Thread: Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says

Originally Posted by vendur

I would say the majority of technologically advanced countries would side with the USA if they were cyber-attacked, as their countries could just as easily be next. Iran is not out concern. The people in the mid-east should worry about it, not us. As soon as they have the ability to reach USA with a nuclear payload, then we will worry about them. till then, why the **** do we care?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Originally Posted by sharon

We are really putting it to Iran. ... and now this cyberattack.

Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg and is being used as storage.

Saudi is going to drive the price per barrel down to about $75.. and Iran needs $117 to break even.

And some sanctions aren't even in affect yet.

Keep in mind, the virus was running it's course over a year ago, in late 2010.

Originally Posted by Catawba

It makes civilians the military's boss.

Yes through their elected representatives, who need to pass it by the corporate entities before the military can be informed what is to be done.

Originally Posted by Connery

Yes through their elected representatives, who need to pass it by the corporate entities before the military can be informed what is to be done.

I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

Originally Posted by Catawba

I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

Perhaps his loyalty lies elsewhere?

Originally Posted by Grant

Perhaps his loyalty lies elsewhere?

Seriously? I mean Seriously?

Originally Posted by Catawba

I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

The truth of the matter with Iraq and Afghanistan, the withdrawal dates were penciled in during President Bush's presidency, which would mean drawdown talks had occurred at NATO summits prior to actually happening.

Cuts to the military is a separate issue.

And I believe what cuts they've made so far aren't terrible moves. Our budget *needs* reform.

We can't continue to spend so much on the military when so much of that money could be helping our citizens. I mean, I want a justification for the over seven-hundred foreign military bases.

Originally Posted by Grant

Perhaps his loyalty lies elsewhere?

Yes his loyalty is to the 99%, rather than the 1% that profit from military imperialism. That helps explain why the majority of Wall Street donations are going to Romney.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

How's that? Without enough information about the reactor there would be no way to tell any device or material came from their reactor.

There's circumstantial evidence only, no verifiable proof.

With all of the inspections the IAEA have performed, why would you doubt that documentation exists exhibiting Iranian nuclear markers?

Well, what do you believe?

Originally Posted by Catawba

Yes his loyalty is to the 99%, rather than the 1% that profit from military imperialism. That helps explain why the majority of Wall Street donations are going to Romney.

More than 1% profit from military imperialism. CT, for one, would go totally belly up if world peace struck tomorrow.