats the hell out of him to stop him doing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 The older we get, the more we realise what an utter crock of charlatans our governments are (no matter where you're from), and worst of all, how bent out media are (yes, our sanctimonious BBC included). Whenever you hear media info on a subject you actually know a lot about (and realise the magnitude of error) the more you can safely assume the rest of it is as inaccurate. But saddest of all - soldiers lives (not to mention innocent bystanders) will be lost simply on a political whim or gesture, or morally corrupt business deal (building contracts, security contracts, resource grabbing et al). If a politician MUST initiate the firing of a bullet, the optimal target should be themselves. It'd make the world a better place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Is a lunatic a person who shouts out '' I'm going to kill my next door neighbour'' and goes out to buy a gun on the black market or the one who beats the hell out of him to stop him doing it? So where does the North Korea point sit in that? They've already got the gun and test-fired it and no-one's trying to beat the hell out of them. Why would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) So where does the North Korea point sit in that? They've already got the gun and test-fired it and no-one's trying to beat the hell out of them. Why would that be? I can only imagine three fundamental reasons: 1) Fear of being on the receiving end 2) Total ambivalence 3) It's a favourable situation (though quite why I do not know) I don't think we're ambivalent - so 1 and 3 must be it. I suspect North Korea is seen as an escaped wild animal. Unlikely to attack unless provoked, but needs to be dealt with in the longer term (which nobody's getting round to!) As long as North Korea is left alone, it makes all other action against other 'potential threats' hypocritical. Edited November 9, 2011 by BlueSky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 As long as North Korea is left alone, it makes all other action against other 'potential threats' hypocritical. It was kind of a rhetorical question....but I agree with your conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders78 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 North Korea probably don't have the capacity to fire it and North Korea also answer to China. As long as China are onside we will be ok. Iran answers to nobody and is reliant upon nobody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 North Korea probably don't have the capacity to fire it and North Korea also answer to China. As long as China are onside we will be ok. Iran answers to nobody and is reliant upon nobody China and North Korea are "allies"...which is probably another reason we turn a blind eye to their programme. http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/china_dprk.htm Article II The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 if korea had oil, would they get invaded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders78 Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 if korea had oil, would they get invaded? Probably and god help the scots and their north sea oil if they opt for independence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 I'm actually worried now, I've got a can of castrol gtx in the garage, balls to it! They want it, they've got a fight on their hands!!! How is mr Mugabe and his oil by the way? I take it that only oil rich dictators get targeted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Reading up about Hiroshima and Nagasaki earlier....just goes to show you should never let religious types get their hands on nuclear weapons... Harry S Truman (the man that gave the order) on the day that the second bomb hit.... "I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." Can we disarm the US please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 the US are more into the Holy war than their enemies at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.