25 votes

I am taking bets ...

Here is the link ~

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/iran-2-to-3-weeks-from-nuclear-bomb/

I will put my money where my mouth is and bet 25 oz of silver that IRAN will NOT have a nuclear weapon in 2 - 3 weeks.I will go further and say they will not have one in 2 -3 months.

IRAN is not a threat !!!

Any takers ???



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
egapele's picture

I agree with Ron Paul, then and now

Ron Paul: Iran Does Not Threaten Our National Security
December 30, 2011

SIOUX CITY, IOWA: Ron Paul told Iowa voters on Friday that he would not launch a preemptive strike on Iran because "they don’t threaten our national security."

Paul’s position on Iran is one that has drawn criticism from his GOP rivals.
...
But in the case of Iran, Paul provoked his rivals and exclaimed, "they can’t even produce enough gasoline for their automobiles."

With his bump in the polls, Paul’s GOP opponents, who see national defense as his weakness, have hit hard this week.

"Ron Paul thinks it would be fine if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons," Michele Bachmann said.

"You don't have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth," echoed Rick Perry.

"One of the people running for president thinks it's O.K. for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don’t," said Mitt Romney.

Paul admitted on Friday that the criticism "baffles me a whole lot," adding what is dangerous is endless wars and expanding government.
...
Paul has drawn several hundred people at all three campaign stops today and has 500 college students canvassing for him in Iowa and New Hampshire.

When asked by a reporter if that's an indication that he's feeling confident, a visibly smiling Paul looked up and replied, "I never talk in those terms."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-iran-d...

Since 1984

They've been saying Iran is gonna have a nuke any day now since 1984. And all 16 of our intel agencies say that Iran has no nuclear weapon program.

Exactly why would I care about What Iran has in the future when

I know what IzUnReal has stolen in the past. The only good thing is that sitting on all the stolen nukes the entire population has to be sterile by now.

sovereign

I read a story similar to this on Yahoo this morning.

Only it was from bizzaro Iran I suppose. The problem is with our propaganda department I believe. Someone forgot to kill a few positive stories about Iran, or perhaps they didn't send memo's out on MLK day?

http://news.yahoo.com/powers-iran-activate-landmark-nuclear-...

"VIENNA/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Iran has halted its most sensitive nuclear operations under a preliminary deal with world powers, winning some relief from economic sanctions on Monday in a ground-breaking exchange that could ease a threat of war."

Now, if we're going to lie about Iran, and try to get yet another needless war off the ground, we're going to have to work a little harder at getting the right propaganda out at the right times. :)

neoCon valentine

When "Iran breaks its deal with the West", then repost this and maybe I'll engage the betting thing. Until then, this post is almost as silly as WND's monolithically hypothetical article.

"Iran-2-to-3-weeks-from-nuclear-bomb" -The headline itself is kinda scary and funny. Without any other information I would assume the headline to imply that someone will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran before Valentine's Day.

I doubt Iran has

a nuke. But if they want to avoid ending up like Iraq they better get one soon.

EXACTLY Ronzda Man!!! "If Iran wants to avoid ending up...

...like Iraq, they better get one (a nuke) soon."

They know full well that the big bullies (the U.S. and Israel) will never pick on anyone their own size.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Playing w/ matches?

Matchmaker. 4 minute drama.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Not even in 2 to 3 years. And even if they did, Iran has not...

...attacked another country since 1798. The same cannot be said for Israel or the USA.

Hypocrisy rules the day.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

What you need to realize

when reading WND, is that the owner, Joseph Farah, is a Christian zionist, and his website is about 3 things: support for Israel, support for Christianity, and anything negative about Obama. He is a neo-con republican who hates anyone against Israel. Oh, did I mention he is a Zionist? Take some of it with a grain of Kosher salt.

So, what's the bet ratio that

So, what's the bet ratio that you are offering?

Engage in Secure Exchange

All of Iran's homosexuals are

All of Iran's homosexuals are secretly living in underground bunkers at work making fabulously designed warhead exteriors.

that bombs got flair!

that bombs got flair!

Cyril's picture

I wouldn't bet anything either way

I wouldn't bet anything either way, because anyway, the Greatest Threat to the United States of America has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear bombs (or anyone else's for that matter) but instead is much, much closer geographically, and split in two parts:

1) one epitome of Fraud-in-Flesh-and-Bones sitting in the oval office and who probably dreams on a regular basis of getting his own crown some day,

and

2) the other being a few hundreds Totally Useless Shmucks of parasitic tendencies (in their vast majority) who wake up in the morning asking themselves what else they gonna find (and in how many not-to-be-read pages) as an excuse to expand their Looting of Gigantic Proportions against the American people - and who call themselves "Congress" :

http://www.dailypaul.com/310297

Or did I miss something?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The prime minister

Said they would have them in the ninety's . Not to smart Benji claimed. There also are no Jews in Iran either.LOL

Money talks and dogs bark

If I were you, I wouldn't

If I were you, I wouldn't make such a presumptuous bet, because Iran likely already has nuclear weapons via Saudi Arabia. ;)

As far as Iran's ability to produce its own nukes, I'll leave such conjecture to others.

Here's my take on this conversation:

"I wouldn't take that bet because I happen to know that they already have a nuke"

"How do you know? Got any credible sources?"

"Uhh, I just told you my source. It's my brain!"

"OK... How about some other sources?"

"What don't you understand? I just told you my source, and it hasn't failed me yet"

"...I think it's failing you right now"

"You just don't get it!"

That makes no sense at all.

That makes no sense at all. Saudi Arabia is funding the war against Syria which is a proxy war against Iran. Saudi Arabia hates Iran. They would never help them, let alone give them weaponry.

Wrong. Common enemies make

Wrong. Common enemies make strange bedfellows. Historically, Saudi Arabia and Iran have cooperated during various times and perceived threats.

Wrong actually. I already

Wrong actually. I already know both current AND historical events concerning Saudi Arabian & Iranian relations.... ;)

Do proclamations of your own

Do proclamations of your own knowledge without citing any facts, sources or thoughts generally work for you?

I'm not discussing a

I'm not discussing a "generality" here, but referring specifically to Saudi Arabian and Iranian relations, both current and historical. ;)

You are making an

You are making an unsubstantiated claim that Saudi Arabia likely gave Iran nuclear weapons. You have opted to cite no evidence. Your only source is that you "know both current AND historical events concerning Saudi Arabian & Iranian relations".
This is adding fuel to the fire. Don't you get that erroneous claims about Iran is part of the problem?
If you believe your claim is true, then back it up with something.