Today at the London independent, we read (comments for that story are conveniently turned off):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-ea...

This internal political drama helps to explain Iran's latest nuclear challenge to the world, analysts believe. Yesterday, Tehran said that scientists at its Natanz nuclear enrichment plant had begun, in the presence of inspectors from the IAEA, upgrading stocks of uranium from a current level of purity of 3.5 per cent to 20 per cent. .... The government insists the higher grade uranium that yesterday's step purportedly brings closer is for use by oncologists in the treatment of cancer, which is not illegal under UN rules. But the US, Israel and other Western governments say the move is an alarming provocation because Iran does not have the technology to turn enriched uranium into fuel rods for medical uses. Once it reaches 20 per cent purity however, it could easily continue to enriching to the 90 per cent required for a nuclear bomb.

>>Though Vice President Biden portrayed the investment as crucial

That's not an "investment", that's a "splurge"

>> weapons capable of murder on an unprecedented scale

That's a "suicide"

>>after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I – CT)

That's "Israel"

Well, no. The special regime for Iraq started with the decision to not march to Baghdad during Gulf War 1 under Bush senior, then continued for two terms of Clinton. Secretaries of State (the front line of the highway pile-up, as it were) at that time were: Warren Christopher (can't remember much of him) and Madeleine Albright (fearfully interventionist). Hillary was not involved except as First Lady.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#S...

Some people haven't yet been upgraded to post-cold-war rethoric. Just let it be.

facepalm.jpg

You may want to look up basic high school physics principles and energy balances and stuff instead of clicking through the Internets looking for conspiracy crap.

At least they are like "wolfy", not like "sheepy", right?

they_see_me_trolling_they_hating.jpg

Yemen is already pretty much "failed" but that should not be anyone's concern.

OTOH one has to wonder about the mental health of these so-called "senators" publicly advocating arbitrary killings and shrugging off any hint at possible legal or moral problems. Do they have shrinks on retainer in the senate?

How about advocating drone strikes in Israel to blow up illegal Jewish settlements for a change?

"When a country is broke and heading to a depression,the only cure is a major war--WWIII."

Snicker snicker snicker. The US has already left its infrastructure and monetary system to rot like a dead rat by the wayside. And additional war theatrics will cause more of the same. Always remember: A war does not get you OUT of a depression (people pushing that myth should be hang underneath bridges in a jiffy). It is a sandblasting of the whole economy and a convenient way to tax people to death.

"If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must" some Congressdroid says....

Well, passing the fact that this is mere theatrics as opposed to a divergence of opinion between Prez and Congress...

as the Internet Saying goes...

"DO IT, FAGGOT"

Confused mind you are my son? This is about Pentagon spending.

Also, Welcome To My Lai.

But why is 10⁶ USD per trooper per year looney? Would 500'000 be a better guesstimate?

At http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175179/tomgram:_j... we read:

"According to August Cole of the Wall Street Journal, in fuel terms alone, to support a single soldier in Afghanistan costs between $200,000 and $350,000 a year. "

So we are already halfway to the $500'000. War _is_ a lustful luxury.