The "When will George W. Bush bomb Iran?" Prediction Pool

Vice President Warns Iranian Sand Negroes Against Uppity Meddling in Their Own Country

THE VICE PRESIDENT: "Standing here on the deck of this glorious million ton Navy death machine, parked provocatively just off the coast of Iran, I want to coincidentally mention that those Persian loonies can forget their dream of having nuclear power. After all, who cares if Iran is as addicted to imported energy as the USA is? That kind of reality-based fact doesn't jive with the scary, oil-drenched stereotype we Americans have of Iran – a country populated entirely by relatives of Osama bin Laden – whose hairy women even sweat 10W-40.

No, we will not tolerate Iran stealing America’s invention of nuclear power. Because if anyone has earned the right to be the world’s self-appointed nuclear nanny, it’s Uncle Sam. After all, just imagine how horrible it would be if some war-happy country went and did something sick and twisted with the atom – like using it to vaporize a few hundred thousand civilian Japaneses. Luckily the morally perfect United States of America would NEVER let something like THAT happen! Unless it was to people who were annoying us, of course. Such as... swarthy losers so brain-damaged by the cult of Islam that they actually think they have the right to exercise self determination over their own country! After all, if Jesus wanted Middle Easterners to actually control their region, He wouldn’t have put all of America's oil under there!"

 

when disabled squirrels fly on magic pumpkins.

 

George Bush posted that on the "What are you reading?" thread.

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453963,00.html

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070927/cleisure/cleisure3.html

[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Its odd that Syria and Iran, being their best buddy, haven't made more of an issue of this. I would think that they would be all over this Israeli aggression.
[/FONT]

 

It is odd, isn’t it. What is even stranger to me is Israel’s deliberate “ambiguity policy” when it comes to the existence of their own nuclear arsenal. I also find it strange that Israel is one of the four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a nuclear state by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is America’s policy in the ME designed to denuclearize the region or is it designed to help Israel maintain its nuclear hegemony?

I also find Project Daniel and its recommendations in favor of preemptive strikes (they call it “Anticipatory Self-Defense”) very interesting. The recommendations of this report also stated that Israel should do anything to prevent an anti-Israeli coalition from being formed that had control of WMD’s. I presume this means the so called “Samson Option. In his book called “The Samson Option” Seymour Hersh shares various quotes from Israeli officials like this one from a “former Israeli govt official” with “first hand knowledge of his government’s nuclear weapons program” told him: “We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.” Is this a threat to wipe us all off the map? How about General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother....We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”. Ariel Sharon succinctly summarized this idea when he stated, “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”

“Israel should continue with present policy of ambiguity regarding its own nuclear status. This would help to prevent any legitimization of WMD in the Middle East. It is possible, however, that in the future Israel would be well-advised to proceed beyond nuclear ambiguity to certain limited forms of disclosure. This would be the case only if enemy (state and/or non-state) nuclearization had not been prevented.”
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-ISSUE/daniel-3.htm

So I ask, should America’s policy in the ME be designed to eliminate all nuclear arms from this volatile region or should it be designed to maintain Israel’s regional dominance at all costs?

 

It's interesting that the smallest nation in the region, and the only non-muslim nation is to you the one with the regional dominance.

 

Please take it to the intl forum.

 

Oh I missed it, when did you become the mod here??

Anyway, before speaking try reading. The point I brought up about the recent event in Syria is very appropriate to this thread as it was an act of force that may possibly have involved some level of Iranian presence and could lead to an escalation of events there.

Now if you have something to actually add, go right ahead. Otherwise kindly piss off.

 

I said please.....

 

09/15/08 - Scarecrow

See post 45, I already put in my prediction. Although I may have to revise it if events continue on the path they are....

 

But but!!!! Well fine!

 

I say three weeks exactly before the election. Too lazy to look it up.

He will do it just to spite the impending democrat party president.

 

Wouldn't 3 weeks before inauguration be more spiteful?

 

Good point!

 

The difference is that if Iran has nuclear weapons there is a slight possibility they would use them against let me guess.......Israel. A country that some in Iran have repeatedly talked about being wiped off the map. Israel has nuclear weapons and has used them, when? Thats the difference smarty. Iran backs terrorist organizations and I'm sure they would have no idea how one of these terrorist got there hands on a nuke.

Any way my guess is not within the years allowed. Hillary will do it.