Iran current events. - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Iran current events.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: martin3030

Though the planned meeting between states to decide whether Iran should be referred to the Security council has once again been cancelled,whats the views of RMP members?

The US has not ruled out the military option but its rumoured that Iran has heavily fortified its defences around the nuclear installations in question including some Topal -M missiles curtousy of Russia.

Iran has stated that it intends to do some testing in March but a more significant thing is also due to happen then.
Iran is changing from the dollar to the Euro in its petro oil dealings which will have others in the region following suit.
Its no secret that Saddam was planning the same move in 2000 ..............
Last year Russia reduced its Dollar reserve from 75% to 50 % in favour of the Euro.

The dollar has lost over 50% of its value in the last few years and one wonders if the Bush regime now sees the Dollar being threatened which will take the US into recession.
If the Dollar slips from being the Global trading currency in favour of the Euro,its not difficult to work out.

Another problem I see with any military action against Iran is rejection by both Russia and China who have billions invested in Iraq oil.

This is probably the most dangerous prospect the world has faced for a long time and its difficult to see how it will be resolved without becoming even more dangerous.

Posted by: zaniac

Interesting topic to discuss, my personal impression is that Iran is probably up to something and perhaps are wanting nuclear arms. To be fair though I think many countries would wish to have such weapons to protect it borders.
The man in charge of Iran seems very extreme or is just a nutter inviting trouble. It's also going to be worrying when a guy who is deeply extremely religious, has nuclear weapons available to him.

I think there is going to be trouble ahead on this nuclear issue. I just hope the issue gets sorted before things start to get hairy.

Posted by: Raspberry

Now here's another thing about Iran----totally opposite angle.

Iran has asked the United States to allow direct flights between the two countries after a break of more than two decades, a senior civil aviation official said on Thursday.

The request comes as the United States and its European Union allies are pressing for the Islamic Republic to be reported to the United Nations Security Council where it could face possible sanctions for its nuclear program.

"We sent a letter to the relevant American officials on Wednesday, announcing Iran's willingness to resume direct flights," Nourollah Rezai-Niaraki, head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organization, told state television.

He said the decision to make the request was taken by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad due to demand from the large Iranian community living in the United States.

"They have repeatedly complained about wasting time and losing their baggage on connecting flights," the official said.

Iranian airliners have been barred from the United States since the US government broke ties with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

An Iranian civil aviation spokesman said Ahmadinejad's decision did not signal any move to try to improve relations between the two old foes. "I hope American officials do not adopt a political stance in making a decision on this request," said spokesman Reza Jafarzadeh.
The United States and the EU accuse Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. Tehran says it needs nuclear technology to satisfy booming domestic electricity demand.

Iran is subject to US economic sanctions imposed in 1996, under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Due to the sanctions, Iran has struggled to maintain its ageing fleet of aircraft, mostly US-built Boeing planes bought before the 1979 revolution.

This article was from Reuters news service. Kind of interesting that Ahmadinejad, who is about as anti-American as they come, requested this.

Posted by: Jutman

Hi

I think the finally piz the Russian off, whne the refused the Russian solution to the problem, which EU and America accepted.

See the news section, for in-debt explantion. But basically Russia offered to enrich the uranium and then take it back, so Iran could get energy but not could make a nuke bomb.

Posted by: martin3030

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=105626

Here is a link that gives greater detail on what I have been saying.

I have only found this today.

Posted by: clever1

While were on the subject of Iran.

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons

I cam across this by accident.
Full story here.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1011...0.html?from=rss

John

Posted by: martin3030

its typical of the hypocrocy of the whole issue.

While westerners have to bow down to these fanatics and change all the rules to accomodate them and their crazy demands in the name of religion,they are free to do exactly what they want in their quest to change our lives to their every whim.

Posted by: martin3030

John heres a good likn for you.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/

Many answers and an understanding of many questions we dont understand can be found here.

Martin

Posted by: GREGK

I don't think Israel will standby and do nothing while Iran develops a nuclear weapons capacity. After listening to Bush's State of the Union address I doubt that the U.S. will either. Do you suppose Russia's attitude is that they will help Iran with nuclear development for the $ and if it gets destroyed down the road that's not their problem? Scary world we live in!

Posted by: martin3030

Already there are countries on the sidelines here who are in danger of being drawn into this by virtue of their interests.
Yes Israel has nukes,but so has Pakistan.
Israel has a good conventional force,but Russia has given Iraq some of its latest weapons technology including Topol-M missiles with a range of over 6000 miles ability to fly under Radar and a speed of over 1100 miles an hour.
Its one of the most feared missiles on earth.
Whilst Russia I am sure does not relish nuclear conflict,its well known that they have been making big provisions for its survival after the event.

I dont suppose at this moment anyone can safely predict the outcome as there are many issues ongoing here and any one of them can contribute to a powderkeg situ (as if its not already )

Some are speaking of an imminent attack again on the US as being the next move whilst others believe the US will rely on Israel to commence the battle.
There are also lots of conspiracy theories doing the rounds.
Frightening thing is we dont know which one is true.........only that one of them is looking more and more likely to happen soon as this escalates with no one having any answers.

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Whilst Russia I am sure does not relish nuclear conflict,its well known that they have been making big provisions for its survival after the event.

I disagree, no nation on earth makes provision for its country to survive, they make provision for the politicians and anyone else rich enough to afford a place in the special bunkers to survive.

John

Posted by: martin3030

http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1997/bmd970404a.htm

Evil Mountain ...........reported to have accomodation for the whole 60,000 people from the towns above ground who built it.

What about the Moscow metro ?

Built deep underground and Stallins plans for the Moscow poulas to take refuge there ?

What about the reported 250 bunkers built there in last couple of years ?

While the M.O.D. here have sold off most of its command and control centres the de-comissioned Nuke shelters including Hack Green.............The Russians have continued to add to their existing ones !!!

Posted by: martin3030

John that link is quite old 1997
heres the latest one from last year.

http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/2...l-mountain.html

Posted by: Jutman

Hehe

I fianlly see, the news from Jyllandsposten reach this forum, even its indirectly here.

Iran did yesterday a total band of danish products and Danish, Norwegian and Austrain Embassies were attacked.

I have always a neutral attitude towards Iran, and has still somewhat, because there is good people in Iran, they just had a bad leadership, very bad.

Posted by: martin3030

dont care if they dont want your products..............more than happy to have more Lurpak and Danish bacon here..............oops !!!

Posted by: Jutman

Adjusted for the popoulation size difference, UK would loose at least 1 billion � in export to Iran alone.

I have 2 family member, there now has 10 weeks unwillingly vacation and with a risk of getting a permanment one.

Posted by: GREGK

I got to know an Iranian family quite well (dated their daughter) during the hostage crisis in the late 70's. They hated the Shah and his secret police (Savak?), hated Ayatollah Kholmeini and the clerics, and blamed the USA for the whole mess (they are still here though). I wonder what the average Iranian really wants for a government and how they really do view the West at this point.

Posted by: martin3030

Truth is they have no respect for democracy because they have never enjoyed it.

Britain is the 4th most buoyant economy in the world (according to newsnight)

I am sure that we could find a billion pounds worth of trade to make up for Irans shortfall.

After all this is only 13th of BPs profits alone from last 12 months !!!

Posted by: Jutman

Martin, yes of course our economy will not enter recession or anything, but its still money and work.

My knowledge of Iran, is that a lot of people are actually not supportive of the extrem religoius administration, but the church are in poer and decide. To the recent election more than 1000 moderates, weren't allowed to run for parlament. So there is a rather large group of good, moderate iranians, who want the good and free life.

Posted by: martin3030

Of course what you say is whats at the very heart of the scenario.
Change is well overdue but you and I know ,we will never see it.

Posted by: martin3030

seems certain figures in Moscow know a little more about whats going to happen than we do here.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/07/vzhiriran.shtml

He even gives an actual date !!

Posted by: Jutman

Okay, I think too teh West will choose some targets for its planes, and missile, but a regular invasion NO.

If I recall he said the same things, back in November witha planned attack between xmas and Jnauary 8th, because Iran important allied: Russia will be less alert due to the holiday.

and that the story were planted by USA, is ridigolus, because the cartoons were in the paper sept. 29th and coul'nt have foreseen, it will take this long before an reaction not to mention the indepence of the the paper.

Of course Russia is against the attack due to the business they have together, like the new rail route, they have ordred some new Tupolevs, so yes the liberal/national politican has an huge inteest in iran.

Posted by: zaniac

Many of the military analysts that I've seen on TV, have said in relation to Iran that the chances of a full on invasion is very unlikely. It is believed as Jutman has mentioned that selected/targeted missile strikes will be the preferred option.

Posted by: martin3030

And hopefully taken care of by Israel.............

Posted by: Jutman

If there wll such an action, it will be wothout involment of Israel. There is several reasons for that.

Posted by: GREGK

And those reasons are?

Posted by: zaniac

Yeah if Israel were to launch any missiles, it will send the middle east peace process back about 20 years. The best thing for that country would be to stay out of it, unless a country attacks them first.

Posted by: Jutman

I will prefer not to post the reason, but remember that during the Iraq attack, Israel was kept out.

Posted by: martin3030

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaniac

Yeah if Israel were to launch any missiles, it will send the middle east peace process back about 20 years. The best thing for that country would be to stay out of it, unless a country attacks them first.

Peace process ?

Theres another 20 peace processes in the pipeline and more in need of sorting than the one we was working on !!

Posted by: GREGK

Israel destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. The Israelis have stated that they will not allow an enemy of Israel to obtain WMD.Eventually either Israel or the USA will take action against Iran if a diplomatic solution is not reached soon. I don't think President Bush will hestitate, so who actually makes the strike will depend on what transpires during the rest of his term.

Posted by: martin3030

On the other hand its known that such a decision by Bush might affect standings in the forthcoming elections.
Russia has asked that nothing be done for at least 5 weeks (which gives Iran enough time to shore up its defences )

Posted by: bg reed

Just going to jump in here with my .02. Many people think that we went into Iraq just to depose Saddam and bring freedom to the Iraqi people. News flash we have known about Irans desire for nuclear weapond for a long time. Problem no great jumping off point from which to effectively take what might become an extended action. Excuse; we didn't finish off Saddam the last time, he's a bad guy, Iraq is not all that strong militarily, Most the world thinks Saddam is a problem. Answer: Knock out Saddam, begin democratic process, have a great place to strike Iran from. (Nothing like being close you know) Anyway most think that Iran has been trouble in the making for a long time.

Posted by: bobjf

what can you expect from a bunch of drongos who think they will go to paradice & get 72 virgins each lol.
islam is a peacefull religin according to them but they have to commit violent acts so us infidels understand them
sooner or later 1 hopes the rest of the world will apply russian solution to these radical terrorists

Posted by: martin3030

Unfortunately Russian links to them will make it worse.

The great prophets actually predict Russia will join with them on the Euro assault.

http://www.crystalinks.com/quatrain...pretations.html

Posted by: BradIL

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin3030

Iran is changing from the dollar to the Euro in its petro oil dealings which will have others in the region following suit.
Its no secret that Saddam was planning the same move in 2000 ..............
Last year Russia reduced its Dollar reserve from 75% to 50 % in favour of the Euro. The dollar has lost over 50% of its value in the last few years and one wonders if the Bush regime now sees the Dollar being threatened which will take the US into recession.
If the Dollar slips from being the Global trading currency in favour of the Euro,its not difficult to work out.

Hey martin... interesting post... I would disagree with a few things... but you certainly have thought matters through. Regarding China... oil investments are the least of the problem. Upset that government and you impact an Iran that is a healthy consumer of Chinese Silkworm missles and a few advanced military weaponry. That earns a healthy profit for PLA (Chinese Army).

Regarding the adjustment of foreign currency reserves... and I hope Jutman will interject his impressions in this thread... but that has been occurring for a few years now. One problem is the tight supply of Euros floating in the world banking system... one of the reasons its value was/is so high against the dollar.

I think that Russia may be hedging that the rest of Europe is poised to shake off the era of low economic growth and see rosier days ahead. Hey... U-S GDP is growing at around 4% a year, with 2% consumer inflation, and decent job growth. I don't see the dollar's fluctuations as causing a recession... interest rate hikes by the U-S Federal Reserve Bank could cause a recession... but unless GDP's in Europe start growing- I just don't see it.

I say Europe... but exclude the Isles (Uk & Ireland)... where the economies seem to be humming along just fine. Especially Ireland... which has to be one of the GREAT economic success stories in the world in the last 20 years!!!

Posted by: Jutman

Hi

A short comment: Your both rigth. The dollar is under under attack, but don't loose value, because Euroland is strugling with poor economics.

Whats goinf to happen, is veru difficult to predict, there is a lot of emotionel actions in the currency world. like a political change, war, and others factors like that.

Posted by: martin3030

Just come home from night out and switched on news(as customary)

I am absolutely flabergasted at what I see.

Biggest selling Sunday Newspaper in England headlines that UK troops abused Iraqui people.........they show picture of soldiers Licking even children on the floor.
I am not angry because I condone it I am angry at the timing of issuing this.

We are in an explosive situ already with the cartoon saga still going on
This incident or incidents reportably go back to 2004 and a video has surfaced now in 2006 !!

It seems too much of a coinsedence to be released at this time.
Either there is a plot to vent anger at the UK (Which we have already had)
to stir up again the Muslim pop..............and thereafter get the British people to react or else a retaliatory from the Middle East pop against the UK.

No guesses who would be saying...........Well now we will have to stand together..........????

My question is

1.Who has orchastrated this?

2.Why did the Newspaper editor not print this back in 2004

3.If this info was not available until now then is he not aware of the powderkeg situ already with the Danish editors ?

Something here stinks more than a sack full of Garlick........

Posted by: BradIL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jutman

Hi A short comment: Your both rigth. The dollar is under under attack, but don't loose value, because Euroland is strugling with poor economics. Whats goinf to happen, is veru difficult to predict, there is a lot of emotionel actions in the currency world. like a political change, war, and others factors like that.

Hey Brian... a quick observation/question. This weaker dollar is a strange thing in the U-S. Sure, America loses strength in the global finance markets... but MY GOD... America is exporting like maniacs! Exports seems to be lifting our GDP. Is the weak dollar all that bad?

Brian... Russia's stockpiles of euros is beginning to look clever to me. Since the economies in the Pacific Rim (Japan, China, Indonesia, etc.) seem to be getting better growth, with reasonable consumer inflation (increasing the value of those currencies), and Russia seems to anticipate better days ahead in euroland; isn't the euro basically selling at a big discount right now? I mean... if future GDP growth in euroland is just decent... euros are actually a bargain right now, yes?

Posted by: bobjf

didn,t nostradamus predict the bear, the eagle & the dragon would rise up against the muslims when they finaly go to far

Posted by: clever1

John

Posted by: Jutman

Quote:

America is exporting like maniacs!

BradIL, these seems a little strange. The USA has a trade deficit = the 3 nordic countries GDP combined.

Anyway, the reason too why some economist predicts a more harder time for the dollar, can be explained in the posting numbers. The reserveres was 70% to the dollar but the 70% to do show the reel picture of the trade. America and countties to has hedges their currency to the dollar, is more or less the 50%, which the reserves are reduces to. Finally several countries who has hedge the currency, has problems, postive or negativ. Like in 98' where several Asian devalued the currency, the collaps in Argentina and now the Chinese currency is under presure to rise in value.

Others issues who has an impact, the more and more who asked this question: will USA be able to pay its debt? If the Bush administration is rigth, yes and then we are back to a political issue/religion. A matter of believe.

In USA there are also others economical figures who are, not begative, but dissapointing. like the productive output, the numbers of jobs created and so on.

In Euroland, there is some indicators that the finally the 'train' is ready to gain speed, like the german saving rate is peaking, the french tax reform is starting to show effect adding to a aging workforcce, who will retire.

But again, its a crystall ball and many time others interest may come into consideration, like the arab nations are not interesting in a too low dollar = to small revenue.

and not at least, the interst rate at both side of the atalantic and the reel economical statistics as the months and years to come.

So cheers up. The 'battle' of economics has now only one winner. USA

Posted by: BradIL

Brian/Jutman... I can only go on what the U-S Dept. of Commerce reports... and exports are at record levels (aggregate levels... in real terms, who knows?). Its the same with the federal budget deficit... sure its a record by dollar volume (the ones previously set in the early 1990's)... but the U-S Economy was generating $6 trillion dollars GDP... and now we are at $12 trillion dollars... sooooo... I look at deficits as a percentage of GDP (after all, that is the US federal govts. tax base)... and its around 2-3%.

National debt is fine as long as we are growing. BUT... BUT... demographics (age) of the workforce figure prominently... and YOU ARE RIGHT... there is trouble ahead. Its Congress that spends the money here... and they have spent rapidly the last year or two (excluding war costs).

Job growth is OK--- but steady. The 'yield curve' on US govt. securities is getting flatter... which could be predicting a recession... and that is an unsettling prospect.

Trade deficit? We've had one for so many years... it seems the U-S is a buyer of last resort in the world... especially for the developing economies around the globe.

Posted by: rnmedix

if this situation festers, we're going to be looking at $100 a barrel oil, in which case we'll have cost push inflation, and the fed will raise rates, with a real slowdown. unfortunately, i think this is the probable scenario as this drama heats up.

we're witnessing a clash of cultures, islam and the west. i wonder what dark days may be ahead when i think of a nuclear iran, north korea, or political upheavel in pakistan, where some members of the military have fundamentalist loyalties. even a little nuclear material in the wrong hands can certainly destablize things.

as far as the planet, i think we're finally on the cusp of practical alternative energy sources that will allow us to start migrating from fossil fuels. it's too bad big oil runs the politcal machinery in the united states, or we'd be much farther down the road to viable alternative energy sources.

Posted by: martin3030

Good point .........if there were any alternative forms of renewable energy either its been kept top secret or its too late !!

The barrel has fell this week thats good news for the man in the street but bad news for the stock markets.

Of course you are spot on when tou talk about unrest in society and even the Russian newspapers are beginning to report on the scenario making its predictions (Nostradamus was featured as being the biggest name internet hit)

The problem is at the moment there are so many influencing factors here with one thing and another,that there is much uncertaincy and the forecasts can go out of the window on a daily basis.

As it is on paper we can deliberate about this and that we can assume that GDP will be on course.

But as everyone knows this can change very quickly.
Diversification.

Instability is the operative word no one can rely on their forecasts and projections anymore this is 2006

Nostradamus may have held the key................but even HE I dont think could know what mess lies between his predictions !!!

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I take the following analysis of Nostradamus' predictions from:
http://ww-iii.netfirms.com/

Events may not all happen or in the order given.
These are all possible options but within them is the future of what will come.

To summarize what I have analyzed in this site, based on various prophecies, the Third World War would start when Russia suddenly attacks Europe in coalition with certain Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya and probably China.

Prior to the World War III, USA would be severely crippled by terrorist attacks, assassinations, a civil war and an economic collapse. Prior to that, there would be a civil war in Italy, during which the Vatican would be overrun by the mob. The Pope would escape but many of his cardinals would die. The palace and the chapels would be burnt down. While on the run, the Pope would be captured and killed. There would be a schism in the Vatican and three Popes would reign at the same time, propped up by competing powers. Supported by US and other catholic countries, the Papacy would be shifted elsewhere and a "true" Pope would be elected there.

Europe would be almost overrun by the Russian and eastern forces and many of its cities and also those of USA would be destroyed by conventional weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Russia would attack from the North as well as from the East of Europe. An Arab / Iranian army would attack from the south. The Pope, and later the British Prime Minister would be forced to flee to the US. Paris would be destroyed by "revolutionaries" within France. The attack on the US would stop the Civil War there.

New types of weapons, like Chemical Weapons and particularly what appears to be portable Laser weapons, would be used in the war. At the same time an unprecedented disaster would take place. A comet would suddenly appear over the earth in the peak of the war, would break into several pieces and fall to the earth. Smaller pieces would rain fire on cities and forests all over the world, burning them down. A large piece would fall into the sea creating a Tsunami of Biblical proportions, flooding parts of Europe (including Britain), USA and Africa. One medium sized chunk would fall on land, creating a huge crater, resulting in earthquake and volcano activities all over the world. This event would loosen the grip of the invading army over Europe.

A joint coalition of US and European forces under the leadership of a charismatic leader "Chiren" would organize a counter-attack against the invading forces in Europe and elsewhere. The Russian forces in Europe would be almost destroyed by the counter-attack and this would lead to a revolution in Russia and the Russian leader who started the war would be assassinated. Russia, under a new leader would then join the western coalition and fight against its former allies, who would eventually be defeated. The Pope would return to Europe and Chiren would be crowned the Monarch. Peace would return to the world after a loss of almost two-thirds of its population and the wealth of nations accumulated over millennia. But this would surely not be the end of the world.

It is hard to understand at this stage why Russia would suddenly attack Europe. Yet, most of the prophecies seem to agree on this part. Logically too, it is only Russia which has the capability to take on the might of USA and Europe, even after the break up of its empire. It still has sufficient nuclear weapons, technology and manpower to do so. The overall picture of the events leading to the World War is not clear. What appears from some prophecies is that immediately preceding the war, Russia would have tensions with the west over some Middle Eastern affair. But the actual war would begin after the assassination of a political leader in the Balkan area, who could be the famous "Mabus" often discussed in the context of Nostradamus's prophecies. The Russian attack might be a result of its perception that the assassination, probably in one of its friendly countries, could be a prelude to an western invasion and the best way would be to pre-empt it.

A major terrorist attack on the US, assassination of some world leaders and another war in the Middle East may precede the Third World War, apart from numerous natural disasters. Some prophecies say that before the 3rd World War, Israel would grant statehood to Palestine. Then oil would be discovered there and a war would start between Israel and Palestine. It is probable that it is this war that would generate tensions between USA and Russia, since US and Russian fleets are said to confront each other in a tense standoff in the Mediterranean before the war in yet another prophecy.

The Bible and the Islamic texts also mention Iraq. It is said that the river Euphrates would dry up and something would be discovered in its dried up riverbed, which would cause much tension among nations.

There are also prophecies on the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount in Jerusalem before the war and the death of Saddam Hussein in US custody even before his trial begins. (Didn't happen)

Of course these are predictions hundreds of years old, but......I wonder....

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

All predictions are options and not written in stone.

Often they are not understood until after the fact and then become clear.

Russia may very well not invade Europe but side with the West at the beginning and end the war sooner if they see it in their best interest.

Nostradamus did not give predictions in perfect chronological order and often skipped around timeline events; however, he mostly was accurate within 30 years of a group of events and options of what was to come.

One of his predictions predicted the terror attack on the New City of the New World, and before 9/11 it was assumed by analysis of his words to be a nuclear attack from an Islamic leader against NY.

Well we know now it was against New York but not nuclear. This is how his visions make more sense after the fact.

This man who lived in the 1500s predicted the Black Death of Europe, all major wars and their outcomes, the rise and fall of Hitler, the atomic bomb, the car, the airplane, the laser, computers and the internet and men in space-even the Space Station. He even fortold of the European Union.

All his successful predictions are too many to say, and would fill a book.

His all seeing words are not to be ignored.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

2008-MAR-21: World War

The British group The Lord's Witnesses believe that the Bible contains codes which can be used to predict, amongst other events, the end of the World. Based on this code they have charted the history of Mankind from the birth of Adam in the year 4027BC to its destruction in 2008 � the result of a horrific world war.

2012 : Mayan Calendar

The Mayan calendar is divided into months of 20 days, years of 360 days, katun of 7200 days and a baktun of 144,000 days. According to this ancient civilization the world will last for exactly 13 baktun cycles. Their calendar started on 3114-AUG-13 BCE with the birth of Venus and they expected the world to end during the Winter Solstice of 2012.

and there are others....

At least Nostradamus gives humanity's end in the 26th century from pollution.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

With the death of Pope John Paul II on 3rd April 2005, the Prophecies of St. Malachy have once again become the topic of discussion. Malachy termed Pope John Paul II - the 110th Pope since his prophecy, as "De Labore Solis" or "The labor of the Sun". Pope John Paul II was born on 18th May, 1920, the day when a Solar Eclipse took place. His burial was set on 8th April, 2005 and on that day a Solar Eclipse took place once again, making the prophecy of Malachy more meaningful.

The next Pope, the 111th and the penultimate, was termed "The Glory of Olive" by Malachy. "Peter the Roman" coming after him, would be the last Pope, during whose time, the world would come to an end. Many say that the original prophecy did not mention "Peter the Roman" and his name was inserted afterwards and that "The Glory of the Olive" would be the last Pope. This prophecy was fulfilled (or made to fulfill) by Cardinal Ratzinger, who after his election as Pope took the name "Pope Benedict XVI". St. Benedict started the order of Benedictines or "Olivetans", as they are popularly known. However, if we go by the prophecies of Abbott "Merlin" Joachim, St. Malachy's prophecy would signify the deeds during his Papacy, rather than the name he takes.

There are some contradictions in our understanding of the prophecies of St. Malachy and those of Nostradamus. But many prophecies, including those of Nostradamus speak of a "Great Pope" reigning after the war along with the "Great Monarch". Nostradamus says in V.56 - Through the death of a very old Pope will be elected a Roman of good age. It will be said of him that he weakens the (Holy) Seat, but he will hold it long and with stinging effort.

This quatrain may refer to the election of an aged Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, after the death of a very old Pope Following the death of Pope John Paul II., Joseph Ratzinger, aged 78 was elected Pope Benedict XVI. He was one of the oldest Popes in history at the time of election.

Criticized by many within the Church as fundamentalist and divisive, Nostradamus seems to say that this Pope would reign for a long time inspite of the criticism and would run the affairs of the Church with a strong hand.

Does the new leader have to be a politician?

A few of the quatrains of Nostradamus on "Chiren" are given below -

The great Chyren will be the Chief of the World, after "Plus oultre" loved, feared and dreaded. His fame and praise go beyond the heavens and he will be greatly satisfied with the sole title of victor - VI.70

Of Trojan blood he will be born with a German heart and will rise to a very great power. He will drive out the foreign, Arabic nation and return the Church to her early glory - V.74

I had a bad feeling about this new Pope.

Posted by: Jutman

Quote:

if there were any alternative forms of renewable energy either its been kept top secret or its too late !!

What about wind? its just a lot of countries who has'nt choosen to invest in it. In Denmark more than 20% of its energy comes from that and soon its 33%.

And the development keeps going on and on, secondly it seems that wawe energy seems to raise in near future.

and now USA. China, Russia and EU all are going to invest masevely in atomic energy.
So it seems that we just need to push, so cars and trains are all electric and then is there only airplanes and ships who need oil.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory...ifugal-Inertial

Wind power has very high maintenance problems and does not support return on investment nearly as good as terra-thermo or solar. But at this site are the truely fantastic ideas of tomorrow.

Posted by: Jutman

But solar panles are expensive to make and is limited to countries witha certain hours of sunshine.
We have them in Denmark, but... Its not that important for us.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

The price of solar panels are coming down and there are designs for home roofs almost cost effective for good solar areas.

Development will be taylored for the climate and needs of each area.
The science is there but the investments or still to be given and it does not help for the controling energy interest to block new ideas.

Europe has flash water heating inline systems while we still use hot water tanks that are very expensive and wasteful. Big companies here blocked the flash heaters and still claim them to be unsafe in the media.

Hydrogen fuel cells are the best going energy plants for cars now, but the infrastructure of service stations must be develop.

I just hope we are around to get it done.

Posted by: Jutman

BradIL

Some data from worldfactbook:

GDP (PPP) 12,37 Bill. $

Budget revenue 2119
expenditure 2466
difference -347 (that was in 2005)
419 In 2006 estimat

diff. of 2005 of GDP 2,8%

Public debt 64,7 % of GDP

Export 928 Bill $
Import 1727
Difference -799

Comments:
Okay, the data is not so bad as it look, but mostly because there has been a change in structure of recording the GDP. For 2 years ago, the GDP was less than 10 billion. So suddenly USA was 20% more rich ??? (- ther natural growth) However same thing happen in EU in 2000. Suddenly we were 13% more rich. ???????????????

The data is more or less equal to Germany and France. Their decifit is also around 3% of GDP and the public debt is also around the 60+.

But as I comment there is only 1 winner: USA. And it will continue as long the r.o.w. look to USA, and Euroland is'nt booming and China will change politics regarding currency and finally that NYSE will losse its importantance.

Before all this happen - we are into the next decade after the 10. In between there will attacks from various groups who has different interests around the world.
Now the attack is nothing more than demand / supply where the rise when a country is selling out of dollar.

Posted by: Jutman

Quote:

Hydrogen fuel cells are the best going energy plants for cars now, but the infrastructure of service stations must be develop.

I not really see it coming. The elctric cars, are just still too expensive, but so are the hydrogen.
10 years ago, aa el car was funny, limited in radius and speed, but today its a normal car, running 80 mph, and the best hits 150 miles at a charge.

enogth for most situations expext LD travel.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Some hydrogen cars currently exist, and a significant amount of research is underway to make the technology more viable. The common internal combustion engine, usually fueled with gasoline (petrol) or diesel liquids, can be converted to run on gaseous hydrogen. However, the most efficient use of hydrogen involves the use of fuel cells and electric motors instead of a traditional engine. Hydrogen reacts with oxygen inside the fuel cells, which produces electricity to power the motors. One primary area of research is hydrogen storage, to try to increase the range of hydrogen vehicles while reducing the weight, energy consumption, and complexity of the storage systems. Two primary methods of storage are metal hydrides and compression.

First hybrids, then all electric and batteries, next hydrogen cells powering electric motors.
goodnight everyone.

Posted by: deccie

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaniac

It's also going to be worrying when a guy who is deeply extremely religious, has nuclear weapons available to him.

I know this is an old post but I had to reply...

What, like GwB? Doesn't he meet the same criteria?

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

We can not say that here.
The thought police........!

Posted by: deccie

My personal view is entirely based on the circumstances we find ourselves in today and not on any historical writings.

A number of things that are going on right now that are interesting...

1. The rise in the gold price. From what I've heard some analysts are hinting at an $800 USD an ounce gold price.

2. The size of the US Deficit.

3. The swing to right wing governments not only in places like the USA but also in traditional liberal European countries.

4. The downsizing of conventional armies in most western countries.

The RAF now has less front line aircraft than it did in 1935. The Royal Navy has been downsized massively. (I think even HMS Invincible got put out to pasture recently)

The US is no different. In order to achieve economies of scale the US replaced the Spruance class destroyers with the Arleigh Burke class whcih are generally agreed to be less capable than the ships they replaced. Did they keep the Spruances in reserve? No - target practice while they still have scores of older ships they could have used instead.

Why did they do that? Well, the Spruances were an Anti Submarine warfare class which is now seeing less emphasis in the post cold war era. But my guess is that the real reason they did it was to reduce manpower requirements per ship. There are NO new frigates on the drawing board. I've not heard of any new class of cruisers to replace the Ticonderoga's yet (Ironically based on a Spruance class Hull).

The Royal Navy is doing similar stuff like getting rid of newer type 23 Destroyers well before their planned replacement dates.

The famous Sea Harrier has been replaced with a version of the same aircraft that no longer has air superiority qualities but is more like a strike aircraft. The Tornado force is being run down. No Jaguar replacement in sight. Buying the Eurofighter in reduced numbers.

Capabilities are being run down all over the place.

In Australia there is a plan to phase out our F-111 force early and before the JSF is brought into service the "strike" capability of our airforce will be P-3 Orions with stand off missles! All the time while our neighbours buy new Russian Flankers.

So my thoughts are that we are seeing a phase very similar to the 1930's before the Second World War. It remains to be seen how long that peace holds.

I just hope GwB is gone before all the crap happens. )-:

Posted by: martin3030

A pretty detailed account Bob.
I have got a copy of the Bible codes(the one I have was put to print about 4 years ago)
There are things in there that the writer could not have known about then but which have unfolded with pinpoint accuracy.

Of course sceptics argue that its possible the codes could be possibly coinsedence but some of those put the likelyhoods at 200 000-1

The codes speak of very dangerous times 1n 2006 and appear to suggest that it is mans last chance to avoid some very dark days.

Apparantly there is a way to change the course but no one is clear as to what to do to find it.

A great book to have

Posted by: rnmedix

i'd say the next great threat to peace will result from a terrorist act. of course, the terrorists would say that the system they're fighting is the terrorist.

what would the united states do if there were a small nuclear bomb in a major city? people would go absolutely ape! talk about social unrest! what would real estate in any big city be worth? people would be fleeing the cities and running for the countryside. there would be martial law. the economy would crumble with a few more attacks. let's say this is followed by bombs in lodon, paris, berlin, amsterdam, rome. impossible?

what would the response be? who do you attack? do you nuke iran or north korea or remote sections of pakistan and afghanistan? is this scenario, perhaps 3 small suitcase bombs in 3 cities would flatten america's economy, ensuring social mayhem. maybe 7 more sprinkled among the euoropean nations. suddenly, the world is upside down.

when this technology proliferates, which is happening before our eyes, it will be a matter of time before that happens. a bomb for allah against the infidels? with a few strategically placed suitcase bombs the "problem of israel" would be taken care of. bombs in western cities? such actions would be the holy grail for terrorists. these people are prepared to live in caves and they've got an unlimited supply of people willing to blow themselves up for heaven.

i read a story about an ivy league professor who toured the arab world's education system. he said that the "best and brightest students" were all talking whistfully about suitcase nuclear bombs. so we're not talking about an isolated phenomemon of a few fundamentalists. we're talking about broad social support for "Allah's bomb".

do americans really believe there are only a few muslims who dislike us? in iraq, according to polls even the average iraqi guy we're there to liberate approves of americans getting killed in violence. the shiites want us out of there, so they can subjugate the sunnis, who abused them for so long. tribal violence is a way of life in the arab world.

in islamic cultures, the fundamentalists take a very long term view of islam vs the west as a struggle over hundreds of years, which will end when islam triumphs. in the meantime, there are no standards for behavior against your enemies. atomic bombs? paris? london? why not? and if you destroyed priceless art? good, because that's a goal of islamic fundamentalists! the point is, there ain't much to bargain with in this clash of cultures.

Posted by: martin3030

Suitcase bombs have been around since the cold war,Russia are rumoured to have made a couple of hundred of them and its reported that many are missing and unaccounted for.
Both the KGB and Russian government continually denied their existance but more recently have admitted they WERE made after defectors to the West gave detailed accounts about them.

American presidents far beyond Bush have known about these.

Its been suggested that some of these Suitcases have already been placed (hidden ) in Western countries where they have been sleeping for some time.
Analysts agree that a simultaneous attack with these would cause chaos and like you said whip up frenzy like never before.
The September 11 attacks were supposed to do just that but the mission was not a total success in that the Pentagon survived and the other plane failed to reach the White house (or Capital Hill )

Given that we know their determination is greater now,and an American defence that is being stretched to its capacity elsewhere,The USA is a sitting duck.

All the early warning systems,border patrols and intelligence cannot stop an orchastrated attack from WITHIN if there is a capability there already to pull it off !!!

They should be searching for these missing suitcases as a matter of life and death............the security at airports ports and borders may be tighter now than ever but these mobile cases of evil have long since escaped the eyes of the passport control officers !

Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jutman

Hehe

I fianlly see, the news from Jyllandsposten reach this forum, even its indirectly here.

Iran did yesterday a total band of danish products and Danish, Norwegian and Austrain Embassies were attacked.

I have always a neutral attitude towards Iran, and has still somewhat, because there is good people in Iran, they just had a bad leadership, very bad.

That is my experience also, Brian:

Good warm-hearted people in Iran, and a government that even the people of Iran don't like.

And, I think that it is important to note that Iranian (Persian) and Arab cultureds are different, as Iranian people will point out if you bring up the subject. Farsi is much different than Arabic, and Islam is a relagion that was brought to Iran by Arab armies (Zorastrianism existed in Iran thousands of years before Islam).

By the way, I like Danish cookies

Khashyar

Posted by: rnmedix

once you've got access to the material (let's say iran enriches to military grade and donates lab space to hamas) then a number of things are possible.

we'd all just be sitting there, or doing whatever we were doing when things went boom. would you just get up and go to work the next morning like nothing had happened? would you get up the next day to work at a grocery store for $8 an hour? would you drive a bus? would you send your children to school? it would make 9-11 look like a fender bender.

i have no answer on the missing nuclear materials. according to media reports, some were lost during the soviet union's disintegration. if they're functional bombs, i wouldn't doubt that they were already placed. there is supposedly a black market of nuclear materials, but i don't believe there has been any weapons grade material recovered by a sting operation. it's one thing to steal a nuclear weapon, and it's another thing to maintain it in workable condition, and be able to deploy it. what makes me skeptical about this is the fact that one hasn't already gone off. i can't help but believe if they could have done it, they would have done it already. however, they're clearly going to be able to do it in the next 10 years or so! i don't see how we can stop them. nuclear proliferation isn't a good thing.

i'm sure there are many levels of spying and counterspying going on between the various governments. the threat is from states sponsoring terrorist organizations that don't operate in the light of day. it's difficult to spy on terrorist groups when they live in lawless tribal regions, since it's hard to fake family connections to penetrate their society.

on the bright side, i have a few acres in the countryside. i believe it will be a wonderful investment in the long run

Posted by: Khashyar

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, would they use it?

I question whether an Iranian government would explode a nuclear bomb.

Although the Iranian government is hardcore Islamic, I also think that they are pretty savvy and intelligent, and they must know the consequences of attacking Israel or nyone else with a nuclear weapon:

1) They would suffer an attack by the U.S. and/or Israel

2) They would be completely cut-off from the the International Community

3) they would probably face an invading army which will have the aim (probably a successful one) of overthrowing the government

I believe that the Iranian Government understands this, and they want to hold onto power as any government does.

What is different about Iran (from a North Korea, for example), and that makes Iran less dangerous, in my opinion, than North Korea, is that while North Korea is led by one "crazy" individual, Iran is led by a totalitarian council of leaders, which I believe make the official policies of the Iranian Government more thought-out than a government led by one person, like former government of Iraq and the current North Korean Government.

Although I believe that the Iranian Government likes to stick its finger in George Bush's eye with certain statements, I don't think that they are crazy enough to detonate a nuclear weapon.

Another aspect: I believe that Iran is genuinely concerned that Israel is reported to have a nuclear weapon, and therefore the Iranian government feels a need to protect itself by having a nuclear deterent.

And with Pakistan and India also possessing nuclear weapons, onec an understand why Iran feels that it has a right to have a nuclear weapon.

I personally would like to see no nation possess a nuclear weapon, but the possiblity of that has passed.

Khashyar

Posted by: martin3030

There is a perception that confusion would reign after the firing of the first missile.

Because a first strike would inevitably be followed by many more in different directions.....it seems there would be no time for questions........or answers to them.

If it was a case of a steady build up then one has time to prepare and reflect.

However we are increasingly being led to believe that a first Nuke could come from a terror group mini bomb there

Posted by: rnmedix

it would only take a small group of individuals to seize control of a nuclear weapon. for example, i've heard reports of pakistan paramilitary groups training to seize weapons. having a certain form of government may not protect from this risk. there are many sympathic to al queda in pakistan's military. so security will be a nightmarish problem, which will grow exponentially with proliferation.

i would agree that a leader such as kim poses yet another type of risk. and as country after country obtains nuclear means, eventually somewhere there will be a mistake or theft and there will be missing material in the hands of extremists. it is a basic flaw in human nature. if there's a weapon invented, people will want it, and in the end it will be used by someone.

what do you do if a terrorist bomb goes off in washington dc, for instance? who do you strike? tehran? who do you blame? do you sterilize vast areas of afghanistan to get at al queda? do you incinerate north korea? the response isn't clear cut.

of course, the average person (iranian, american, pakistani) wants nothing to do with this scenario. most people are good people, who are interesting in enjoying life and raising children. the innocents everywhere are the victims of terrible crimes.

Posted by: rnmedix

there won't be a nuclear attack by a nation, per se. i can't see that at all coming. no one is that stupid. they'd find their country sterilized. the real danger is that there will be nuclear terrorism by groups hiding behind the innocents in some countries.

Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnmedix

there won't be a nuclear attack by a nation, per se. i can't see that at all coming. no one is that stupid. they'd find their country sterilized. the real danger is that there will be nuclear terrorism by groups hiding behind the innocents in some countries.

I agree, medix, that the greatest threat of a nuclear explosion and attack comes from a terrorist somehow receiving a nuclear weapon and commiting a nuclear terrorist attack.

And, I believe that the greatest possibility of where the weapons will come from is from a former Soviet state that has laxed security over their nuclear weapons.

I believe that it is easier to account for a country like pakistan or India, that has a small number of weapons, rather than the former Soviet Union which had thousands.

Khashyar

Posted by: rnmedix

i've read that there's a lot more to it than just getting a warhead itself. although that will change as nuclear weapons proliferate. i'm sure we'll see weapons rebuilt from old weapons, particularly those lost or stolen when the soviet union dissolved. there's no telling where that stuff is, but you can bet that whoever has nuclear materials knows what they have, and they're not turning it over..

Posted by: martin3030

many of the Soviet old guard scientists have been coersed by the prospect of big money (which the terrorists have)

The people who once worked on the nuclear programmes in Russia are now very active elsewhere.

So not only have they the means and money ............but more dangerously they do command the technical know how to reassemble these components that were so plentiful in the cold war.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

HTML Code:

there won't be a nuclear attack by a nation, per se. i can't see that at all coming. no one is that stupid. they'd find their country sterilized. the real danger is that there will be nuclear terrorism by groups hiding behind the innocents in some countries.

And what of both sides in the eye to eye tension, fears mutually assured distruction? There is a real possibity of one on one limited nuclear exchanges with both sides stopping just short of all out doomsday. Both sides or more than 2 may have motive to not be the one to launch an all out attack.

HTML Code:

And, I believe that the greatest possibility of where the weapons will come from is from a former Soviet state that has laxed security over their nuclear weapons.

So true and the scientists to make them work are cheap and available to hire.
America has spends millions trying to buy the uranium and paying Russia to destroy them. But now with the FSU more than one nation, the risk is far greater of a fraction failing through the safety net.

HTML Code:

Although the Iranian government is hardcore Islamic, I also think that they are pretty savvy and intelligent, and they must know the consequences of attacking Israel or nyone else with a nuclear weapon:

Who is to say Israel will not strike first? They have done it before with no concern about international opinion.

Posted by: Jutman

There is a rather new ddata, for who many warheads there is unacounted in the post-sovjet. Russia has it under good control now, but admit that the years after the disintegration of Sovjet there was confusion.
If I recall corrrectly, it was about warheads and non of them were as big as the one in Hiroshima, just mostly in artillery pieces.
They wouldn't say, that they there was no stolen, but believe it could be a lack of definition problem, like were there was a set og units = 2 was accounted for 1 = set. Secondly the data and control was not that good. like they think that maybe there was demolition of old warhead in late 80'ies, but was never registrated.
My last recall from the news, was they had some registration of uninvited guests at facilities, it was a small number, but a secret and so was the outcome.

So yes, there is a very high properbility that there is from 1-20 small nukes at the market, but most of has a radius about � mile.

Then is there problem issues or the bad guys, how to use it, how to transport it, and be in a position where they can gain something and of course the problem about not been detected it and caugth.

Its an issue for CIA and simular around the world, to see if the can locate them and retrive them (which I am not sure they will tell, if they have done/will do) but its not an issue there shoudl be a concern for a normal citizen.

Posted by: deccie

The highest risk of any form of nuclear attack is that of a dirty bomb.

The aim may not be to directly kill many people but to render large areas of highly important land unusable and to displace those people.

As for Iran, is it any wonder they now have a radical government when the Mullah's forbade most of the moderates from standing for election?

The previous President was a moderate I recall.

Posted by: rnmedix

i think a small nuclear bomb could be brought in by boat without much trouble. it's not that much of a trick to get a small bomb into the country. the only thing stopping terrorists is the lack of technical expertise and possibly access to weapons grade uranium. maybe they already have uranium.

we can't effectively police our borders. there's too much coastline, and a speedy craft can zip ashore in a number of places. i know a guy who works for the coastguard, and he was telling me how difficult it is. hell, if they couldn't stop people from bringing boatloads of marijuana and if they can't stop thousands of illegals from coming here, how are they going to stop a dufflebag sized bomb? it could even be shipped here in a crate.

it's nice to believe that the government takes care of things, etc. but we're sitting ducks for the kinds of disruption that al queda-like grougs can offer. as far as what to do about it, i'm clueless. other than supporting the system by paying taxes and being a law abiding citizen, there's not much i can do. and not that i agree with the system i'm forced to support. i think the war is iraq was a foolish blunder and utterly avoidable.

it's a lucky thing that we have the president for entertainment. this is going down as one of the worst administrations in history. bumbling incompetent leadership sucks. with what the iraqi war will finally cost, we could have fixed social security twice over for the next 75 years! of course, the administration "slightly" miscalculated the costs associated with such a war, including the cost of the lifelong medical care those maimed (it's a huge number - the hidden statistic in this war) will require.

this war turned out to be a multibillion dollar undertaking, and with what chance for success? when we're forced to cut our losses and leave iraq, it won't be long before the shiites and sunnis fight it out for control. whoever wins will establish a government hostile to the united states, most likely a muslim theocracy. success? was it worth this sacrific to get rid of sadaam hussein and establish some mullah?

there are two sure bets in all of this: record profits for big oil, and more mulsim anger.

Posted by: martin3030

Following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq I remember hearing that Kuwait would be paying back the costs incurred by the defending forces.

I also remember reading something about the US recouping money for liberating Iraq again from Iraq.(maybe an oil deal ?)

Theres also the cost of the war in Afghanistan which by now must be clocking up a few $$$s

Coupled with the operational costs of running its bases in Eastern Europe and eleswhere amid heightened security it all adds up to a lot.

This feeling of an attack against the US economy to destabilise it by use of a terrorist attack is growing in speculation each day.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I had to go research my nuclear physics as it has been many years.

There is a procedure to enrich the material and render a half-life of 25,000 years!

This means the radioactivity will reduce in strength to 50% in 25,000 years.

It could be 50,000+ years before a bombed area is fit to live in again.

The procedure is banned within the major nuclear treaties, but these are not rules a rogue nation or extremist group may care about.

Dirty bombs can be a real serious problem for humanity.

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai_Bob

I had to go research my nuclear physics as it has been many years.

There is a procedure to enrich the material and render a half-life of 25,000 years!

This means the radioactivity will reduce in strength to 50% in 25,000 years.

It could be 50,000+ years before a bombed area is fit to live in again.

The procedure is banned within the major nuclear treaties, but these are not rules a rogue nation or extremist group may care about.

Dirty bombs can be a real serious problem for humanity.

Bob do you seriously think the way the WE HUMANS are acting, there will be anyone left to occupy this radio active land in 50,000 years ?

The reason conventional armies and equipment, (ships and aircraft) are being reduced, is because were putting more faith and resources into SMART WEAPONS.

What worries me, is that it takes a very high IQ to invent and produce these weapons. and then people vote in an idiot, to put in charge of them.

John

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I didn't mention the higher radioactive yield of dirty bombs creating massive radioactive illness due to higher rad rates and broader radius of death and destruction than the average nukes.

Given we don't destroy ourselves or pollute ourselves out of existance first, humanity will evolve into something greater.

If you consider the existance of the earth as one year, man has existed about 1 minute of that year. All life is so fragile and new.

We could evolve to a higher existance, or another thinking species could evolve again.

However, the ability of dirty bombs could stop all major life on the surface forever, whiping out the evolution of life that occured over 3 billion years.

Frankly I think any group or nation who threatens all life on earth, the death cults with religious cover, should be dealt with like a virus and destroyed totally before it is too late.

I don't think Russia would hesitate, but we will try to avoid extermination of a people at all cost.
Very Tough Call.

Sometimes my problems seem so small.

Posted by: martin3030

don't think Russia would hesitate, but we will try to avoid extermination of a people at all cost.
Very Tough Call.

Russia,we are led to believe certainly will not hesitate,I am not convinced our destiny is any longer in the hands of the people we elected !

Posted by: rnmedix

i'm extremely skeptical that you could sterilize the planet. no doubt, wars will bring misery and much death. even if 99% of the world's population was killed, there would still be a lot of people left. that's in an all out nuclear war, which isn't going to happen.

as far as long term radioactivity, conventional nukes aren't that bad. nuclear war is more survivable than you might think, at least in the developed nations. look at hiroshima and nagasaki, both with low long term cancer rates.

as a weapon of terror and economic breakdown, it's hard to beat a suitcase bomb.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Humm...

So, what is the "best" nuclear material to use in a "dirty nuke"? This depends on your objective.

If you want to irritate your enemy for a very long time, say 75 thousand to 4.5 billion years, you use a low-level long half-life material like uranium-234 or 238, or thorium-230, but if you want to deny your enemy use of the contaminated territory for 20 thousand years or so, use a plutonium mixture, and use radium-226 to keep him out for over 1.5 million years.

The super hydrogen nukes we now have are 10,000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan. We have never tested one above ground. The ground zero total destruction blast radius is over 30 miles!

Conservative estimates show only 8 of these nukes will launch the earth into a nuclear winter that will destroy all life except for cockroaches, and lower forms. Soon the cold will killed them and only one cell creatures may survive.

All Life. Perhaps some people may live underground.

They would have to survive tens/hundreds of thousands of years if the material in the super nukes we, and Russia have were dirty.

On yes, the odds of the human race surviving are too small to calculate.

Posted by: martin3030

According to the Nos readings (which for some reason newspapers around the world have been this week serialising )
two thirds of the worlds pop will perish between 2006 and the final battle in 2012

From what I understand (and its difficult to grasp an understanding of something one cant comprehend)

The middle East will still be standing because thats where the final battle (reputably) is going to take place.

There is talk of America forming some kind of alliance to defeat the enemy so it looks like they are saying the US will survive at least in parts ??

Not so for poor old France and Italy who will be totally obliterated (I am sure they will ask for a vote on it beforehand so they can Veto it )..........

We should know soon enough when Supermarkets start to ration tins of corned beef and powdered milk !!!

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Interesting the papers are starting to notice the current events and his predictions.

Let me lighten the mood a little......

Posted by: martin3030

What about safe places to be??

They reckon that Evil mountain is pretty much impossible to penetrate.

Wonder if they are giving visas to this region ??

Posted by: martin3030

Now ......................its somewhere around here................

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

�� , �� .
� �� .

I guess I better learn Russian faster huh?

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I don't know who my father is. I never saw him. We never talk about it."

--Nickolay V.

Posted by: rnmedix

bob, what does that last post have to do with this thread? as a matter of ettiquette, closed threads should remain closed, and not dredged up in future threads. i'm suggesting we all play fairly by the rules, instead of taking cheap shots in other threads.

make sense?

Posted by: deccie

Quote:

Originally Posted by clever1

The reason conventional armies and equipment, (ships and aircraft) are being reduced, is because were putting more faith and resources into SMART WEAPONS.

What worries me, is that it takes a very high IQ to invent and produce these weapons. and then people vote in an idiot, to put in charge of them.

John

Hi John,
I think smart weaponry and stealth a dead end technologies for any conflict that goes above something like Iraq and for a long time.

A number of reasons..

1. The weapons used to defeat these technologies are cheaper and have shorter development timeframes. In a war of attrition destroying a multi million dollar a/c with a $100,000 missle is a major win. You can't keep losing aircraft like that indefintely. You'll go broke! I'm also concerned with smart technology because you could be placing dependancies on technology that is made by other countries and that might be, well, not exactly smart.

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by deccie

I totally agree deccie, but I don't get to be asked how I want to be defended.
Even though I put my little "x" in the box. strange eh!!

John

Posted by: Jutman

Hi
a lot of interesting comments. Espicially :and then people vote in an idiot, to put in charge of them.

Nice comment.

To my knowledge, in military circle a WW3 would be started by India & Pakistan, but even know their are ot friends, they are progressive in the rigth direction. And all the talk about a steril�world, is not really a likely scernario with the current global situation.

I mention Pakistan and thats is one reason to why Iran wants a nuke, and for me its not a secret they want. Sometimes 'we' forget there is also regional politics involed in decision making around the world.
We just don't like the increased risk and a management like the one in Iran.

For me, its a funny situation. If its come to that its a fact they wants to enrich the uranium by themself, its more than likely that facility will be hit, so what are they playing?
It could be a domestic power play. Something like this: see we fooled the west for x time. See the west are intolerante = fuel to the radicals.

Posted by: GREGK

Clever1- Whose "idiot in charge" are you referring to, ours ( Bush) or yours (Blair)?

Posted by: martin3030

Good question,its a Duo ?

Posted by: rnmedix

one of the flaws of the human condition. it's certainly a challenge to use a weapon with such destructive capacity with judgement. has a weapon been invented that hasn't been used on humans, at least in a crude form?

when microbiology progress to the point where viruses can be built to target or exclude people with specific genetic markers, then i think it's safe to say all hell will break loose, or at least the potential is there. the ultimate weapons will be biological. why use nuclear weapons when you can kill most of them without even damaging property?

it will be an interesting world in another hundred years.

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREGK

Clever1- Whose "idiot in charge" are you referring to, ours ( Bush) or yours (Blair)?

Greg, who do you think?

We all know Tony only fetches the lead when he needs to pee, and then he gets taken Waaaalkies ...................

John

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin3030

Good question,its a Duo ?

I don't think they will ever be as popular as Morcambe and Wise, Martin.

Although their rendition of "bring me sunshine", would probably have a nuclear verse attached.

John

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I wasn't talking to you.

Posted by: martin3030

True John............they are mor like Benny Hill and Mr Bean...........constantly making blunders (but the difference is theres nothing funny in the blunders G&T are making..............)

Posted by: GREGK

The U.K. and U.S.A. "saved" Kuwait, prevented Sadaam from going on into Saudi Arabia ( so they say), and have now "saved" the Iraqi people. Maybe if we "save" the Iranian people gas prices will go down. HAH!

Posted by: martin3030

Think they will SAVE the best for last ?

Posted by: martin3030

Looks like the only thing Bush and Blair want to save at the moment is their political skins...........

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

We will make Iran "safe" for democracy!

Posted by: martin3030

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai_Bob

We will make Iran "safe" for democracy!

When we can round up the muscle to do it !!

Just needs juggling.....a couple of thousand troops here and a couple there....

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

...have such a sense of humor!

Posted by: GREGK

Maybe we could invite Irans' leadership over here to go hunting with Vice President Cheney!

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREGK

Maybe we could invite Irans' leadership over here to go hunting with Vice President Cheney!

Depleted Uranium buckshot, why didn't I think of that, you can cook the quail while they're falling to the ground ..................

John

Posted by: martin3030

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREGK

Maybe we could invite Irans' leadership over here to go hunting with Vice President Cheney!

Too late for that theyve already sent him on sniper training in Afghanistan..

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin3030

Think they will SAVE the best for last ?

Well the first thing they will save, is all the money they've made out of this mess.

John

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Best idea I've read all day!

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

it is dick chaney!

Posted by: zaniac

Anyone hear about the '1000 suicide bombers' Iran has waiting to go into Iraq if the US/UK strike their nuclear facility. Surely they are on their way now, it's not like they haven't been doing this already

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

I do remember a Muslim leader calling for volunteers months ago in their local media. They had no problem finding them either.

This information from you now only fits the past events evolving.

Posted by: clever1

I haden't heard that Zan, but then I don't buy a paper or watch the news everyday.

Can't they recruit some from here, to lower the numbers we'll have to deal with should things get that far.

John

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Maybe ex-pat muslims don't get the 70 virgins

Posted by: zaniac

When I came back from Heathrow, I stayed in east London at a relative's house. I think the area is probably flowing with potential candidates. If they struggle in London they could try Luton and Bedford. In fact a guy from Bedford was arrested a while back for pretending to be a suicide bomber. Then 'apologising' for his actions - yeah right mate whatever. People like him clearly are not dedicated to their country, rather more their religion.

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaniac

When I came back from Heathrow, I stayed in east London at a relative's house. I think the area is probably flowing with potential candidates. If they struggle in London they could try Luton and Bedford. In fact a guy from Bedford was arrested a while back for pretending to be a suicide bomber. Then 'apologising' for his actions - yeah right mate whatever. People like him clearly are not dedicated to their country, rather more their religion.

I agree Zan, I don't care whether he was born here or not, I think he should be deported to the place his forefathers came from, and all those that took part in the marches with the banners discrediting democracy, its obvious they don't want our full way of life , just the bits that suit them, ie, handouts, cheap housing, and child benefit, of which they claim a higher proportion as they have more children.

John

Posted by: zaniac

It amazes with some people. If people don't like our country's actions then they have the right to pay their �� to stand for election, not shout out evil slogans about our european neighbours. I think what they did was a form of abuse on human rights. Yes you can stand and protest, but if you love England, you don't hold banners like 'europe you will pay your 9/11 is on it's way' and stuff like that. It's simply not on.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."

("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212).

More people died, and innocent civilians too, on 9/11 than in Pearl Harbor.

And we were attacked on our own land for the first time.

Do not for one second think America isn't done with getting even.

We are slow to anger, but overwhelming in retribution.

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

Reporter: "What if a Muslim fraction or country attacks the United States?"

President Bush: "They can start it, but I will finish it."

Posted by: GREGK

I realize that the USA is a nation comprised of immigrants, (even the American Indian is said to have migrated from Asia). I don't know what the U.K. policies are for immigration but maybe it is time to close and then guard our borders. In the meantime we could make efforts to determine who is here/there illegally or who is here/there raising hell and can be deported. Probably way too late and just wishful thinking!

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai_Bob

Reporter: "What if a Muslim fraction or country attacks the United States?"

President Bush: "They can start it, but I will finish it."

So now we know who's working the Muppet.

John

Posted by: Samurai_Bob

But do we know who the Muppet is controlling?
Humm?