WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[Carib]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

Which was never denied, you are baiting and trolling as usual.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Carib

[Jingthing]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

Which was never denied, you are baiting and trolling as usual.

You're wrong. Some posters are denying the military aspect of it. Which is OBVIOUS to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[Carib]

Thanks Endure, I was wondering about it. How do you post a link to something that didn't happen?

I am wondering why the link of Iran showing their nuclear plant hasn't been posted yet.

You sound like an impatient customer at a sandwich shop! Do you seriously think Iran isn't working on a nuclear program? Come on now ...

I don't THINK about these things and also don't listen to what is believed to be propaganda of the most ******** nation in the world.

I look at facts presented.

The facts could even look like the Weapons of Mass Destruction, Nuff said.

[Ulysses G.]

The facts could even look like the Weapons of Mass Destruction,

Nuclear weapons ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Carib]

The facts could even look like the Weapons of Mass Destruction,

Nuclear weapons ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Another nonsensical post, and in it the denial of the last war hoax.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

So when replying to me about we know iraq ended up with no weapons of mass destruction why did you post................

"Well, Iraq was not putting footage of their nuclear plant on international TV. "

??

[janverbeem]

Thanks Endure, I was wondering about it. How do you post a link to something that didn't happen?

I am wondering why the link of Iran showing their nuclear plant hasn't been posted yet.

So its not very secrative then is it?,..... there nuclear energy plant.

This is the trouble people believe everything they see on tv and never question anything instead of researching themselves. TV, media. Gospel lol

Truth always comes out in the end, of course to late.

Why is the name of the broadcaster blanked out in the clip?

[Ulysses G.]

Why is the name of the broadcaster blanked out in the clip?

Because the Elders of Zion really put it out.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

Which was never denied, you are baiting and trolling as usual.

You're wrong. Some posters are denying the military aspect of it. Which is OBVIOUS to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense.

Why is it obvious?

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

Which was never denied, you are baiting and trolling as usual.

I guess both as usual.

Notice how he always uses these icons after every sentence

and the classic

[maidu]

The OP is about the US requesting funding for yet more powerful bombs - to penetrate yet deeper facilities. I'm surprised the news came out. Aren't there any secrets re; US military plans? Perhaps the news is a smokescreen - to put the fear of Armagedon in the Iranian bosses. I seriously doubt the US would use nukes to make a point that making nukes is bad. It's just too hypocritical a statement. I sure wouldn't want to be going to work in that fortified mountain.

[philw]

Who said it was "secrative". The whole point is that everyone knows that they have a nuclear program.

Which was never denied, you are baiting and trolling as usual.

You're wrong. Some posters are denying the military aspect of it. Which is OBVIOUS to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense.

Hate to make the obvious.

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon to counterbalance the Israeli nuclear threat, to them ???

Who are you / we / us to protest their right to self defence ?

After all, we have it, do we not ?

MAD etc..........

[Ulysses G.]

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon

Mostly because they signed a treaty that they would not and now they are lying about it.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

The OP is about the US requesting funding for yet more powerful bombs - to penetrate yet deeper facilities. I'm surprised the news came out. Aren't there any secrets re; US military plans? Perhaps the news is a smokescreen - to put the fear of Armagedon in the Iranian bosses. I seriously doubt the US would use nukes to make a point that making nukes is bad. It's just too hypocritical a statement. I sure wouldn't want to be going to work in that fortified mountain.

Hypocritical?

Obama and his administration and hyprocritcal go hand in hand.

Seen as you mentioned it.........well ill post a link if im allowed but its off topic completely hehe

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon

Mostly because they signed a treaty that they would not and they are lying about it.

So they are making one? what are they lieing about?

Where do you get your facts? source please, as if what you believe is true i want to know too.

[Ulysses G.]

Why is the name of the broadcaster blanked out in the clip?

Because the Elders of Zion really put it out.

A 2008 Francisco Sentinel picture of an above ground installation, so??

An above ground, Iranian NUCLEAR facility.

[philw]

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon

Mostly because they signed a treaty that they would not and now they are lying about it.

Having thought about it for a minute, that is a pathetically thin reason to start a WAR.

[Carib]

Why is the name of the broadcaster blanked out in the clip?

Because the Elders of Zion really put it out.

A 2008 Francisco Sentinel picture of an above ground installation, so??

An above ground, Iranian NUCLEAR facility.

So ???

And when quoting me, use the full Quote, don't modify my text, you really must work for a boulevard magazine.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Carib

[maiphedmaiaroi]

An above ground, Iranian NUCLEAR facility.

Why not say An above ground, Iranian nuclear ENERGY faclilty?

[philw]

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon

Mostly because they signed a treaty that they would not and now they are lying about it.

Why do you selectively edit and quote from my post, thus distorting what I actually said ??

Ugly.

Edited January 28, 2012 by philw

[Carib]

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon

Mostly because they signed a treaty that they would not and now they are lying about it.

Why do you selectively edit and quote from my post.???

Because it suits him, just like he did with my post

Edited January 28, 2012 by Carib

[Steely Dan]

Here is some commentary explaining exactly why Iran won't back down. I hope Obama can get off the golf course in time to sanction some pretty large bunker busters.

http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/why-iran-will-not-come-to-its-senses.html

War with Iran is a truly fearsome prospect.

Its likely consequences would include attacks on US air bases from thousands of Iranian missiles, the unleashing of terrorist attacks within the US and Europe, the rocketing of Israeli towns from the tens of thousands of missiles trained on Israel from Lebanon, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz thus paralysing western oil supplies, and doubtless other horrors.

But however fearsome this prospect, that of a nuclear-armed Iran is worse. The consequences are simply insupportable.

[Steely Dan]

Hate to make the obvious.

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon to counterbalance the Israeli nuclear threat, to them ???

Who are you / we / us to protest their right to self defence ?

After all, we have it, do we not ?

MAD etc..........

Because MAD only works with rational leaders, Iran's leaders are MAD, some believe Khamanei floats up on a cloud each year to chat with the eleventh Mahdi about the day of judgement and he has been instructed to press on full speed with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Here is some commentary explaining exactly why Iran won't back down. I hope Obama can get off the golf course in time to sanction some pretty large bunker busters.

http://phillipsblog....its-senses.html

War with Iran is a truly fearsome prospect.

Its likely consequences would include attacks on US air bases from thousands of Iranian missiles, the unleashing of terrorist attacks within the US and Europe, the rocketing of Israeli towns from the tens of thousands of missiles trained on Israel from Lebanon, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz thus paralysing western oil supplies, and doubtless other horrors.

But however fearsome this prospect, that of a nuclear-armed Iran is worse. The consequences are simply insupportable.

How fearsome will it be for innocent iranians too when there is no proof of them making nuclear weapons just as fearsome as the innocent iraqis that died in a fake war from a lie. .

That scenario is awful but they will only do in self defence . Remember war is ugly and both sides fight to win.

[philw]

Hate to make the obvious.

Why can't they have a nuclear weapon to counterbalance the Israeli nuclear threat, to them ???

Who are you / we / us to protest their right to self defence ?

After all, we have it, do we not ?

MAD etc..........

Because MAD only works with rational leaders, Iran's leaders are MAD, some believe Khamanei floats up on a cloud each year to chat with the eleventh Mahdi about the day of judgement and he has been instructed to press on full speed with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Doesn't look very different from fundamental American christianity then, does it.

There are nutters on all sides, admit it.

[philw]

Here is some commentary explaining exactly why Iran won't back down. I hope Obama can get off the golf course in time to sanction some pretty large bunker busters.

http://phillipsblog....its-senses.html

War with Iran is a truly fearsome prospect.

Its likely consequences would include attacks on US air bases from thousands of Iranian missiles, the unleashing of terrorist attacks within the US and Europe, the rocketing of Israeli towns from the tens of thousands of missiles trained on Israel from Lebanon, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz thus paralysing western oil supplies, and doubtless other horrors.

But however fearsome this prospect, that of a nuclear-armed Iran is worse. The consequences are simply insupportable.

Why should they back down ??

We both come from countries proud of and famed for our ability to fight for what we see as right.

It may be prudent to recognise that capability in other peoples.................

[Jingthing]

Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism and Iran has shown evidence they are into exporting those values, including in Muslim Thailand. Sorry, no!

Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[philw]

Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism and Iran has shown evidence they are into exporting those values, including in Muslim Thailand. Sorry, no!

On that logic maybe both Israel and Iran should have nukes and obliterate each other.

After the fall out, place might be improved.

Do you have ANY evidence of Iranian terrorism into Muslim Thailand ( and not the recent incident )

[maiphedmaiaroi]

Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism and Iran has shown evidence they are into exporting those values, including in Muslim Thailand. Sorry, no!

Christains and jews live in iran peacefully. Didnt you know that?

[endure]

Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism

We appear to have pulled into Hyperbole Central...