Bush deals nukes to the Saudis

[DanaC]

So, Merc.....you think your nation shouldn't be sucking at the teat of middle eastern oil, and your solution to that is remove the teat rather than remove yourselves from it?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

So, Merc.....you think your nation shouldn't be sucking at the teat of middle eastern oil, and your solution to that is remove the teat rather than remove yourselves from it?

I guess you could make a case to just remove yourselves from such a relationship if you really wanted to crash the economy but it is not just the US that is dependent on Middle East Oil, nearly the whole world is dependent on it. There is no way to just stop buying it. I still think the grand plan is to use Middle East oil until it is completely gone and then the oil we still have in the ground will actually put us in a stronger position. We have a lot of potential oil reserves near us and we have not exploited them for many reasons. There is much untapped oil in Africa as well. So I kind of like the idea of using up all the Arab oil first.

[Undertoad]

tw, in your urgency to denigrate Israel and contradict me, you have taken exactly the Bush administration's position on the issue.

Congratulations on going full circle. We always thought you might do it.

C'est à rire - it is to laugh

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

you have taken exactly the Bush administration's position on the issue.

Rather irrelevant is what the scumbag president might say. Relevant is only the facts. Sometimes a wacko extremist political agenda coincides with the correct answer.

Another reality is UTs blind loyalty to Israel and his repeated belief that Saudi Arabia is somehow a dangerous nation. Nothing disparaging. That is simply what UT repeatedly posts. Reality – Saudi Arabia remains a better friend than Israel – whose spies were even caught in America. Let’s see. UK does not have covert spies. Saudi Arabia does not. But Israeli spying on America has been caught and exposed. UT even forgets about the USS Liberty. What other ally intentionally attacks a US navy ship … multiple times? And then lies about it? Saudi? Hardly.

More interesting are reasons why Saudi Arabia would need a nuclear electric station. UT, care to demonstrate a grasp - answer that question without attaching a political bias?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality – Saudi Arabia remains a better friend than Israel – whose spies were even caught in America. Let’s see. UK does not have covert spies. Saudi Arabia does not.

Patently false.

[TheMercenary]

PARIS: The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remains "a matter of serious concern" and continues to need "substantial explanations."

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be pointed less at energy generation than at military use.

Part of the agency's case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that ordinarily would be associated with constructing nuclear weapons.

"There are certain parts of their nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role," said one senior official close to the agency, who spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic constraints. He added, "We want to understand why."

Iran has dismissed the documents as "forged" or "fabricated," claimed that its experiments and projects had nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program and refused to provide documentation and access to its scientists to support its claims.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/...ica/27iran.php

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder if Iran is playing the same game Saddam did? Several countries in the region have nukes, so at least giving the impression of having an ongoing nuke program, might make Iran appear stronger than they really are. I would give them more street creds.

[TheMercenary]

I think it is the real deal. I don't think they have the balls to actually use one as the retaliation would be devastating by the combined forces of the Israel and the US.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They still have to worry about Pakistan, too. Being a predominately Muslim country does not make them an friend.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They still have to worry about Pakistan, too. Being a predominately Muslim country does not make them an friend.

I had not considered them. I sort of look at India keeping them in check, and if we maintain bases in Afgan territory we may be able to keep them at bay. Hell, the damm Paki's and Khan are to blame for most of this third world proliferation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

As well as the prices at 7-11.

[TheMercenary]

yea, they may be able to shut us down. And no more curry...

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't think they have the balls to actually use one as the retaliation would be devastating ...

Which was the reasoning just before a Cuban Missile Crisis. We learned the world came right to the edge - almost launched all nuclear weapons - because logic gets lost in the emotional heat of hate.

One fact learned from the "Missiles of October" is that one must always be talking to everyone - especially one's enemies. So many people (including America's dumbest president while in Israel) never learned this making nuclear weapons so dangerous and reducing the power of retaliation (power as defined in a policy called MAD).

Why were India and Pakistan so close to nuclear war? They stopped talking to one another. Clinton's diplomacy may have stopped a nuclear war that was only hours away.

Well, a country lead by a scumbag president will not talk even to perceived enemies. Those enemies therefore need nuclear weapons AND may not worry about retaliation. Retaliation has significance if all sides are talking. Without talk, then the heat of hate takes hold - anything can happen.

Only valid source that Americans have for Iran's intentions is the UN. If the UN is worried, then Americans should worry.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Patently false.

A post without supporting 'reasons why' means the poster is lying and has no credibility.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by tw

A post without supporting 'reasons why' means the poster is lying and has no credibility.

But... your post had no supporting 'reasons why,' so...

I get it, irony.