BS: WW3

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:12 PM

You are living in a city where the police have jurisdiction and the means to enforce it, BB, so the police can and indeed would bust down your door in that case.

Iran is an independent sovereign country in a world full of independent countries who ALL do whatever they damn well please within their own borders, and no one does anything about it, because no one has the jurisdiction to...and more importantly, the means to do anything about it, short of launching a war that will kill millions of people.

And you know it.

Therefore, your analogy does not hold water.

Furthermore, if it did hold water, your analogy would also apply equally well to the USA and Israel, who have both done illegal things on a nunber of ocassions, and "the (international) cops" didn't "bust down their door" for it and arrest them. Same reason: they didn't have the practical means to.

You misunderstand the situation if you imagine that a sovereign nation is in the same position as you are when you start building an A-bomb in your basement in New York City or wherever.

New York City has real laws, BB, and a real police force that can enforce those laws. The world does not. The world is, to all intents and purposes, virtually lawless. It is in truth run by the principle "might makes right", and you know it. The more powerful nations do whatever they wish to with impunity. It has always been that way, despite the periodic attempts to build international organizations such as the U.N. and international rules of war such as the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not saying it should be that way. But it is.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:01 PM

It's not new or the latest then, is it? In fact it's much older than what the IAEA official said in the article I provided.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:38 PM

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/07/3561963

from the clickey

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:37 PM

LH,

"You would like to attack Iran first"


NO.

I would like the IAEA and the UN to ENFORCE the NPT, and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as they agreed when they got the benefits of the NPT. If they do not, then it becomes a possibility that those who are threatened by those illeagal nuclear weapons may take action to eliminate them.


If I started to build a nuclear bomb in MY basement, you can bet that the police would bust down my door and arrest me. So, why should Iran be any different?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:34 PM

The Armed Forces Journal neglected to put a date on that report.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:32 PM

IAEA indicts Iran
Nuclear innocence claim is strongly contested
BY PETER BROOKES
New intelligence continues to blast away like a sledgehammer at Iran's rocklike insistence that its nuclear program is purely peaceful and not a nuclear weapons effort as many strongly believe.

The latest evidence comes out of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which released a nine-page report that casts serious doubt on Iran's purported pacifist power program.

In a dramatic change, based on new, multisource, multilateral intelligence received over time from its members, the IAEA has shifted its position from being unable to prove Iran has a nuclear weapons program to being unable to prove Iran doesn't have one.

Regrettably, the nuclear weapons shoe increasingly fits Iran's foot quite snuggly.

ATOMIC ACCUSATIONS

Based on 18 hard-copy and electronic documents provided to the IAEA, the nuclear-monitoring agency revealed in its report in late May several deeply disturbing concerns on the nature of Iran's nuclear program, especially possible military dimensions. In its first formal assessment of Iran's nuclear efforts since February, the IAEA states: "The agency is of the view that Iran may have additional information, in particular on high explosives testing and missile-related activities, which could shed more light on the nature of these alleged studies and which Iran should share with the agency."

The IAEA considers these unanswered questions on Iran's nuclear work "a matter of serious concern," because the existence of this sort of activity might indicate Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon, contrary to its repeated public protestations.

Moreover, the report states: "Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to supports Iran's statements," despite the new intelligence, which is "detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent."

The first charge is that Iran is suspected of conducting high explosives testing. This includes work with exploding bridgewire (EBW) detonators and a detonator firing unit, which could be used for triggering a nuclear weapon; 500 EBW detonators were tested.

In addition, a five-page document described experiments for a "complex multipoint initiation system" to "detonate a substantial amount of high explosive in hemispherical geometry" that could be employed in an implosion-type nuclear device.

Tehran also is accused of developing plans for underground explosives testing, which could be used for detonating a nuclear weapon similar to the testing done by North Korea when it joined the once-exclusive nuclear club in October 2006.

The documents include a diagram for what is described as a 400-meter-deep shaft located 10 kilometers from a firing control point, showing "the placement of various electronic systems such as a control unit and a high-voltage power generator."

There is also a mysterious piece of information the IAEA calls the "uranium metal document" in its report, which is related to the "actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon." The document reportedly involves procedures for machining highly enriched uranium metal into a hemispherical shape, key to producing the rounded pits used in modern implosion-type nuclear weapon warheads.

Strikingly, the report notes that "Pakistan has confirmed, in response to the agency's request, that an identical document exists in Pakistan" to the one found in Iran — possibly showing connections to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.


more

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:32 PM

The fact that there are rumours and innuendos about the possibility that some nation may be trying to build an atomic weapon is no justification for attacking that nation and starting a war.

The fact that there are rumours and innuendos about the possibility that some nation may have any kind of WMDs in its possession (such as in the case of Iraq in 2003) is no justification for attacking that nation and starting a war.

The fact that you think someone might attack you some day is no justification for attacking them NOW and starting a war.

The fact that you think your neighbour has a hidden gun and wants to shoot you some day is no justification for going over to your neighbour's house TODAY, kicking in his door, and shooting him. Ask the police what they think about that if you don't believe me.

Yet that is what you and Israel seem to wish to do, BB. You would like to attack Iran first upon your stated suspicion about something they may or may not have and may or may not do at some unknown time in the future. You would like to do what you don't think anyone else HAS the right to do...that is, commit mass murder upon someone whom you regard as your enemy, regardless of whether your enemy has done that to you.

You have no leg to stand on in that regard. Neither does Israel.

It is he who attacks first who has started a war, not he who receives that attack. Those who start wars are those who must bear the onus for the death and destruction which follows.

The USA launched a completely illegal war against Iraq in 2003 over false accusations of Iraq having WMDs. You seem to desire a similarly illegal war against Iran over similar accusations for which there is no proof...but here's the really sick part: Even IF Iran had in its possession 10 or 20 nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW and openly admitted it, BUT had not used any of them against anyone, you would have no justification for a first strike on Iran for one simple reason...he who attacks first is the aggressor in a war, and such aggression is totally against international law and is not justifiable, and it's a hell of a lot bigger crime than merely hiding an illegal weapons project (assuming Iran even has such a project to hide, which we don't know).

Furthermore, the Iranians are NOT trying to kill "all Jews". Hardly. There are Jews living in Iran. I have seen Ahmadinejad sitting down and talking in a friendly manner with Orthodox Jews in Iran who oppose the political cause of Zionism. Go look it up in Wickpedia and a few thousand other addresses on the Net. Here's a quote directly from Wickipedia:

"The current Jewish population of Iran is estimated by most sources to be 25,000,[5][6][7][8] though estimates vary, as low as 11,000 [9] and as high as 40,000[10]. Notable population centers include Tehran, Isfahan (1,200)[9], and Shiraz. Historically, Jews maintained a presence in many more Iranian cities. Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution.[6] Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim-majority country.[11] After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East.[12"

The Iranians are not opposed to the existence Jews as a people, they are opposed to the present political cause of Zionism (land grabbing) as practiced by the state of Israel. They are not anti-semitic, they are anti-Zionist.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:04 PM

In the article I posted, the IAEA corroborated what the Iranian official said. So I guess it's not the Iranian official who is lying. (Maybe it's the one who has pulled the August prediction out of their ass.)

"Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."

    The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:52 PM

CarolC,

You base your arguement on the lies that the Iranian spokesperson said- that the monitoring has continued. Since the IAEA has stated otherwise, and they are the ones monitoring. I guess we know who has been pulling what out of their ass.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:36 PM

However, if the prediction is based on the hypothetical possibility that Iran could possibly have brought in some hypothetical material that Syria might hypothetically have, and that they might hypothetically be enriching it at hypothetical facilities that nobody knows about, well... I guess its safe to say that the prediction is something that was pulled out of someone's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:26 PM

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/02/shockah-iran-bomb-threat-hyped-by-media-again.html

Despite all the hype about the latest IAEA report on Iran (PDF) the key phrase, repeated a lot in the IAEA reports is "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times." But that little detail normally comes out around paragraph five in news reports, if at all.

The Guardian, after a hyped lead, actually quoted an Agency official:

    "Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."

    The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."

The Guardian's Julian Borger then goes on to quote David Albright, who mentioned this "enough uranium for a bomb" twisted technicality in an analysis by his Institute for Science and International Security of the last IAEA report back in November, and has been bending it like Beckham ever since, motive unknown.

    "They have reached a nuclear weapons breakout capability. You can dance about it, but they would have enough to make 20-25 kg of weapons-grade HEU," Albright said. "If they break out they will do it at a clandestine facility, not at Natanz, so you can't use Natanz as a measure of how fast they could do it. The Iranians have stopped telling the IAEA about the production of centrifuges � so the agency doesn't know how many they are making."

But they'd have to use this LEU - which is "under containment and surveillance at all times" - in their clandestine facility or wait another 3 or four years to enrich enough uranium from hundreds of tonnes of raw material clandestinely kept separately from the stocks monitored by the IAEA, which they'd have to clandestinely ship into the country and then clandestinely convert into UF6 gas at yet another secret plant. David Albright can "dance about it", but the world would have instant warning of an Iranian breakout and at least a year to decide what to do about such an event.

Iran knows it too. Reuters, Nov 22:

    Iran's envoy to the atomic energy agency said that for Iran to militarize enrichment operations would require a complex, time-consuming reconfiguration of the process that inspectors could not fail to notice unless they were kicked out.

    "This information has no technical basis and gives wrong and misleading information to the public," Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters after an IAEA briefing about the report, provided for its 35-nation Board of Governors.

    "In Natanz [main enrichment plant], all material produced goes into a closed container sealed by IAEA seals and watched by cameras. As soon as anyone wanted to touch the seals, the next second the whole world would know," he said.

    "Because of this it is absolutely impossible to rearrange and use this low-enriched uranium to turn into high-enriched. It means stopping inspections, stopping cameras and coming out of the NPT, and we will not do that."

Back when he wasn't being asked for quotes hyping the threat from the media, Albright himself wrote that just about the only thing that could convince Iran to kick out the IAEA would be an attack on its existing civilian facilities.

Occam's Razor, take a backseat please, we've news to hype.

Update: Our friend and real-life nuclear analyst Cheryl Rofer writes in comment's over at Kevin Drum's blog:

    This stupid formulation showed up a few weeks back. Yes, they have enough atoms of U-235. ... so do lots of countries. The point is getting them all together at one time, which Iran hasn't done yet, and won't be able to do as long as IAEA inspectors are in the country.

    As Muhammed ElBaradei (Director-General of the IAEA) said, "As long as we are monitoring their facilities, they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight." That wasn't exciting enough to get into the news.

    I am really irritated that so many reporters are dumb enough to continue to repeat this "Iran would have enough material for a bomb if it had enough material for a bomb."

Update 2: Cheryl has a post at her own blog.

    if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

    The issue here is concentration...Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration.

    ...Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance...There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:53 PM

Bruce - its time you provided references for these claims.

This discussion can go no further till we know who's claims are accurate and who's inaccurate.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:40 PM

Bruce, the date I am speaking of is the date or thread in which you "in late 2007" predicted the likelihood of war by August 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:34 PM

Ebbie,

"Bruce, do you have a date in mind when you first posted your conjecturing "in late 2007"? I went looking to see your actual prediction but hey, 'tis a big job."


My prediction was July to early August 2009.




"And are you saying that you, personally, know better than the 'experts' what Iran has on tap and in mind? CarolC's post is the latest official position. "

Which "experts"? The ones that the administration has on tap, to give them the answers that they want? The international consensus of those working in the field? The Israeli government's analysis? What the Iranians have told the UN? Do you really expect the UN to acknowledge that they have failed to enforce the NPT, and Iran is as close as it is to having nuclear weapons???? They already have IRBMs, so most of Europe is withing range, if anyone protests.



I based my analysis on open literature sources, and a basic knowledge of nuclear physics. ***I*** can buid a first generation bomb in less than 6 months, given the fissionable material... And Syria has Iraq's former supply of Uranium ( shipped to Syria while the UN dithered about the US not invading in early 2003), and Iran has more than sufficient to have been running breeder reactors for a while, now.

Chemical seperation of the plutonium from the used fuel, then machining and assembly. Not really all that hard- WE did it back in 1945, and information is openly available as to how it is done.

Yes, it is hazardous- but to a nation that put it's civilians out in front of advancing troops to set off mines (during the Iran/Iraq war), how much does that matter???

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:26 PM

"They verified a negative?

Yet you complained when Bush asked saddam to do so..."


Iraq shouldn't have had to verify a negative.


Neither should Iran.


Iran is next to Iraq and they saw what happened to Iraq so they probably felt it would be easier to go with the flow.


Either way, the point in quotes is argumentative fluff, having no bearing on whether Iran has or hasn't got a nuclear weapons. capability.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:23 PM

Bruce, do you have a date in mind when you first posted your conjecturing "in late 2007"? I went looking to see your actual prediction but hey, 'tis a big job.

And are you saying that you, personally, know better than the 'experts' what Iran has on tap and in mind? CarolC's post is the latest official position.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:21 PM

This debate should probably hold until either party is able to provide a link to an authoritative and acceptably reliable source showing what is known, and how much is known about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:19 PM

They verified a negative?

Yet you complained when Bush asked saddam to do so...

EVEN if they did not have enough centrifuges ( a point I do not concede, they DO have enough to provide fuel for a reactor- which cqan be used to make plutonium. So, by all counts of time, they have had enough time to produce in excess of the 10 KG of fissionable material that a first-generation bomb requires.



That and 6 months of engineering gets you a large mushroom cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:15 PM

It's a fact, and it's been verified.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:13 PM

"It's not possible for Iran to have nuclear weapons grade material by August. They don't have the ability to enrich the uranium to the required concentration. Not by a long shot. "



Bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:09 PM

It's not possible for Iran to have nuclear weapons grade material by August. They don't have the ability to enrich the uranium to the required concentration. Not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:15 AM

"I preume that August is the product of Iran having nuclear weapons in "six months"?"

The time of August 2009 was predicted ( by me) back in late 2007. It was based on a reasonable analysis of the time required to produce enough material for several weapons, and the time for the ( Democratic) administration to demonstrate a lack of willingness to hold Iran to it's NPT requirements.


" Is that the scenario in which you make your predictions, bb? "

I gave a possible ( likely?) scenarion. There are others, involving Pakistan or North Korea. Should I specify the parameters on those, as well?





"Starting from when? Are you postulating that the first thing that Iran will do is use its alleged nuclear weapons? Why?"


Iran will provide it's proxies ( Hezboallah/Syria) with weapons as soon as it THINKS that it has some plausible deniability on their use.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:55 AM

Ebbie,

If Israel uses nuclear weapons, it wil be because the majority of it's population is dead or dying.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:54 AM

I'll be darned, pdq. lol I never noticed that typo. The line, of course, is 'Better Dead than Red'.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:41 AM

"...It also reminds me of the old 'better dead than read' screed..." ~ Ebbie

Are you talking about a book by Al Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:34 AM

To me, your answer doesn't match my questions.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:15 AM

Ebbie,

re:"In my opinion, no government has the right to condemn its people to death in the name of avoiding a political fate."


If Israel uses nuclear weapons, it will be because:

1. Deterence has failed.
2. The state of Israel is in real danger of being destroyed- by those who have stated they wish to killl all the Jews.

See WW II and Masada. Look at the 830,000 Jews driven from Arab nations ( Re the 640,000 Palestinian Arabs that fled Israel) - hear ANY calls for their rights of compensation?)When 35% + of the members of a religion have their lives taken, one might expect them to fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:30 PM

I preume that August is the product of Iran having nuclear weapons in "six months"? Is that the scenario in which you make your predictions, bb? Starting from when? Are you postulating that the first thing that Iran will do is use its alleged nuclear weapons? Why?

I can see - just barely - why a country under attack and in danger of annihilation would use its ultimate weaponry but certainly not otherwise. Why would a nation invite certain destruction?

As for Israel "taking others/everyone down with them" there is no way I believe in that either. Reminds me too terribly much of a person bent on suicide but who decides to murder others before they go.

It also reminds me of the old 'better dead than read' screed from a few generations ago. I have never bought into that. In my opinion, no government has the right to condemn its people to death in the name of avoiding a political fate. "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day".

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Well, it was second to last before I made my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:14 PM

I did not suggest that Israel would use a nuclear bomb of their own as a false flag operation. That idea comes entirely from the second to last poster in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:51 PM

Wolfgang,

"I advise you to start thinking about what to say if your doomsday prediction turns out to be wrong what I think is very likely."

Actually, I HOPE I am wrong, but FEAR that I am not. Just because my analysis of the situation leads me to this prediction does not mean I desire or wish for it to happen.

But how many times does Israel have to shout ( to Iran) "Stop! Or I'll shoot!"??? The rest of the world has been told that the illegal possesion of nuclear arms ( re the NPT) by Iran is NOT acceptable to Israel- and has done nothing.

Given that China gets oil from Iran, and a nuclear attack of Iran could well destroy those oil fields, and Russia has been taking Iran's side, can one really expect the situation as I have postulated as NOT becoming a world-wide conflict, with 200- 600 million dead? Wishing it does not happen will not make the situation change in the least.

When was it that the EU told Bush not to take any action against Iran, because the EU would resolve the problem "diplomatically"?

And at that time, how long was it before Iran could "Possibly " have a nuclear weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:30 PM

I predicted a war involving WMD by both sides, between the US or an ally and other parties, by August, 2009, IF the Democrats won the election ( this was BEFORE Obama was a candidate).


No reason yet to change my prediction.

beardedbruce, I advise you to start thinking about what to say if your doomsday prediction turns out to be wrong what I think is very likely. You could take a look at some religious fringe groups in the USA who have predicted the end of the world and have been wrong:

The first excuse is a slight change of the time. Give a few months and you have bought time. But then it becomes more difficult. They then usually say that their prayers have induced God to change his plans. I can't think of a useful way to apply this argument here.

Israel would in a false flag operation kill more than 50% of its inhabitants by triggering a nuclear bomb from their own arsenal at home and then try to blame Iran?

Complete nonsense.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:58 PM

I have a great sense of humor. That smear just wasn't funny. It was a smear.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:56 PM

It was supposed to be a joke, Carol. But then, one has to have a sense of humor, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:37 PM

That's really good to know. There's good people all over the world who are working hard to try to help the people in Palestine. I would definitely have expected some of them to be from Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:33 PM

Just so you know , there a group of people who are now as we speak in Palestinian , helping people who have lost their legs ,
last week there was a soldier in US who lost his leg in Iraq , he got an electrical hi tec leg from company here in Iceland , called ÖSSUR ,
same people are now making legs for the palestinian people . Idont know
what kind of leg they are make , but its an leg so they can walk again.

And please dont start telling me that we are helping terrorist and bla bla bla bla bla , we just helping people who got in the middle
of this war .

Icelanders , and I am proud for that , we can help people.

Kv Skarpi Iceland .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:19 PM

I note that the practice of attacking people who are working for Palestinian rights, using against them things they never said and attacking them for those things, is a standard hasbara tactic. It is used to smear and discredit the person it is being used against, not because the hasbara agent doing the attacking actually has any legitimate arguments, but rather, precisely because they don't have any legitimate arguments (because they are trying to defend the indefensible), so smears and personal attacks are all they have to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:44 AM

No, I realize that. I was talking about the other person.

Thanks! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:36 AM

a cheap personal attack, and a straw man, no less. I'm disappointed.

Carol, its not an personal attack , not from me anyway .

kv Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:16 AM

...a cheap personal attack, and a straw man, no less. I'm disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:11 AM

Wow. I never would have expected such a cheap personal attack from that source. So noted.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:54 AM

How about lutefisk, Skarpi?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:02 AM

Be careful...you will have CaroC frantically searching the internet for somebody who says the Palestinians were there first. whaa !!!

to have the Brennivin and the rotten shark ?? no way men , this only done in the North atlantic area .

hee hee ,
kv Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:33 AM

Be careful...you will have CaroC frantically searching the internet for somebody who says the Palestinians were there first.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:22 AM

Jews on the Moon??? Wha-???? Has Woody Allen done a space trip recently or something?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:47 AM

Which stuff - the Brennivin or Jews on the moon?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:50 PM

I'm glad to see we're finally getting around to the stuff that really matters! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:48 PM

Brennivin and rotten shark is the best argument in favour of nuclear war that I am aware of, though having said that I think it qualifies as both chemical and biological warfare combined and as such is a pretty potent WMD in its own right, so it serves as a detterrent to nuclear attack ...

the result is a scandanavian standoff.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:46 PM

It sounds disgusting!

The Brennivín and rotten shark, I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:39 PM

But most importantly, I await - with great interest - your reaction to the more weighty matter of the nachos and the kangaroo. ;-)

hahahaha
I rather have Brennivín and rotten shark thank you .
its an old viking food, witch I like alot , and I have to say some
of fellow Mudcatters have already try it with an awful result.

we still make that old way of do in this food , think of it
if would have to live without electric for our houses , all the food would be damage . for exsamble if we had a n-clear war .

kv Skarpi Iceland