Wouldn't an attack on nuclear facilities and the ensuing fallout risk endangering Israelis as well and the general area?

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Wendigo]

God damned war nations...

Originally posted by Techsnow
With the U.S. being 9tril in debt as opposed to 5tril in debt 8 years ago it seems that the leaders in power have given up on contributing to the bank completely or working with the bank to crash the U.S. economy. But what I cant seem to understand is why (if we were working with the bank) they would let the country drive itself so in debt unless it was either a false front to make ourselves look like we were going in debt... or in fact we are going in debt. To sum this up, I believe the newly created U.S. debt is infact a newly created illusion for a new world war.

YOU HAVE HIT THE JACKPOT!

That is absolutely right. I have been thinking it also. And it is a true given.

I've been doing research about fed reserve. The US dollar isn't backed up by gold. The feds been printing money ever since it could. In times of war in the past, the US would drop the gold standard to print money to pay for the war. AS any country would.... The Federal Reserve is a joke. Just prints money. The 9 trillion in debt doesn't matter. Where's the 9 trillion in debt owed to? The Federal Reserve? They just print money constantly anyways. And please someone tell me who had 9 trillion dollars to begin with? Cmon... The US can go on printing money. The federal reserve is a joke.

With all the propaganda going about its a sure definate that the US will attack Iran. No doubt in my mind about it. I also believe the US is headed for a planned and orchestrated economic crash.

5>10 years not 100 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities now


if you start nuking targets openly then the gloves would come off and pandora`s box would truely be opened - imagine China nuking parts of taiwan to ensure succes in `liberation` or the UK nuking Buenos Aires to ensure they wouldn`t reinvade the Falklands again.

Originally posted by FredT
The notion that the radiation is ontained is bogus and you run the risk of contaminating not only our troops but other friendlies in the area as well.

Perhaps, but if any radiation was released it would be a small amount because bunker busters don't detonate until the bomb is underground and the explosion is forced downwards. However, I seriously doubt IF we were to attack Iran that the U.S. would use any type of nuclear bomb.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im sure they said the same thing during shock and awe in '03

No!
The plan from the beginning was to use ground forces to topple Saddam.

once we drop a few billion dollars worth of bombs on Iran, Its not like its just going to end.

Iran will not just roll over and allow us to rape their resources..
It will continue such as Iraq has, and it will cost a lot more money.

Again, it will be a air and sea attack only. No ground troops!

Originally posted by grover
There is no such thing as a small amount of nuclear radiation being released from a nuclear blast and it will only be doubled or tripled by attacking a nuclear facility.

So are you telling me that the same amount of radiation will be released by a high megaton nuclear device as by a small tactical bunker buster nuclear device? See....there is such a thing.

Where do people come up with such stupid notions? There is no such thing as a clean nuclear bomb or safe nuclear energy.

Where do you come up with your false notions?
I don't think anybody said there is such a thing as a clean nuclear bomb but nuclear energy is safe.

I don't think we could go into Iran without instituting the Draft again. Especially after the debacle of "Shock and Awe" turning into "Long and Hard" in Iraq. I think the fundamental reasons for failure in Iraq have to do with underestimating the resolve of the people of Iraq. Underestimating the deep rifts among muslims as well, and failing to realize how effective a dictator Saddam had been. Without his iron grip, the Shia and Sunnis have been fighting to gain power. Imagine the Republicans vs Democrats here at home, only with automatic weapons, trying to gain congressional districts...

I believe that the US/Israel could knock out Iran's infrastructure, but I think in doing so, they risk creating more Jihadists. People who lose their families due to bunker busting bombs and cruise missles, only have one way to 'fight back' and that would be 'guerilla' or 'terrorist' techniques. I don't endorse the behavior of killing for revenge, but it makes a lot of sense in these situations.

I have never thought the USA should be the policeman of the world, but if it has to be, I want a friendly beatcop, who stops and help people. Not a fascist world policeman who sadistically maims and kills, because it is quicker than actually trying to sit down and talk things out. I don't know. Maybe instead of being the world's policeman, we should invest more here at home...

DocMoreau

Originally posted by grover
Like you are going to blast a nuclear power plant with a nuclear weapon and its going to be like ok? Give me a bloody break.

Way to dodge my question. I suspect you did so because you realized your first assumption was inaccurate.

Three mile island and Chynerbol prove you wrong as does all the thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste for which no safe home has been found.

Wow, one disaster. Is that all you got?
That does NOT prove me wrong on anything. Nuclear energy is safe.
What would you consider a safe energy?

It's astonishing to read threads like this, when it's obvious to anyone not in the scope of US media brainwashing that

1) Iran has no military nuclear programme and the only ones who claim it does are US hawks with itchy trigger fingers

2) the US lied about WMD in Iraq and this is just more of the same

3) unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state is a war crime.

That's really all there is to be said. Most of the posters here seem completely ok with the US bombing anyone that it likes on the flimsiest of excuses. Good night, good Germans.

Originally posted by rich23
1) Iran has no military nuclear programme and the only ones who claim it does are US hawks with itchy trigger fingers

Your opinion, not fact!

2) the US lied about WMD in Iraq and this is just more of the same

Your opinion, not fact!

3) unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state is a war crime.

Your opinion, not fact! Your definition of unprovoked might differ from mine.

That's really all there is to be said. Most of the posters here seem completely ok with the US bombing anyone that it likes on the flimsiest of excuses.

You are entitled to your wrong opinions.

Originally posted by Harlequin
Three mile island was in the USA and Chernobyl is in Ukraine so , erm , its 2 really...

The 3 mile accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. So this is not a strong case to point out that nuclear energy is not safe.

Nuclear energy is safe IMO.
Airplanes are considered the safest way to travel yet look at all the deaths from crashes.

i never actually said it wasn`t safe BUT whilst there might not be any `direct` deaths associated with the explosion at 3 mile island - there was a release of radiation (granted nothing like the amount released in 1986) but even so there has been an increase in child defects and cancers in the years following the incident at 3 mile island.