Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Palomar · 2004-09-28 09:37:31

Perhaps I am silly,

-also-

As an american, why don't you want third world nations to have the nuke?

*So they can't use them on us or their neighbors? Especially considering most 3rd-world nations aren't democracies but rather are dictatorships with little regard for human rights "at home" much less abroad? May as well ask, "Why don't you want children to play with matches?" Duh.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 09:54:08

As an american, why don't you want third world nations to have the nuke?

Alright, I'll play along. Nuclear weapons are at present the ultimate 'big stick' in international relations. They're not a very precise weapon, their only real application is to kill large numbes of people at a distance. Because of the radiation and blast effects you can't effectively use them on your own soil, nuke an invading army and you might as well let the enemy nuke you and save everyone alot of trouble.

So the only reasons for a third-world state to have them are:
A) to launch a first strike. We don't want that, let a few little dictatorships fling nukes around and things could quickly get out of hand.
B) As a weapon of desperation. We can't possibly win, but we can cause as much damage on the way to defeat as possible. When a regime reaches that point of desperation is precisely when it most behooves us to deprive them of nuclear capability.

Further, I get the impression that some regimes seeking nuclear weapons don't really understand what they're dealing with, countries that didn't develop the weapons on their own but acquired them from the poorly inventoried Soviet stash, or at best copied a set of plans. If all that was at stake was a big explosion it wouldn't be such an issue, but nuclear weapons have other implications that certain regimes either don't fully grasp on a gut level or simply don't care about.

Finally, America is an obvious target for angry third-worlders with atomic bombs. If one is used, it will likely be against us. It is in our national interest to minimize the number of them that aren't under our control.

Going back to your "armed society" reference, preventing certain nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is roughly similar to trying to stop violent criminals from acquiring firearms. The thing itself isn't really the problem, but who has it. I'm not real worried about the French or the British having nukes. I most definately would like to make sure Iran stays out of the club.

clark · 2004-09-28 10:01:47

Ah, salivating at the bit? :laugh:

Perhaps your idle sarcasm explains your position well enough, while also summarily implying my own silliness for posing the question, but I do feel it is a rather valid question all the same. Perhaps we disagree, we often do, but it would seem to me that we here in America are a democracy and have exhibited disregard for human rights, both here, and abroad, yet have come to the distinct conclusion that we have somehow become lord and judge over these weapons as a natural right and arbitor of their possession by others.

Now, before I get flamed as implying that we American's are as barbaric as some of these other nations, I mean only to point out that it is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Our history is replete with instances of perpetuating human rights abuse at home, and abroad, or in most instances, supporting regimes that engage in such behavior.

Now, even if some third world dictator were to aquire the bomb, as in the instance of North Korea, would they use it? Well, the Kim hasn't yet, and only threatens us with the prospect of coming out of the nuclear closet to keep us out of his country. Most dictators tend towards the self-absored-life-perpetuating-variety. Musharraf? Castro? Saddam? Kim? All have WMD's (or access to) of one variation or another, yet never have they lobbed them onto any of us. I merely point out what I observe. With the exception of Saddam, who used germ warfare against the Iranian's during an ongoing conflict between the two (with our backing), none have seen fit to use these things. So how do we justify the mental jump in conclusions?

As for children playing with matches, that is of course a very bad idea. Much better for them to run with scissors. :laugh:

clark · 2004-09-28 10:13:34

So the only reasons for a third-world state to have them are:
A) to launch a first strike. We don't want that, let a few little dictatorships fling nukes around and things could quickly get out of hand.

A, first strike only makes sense if you can quickly disable or weather the counter strike. This was the reason for the ABM treaty and for the massive build up of arms. It is precisely because neither side could assure an advantage with a first strike that neither side (in the cold war) used the weapons. Third world nations tend to have little economic and industrial infrastructure that could withstand one nuclear blast- it would be suicide. Generally, in war, people fight to win, not to just thow it all away. They look for advantage. There is none in a first strike by a third world nation because the use of such weapons defeats the purpose in the first place.

As for B, yes, the weapons are a last ditch effort of desperation, which is why we would be unable to invade these third world nations. We would win, given our conventional might, but they could exact a great deal. A few bombs thus ensures we dare not strike in the first place. By having the bomb, it ensures that we will not do things to them to make them desperate.

Further, I get the impression that some regimes seeking nuclear weapons don't really understand what they're dealing with, countries that didn't develop the weapons on their own but acquired them from the poorly inventoried Soviet stash, or at best copied a set of plans.

Do you think Bush understands the bomb? He didn't build what we have. They don't need to understand how it works, they just need to know what it means. And I think they do. They know the bomb will make us blink, that it prevents us from actoin- which is what we used to keep the Soviets in check for 50 years. We made each other blink- just like the Indians and Pakistani's are doing now. Just like the rest of the Middle East is cowed by Isreal.

If all that was at stake was a big explosion it wouldn't be such an issue, but nuclear weapons have other implications that certain regimes either don't fully grasp on a gut level or simply don't care about.

This coming from the man calling for a thousand mini-suns in the desert? :laugh:

It is in our national interest to minimize the number of them that aren't under our control.

Then we shall have to build an Empire. [shrug]

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 10:25:40

Generally, in war, people fight to win, not to just thow it all away. They look for advantage. There is none in a first strike by a third world nation because the use of such weapons defeats the purpose in the first place.

Except for terrorists. Deterrence breaks down. The threat isn't always a rogue regime itself but that willfully or through incompetence their weapons will fall into the hands of irrational elements who happen to feel a serious beef with us.

Watch Pakistan closely, for example.

By having the bomb, it ensures that we will not do things to them to make them desperate.

Which is why if I were a third-world dictator I'd want a few, and why as an American I want to keep them from third-world dictators.

I'm looking out for my interests, in a sense. As I stated earlier.

This coming from the man calling for a thousand mini-suns in the desert?

If I recall that discussion carried one of my disclaimers. :hm:

reset-button, that's the other use I forgot to mention.

Then we shall have to build an Empire. [shrug]

Which I have advocated to a degree for numerous reasons. And now we may be locked into that path, if enough people grasp the weight of the present situation.

Otherwise... :hm:

clark · 2004-09-28 10:36:30

So you look out for your own self interest, they their own, and a bunch of people end up incinerated...

Your self interest would lead to an Empire of sorts, regardless of the wishes of the others, which leads them to resist in order to defend their own self interest, which then leads to a clash of civilization, as it were.

As a side note, enjoy the merry-go-round.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 10:52:20

Your self interest would lead to an Empire of sorts, regardless of the wishes of the others, which leads them to resist in order to defend their own self interest, which then leads to a clash of civilization, as it were.
As a side note, enjoy the merry-go-round.

The implication being that everything is okay if we just get off the ride.

Only it doesn't work that way. The old MAD model doesn't hold in the present situation, we are beyond a war between nations but have not reached a war between civilizations overall. Our enemies believe they are fighting a war between civilizations, yet many Americans still look at this as a war between nations despite the fact that the enemy we're fighting is a loose network of stateless parasites linked by a common belief and a common culture, perversions of the root culture not withstanding. They have some states backing them, but nations aren't the cause. Those who would attack us with nuclear weapons are not terribly concerned that we might respond in kind against the nation from which they acquired the weapons. It's a propaganda win for them if anything. If we sit by and do nothing they'll still attack us as they have in the past.

We can look at the situation in two ways, either we're prisoners in a cycle of destruction, or we have an historic opportunity to not only secure our own defense at home but to better the world in a manner that posterity will look on with awe and gratitude.

clark · 2004-09-28 11:02:50

Till the war-drum throbb`d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl`d; In the parliament of man; the Federation of the world. --Alfred Tennyson

Go forth and make the world a better place in our own self image? Isn't that the basis by which the radical terroists justify their own action? But we're better than them, even if we act like them...

Just one more:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -
-Lincoln

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 11:13:26

Go forth and make the world a better place in our own self image?

Indeed.

Isn't that the basis by which the radical terroists justify their own action? But we're better than them, even if we act like them...

There's two answers to that. The public soundbite answer is something along the lines that we do not murder the innocent, we do not seek to silence all dissent and we can tolerate those who disagree while upholding the rights of all who reciprocate.

The back room answer that everyone in the super-secret meetings knows is that when two civilizations clash and no compromise is possible, one must be crushed under the foot of the other. It is better for us if it's our boots doing the crushing.

Oddly enough, you can give either answer and not be lying.

clark · 2004-09-28 11:21:52

So a group of thugs, these terroists, who have no state to call their own, have managed to force the strongest nation on Earth, dragging the entire Western World with them, to act as the terroists themselves.

It's not a clash of civilization's because it is a small sect of a splinter population with no infrastructure, yet we respond as they would have us. We end up playing into their hand by magnifying their effect since they could never hope to defeat us alone- no, they need help from the moderate population of greater size. They need help from actual states. What better way to do that then to draw us in, and force us to behave as them, thus forcing the invaded states to respond.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 11:57:49

Go forth and make the world a better place in our own self image? Isn't that the basis by which the radical terroists justify their own action? But we're better than them, even if we act like them...

Which is why I'm also not opposed to using SpecOps forces to root out certain terrorist leaders within foreign states and eliminating them when practical.

However, even now we aren't 'acting like the terrorists' at all. We're conducting military operations against combatants. We aren't indiscriminately slaughtering civilians, we've gone to great lengths to avoid killing non-combatants.

clark · 2004-09-28 12:10:39

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0611-06.htm]AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq

The AP count was based on records from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals - including almost all of the large ones - and covers the period between March 20, when the war began, and April 20, when fighting was dying down and coalition forces announced they would soon declare major combat over. AP journalists traveled to all of these hospitals, studying their logs, examining death certificates where available and interviewing officials about what they witnessed

This does not include any civilian casualties after 'major' operations and does not include the civilian count in Afghanistan.

This does not include the numerous people maimed in the operations either.

This is not to say we are indiscrimanently targeting civilians, merely to point out that bombs and bullets and wars are indiscriminate in their application. Some terroists flew some planes into what they claimed were legitimate targets, we attack what we claim are legitimate targets. Innocent bystanders get killed in the middle of all of it.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet we have exacted a higher toll on their people than we have suffered by the hands of others. How does any of this make sense?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 12:29:23

This is not to say we are indiscrimanently targeting civilians, merely to point out that bombs and bullets and wars are indiscriminate in their application.

Yes, war kills soldiers and civilians alike. The difference is we inadvertantly kill civilians despite our best efforts while targeting clear military targets. Our enemies deliberately target civilians for the express purpose of killing as many of them as possible, all with no military objective. If you want to equate the two go right ahead. I don't.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet we have exacted a higher toll on their people than we have suffered by the hands of others. How does any of this make sense?

By and large the people of Afghanistan didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either. Neither did Saddam, but he posed problems of his own. So, either we drop a few tactical nukes on the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and pretend that it's all about Osama bin Hidin' and we're back to happy head-in-the-sand world, or we have to undertake a much larger operation against Islamic terrorists in general rather than one guy in a cave. Sometimes innocent people get killed in the middle, ours, theirs, poor bastards that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one ever said it was easy or fair. In a perfect world we could fight a war with no deaths, but then in a perfect world we wouldn't have to.

clark · 2004-09-28 12:36:43

Our enemies deliberately target civilians for the express purpose of killing as many of them as possible, all with no military objective.

Then perhaps might I suggest that if there is no clear military objective in killing as many civilians as possible, that their aims are altogether something else. They have succeeded in drawing us into a clash that requires us to invade muslim countries knowing that doing so will allow them to garner support among a larger body of the muslim people by which to more readily fight us.

One bee does not kill a bear, a hive does.

Bringing this back to Iran... another invasion of another muslim state will lead to our undoing. I think Bush will lead us that way, and I think it is a mistake.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 12:50:45

One bee does not kill a bear, a hive does.
Bringing this back to Iran... another invasion of another muslim state will lead to our undoing. I think Bush will lead us that way, and I think it is a mistake.

I too have some reservations about this Administration's ability to conduct such a war properly. Yet the decision isn't a simple 'to fight or not to fight' and it isn't entirely up to us.

To build on your analogy, we've got a hornet's nest in the garage. We can leave it there and hope nothing happens, or we can go knock it down. If we choose the latter we'll get stung. If we choose the former we'll probably still get stung, maybe worse, but it'll take longer before it happens. Maybe.

Palomar · 2004-09-28 13:25:38

So a group of thugs, these terroists, who have no state to call their own, have managed to force the strongest nation on Earth, dragging the entire Western World with them, to act as the terroists themselves.

*Haven't we been over this before? How many more times will you dredge up the silly "there are no victims/to fight the crooks you've got to become a crook" assertion?

This is as ludicrous as saying anti-child abuse agencies "must become abusers themselves" in seeking to protect children while fighting child molesters.

I don't think so.

Some of us have been here a while, you know. Your debating tactics are entirely predictable as are the same old tired games you seek to play again and again and again...

--Cindy

clark · 2004-09-28 13:43:52

You don't think, that's the problem. Look, really, I don't know what your problem is. Frankly, I don't care what your problem is.

You fault me for something you seem not quite able to understand in a conversation I'm having without you.

The idea I am expressing is one predicated on the duality of opposition. You misinterpret it and then complain I am playing games. It's your own ignorance that shows.

I am not talking about child molesters or rape victims. I am talking about engaging in a behavior that requires us to become like those we wish to oppose and the end results.

While you dream up your hypothetical lunacy, I am talking about a very real war we are engaging in for rather murky reasons. I am pointing out that this whole 'clash of civilizations' is nothing more than window dressing.

We claim a moral superiority based on our own worldview which is increasingly becoming one and the same as the very thing which threatens it. The lines that divide us are gradually being eroded. I sincerely am sorry if you fail to realize all of this.

If we take a step back, we were once considered a 'good' nation. After 9/11, we were considered a 'victim'. After Afghanistan, we were considered 'vindicated'. Then came Iraq, and we are now called all sorts of names and generally considered to be completely out of control. What do you think we might look like riding over yet another hill? That's the damn point.

If you want an analogy that seems to be popular with you, it would be like America being raped, getting the bad guy across the street, then going on a rampage after any other criminal who *might* have bad thoughts about them. Do you comprehend yet?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 13:57:28

Well, that flushed him out didn't it.

I am not talking about child molesters or rape victims. I am talking about engaging in a behavior that requires us to become like those we wish to oppose and the end results.

If analogies with bees and bears are valid then the field seems wide open.

back to the issue at hand, you maintain that we have become like those we oppose and build from there. I reject the premise. As Cindy appears to as well, though I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for her. [shrug]

I am pointing out that this whole 'clash of civilizations' is nothing more than window dressing.

Is it? IF the majority of the population in the MidEast is against us, as most Western opposition states overtly or otherwise, then it seems reasonable that we are in fact in a clash of civilization that has just begun warming up again after a lull. We've been at this off and on for the last thousand years, it's hardly a new concept.

If you want an analogy that seems to be popular with you, it would be like America being raped, getting the bad guy across the street, then going on a rampage after any other criminal who *might* have bad thoughts about them. Do you comprehend yet?

Provided the rampage actually hits a bunch of actual criminals, I've got no problem with it.

clark · 2004-09-28 14:10:02

back to the issue at hand, you maintain that we have become like those we oppose and build from there. I reject the premise.

We are becoming like them. Your own statements ought to demonstrate the validity of my point. You see no qualms with instutiting an American Empire of enlightenment to achieve the aims of your own vested self interest, which is very one and the same thing that the terroists are pursuing- to instutite their own version of their own enlightenment to achieve the aims of their own self interest. By engaging the terroists as they would have us, we neccessarily allow the basis by which they may have their clash of civilizations.

To put the other shoe on, let's say a bunch of red-neck hill billies led by you in the mountains of the Ozarks bombed Mecca. Why? Because you don't trust them and want America to beat the snot out of them, but you can't do it alone. So what does Islam do? It comes and invades Arkansas cause they won't give you up (or can't find you, have whatever you want). What do you think America's reaction to the invasion of Arkansas might be by Islamists? Say you run and hide in Oklahoma? I know, all of this absurd, but they continue on? How many states do you think America would let pass?

This is ultimetly what a small band of terroists is trying to do. Islam is in something of an internal civil war with itself- check out the reasons of their divisions. The vast majority of Islam is becoming more and more secularized and is progressing- this smaller splinter group wishes to seize power to reinstutite the older version of Islam. They will have an easier time of it, and it will be a clash of civilizations, if we continue on this course because we will inadvertantly help those we are most opposed to gain power over a wider audience.

Euler · 2004-09-28 14:26:38

Is it? IF the majority of the population in the MidEast is against us, as most Western opposition states overtly or otherwise, then it seems reasonable that we are in fact in a clash of civilization that has just begun warming up again after a lull.

Well if we are in a clash of civilizations, then it is hardly something that can be resolved just by invading other countries. The only way we could "win" such a conflict would be to either exterminate islamic civilization(which is not a politically acceptable option), or make it so that the population of the MidEast stops hating us.

Palomar · 2004-09-28 15:12:43

I am not talking about child molesters or rape victims. I am talking about engaging in a behavior that requires us to become like those we wish to oppose and the end results.
If analogies with bees and bears are valid then the field seems wide open.
back to the issue at hand, you maintain that we have become like those we oppose and build from there. I reject the premise. As Cindy appears to as well, though I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for her. [shrug]

*Methinks Clark doth protest too much. :laugh:

Clark: "You don't think, that's the problem."

*Interpretation: "You don't agree with me and so you are trying to fault me. How dare you." (Boo-hoo-hoo).

Clark: "Look, really, I don't know what your problem is. Frankly, I don't care what your problem is."

*And that's why you typed out those two whole sentences. Who are you trying to convince? :laugh:

He asserts "You fault me for something...in a conversation I'm having without you." He seems to forget this is an
open forum where anyone who is a registered user can respond (taking it to private messages is always an option if you don't want others' input; so is merely skipping posts you think you may not wish to read).

Clark: "Do you comprehend?"

*Yep. I just happen to disagree with you. Do you comprehend?

What I don't understand is why you continue to try and raise the same points of debate -- nearly word-for-word -- over and over again. Do you think we have bad memories here?

Perhaps it is -you- with the comprehension problems.

Clark: "If you want an analogy that seems to be popular with you, it would be like America being raped."

*I don't think it's a popular analogy with me. In fact, I didn't mention rape in my post which you responded to -- YOU brought it up (and more than once). Comprehension problems indeed...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-28 15:29:30

Is it? IF the majority of the population in the MidEast is against us, as most Western opposition states overtly or otherwise, then it seems reasonable that we are in fact in a clash of civilization that has just begun warming up again after a lull.
Well if we are in a clash of civilizations, then it is hardly something that can be resolved just by invading other countries. The only way we could "win" such a conflict would be to either exterminate islamic civilization(which is not a politically acceptable option), or make it so that the population of the MidEast stops hating us.

I agree with Euler and would add:

You win a clash of civilizations by having a civilization people wish to emulate, to copy.

What does Iraq see of the West?

JDAMS, boots kicking in doors, alcohol and porn.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-28 18:39:46

Bill:-

You win a clash of civilizations by having a civilization people wish to emulate, to copy.

There are already some differences between the average Western democracy and the average Islamic theocracy, which one would imagine might persuade the Arabs to wish to emulate the West:-

1) We choose our leadership; they get what they're given, permanently.
2) We, at least in Australia, barely punish even our convicted criminals; they chop off your hands for petty theft and even subject innocent citizens to the death penalty if it suits their purposes to do so. No comebacks.
3) Our women vote, get educations, have careers, drive cars, go shopping all on their own wearing t-shirts and skirts; their women are largely uneducated housebound chattels, trussed up like mummies on the rare occasions they venture out (escorted by a male), and subject to physical abuse and even sanctioned execution if perceived to have done something defined by the men as 'shameful'.
4) We foster scientific enquiry and encourage free speech and free exchange of information; they censor intellectual exchanges in case they contravene the tenets of Islam, thus stifling progress.
5) We have seen the steady advance of working and living conditions of the vast majority of our people through free-enterprise, wealth creation and technological innovation; their people, despite accidentally finding themselves situated on top of most of Earth's valuable energy supplies, live in comparatively squalid conditions and endure relative economic stagnation (largely because of the points raised above).

You can't even begin to compare 'our civilisation' with 'their civilisation'. There is no comparison; ours is patently the superior system on virtually every count. The reason for this is that their system is based on religious dogma and is rooted firmly in the dark ages whence that religion came. If we had clung to the stifling Christian theocratic system that dominated Europe in the dark ages, we too would be as backward as they are.
Your post, Bill, with all due respect, is typical of the hand-wringing and breast-beating about our civilisation which permeates so much of the news media these days. It typifies the 'mea culpa' masochism with which we're spoon-fed by journalists day after day.
As I said in a recent post, many of us in the West are unable to comprehend an irrational enemy, determined to change us or kill us in the attempt, and so set about a guilt-ridden and futile search for some fault in ourselves to explain it all.
This is false logic, which I suggest is deliberately and strategically reinforced by the Left, a group of people with a vested interest in discrediting our present way of life because they seek to supplant it with their own system (already found wanting, in my opinion).

Ours is certainly no perfect society and God knows it needs improving. But we have to get off this insane guilt trip before we tear ourselves apart. Ours is easily the best, fairest, and most universally prosperous political system the world has seen to date and, compared to Arab theocracies, eminently worthy of emulation!

It's not we who need changing; it's them!!

BWhite · 2004-09-28 19:20:50

It's not we who need changing; it's them!!

We need to change our methods of changing people since we must either change them or kill them. You never win an argument with your wife if you start out by telling her how stupid she is.

If we are to win, we must win without confronting Arab pride head on, otherwise we will have to kill them all.

= = =

If we are to prevail, they must be changed yet our strategery for changing them is very ineffectual.

And if we are to kill them all, we need to move beyond the petroleum economy sooner rather than later because we cannot kill them all and keep those oil wells pumping.

As John Kerry said, becoming a hydrogen economy ASAP is the best tool we have for winning the War on Terror.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-28 20:03:48

Bill:-

... we must either change them or kill them.

How amenable to change is the average Islamic theocracy? What social mechanisms for change exist within its structure? How long does it take to change their attitude and how many of us will die in terrorist attacks while they're examining their consciences? Since their 'attitude' is derived directly from the word of God (in their minds), is it even negotiable at all?

On June 22nd 1941, as Hitler's panzer divisions and 3 million German soldiers crashed across the border of the Soviet Union, I can just visualise the Russian frontline troops saying: "You know, these Nazis have a bad attitude. We must either change them or kill them."
???

Again, Bill, you seem to be intent on this noble but completely misguided quest to talk gently to Islamic terrorists and have them tearfully take your hand, squeeze it, and say: "Bill, you were right; we were wrong. We see it clearly now and we're so sorry. Let's put all this behind us. We're off home to Syria/Iran/Saudi etc. now to relay your wisdom to our mullahs. We hope to emulate your political structure and should have a democracy up and running by about September next year. Hell, we'll even stop mutilating the sexual organs of our women if it makes you happy! May Allah bless you for showing us the way."

I don't know how many times it has to be said, Bill, but these boys aren't like you and me. This ain't Kansas any more, old fella. Get used to it.
:bars:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-09-28 09:37:31

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#77 2004-09-28 09:54:08

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#78 2004-09-28 10:01:47

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#79 2004-09-28 10:13:34

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#80 2004-09-28 10:25:40

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#81 2004-09-28 10:36:30

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#82 2004-09-28 10:52:20

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#83 2004-09-28 11:02:50

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#84 2004-09-28 11:13:26

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#85 2004-09-28 11:21:52

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#86 2004-09-28 11:57:49

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#87 2004-09-28 12:10:39

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#88 2004-09-28 12:29:23

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#89 2004-09-28 12:36:43

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#90 2004-09-28 12:50:45

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#91 2004-09-28 13:25:38

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#92 2004-09-28 13:43:52

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#93 2004-09-28 13:57:28

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#94 2004-09-28 14:10:02

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#95 2004-09-28 14:26:38

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#96 2004-09-28 15:12:43

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#97 2004-09-28 15:29:30

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#98 2004-09-28 18:39:46

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#99 2004-09-28 19:20:50

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#100 2004-09-28 20:03:48

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer