BuffettNews.com

The WMD justification for invading Iraq turned out to be erroneous (I'm being generous here).

Iran's uranium enrichment program, which the Iranians claim is part of their quest for nuclear power generation capability, is much in the news lately.

The Bush administration is once again talking about the doctrine of pre-emptive attack. In view of these developments, I thought I might ask BNers what THEY think about the whole thing.

Speaking of nukes and the Middle East, while the Iranians are signatories of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which allows participants to operate nuclear power programs subject to international inspection, their near neighbors the Israelis are not party to that treaty. That would risk exposing the Israelis own well-funded (read USA-funded) and long-established nuclear weapons program to the light of day.

Should the War President take us into another conflict?

Cheers.

Shrub will do what he wants. If there is no proof then he will make up reasons to invade. We've seen this before so why should this time surprise anyone.

markruble wrote:Shrub will do what he wants. If there is no proof then he will make up reasons to invade. We've seen this before so why should this time surprise anyone.

"Shrub" .....bahahahaha!!!!!

classic.

I didn't answer the question, but here's some food for thought. Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor back in the '80s. I wonder what Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, would be like today if the Israelis hadn't bombed that unfinished reactor into oblivion.

LIPH wrote:I didn't answer the question, but here's some food for thought. Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor back in the '80s. I wonder what Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, would be like today if the Israelis hadn't bombed that unfinished reactor into oblivion.

It'd be a giant glass parking lot. And our lives would be much better for it.

No .. cause our idiotic Prime Minister will send our soldiers along as well ....

New Poll...

Who thinks politics should be on a different board?

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:New Poll...

Who thinks politics should be on a different board?

I take it you voted choice number 4?

As long as folks don't get nasty and personally insulting to other BNers, I would have to vote NO on that perennial question.

Cheers.

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:New Poll...

Who thinks politics should be on a different board?

You mean you don't go to ihategeorgewbush.com to talk about Jimmy Buffett?

LIPH wrote:

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:New Poll...

Who thinks politics should be on a different board?

You mean you don't go to ihategeorgewbush.com to talk about Jimmy Buffett?

I haven't seen anyone talk about Buffett here in the Off Topic Area in quite some time.

You boys need to try to stay on topic here. We're talkin' about foreign policy, not whether anyone hates George W. Bush. That would be a different poll . . .



Cheers

Sorry flyboy, your original premise about no WMDs is false. They were found, and others have been proven to have been moved to Syria.

Go do your homework, comeback when you have all the facts.

Ignorance is not bliss, it's irritating.

I'm outta here before this turns ugly.

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:Sorry flyboy, your original premise about no WMDs is false. They were found, and others have been proven to have been moved to Syria.

Go do your homework, comeback when you have all the facts.

Ignorance is not bliss, it's irritating.

I'm outta here before this turns ugly.

This isn't meant to sound like an insult, but you will of course have to offer up some proof that WMDs were found in Iraq, and not just your say-so. Could you please provide a link to a reputable source?

IMHO, I think nobody would have been MORE surprised to find WMDs in Iraq than Bush & Cheney, but that is just my opinion, nothing more.

I will try to ignore the live grenade you tossed in the room before leaving (something about "ignorance . . . irritating") and do my part to keep things cool.

Cheers.

LIPH wrote:I didn't answer the question, but here's some food for thought. Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor back in the '80s. I wonder what Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, would be like today if the Israelis hadn't bombed that unfinished reactor into oblivion.

Iraqi's would be cooking on electric stoves

Fly,
If you did not hate President Bush and were not such a political leftest, you would have seen the data. However since you being what you are being, I seriously doubt you acvept any proof whatsoever...even if one were detonated in your neighborhood.

Yes the data is there and just like you repeating the lie goes to show about say it often enough some will think it is the truth. No I am not going to find the links for you, but I assure you links containing the info you ask for is/are out there. I am not hiding anything. If I or CNF can find the proof easily enough then you can as well.

Before I leave this topic answer me this ....just what would you do with the situation of a nuclear Iran? Remember dirty bombs??

Only if it lowers gas prices NOW

sorry i thought this said "should we invade Ur - anus"

El mojito wrote:sorry i thought this said "should we invade Ur - anus"

Only if she's really hot and I'm drunk...

El mojito wrote:sorry i thought this said "should we invade Ur - anus"

Do the Uranians have oil? Hot chicks? Beer?

I voted YES, but it's not for partisan or foreign policy reasons; it's simple economics.

After our war with Iraq is all done, we're gonna have hundreds of thousands of under-employed people straining an already failing economy. These good people just need a hand up, not a hand-out.
True, Iran has all that oil, but furthermore, it is the largest untapped market between Europe and India that is still waiting for fast food with a 24-hour drive-up window. (As Jimmy said about the Soviets: think about all those people with money to spend and a Victoria's Secret catalogue in their hands.)

So sure, let's invade Iran. But don't do it for G.W. Bush; do it for the Buffetts... Warren and Jimmy. And do it for yourself.