Yes. This circumstance is of grave concern.

Just give them time...they'll destroy themselves from within.

It's just a pity so many innocent civilians will lose their lives during the process.

Keep a watchful eye on Israel, they may well take advantage of the situation if it deteriorates further.

I'm only pleased the UK is well out of it.

not yet, but maybe at soime time in the future. However, I give that no chances to destroy the program (just to delay it a bit), as long as it is no nuclear strike. check the demographic development in Israel, and the ethnic structure of it's population. Assess the to be expected inner rebellion in Israel if they deliver a preemptive nuclear strike. Go figure. I don't think that scenario is very likely. So we will see a nuclear armed Iran sooner or later, or we will see a failed conventional war/strike/operation - and a nuclear armed Iran not sooner but a bit later.

Considering the Western dependance on Muslim oil it is unlikely that the Western powers would attack Iran'S nuclear research and constuction sites with nukes. MOABs, air-absorbing megabombs and cave buster are however useless if you do not have precise target coordinates to hit the armored subterranean sites inside the huge compounds. To know there is an area 15x25 km in size, is one thing. To know where the entrance to the hidden laboratory or factory is on that areal so that a conventional bomb has at least a chance to penetrate at the entrance - that is somethign different. you would need several hundred MOABs to clusterbomb the nuclear research facility sites in a manner that you can assume to have done at least some damage. Even the heaviest bomb dropped from the hi9ghest altitude penetrates the ground only some meter for reasons of elemantary physics. And when it explodes it may still be meter away from the subterranea shelters that are hardened by 1-3 meters or more of steel concrete. If you use 100 MOABs in just one site (assuming you produce them in such quantities), why would anyone assume that they would do less damage to human life on the ground, than a limited nuclear strike would do? I think to make that distinction is sentimental, but irrational.

I do not say i like nukes dropped on iran. I do not like that at all, nor do I think right now already is the time. What I say is that if their is a military strike, I do not consider a conventional strike to be sufficient to achieve the mission objective. You have to make a decision then. The price for bringing the Iranian weapon program to destruction is so and so high - either you are willing to pay that price, or not. How desperately does the West want Iran having no nukes? - i think not desperately enough. I prepare for a future seeing a nuclear armed iran, therefore. and that will have most unpleasant consequences first in the region, and a bit later around the whole world.

Thank you for your reply Mr. Skybird. I don't think a nuclear response is indicated at this time. A conventional bombing would set Iran back, much like it did in Iraq.

The Oil issue is a tricky one indeed. Prices have already started their upward swing.

Ahmadinejad is praying that Obama intervenes. If Obama publicly backs Mousavi, Mousavi will lose half of his support overnight. Ahmadinejad will just call the protesters American puppets, and his job will become a lot easier.

Some lovely evidence of photoshopping the pictures taken at the pro Ahmadinejads rallies to make the crowd look bigger than it was:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/06/...ed-supporters/

If you don't have a Stratfor account I would recommend getting one. For those who do, please check out

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...ranian_reality

A most interesting read exploring the hypothesis that Ahmadinejad may have legitimately won.

Most people in iran weren't even born during the islamic revolution. The median age of its population is around 26 years old, by contrast that of the USA is almost 37 years old and Germany is 43 years old. What does that tell you ?

Sources : wolframalpha.

A nuclear response is not indicated now, tomorrow or ever.
Those that think otherwise are out of their ****ing minds literally.

The state of Iran has agreed tp a parital recount explaining that it would take several days ...

How then did they count all of the votes and announce the winner in just two hours after the polls closed?

To allow either candidate to be declared a winner is a no win for the mullahs at this point. The only correct action to maintain a secure grip on power is execute both and announce new elections and regret that the two leading candidates will be physically unable to participate.

:fff:

The best way to deal with a tidal wave is just to wait for it to die down.
I'm guessing that's the tactic they are trying.

I know that. However there are the parents of the current youn generation, and I am generation 67 and have not been born when wwii took place. Nevertheless I know about Hitler, and events. What does this tell you, then?

One can learn from a past one has not experienced oneself nonetheless.

not in case of Iran, a delay of 12-24 hours is to be expected. That 8 millions ballots should have been counted almost immediately after the polling stations closed, is highly suspicious.

I love that the Ayatollah has come out and said that yes, there appears to have been fraud.

..
.
.


The result was supposed to be 85% in Alphabetty-spaghetti's favour!!:salute: