Iran joins Nuke Club

[stubeeef]

With the UN telling them not to enrich Uranium, Iran announced today they have done so successfully.

Maybe the UN had the wrong interpreter. Cause they told them not to. I don't understand. Maybe they should tell them they really mean it this time.

[skunk]

With the UN telling them not to enrich Uranium, Iran announced today they have done so successfully.

Maybe the UN had the wrong interpreter. Cause they told them not to. I don't understand. Maybe they should tell them they really mean it this time.Except that they have every right to do so under the treaty.

[freeny]

Gotta love the peace doves on the wall behind him durring the announcement.

[skunk]

This is a manufactured crisis.

[leekohler]

Of course- so Uncurious George can go on another adventure and get our kids killed and spend all our money. And of course, we'll get nothing in return for our trouble and neither will the Iranian people.

[freeny]

Still, you gotta love those peace doves!

Also, is that a members only jacket hes wearing?.... ooops my mistake. Banana Republic.

[zimv20]

Iran announced today they have done so successfully.
link?

[leekohler]

Still, you gotta love those peace doves!

Yep.

[freeny]

link?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

Ive got a fever, and the only cure is more peace doves.... okay Ill stop now.:p

[skunk]

link?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm

[Peterkro]

link?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm

Damn your nimble fingers.

[skunk]

Some duplication here, I feel.

[mgargan1]

Except that they have every right to do so under the treaty.

Yes, and they also have to have tightly regulated inspections which they aren't adhereing to...

[freeny]

Some duplication here, I feel.
Mine is different and one minute earlier so I win.

This is about two egotists facing off on who's is bigger.
One with a following of zealots and the other down and cornered looking to bolster his approval rating. Bad news no matter how you look at it.

[skunk]

Mine is different and one minute earlier so I win.Mine is from a reputable news source.

[miloblithe]

With the UN telling them not to enrich Uranium, Iran announced today they have done so successfully.

Maybe the UN had the wrong interpreter. Cause they told them not to. I don't understand. Maybe they should tell them they really mean it this time.

I think to officially join you have to detonate a nuclear bomb. Enriching a little uranium isn't the same thing.

[zimv20]

Mine is from a reputable news source.
and from that source:
Experts say Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb.

is the WH pumping up this issue as much as the immigration "issue"? why the alarms, i wonder.

[Peterkro]

Mine is from a reputable news source.

:D :D :D

[freeny]

Mine is from a reputable news source.
Nice;)

Although CNN is hardly Fox news and the BBC is, aw who cares?:confused:

[skunk]

why the alarms, i wonder.George wants to screw up properly this time.

[freeny]

George wants to screw up properly this time.
Another nice one:D
Im pretty sure he will fail at this on too.

[blackfox]

You have a link Stu? I am just interested in the greater context of the announcement.

Lacking that context for a moment, the US should tread very carefully. Because Iran has us by the short ones...a military strike is pretty much useless and in many ways probably harmful to US interests. Consider:

- Iran has learned (from the Osirak strike in the 80's) that it will need to spread out it's nuclear operations. The could have dozens of sites, and the US is not likely to know where they all are.

- As retaliation to, or as a measure of prevention of a US strike, Iran could use it's sizable influence in the world oil markets to shock/destabilize western economies, especially the US (as the largest oil importer). There is little slack in the oil market and Irans removal of it's supplies could easily drive oil prices above $100/barrel. In addition, Iran and Venezuela have been cultivating economic and political ties, so the US getting oil from Venezuela would likely be impossible. The effects on the world and US economy would be sizeable - in fact a strike before the Elections this fall would pretty much guarantee GOP failure at the polls, for these reasons.

- Any strike on Iran would likely only set them back relatively briefly, and they would re-pursue their goal with renewed vigor and much more anti-american sentiment - both strategic mistakes for the US in such an important region.

- Iran has a sizeable influence on the dominant Shiite presence in the Iraqi government and military. Al-Sadr has already said he would turn his forces on the US if they attack Iran. Iran could rather easiiy make Iraq a nightmare of a much greater magnitude for the US forces, which will again extract a political cost here domestically.

Basically, the only way the US can prevent Iran from aquiring Nuclear weapons is by a full-on war, which we don't have the resources to begin, much less sustain or win. Iran knows all of this, so they can afford to be brazen.

To anyone who thinks that the US should strike Iran, I challenge you to tell me why it would be a good idea in light of the above.

[freeny]

Iran truly is the biggest winner in the Iraq war. We so convieniently removed his worst enemy from the region and turned the middle east into a full on anti American area. Thanks George!

[skunk]

Iran truly is the biggest winner in the Iraq war.Halliburton's done quite well, too.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I have to laugh at the gimmicky we have Nuclear power ceremony:rolleyes: They have in secret for 18 years tried to build the bomb even gone to the point of moving whole plants & installations to hide this program and then to claim its for a peaceful energy when they sit on top of all that Oil. LOL what a bunch of BullSh..! As Bad as our President and his spin machine.

[freeny]

I have to laugh at the gimmicky we have Nuclear power ceremony:rolleyes: They have in secret for 18 years tried to build the bomb even gone to the point of moving whole plants & installations to hide this program and then to claim its for a peaceful energy when they sit on top of all that Oil. LOL what a bunch of BullSh..! As Bad as our President and his spin machine.
AW com'on, didnt you see the peace doves?

[Dont Hurt Me]

AW com'on, didnt you see the peace doves?:D Yeah i did it must mean everything is OK:D

[blackfox]

They have in secret for 18 years tried to build the bomb even gone to the point of moving whole plants & installations to hide this program and then to claim its for a peaceful energy when they sit on top of all that Oil.

While it is likely that Iran probably has at least some military applications in mind with regards to it's Nuclear aspirations, perhaps it is just being forward-thinking.

A country might be smart to move and separate it's installations, because whatever their intended usage, they cost money and time to build, and it would be a shame if they all got destroyed by some other country<ahem>.

It is true Iran has a lot of oil, but they won't always. Can you blame a country on trying to set up an energy infrastructure for the future?

It is likely that they will use any nuclear capability they have for both energy and weaponry.

[Dont Hurt Me]

While it is likely that Iran probably has at least some military applications in mind with regards to it's Nuclear aspirations, perhaps it is just being forward-thinking.

A country might be smart to move and separate it's installations, because whatever their intended usage, they cost money and time to build, and it would be a shame if they all got destroyed by some other country<ahem>.

It is true Iran has a lot of oil, but they won't always. Can you blame a country on trying to set up an energy infrastructure for the future?

It is likely that they will use any nuclear capability they have for both energy and weaponry.
No i dont but its clear they have other intent. The world doesnt need more Nukes it cant watch it needs less. Black & White. If they wanted energy a Open program for energy like Brazil would be OK, not a secret underground and oops you found one plant now we need to hide it clandestine manufactoring of nuclear material.

[freeny]

No i dont but its clear they have other intent. The world doesnt need more Nukes it cant watch it needs less. Black & White. If they wanted energy a Open program for energy like Brazil would be OK, not a secret underground and oops you found one plant now we need to hide it clandestine manufactoring of nuclear material.
Its true, Its been Irans secrecy about the whole thing that is troubling.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its true, Its been Irans secrecy about the whole thing that is troubling.I agree

[zap2]

Well if we can have it, they can too, that said i think noone should, but then only "evil" countrys would have it and be able to kich the "good" country's asses.


What to do:rolleyes:

[blackfox]

Troubling or not, once again I ask "what can be done about it?"

I am pretty sure the answer is "jack *****."

Please refer to my earliest post for a sampling of many (though not all) reasons why.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Troubling or not, once again I ask "what can be done about it?"

I am pretty sure the answer is "jack *****."

Please refer to my earliest post for a sampling of many (though not all) reasons why.Short of dropping some weapons not much, sanctions are useless as history has shown and i cant think of any carrots for Iran so ............

[Ugg]

With the UN telling them not to enrich Uranium, Iran announced today they have done so successfully.

Maybe the UN had the wrong interpreter. Cause they told them not to. I don't understand. Maybe they should tell them they really mean it this time.

What's your solution stu? It seems that invading Iraq has only made it easier for Iran to take the nuclear route. Bombing Iran, or at least their nuclear sites, would surely be counterproductive. It seems that bushco backed the wrong doggie this time around.

[zimv20]

stu, you remind me of this guy who, whenever playing Roshambo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_paper_scissors#Other_names), would always play rock.

"rock beats all."

[Dont Hurt Me]

What's your solution stu? It seems that invading Iraq has only made it easier for Iran to take the nuclear route. Bombing Iran, or at least their nuclear sites, would surely be counterproductive. It seems that bushco backed the wrong doggie this time around.Spin, Iran was working on the bomb while George was sinking companies and getting Saudi bailouts, and that was years before he became our worst ever two termer president. (edit) but his reckless rule im certain gave them reason to get going on building that bomb.

[mpw]

Why is Iran having nuclear capabilities any worse to the US, UK, China, France or the Russians having the same?

As has been said if Iran are planning a future energy infrastructure good luck to them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Why is Iran having nuclear capabilities any worse to the US, UK, China, France or the Russians having the same?

As has been said if Iran are planning a future energy infrastructure good luck to them.Becuase it aint about energy its about weapons:rolleyes:

[mpw]

Becuase it aint about energy its about weapons:rolleyes:
And those other countries, the permanent members of the UN security council, don't have nuclear weapons? Who are the only countries to have detonated nukes?

Why shouldn't they have the same weapons the US etc. have?

Why don't the US etc. just get rid, once and for all, all their nuclear weapons and uranium tipped munitions?

[Dont Hurt Me]

And those other countries, the permanent members of the UN security council, don't have nuclear weapons? Who are the only countries to have detonated nukes?

Why shouldn't they have the same weapons the US etc. have?

Why don't the US etc. just get rid, once and for all, all their nuclear weapons and uranium tipped munitions?Same reason you arent allowed to have a Nuke:rolleyes: The U.S should be leading by example but we have a president who is incompetant on this and many many things.

[Airforce]

Why shouldn't they have the same weapons the US etc. have?

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust ever happened and called for Israel to be wiped off the map! He's insane!

[skunk]

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust and called for Israel to be whiped off the map! He's insane!Whereas your President is precipitating a holocaust and is similarly off his trolley. What fearful symmetry indeed.

[blackfox]

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust ever happened and called for Israel to be wiped off the map! He's insane!
Be that as it may, I'd still like to hear (a) why that is our problem and not Israel's, and more importantly (b) how we are going to stop Iran regardless of our opinions.

[floyde]

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust ever happened and called for Israel to be wiped off the map! He's insane!

And Bush is the epitome of sanity... :rolleyes:

Frankly, I'm much more concerned about Bush pushing the button than Ahmadinejad, as radical as he may be.

[Airforce]

Be that as it may, I'd still like to hear (a) why that is our problem and not Israel's, and more importantly (b) how we are going to stop Iran regardless of our opinions.

a) We look out for our allies
b) The military already has plans in the works if it comes to it. I have no doubts about them working ;)

[zimv20]

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust ever happened and called for Israel to be wiped off the map! He's insane!
yep, you've got The Fear.

mr rove certainly has your number.

[stubeeef]

First off, I am at Lake Lure (the site of HGTV's dream home) on a family vacation (although I am working from here).

Second, read the press, the links abound. Get a grip.

Third, Does anyone here really believe the UN is a puppet of the W administration? Or that Chirac warned Iran because of its peaceful intentions?

Fourth (I am on dial up and supper is ready) clandastine operations, only real solution. The terrorist do it everytime, our turn, using Iranians.

Nighty Night!:)

[skunk]

b) The military already has plans in the works if it comes to it. I have no doubts about them working ;)How touching.

[Takumi]

and called for Israel to be wiped off the map!

Well if you look at how Israel was put on the map, you might understand where he is comming from.

Takumi

[mpw]

Are you kidding?

This is a guy who has denied the holocaust ever happened and called for Israel to be wiped off the map! He's insane!
Am I kidding? No.

No insane person ever detonated a nuke, only the sane have.

Again why don't the US get rid of their arms? Why should they be the only ones allowed them?

Other than very small scale terrorist actions has Iran every sent its army anywhere further than to fight someone immediately threatening their borders (whether pro-active or defensive)? The US have often travelled round the globe to kill people who either did not or only theoretically threaten the US from afar.

[Airforce]

Well if you look at how Israel was put on the map, you might understand where he is comming from.

Takumi

Oh, I love that. You know, I'm willing to assume that if Bush said something like this, you'd be all over his ass like white on rice. A crazy guy says it while pursuing nuclear weapons: "Hey, you gotta understand where the guy is coming from!" Yesh :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Someone has to play world police otherwise the next Hitler,Saddam,or whoever may get a hold of this kind of thing. Duh. Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian. Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:

[zimv20]

read the press, the links abound. Get a grip.
thanks for telling me to get a grip. i really deserved that.

it is de rigeur in here to post a link in the first post if referencing a news story. many other, myself included, respect our fellow posters by also including some text, a teaser if you will, to get across what we find interesting about it and serve as an antecedent to any comments in that first post. further, posting some text is useful if the linked-to article ever goes offline.

it's courteous and respectful to post a link. it's also courteous and respectful to not get defensive when someone asks for it.

i don't think you'd be surprised if i find that neither of those positive attributes apply to you. and i certainly wasn't surprised when you told me to 'get a grip'.

enjoy your day.

[floyde]

Someone has to play world police otherwise the next Hitler,Saddam,or whoever may get a hold of this kind of thing. Duh. Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian. Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:

Right, except that this time around, the world police didn't show up in time, and now there are tons of arabs speaking english :rolleyes:

[Airforce]

Am I kidding? No.

No insane person ever detonated a nuke, only the sane have.

What kind of reasoning is that?


Again why don't the US get rid of their arms? Why should they be the only ones allowed them?

We aren't the only ones allowed to have them.


The US have often travelled round the globe to kill people who either did not or only theoretically threaten the US from afar.[

Huh? :confused:

[skunk]

Huh? :confused:He might be referring to the Philippines, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia or Iraq. Who can tell?

[cc bcc]

Scary stuff. About as scary as nukes in the hands of the only nation that has ever detonated a nuke over innocent civilians. Not just one, but two, just to be one the safe side.
As for a solution, I have no idea. The UN can't really handle anything, see Rwanda for example. And the "world police" is only making things worse nowadays. I'm not even considering the EU..

[Takumi]

Oh, I love that. A crazy guy says it while pursuing nuclear weapons: "Hey, you gotta understand where the guy is coming from!" Yesh :rolleyes:

While he is an insane man, pursuing nuclear technologies, this point sticks, while all others oofcourse do not.

[Dont Hurt Me]

If its world police you're after the US should leave it to the UN. They didn't with Iraq and without that *******-up I doubt Iran would be as ready to proceed as they are now.

As for WWII and trusting the US to keep weapons out of the hands of the next Hitler, what about the last one? America re-armed Germany in preparation for WWII. Over half of the tanks built for the German army in '39-'40 were supplied by GM/Ford.

Hitler came to power in the '30s with funding from various businessmen who were happy to support him and to profit from the rearmament program in the knowledge that Hitler was preparing an offensive force not just a defensive one. One of those men who supported, funded and profited from Hitler's rise to power was an American who used the profits to bankroll his son's entry into the oils business, Prescott Bush father to George Bush and granddaddy to GW.I must remind you of the how many resolutions on Saddam by the U.N.? The U.N. couldnt decide on its next lunch let alone anything important like the spread of nuclear weapons. Iraq is a mess i agree but its been a mess for centuries thats why it took a murdering Saddam to run it. But like all the spin here we need to focus. I simplify it for you.

Nuclear Weapons are bad
People are bad
Mix the two and Boom
Therefore since we cant eliminate people we must eliminate the spread of these weapons. Got it?

[mpw]

...
Nuclear Weapons are bad
People are bad
Mix the two and Boom
Therefore since we cant eliminate people we must eliminate the spread of these weapons. Got it?
Got it. Now,
Why doesn't the US get rid of theirs?
What PROOF does the US have that Iran aren't using this program for power production, that's PROOF not assumption?
What right does the US have to attack another State who has these weapon just for having the weapons?

[Ugg]

I must remind you of the how many resolutions on Saddam by the U.N.? The U.N. couldnt decide on its next lunch let alone anything important like the spread of nuclear weapons. Iraq is a mess i agree but its been a mess for centuries thats why it took a murdering Saddam to run it. But like all the spin here we need to focus. I simplify it for you.

Nuclear Weapons are bad
People are bad
Mix the two and Boom
Therefore since we cant eliminate people we must eliminate the spread of these weapons. Got it?

Then why have't we done anything to prevent Israel from stockpiling nukes? Much less allowing UN monitors to see exactly what they have?

Pakistan is a much more fragile environment for nukes. Musharaff has a very weak grasp on his country and there are a lot more religious nutcases in Pakistan than there are in Iran. Iran is looking to become a regional power. They aren't happy with Saudi Arabia's sell out to the US and now that Saddam is gone, they have a chance to get somewhere. Not only have we aided Iran in its pursuit of nukes by eliminating SH, our favoritism in the ME has spurred Iran to become a power in its own right.

The US only respects countries with nuclear capabilities, if Pakistan didn't have any, you can be sure that the troops in Afghanistan would have slowly worked their way into Pakistan. You can't blame Iran for wanting a little protection from predators like the US.

[blackfox]

You know, much of this page has been debating about:

(a) Iran's character as a Nation and their potential risk to the US/World (the two are often synonomous to the US) both as a nuclear power or currently.

(b) Whether the US is entitled to, or has good reason to, intervene.

(c) The nature of that intervention.

Isn't all this irrelevent, however, if the US is unable to do anything productive about it? I mean it's all well and good to say "Iran is bad" and/or "The US needs to police for good", but divorced from any possible practical application just ends up being rhetoric.

Now some rhetoric is good. and can push towards a concrete course-of-action. In this case, however, there are no good concrete courses-of-action, which makes rhetorical pushes either meaningless, irresponsible or even dangerous.

The fact is that even the US has limits to it's power and resources. In certain contexts, some options are just not possible to us.

If the US was to choose to go with a tactical nuclear strike it would pose an interesting irony - unable to find the resources or conventional political, cultural or military power, yet desperate to forstall an occurance or series thereof that negtively impacts their interest - they would pursue a course of raw violence and destruction. This course would be a partial and temporary victory, and ruin lives and economies, future strategies and diplomacies. It would, however, induce a certain amount of fear about our power and dedication. That seems like terrorism to me.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Our ideology, our technological sophistication does not mask that the goals are similar, desperate and sometimes cowardly.

There is also the more obvious irony of using nuclear weapons to forstall some crazies from using nuclear weapons. Draw all the distinctions you'd like - the simple fact remains.

Oh, and to think that China and Russia are going to stay still why we decimate the ME - where they have sizeable economic and energy interests is fallacy.

[MarkCollette]

It seems that I can't fully agree with anyone (except post #73, which was made while I typed this), so I might as well put my 2c in.

Iran having nukes is not good for any of its neighbours, including Israel and Arabs, Turks, etc. Sure, to some degree they probably want them for defence, after all the crap the Western powers have pulled in that area for the last couple hundred years. But, unfortunately, their leader has already expressed some genocidal positions, which is not cool. So, it makes sense for them to want nukes, and it makes sense for pretty much anyone else to not want them to have them. I assume/hope all the stuff coming out of the USA about invasion or nuking them is really just brinkmanship. Most likely this will end with some Israeli or American or European airstrikes. Hopefully backed by the UN. If the crap coming from the USA about preemptive nuking or invasion is actually real, then I know you psycho ****s will get what's coming to you.

As for the whole WW2 thing, mpw pretty much explained it. Powerful rich American corporations supported the Germans, the Soviets and Great Britain. Rich American bankers lent money to the British, and did what was necessary to get their investment returns. The Marshal Plan worked out pretty well for them too. There was no altruism there. When the USA entered the war, at the late stage, I'm not sure if that ever balanced the harm they did in the first place.

As for the Cold War, it's really quite simple. Start with hundreds of years of imperialism by Western powers on the developing world. Then, add in a huge power grab by the Fascist powers. What will any developing nation do? They'll want to take control of their national borders, industrialise and modernise. It turns out that the easiest way to do that is Socialism on a national level. So, hmm, historical animosity from "democracies", recent pilliaging death and genocide from Fascists, and a proven (Soviet) Socialist model of modernisation... And instead of trying to stay allied with them, we push them back into a corner where they have to rely on the Chinese or Soviets... Pretty soon it's not just some issue of keeping Stalin in check, but it's a red coloured globe of us or them, and the only solution is to kill poor people in third world countries, for their own good, and we all talk about annihilating each other, and surprise surprise the world is on the brink of destruction. But, we should thank the USA, because even though they were one of the parties responsible for engineering that situation, somehow it was all for our benefit?

You know, I actually have a list 100 names long, or who to blame for the Cold War, WW2, the Middle East, etc. But do you know what the underlying principles are, that bind it all together? Pay attention, this is important:

Every action has a set of reactions. Each of those reactions causes even more reactions. It's 1000 times easier to destroy than to build. So, every action has to be precisely calculated to be constructive or moderating. Extremist actions can not be allowed, and must be met with moderating actions.

That is all. Making the world better is that simple. Anyone selling anything else will just perpetuate or worsen our historical problems.

[solvs]

I have my problems with Iran, believe me. I just don't trust this administration to fix things. If anything, it appears they're actually making things worse. I don't know the answer to this potential problem, but something tells me neither does BushCo.

[freeny]

There are many rights and wrongs from all sides here.

Yes Iran with the bomb is a bad idea

Yes the US should get rid of theirs too (although they have been since the end of the cold war. Hundreds)

No, Bush is not the right guy to fix the problem and he will in fact make it worse.

No the US did not come running to Englands rescue nor did they walk. They came on boats and planes and were invited by the Japanese.

[Rower_CPU]

WW2 discussion has been split into its own thread.

[jelloshotsrule]

i'm a bit ashamed to admit to being a fan of the show survivor... but bear with me.

for anyone else who's seen the show... does anyone else feel like the US is that guy who leads the overwhelming alliance, has the numbers and the power, and thinks they're invincible... only to have someone with nothing to lose (iran, venezuela, etc?) make a move that shifts the power to the underdogs and topples the big, cocky bastard?

that's how i see the next 5-15 years going down unless something big changes the tide.

[takao]

... and on the other side another not so un-radical or stable muslim country just a few miles in the east already _has_ nuclear weapons since years and they get to buy F-16s from the US at a discount

so far i have yet to see any evidence that warrents any (edit: ) military action at all

after all you don't invade a lot of different countries either because they _can_ develop a nuclear bomb

[jelloshotsrule]

after all you don't invade a lot of different countries either because they _can_ develop a nuclear bomb

you haven't met a friend of mine, i guess. he goes by the name, george.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its just a shame Bush & his draft dodgers have screwed up Iraq so bad because Iran does have a WMD program and is a terrorist state. I still think we give them 15 minutes to evacuate people in those installations and bury that nuclear program. Bomb every single Installation and do it now not later. Thats my view. If you dont agree you dont agree but doing nothing is doing nothing and that isnt a solution to a country who denies the millions of jews killed and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Since the U.N. is a useless political body someone has to step in and be world police. U.S....... world police because no one else will. Just like Saddam and how many resolutions ignored?? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:rolleyes: I bet if Saddam could do it all over he would have paid a little more attention to those U.N. resolutions and to the world Police U.S.

[OnceUGoMac]

The US have often travelled round the globe to kill people who either did not or only theoretically threaten the US from afar.

I think the term "threaten" is a bit too ambiguous. Perhaps they "threatened" our economic interests, or maybe they looked at us funny.

I think "afar" is used too loosely as well. Don't forget about our war with Mexico. They "threatened" our plans for Manifest Destiny.

He might be referring to the Philippines, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia or Iraq.

Philipines = Spain was asking for it.
Vietnam = It's France's fault.
Grenada = Our troops needed a vacation.
Somalia = The U.N.'s fault.
Irag = They looked at us funny.

[MarkCollette]

... and on the other side another not so un-radical or stable muslim country just a few miles in the east already _has_ nuclear weapons since years and they get to buy F-16s from the US at a discount

so far i have yet to see any evidence that warrents any (edit: ) military action at all

after all you don't invade a lot of different countries either because they _can_ develop a nuclear bomb

It's not a question of which countries are allowed to have nukes. We don't want anyone else to have nukes.

[Dont Hurt Me]

It's not a question of which countries are allowed to have nukes. We don't want anyone else to have nukes.Thank you, it seems some people think we are talking firecrackers here and not the horrible weapons of devastation. I would love to see no Nukes on this planet but since man cant live with man (please no gay jokes) here we are. Russia,China and the U.S. should be doing everything possible to lesson these weapons but instead we have Russia giving this tech to Iran! Its all about $$$ and little common sense.

[skunk]

Russia,China and the U.S. should be doing everything possible to lesson these weapons but instead we have Russia giving this tech to Iran! Its all about $$$ and little common sense.As far as we know, Russia is only providing help for legal, civilian, nuclear technology, much as the US, Germany, France, the UK and others have done elsewhere.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As far as we know, Russia is only providing help for legal, civilian, nuclear technology, much as the US, Germany, France, the UK and others have done elsewhere.You are spinning again, Russia is giving Iran the tech to enrich uranium for petes sake which can be used for weapons and it was done in secret for 18 years, Stop spinning this into a peaceful energy program because that isnt what it is. Its a weapons program. Heck even Russia offered them to keep the enrichment in Russia and Iran said no way we want our bomb.

[skunk]

You are spinning again, Russia is giving Iran the tech to enrich uranium for petes sake which can be used for weapons and it was done in secret for 18 years, Stop spinning this into a peaceful energy program because that isnt what it is. Its a weapons program. Heck even Russia offered them to keep the enrichment in Russia and Iran said no way we want our bomb.You need to enrich uranium for civilian or military use. You need to have a nuke for the US to pay any attention. It's working, isn't it?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Lets cut to the chase skunk do you want the proliferation of Nuclear weapons and do you think the world is safer or more dangerous with more and more countries having the bomb?

[Thanatoast]

I think a better question would be, is the world a safer or more dangerous place with two idealogically-aligned countries playing nuclear brinksmanship?

As in - Iran doesn't have a bomb, couldn't get a bomb within five years, and may not even have plans to build a bomb (not that I necessarily believe this, but certain world leaders have cried wolf before). Bush has a bomb, has made plans to use the bomb, and wants immediate action. Who's the more dangerous here?

I can only speak for myself when I say that less countries should have less bombs. However, it does not follow that the US should threaten or strike Iran on *suspicion* of a program that *may* create a bomb in the far future.

[MarkCollette]

I think a better question would be, is the world a safer or more dangerous place with two idealogically-aligned countries playing nuclear brinksmanship?

As in - Iran doesn't have a bomb, couldn't get a bomb within five years, and may not even have plans to build a bomb (not that I necessarily believe this, but certain world leaders have cried wolf before). Bush has a bomb, has made plans to use the bomb, and wants immediate action. Who's the more dangerous here?

I can only speak for myself when I say that less countries should have less bombs. However, it does not follow that the US should threaten or strike Iran on *suspicion* of a program that *may* create a bomb in the far future.

Are you saying the Bush comes across as being so bent on conquest and destruction, that you'd prefer Iran have nukes, to give Bush some pause?

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think a better question would be, is the world a safer or more dangerous place with two idealogically-aligned countries playing nuclear brinksmanship?

As in - Iran doesn't have a bomb, couldn't get a bomb within five years, and may not even have plans to build a bomb (not that I necessarily believe this, but certain world leaders have cried wolf before). Bush has a bomb, has made plans to use the bomb, and wants immediate action. Who's the more dangerous here?

I can only speak for myself when I say that less countries should have less bombs. However, it does not follow that the US should threaten or strike Iran on *suspicion* of a program that *may* create a bomb in the far future.Its not a suspicion dont you understand that? They have aknowledge it so lets not spin that. Irans Nuclear program is now fact. Iran has a nuclear program that has been done in secret for almost two decades until they were found out. Now you dont have to do a energy progam in secret but a weapons program you bet you do. Plus sitting on such a large quantity of Oil means you arent looking for energy you are looking for something else. Iam allways amazed how people choose to ignore these key things on Iran.

[pseudobrit]

Its not a suspicion dont you understand that? They have aknowledge it so lets not spin that. Irans Nuclear program is now fact. Iran has a nuclear program that has been done in secret for almost two decades until they were found out. Now you dont have to do a energy progam in secret but a weapons program you bet you do. Plus sitting on such a large quantity of Oil means you arent looking for energy you are looking for something else. Iam allways amazed how people choose to ignore these key things on Iran.

Using oil for electricity generation is something of a waste. It's much more valuable exported as fuel.

Sitting on a large quantity of oil today means you are looking for a way to protect that oil. This is today what we are driving Iran to do.

[zimv20]

You need to enrich uranium for civilian or military use.
...as nicely illustrated by a chart found on this page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40668000/gif/_40668186_fuel_cycle_203.gif

[zap2]

You are spinning again, Russia is giving Iran the tech to enrich uranium for petes sake which can be used for weapons and it was done in secret for 18 years, Stop spinning this into a peaceful energy program because that isnt what it is. Its a weapons program. Heck even Russia offered them to keep the enrichment in Russia and Iran said no way we want our bomb.


I think perhaps we need to lay down our Nuclear Bombs before we go and yell at iran for maybe making a Bomb. I think Nuclear weapons are to dangours for anyone. and Nuclear power can be dangours, and leads to Nuclear weapons. Simple put

Humans should not use Nuclear Energy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think perhaps we need to lay down our Nuclear Bombs before we go and yell at iran for maybe making a Bomb. I think Nuclear weapons are to dangours for anyone. and Nuclear power can be dangours, and leads to Nuclear weapons. Simple put

Humans should not use Nuclear Energy.Bush is setting a horrible example on this along with the enviroment, energy, Iraq,Medicare,Social Security, etc etc ....................whats new? I agree with you we cant expect to say no to others while growing our programs:rolleyes: 3 more years.:(

[PlaceofDis]

Its not a suspicion dont you understand that? They have aknowledge it so lets not spin that. Irans Nuclear program is now fact. Iran has a nuclear program that has been done in secret for almost two decades until they were found out. Now you dont have to do a energy progam in secret but a weapons program you bet you do. Plus sitting on such a large quantity of Oil means you arent looking for energy you are looking for something else. Iam allways amazed how people choose to ignore these key things on Iran.


so you have proof of all these things that you're saying in this thread? because i don't. because i doubt even the U.S. military does. why? because we have suspicions. we can't be headstrong again, look at where that got us with Iraq. yes they are looking into building a nuclear bomb. have they? will they in the next year? unlikely. five years? possibly. a lot can change in five years, but that doesn't give the US the right to march on into another country and do what they like. The U.N. has protocols that should be used first. (think of it this way, would you want your neighbor a few blocks down coming into your house and demanding you can mess around with whatever you have in your possession, because he suspects that you're going to make some kind of disturbance? i doubt it. the US has no right to attack another country, they can ask and demand that they stop. but as of right now, i think its wrong to assume too much. (assuming = an ass out of you and me))

[floyde]

I still don't understand why the US needs to do anything about it at all. So Iran gets their first nuke within the next couple of years, so what? What are they going to do? Launch a nuclear assault on the US? The Iranians would have to be insane to do such a thing, I mean, what good is 1 (or a few) nuclear warhead(s) against ~9000? Given the US's nuclear capabilities and Iran's territorial extension, the only thing Iran would accomplish by attacking the US with nukes is getting their country leveled to the ground.

The same thing applies for Israel. Iran is already 30 years behind Israel in nuclear technology, they'd have too much to lose if they chose to strike first. In the nuclear game there is no such thing as catching up. If you're behind you stay behind, the only reasons to join the game at this point are deterrence and self defense.

[Thanatoast]

Are you saying the Bush comes across as being so bent on conquest and destruction, that you'd prefer Iran have nukes, to give Bush some pause?I'd prefer Iran not have nukes. I'd prefer *we* not have nukes with which to threaten Iran. I'd also prefer to have some *proof* that Iran is building nukes. All I've heard so far is that they're enriching uranium, which is necessary to create fuel for nuclear reactors and which they have every right to do under the NPT and all International Law.

And yes, Bush comes off that bent on conquest and destruction. He thinks he can berate other nations into doing his will for no better reason than because he says so. If he doesn't want Iran to have nukes then he needs to *prove* they're trying to acquire them, and I'm sure he will get support from enough countries to build a coalition against it. If, however, he goes the Iraq route and hypes intelligence, straight-up lies to the public and unilaterally invades Iran he will create a world of ****.

So frankly, I beleive that Iran *may* be working on a nuke program, and that they *may* create a bomb in 5-10 years time, but I am *sure* that if Bush strikes Iran the world will go up in flames.

I guess that makes my short answer "yes".

[MarkCollette]

I still don't understand why the US needs to do anything about it at all. So Iran gets their first nuke within the next couple of years, so what? What are they going to do? Launch a nuclear assault on the US? The Iranians would have to be insane to do such a thing, I mean, what good is 1 (or a few) nuclear warhead(s) against ~9000? Given the US's nuclear capabilities and Iran's territorial extension, the only thing Iran would accomplish by attacking the US with nukes is getting their country leveled to the ground.

The same thing applies for Israel. Iran is already 30 years behind Israel in nuclear technology, they'd have too much to lose if they chose to strike first. In the nuclear game there is no such thing as catching up. If you're behind you stay behind, the only reasons to join the game at this point are deterrence and self defense.

This is where it would have been a good idea for Iran's leader to not act like a crazy freak planning genocide. Then maybe we could all sit back and relax.

[floyde]

This is where it would have been a good idea for Iran's leader to not act like a crazy freak planning genocide. Then maybe we could all sit back and relax.
Well I know that Ahmadinejad isn't the most lovable president (he's certainly not a Nelson Mandela), but I don't think he's as extreme as he appears to be. Defying the US, calling for the destruction of Israel and denying the holocaust will give you a popularity boost in the middle east these days.

I don't doubt that he hates jews and that he would love to see Israel dissolved, but at heart he's just your typical demagogue, and he has little to gain by nuking other countries.

[Airforce]

Well I know that Ahmadinejad isn't the most lovable president (he's certainly not a Nelson Mandela), but I don't think he's as extreme as he appears to be. Defying the US, calling for the destruction of Israel and denying the holocaust will give you a popularity boost in the middle east these days.

I don't doubt that he hates jews and that he would love to see Israel dissolved, but at heart he's just your typical demagogue, and he has little to gain by nuking other countries.

I'm looking for the punchline in this post...there has to be one...I mean, this is a joke right?

"Oh, he's just saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's just shenanigans!"

Well, I'm glad you know him so well. I'll inform the government that he's just grabbing his audience with those comments and at heart, he just hates the Jews. No big deal there. He's not that extreme! Really :rolleyes:

[floyde]

I'm looking for the punchline in this post...there has to be one...I mean, this is a joke right?

"Oh, he's just saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's just shenanigans!"

Well, I'm glad you know him so well. I'll inform the government that he's just grabbing his audience with those comments and at heart, he just hates the Jews. No big deal there. He's not that extreme! Really :rolleyes:

I don't know him at all, I'm just stating my opinion. And I'm not saying that he's a good person underneath, but I believe that his threats are empty.

Like I said, it's very likely that he does want to destroy Israel, but that doesn't mean that he is literally going to invade the country and slaughter its citizens. The reason for this: pragmatism. He has little to gain and a lot to lose. Israel is well-armed and so are its allies, and no madman (even the more extreme) ever invaded another country with the sole purpose of exterminating another race.

To me he's just acting like Chavez. He just likes to pick a fight with his enemies, it makes him feel all strong and powerful, but even he knows that half of what comes out of his mouth is just plain b******t

[zimv20]

I'll inform the government that he's just grabbing his audience with those comments
trust me, they know. but it's much more useful for the administration to scare you. and it's working.

let us note how the tactics of the US administration and the iranian administration are the same. you fall for one while condeming the other.

[mpw]

Thank you, it seems some people think we are talking firecrackers here and not the horrible weapons of devastation. I would love to see no Nukes on this planet but since man cant live with man (please no gay jokes) here we are. Russia,China and the U.S. should be doing everything possible to lesson these weapons but instead we have Russia giving this tech to Iran! Its all about $$$ and little common sense.
Iran are claiming that their program isn't about weapons so why should it bother the US. Would the US happily close its nuclear power plants and decommision their weapons inc. the nuke powered subs, if Iran close their program?

[MarkCollette]

trust me, they know. but it's much more useful for the administration to scare you. and it's working.

let us note how the tactics of the US administration and the iranian administration are the same. you fall for one while condeming the other.

Salient point.

[Stella]

I don't know him at all, I'm just stating my opinion. And I'm not saying that he's a good person underneath, but I believe that his threats are empty.

Like I said, it's very likely that he does want to destroy Israel, but that doesn't mean that he is literally going to invade the country and slaughter its citizens. The reason for this: pragmatism. He has little to gain and a lot to lose. Israel is well-armed and so are its allies, and no madman (even the more extreme) ever invaded another country with the sole purpose of exterminating another race.

To me he's just acting like Chavez. He just likes to pick a fight with his enemies, it makes him feel all strong and powerful, but even he knows that half of what comes out of his mouth is just plain b******t


Your probably right, its just all talk - wanting to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth.

These days, the states try and take any advantage they can. A few years back the Bush ( and Blair) said that because S.Hussain lied about having WMDs, this made him an even more dangerous person..!!

Really, it does get pathetic. Both sides need to settle down a bit...

[Airforce]

Your probably right, its just all talk - wanting to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth.

These days, the states try and take any advantage they can. A few years back the Bush ( and Blair) said that because S.Hussain lied about having WMDs, this made him an even more dangerous person..!!

Really, it does get pathetic. Both sides need to settle down a bit...

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?

[pseudobrit]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?

Too bad international diplomacy doesn't work like an episode of Cops or you'd have this argument sewn up.

[pseudobrit]

This is where it would have been a good idea for Iran's leader to not act like a crazy freak planning genocide. Then maybe we could all sit back and relax.

Saddam got rid of his WMDs and settled down quite a bit.

Maybe Ahmadinejad wants to keep the US from sitting back and relaxing again.

[floyde]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?
That's not just talking, you have a knife :rolleyes:
I don't remember Ahmadinejad making those statements while riding a tank over Jerusalem.

[Airforce]

That's not just talking, you have a knife :rolleyes:
I don't remember Ahmadinejad making those statements while riding a tank over Jerusalem.

Draw the conclusion. Once he has these weapons and continues to say similar things, it's one in the same.

[Stella]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?

Sigh.

There is a vast difference between talk and action, neither I'm saying that it should be ignored out of hand.

americans really haven't had a taste of modern warfare on their own soil. If they had done, they would be less likely to go to war at every opportunity. 11-9-2001 is a walk in a park... 3,000 people dead, several buildings destroyed. Insignificant to a large amount of cities totally destroyed - such as in WW2 and onwards.

[mpw]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?
Well here they would try to arrest you, send you to trial, present evidence and sentence you to a suitable punishment.

Of course if you lived in another country and didn't have a knife, but were in the process of growing a tree in you garden that *could*, once grown, be fashioned into the handle of a knife that you *could* make if you got some steal. Under those circumstances they wouldn't do a damn thing.

[zimv20]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?
honestly, for the past couple weeks i see nothing but blinding fear in your posts. face it, you fell for it. and now you're trying to cover by trying to make us equally afraid. so afraid that we look out our windows expecting to see a mushroom cloud and demand that george w bush rain some nuclear pain down upon the people of iran.

your fear is killing you, man.

[skunk]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does your law enforcement handle this?

"Oh, that's just so and so talking. Don't worry," ?Firstly, the Iranians have not said they want to kill you, secondly, it's nothing to do with law enforcement: the Iranians are not in breach of any treaty.

[Airforce]

Firstly, the Iranians have not said they want to kill you, secondly, it's nothing to do with law enforcement: the Iranians are not in breach of any treaty.

No, but they've said they want to kill my brothers and sisters.

honestly, for the past couple weeks i see nothing but blinding fear in your posts. face it, you fell for it. and now you're trying to cover by trying to make us equally afraid. so afraid that we look out our windows expecting to see a mushroom cloud and demand that george w bush rain some nuclear pain down upon the people of iran.

your fear is killing you, man.

Fear? They are years away from actually having a nuclear weapon. Fear would not be the correct term. Suspicion of intentions would be the better saying for this.

[skunk]

No, but they've said they want to kill my brothers and sisters.Are those the brothers and sisters who are killing their brothers and sisters, who stole their land, who treat them like dirt in their own country? I'm not in the least surprised.

Fear? They are years away from actually having a nuclear weapon. Fear would not be the correct term. Suspicion of intentions would be the better saying for this.And that's enough for you, is it? Most of the people on this planet are suspicious of US intentions, and justifiably so.

[aquajet]

Fear? They are years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

More like 16 days.

[zimv20]

Fear would not be the correct term. Suspicion of intentions would be the better saying for this.
fear is the correct term. unless you'd like me to chalk up your reactions as either opportunistic or madness.

[pseudobrit]

More like 16 days.

Oh my God! 16 days? I take back everything I said. This is just like Iran having a knife at Israel's throat and saying they're going to kill them.

Nuke them now, before I become more afraid.

[Airforce]

More like 16 days.

Well , better get this thing over with then :cool:

[floyde]

Draw the conclusion. Once he has these weapons and continues to say similar things, it's one in the same.

Ok, indulge me by trying a different mindset for a second, just so we can communicate: the world is not black & white, there's no good vs. evil, no hobbits vs. Sauron (:confused: ). Instead, the world is inhabited by different groups of equally flawed idiots, who mostly care for their own well-being, and nothing else.
Now, why on earth would Iran attack Israel? What would they accomplish by that? They can't annex its territory as it is claimed by the Palestinian arabs and their original displacement is pretty much the reason why some arabs hate the jews at all.
Sure, they could liberate the territory for them, gaining a lot of influence in the middle east, but why would they consider going through so much trouble and sacrifice, against such unbeatable odds, when the palestinian issue is really not their problem?

[skunk]

Well , better get this thing over with then :cool:God, how we laughed as the missiles rained down.

[mpw]

Well , better get this thing over with then :cool:
Reassuring to note that you find the idea of starting a war, and the associated deaths, cool!

[Stella]

When these types of stories come out that u.s intelligence believe -
"<insert 'rough' country'> can deploy WMD in '5' < example > days"..

I'm not sure how many people really believe them.. Iraqi and its WMD intelligence was totally inaccurate.. It is no more than fear mongering, trying to build support for the next conflict. I hope the american ( uk and others ) people won't be as trusting, next time. I certainly hope the UK won't follow the states into any Iranian conflict.

Though, to the UK's credit, at least Blair has come and out apologised that the intelligence was faulty... but this won't bring back the lives of the innocent Iraq civilians who were killed.

[Graeme A]

Are those the brothers and sisters who are killing their brothers and sisters, who stole their land, who treat them like dirt in their own country? I'm not in the least surprised.


Someone who understands the reason for most of the trouble in the Middle East... finally!

[Airforce]

Someone who understands the reason for most of the trouble in the Middle East... finally!

Yea, it wouldn't be all those suicidal extremists willing to kill for Allah! No, not that at all :p

[Graeme A]

Oh my God! 16 days? I take back everything I said. This is just like Iran having a knife at Israel's throat and saying they're going to kill them.

Nuke them now, before I become more afraid.

Tell the truth, you were one on the idiots who fell for that "45 minutes" crap from our great leader Blair.

Take a tablet, sit down in a dark room and get over it. Bush thinks that Iraq's going to be a vote loser and wants to rattle his sabre over the border. I think that someone really ought to read him the history of the Iran-Iraq war and the numbers of dead in that war before he really screws up.

[skunk]

Though, to the UK's credit, at least Blair has come and out apologised that the intelligence was faulty...He's a war criminal responsible for thousands of deaths and all he can do is apologise for faulty intelligence? It was doctored on his orders. He lied repeatedly, as did Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw and John Reid. Their heads should all be on spikes over the Traitors' Gate.

[katchow]

speaking of fear, i learned last night (via SouthPark) that the manatee is the only mammal not intimidated by terrorists.

Everyone, look to the manatee! :p
http://www.mmc.gov/species/images/manatee.jpg

[blackfox]

I come up to you with a knife and say I'm going to kill you. How does Crocodile Dundee handle this?

"That's not a knife...THIS is a knife..."

[Graeme A]

Yea, it wouldn't be all those suicidal extremists willing to kill for Allah! No, not that at all :p

Skim through your history book and read up around 58 years ago... that's when things started getting shaky in the region and all the jew hating started in earnest. Yes, Britain dropped the ball a bit as we were trying to run things in Palestine when the survivors of the Holocaust all started looked for the Promised Land (shame that someone was already there but, that was a small detail).

... And thats why just about every bloody leader in the region who wants a bit of press starts pulling the 'wipe off Israel' line. Most people from the region I know are good people but, they still get pissed about the Palestine thing.

[skunk]

Yea, it wouldn't be all those suicidal extremists willing to kill for Allah! No, not that at all :pNo, it wouldn't. Their lands have been stolen, their villages burned, their people massacred. If you were in this position, in the face of overwhelming military force, what would you do, Airforce, to redress the situation? Try to put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian refugee. Go on, just try.

[pseudobrit]

Tell the truth, you were one on the idiots who fell for that "45 minutes" crap from our great leader Blair.

Yes, that's me.

[Rower_CPU]

There have been a lot of personal comments made in this thread that flirt with/cross the line in terms of trolling/attacking others.

Let's not have any more of that.

[skunk]

There have been a lot of personal comments made in this thread that flirt with/cross the line in terms of trolling/attacking others.

Let's not have any more of that.I love it when you're masterful.:)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I would like to remind everyone that Iran doesnt need a Nuclear bomb, all it needs is a dirty one and they have the material now to do that. Sure A nuclear bomb is more dangerous but a dirty bomb exploded in the downtown of any major city would have a devastating effect. So in the end it doesnt matter if its going to be a few years for Iran to have a Nuclear weapon capable of fission, they dont even need that. All they need is nuclear material in a conventional weapon and they can do that today. Do you people see that? Do you understand that a small weapon with this material say in washington could keep it off limits to humans for a long long time? That is why Iran has to be stopped from producing this material.

[pseudobrit]

I would like to remind everyone that Iran doesnt need a Nuclear bomb, all it needs is a dirty one and they have the material now to do that. Sure A nuclear bomb is more dangerous but a dirty bomb exploded in the downtown of any major city would have a devastating effect. So in the end it doesnt matter if its going to be a few years for Iran to have a Nuclear weapon capable of fission, they dont even need that. All they need is nuclear material in a conventional weapon and they can do that today. Do you people see that? Do you understand that a small weapon with this material say in washington could keep it off limits to humans for a long long time? That is why Iran has to be stopped from producing this material.

Ahem...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2314252&postcount=50

I hate to break it to you but Iran has had material for making dirty bombs for a long time.

Your local road construction company has it too, as does the cancer ward at the clinic, the seed company's irradiator and the smoke detector manufacturer. Any of these isotopes are much more available and way more dangerous than enriched uranium.

[Dont Hurt Me]

There are many different degrees of radiation, the stuff you mention is kiddie crap, the stuff they are now producing isnt.

[blackfox]

Why does no-one even mention N Korea in this context?

While everyone is going ape-sh** over Iran perhaps being Nuclear Capable soon, and what they might do with this capability, N Korea is already Nuclear capable and moving quietly along.

Even if Iran is able to make a bomb, it will not have very many, and is unlikely to waste them by either using them or selling them to someone who would.

N Korea, is fast approaching the point where it will have enough of a stockpile that it could sell material and technology to any number of countries - Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela are likely customers - it could even sell to Al Qaeda.

While we may be up in arms about Iran's "ideological" danger, somewhere like N Korea, which seems rather mercenary and amoral - looks much more dangerous.

So, are there not ulterior motives at work with regards to the US stance towards Iran? I think so...

[pseudobrit]

There are many different degrees of radiation, the stuff you mention is kiddie crap, the stuff they are now producing isnt.

The stuff I mention is not kiddie crap.

I could hand you a flaky slab of Caesium 137 (half-life 31 years) the size of an iPod Nano and you and everyone you came into contact with would be a dead in a month.

Enriched uranium, U235, has a half life of 700 million years. It's much more stable (as are all weapons grade radioactive sources) and therefore much less dangerous than any of that "kiddie crap"

[zimv20]

the stuff you mention is kiddie crap, the stuff they are now producing isnt.
really? specifics, please.

[pseudobrit]

really? specifics, please.

There won't be any because it's wrong.

Most people assume that weapons grade stuff is the stuff we should be afraid of because it's so exotic and they're so unfamiliar with the specifics of radiation.

Nuclear weapons designers want the most stable radioisotopes they can get to ensure the yield and viability of the device. The wrong isotopes produce unreliable fission patterns. Plutonium 239 is what a bomb maker needs; Pu240 is crap and Pu241 in any amount will poison an otherwise perfectly good bomb core. The most stable elements are also the safest for humans.

Remember that the early atomic bomb assembly -- using exposed cores of plutonium or enriched uranium-- was done by hand.

[Dont Hurt Me]

really? specifics, please.My point is it aint able to produce fission. Kiddie crap. It isnt fissionable. If Iran Nuclear program is so safe then why is the world up in arms about this? It isnt just the U.S. as many of you seem to think. There is a real threat here not a made up threat like Bush had done in Iraq. Or again we can take that European View of doing........................nothing about anything.

[pseudobrit]

My point is it aint able to produce fission. Kiddie crap. It isnt fissionable.

I thought you were talking about dirty bombs.

Enriched uranium that's "fissionable" enough for weapons use is worthless in a dirty bomb.

And a nuclear weapon proper would simply add Iran to the list of nuclear players alongside Pakistan, China, India, Israel, Russia, France, UK and US. The balance of power would hardly shift.

[zimv20]

My point is it aint able to produce fission. Kiddie crap.
look: my degree's in science. read what p'brit said, he's got it right. if you want to counter his points with real science, and not trying to denigrate it by calling it kiddie crap, then by all means do so.

If Iran Nuclear program is so safe then why is the world up in arms about this?
you're really confusing the issues here. it isn't a question of the safety of iran's nuclear program, it's their intentions. once doubt was cast on the ideas that 1) they'd have a nuke soon, and 2) they wouldn't hesitate to use it, you switched the argument away from nuclear weapons (the chain-reaction variety) to simply scattering radioactive material.

not only is that a big difference in effect, but a big difference in how one goes about doing each. as pbrit has said several times, enriched uranium is not an ideal substance to kill by scattering. it kills via chain-reaction.

commonly found materials like cesium, otoh, do kill well from scattering. just because they're crap for chain-reaction uses does not, in any way, shape or form, render them harmless or lend cause for mockery.

[takao]

My point is it aint able to produce fission. Kiddie crap. It isnt fissionable. If Iran Nuclear program is so safe then why is the world up in arms about this? It isnt just the U.S. as many of you seem to think. There is a real threat here not a made up threat like Bush had done in Iraq. Or again we can take that European View of doing........................nothing about anything.

so first you talk about dirty bombs and now it's fission again ?

you know sometimes doing less is better than too much ...

well the rest of the world mostly says "step in the wrong direction" while the US says "we need to take action NOW" and switches to panic mode _again_

after all mr. el-Baradei is currently in Teheran talking to the iranian government so i guess more information will come across the news sooner or later


i'm much closer to iran but i don't see any huge danger it's not like they are going to invade the whole middle east or something ... after all they are still importing gasoline and desperately need the oil money

edit: and don't forget that iran is pretty much encircled by the US it's allies with afghanistan,iraq,pakistan, turkey...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Simply? Are they not on the list of Terrorist sponsor states? So its OK to you to have a Terrorist State with Nuclear capability? Do you not realize that to Islam we are all infidels??? Do you not understand that these people hate us so much they are willing to strap bombs on their backs and blow up anyone they can? Appeasement and doing 0 is still doing nothing. We can talk until we are blue in the face but at the end of the day I still think Iran shouldnt be allowed any Nuclear program in secret. If they really want energy let them open it up to the world. Period. Then they can have it. If they wont then I support this President (that i cant stand) to destroy all those facilities in Iran.

[zimv20]

Are they not on the list of Terrorist sponsor states?
and who put them there? perhaps the same people who are trying to bomb them, and injecting Fear into the populace so we'll let them?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well whats your solution? ignore anyone who wants a bomb:rolleyes: Pretend all is well. I have said it before doing nothing is still nothing and then we now have a nuclear Iran who has stated they want the destruction of Israel and The U.S. with them. Sorry but thats not a solution no matter how you add it up or spin it.

[pseudobrit]

Well whats your solution? ignore anyone who wants a bomb:rolleyes: Pretend all is well. I have said it before doing nothing is still nothing and then we now have a nuclear Iran who has stated they want the destruction of Israel and The U.S. with them. Sorry but thats not a solution no matter how you add it up or spin it.

We could take a page from the South Africa playbook.

[takao]

Simply? Are they not on the list of Terrorist sponsor states? So its OK to you to have a Terrorist State with Nuclear capability? Do you not realize that to Islam we are all infidels??? Do you not understand that these people hate us so much they are willing to strap bombs on their backs and blow up anyone they can? Appeasement and doing 0 is still doing nothing. We can talk until we are blue in the face but at the end of the day I still think Iran shouldnt be allowed any Nuclear program in secret. If they really want energy let them open it up to the world. Period. Then they can have it. If they wont then I support this President (that i cant stand) to destroy all those facilities in Iran.

terrorist sponsor states ? who made that list ?
so why is it ok that pakistan gets a discount on military equippment "made in the USA" ?
we are infidels towards them ? you mean kinda like catholics are infidels towards some protestants ? you understand that the islam is hardly a unified thing ? and that most people don't care, even in iran ?
and funny how there were so many (suicide) terror attacks planned and put to reality by Iranians the last years...

so what would you do ? bomb iran ? liek that will turn iran closer to us ... believe it or not: sooner or later there will be elections again in iran and the current president is unlikely to win unless you exactly do what he wants you to do which would be attacking Iran

oh and the Iranian program was hardly in secret after all they announced it very well in public ... after all i guess their buildings/ factories are better known than some facilities in other countries where nobody cares
heck even cnn showed maps and photos ... even the austrian army hides their bunkers arsenals better
they want everybody to see their project.. it's a matter of prestige for them

on the other side it's quite funny how nobody complains about Israel .. they _have_ nuclear programs and didn't sign the NPT and nobody cares

[pseudobrit]

terrorist sponsor states ? who made that list ?
so why is it ok that pakistan gets a discount on military equippment "made in the USA" ?
we are infidels towards them ? you mean kinda like catholics are infidels towards some protestants ? you understand that the islam is hardly a unified thing ? and that most people don't care, even in iran ?
and funny how there were so many (suicide) terror attacks planned and put to reality by Iranians the last years...

so what would you do ? bomb iran ? liek that will turn iran closer to us ... believe it or not: sooner or later there will be elections again in iran and the current president is unlikely to win unless you exactly do what he wants you to do which would be attacking Iran

oh and the Iranian program was hardly in secret after all they announced it very well in public ... after all i guess their buildings/ factories are better known than some facilities in other countries where nobody cares
heck even cnn showed maps and photos ... even the austrian army hides their bunkers arsenals better
they want everybody to see their project.. it's a matter of prestige for them

on the other side it's quite funny how nobody complains about Israel .. they _have_ nuclear programs and didn't sign the NPT and nobody cares

I get this feeling Iran is bluffing. Iraq was accused by the US of having WMD programmes and they denied it repeatedly and played the innocent. And no one believed them and they got invaded anyhow.

Iran has obviously seen how that scenario plays out so they're doing their best to try a new approach.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Spinning again, why do you guys twist everything? This was a secret program for almost 20Years? did you forget??? . You people seem to think we are talking about Canada or Iceland or something. No we are talking about Iranian leaders who reads from the Koran. A military religion that has stated world conquest is their goal. Did you forget? Did you forget that almost everyday we hear of another nut who blows themself up with others for his Koran and way of Islamic life? I know there are people of no action on anything. Europe took that approach with Hitler and it worked very well...........for Hitler. Perhaps instead of twisting everything you should open your eyes to Islam and what comes with it. Extreme Islam. Because if you aint Islamic you are a Infidel and they want to purge the world of the infidel for their religious beliefs.

[blackfox]

You know, a couple of things about Iran (that color my opinion of them):

I am fascinated by Iran/Persia.
- The delicious duality of their culture - the place where both the sensuous pagan poetry of Hafiz and the banners chanting "death to america" came from.
- I am interested in the fact that although most all of the women wear shadors, upon close inspection, these are often made of fine silk or a variety of imported fabrics. Some women display bits of forbidden hair, flashy earrings or lipstick. Many women also wore expensive perfume.

- I am interested that many Iranian drivers are women, unlike, say Saudi Arabia. I like that Iranian women look you in the eye when talking to them. I like that you can talk to these women and they smile when you ask to photograph them - something that in Pakistan, would make the women run away and a man likely throw a rock at you.

- I am interested in the fact that despite the Revolution, women still crowd the upscale boutiques, and the lesser ones. I like that the uniformity outside of the home seems to increase their fashion-consciousness inside the home. I like that the Iranian women would not be turned into peasants.

- I am interested in the fact that the Revolution succeeded only on a political, and not cultural level. A true revolution must radically alter a culture - like Zionism. That created a new spoken language. A new diet. It changed the way people looked and dressed. Iran's was anemic by comparison, and transitory to history.

- I am interested in the fact that the revolution is no longer looked at as favorable in Iran. Although it gave Iran some degree of self-respect, many of the initial causes of the revolution - rapid urbanization, demographic shifts, overcrowding - have only increased, creating a degree of dissatisfaction within the populace.

- I am interested that although Iran was never formally colonized, it was carved up into spheres-of-influence. In the late 19th Century, De Reuter (founder of the News Agency) gained exclusive rights to Iran's mineral wealth, to it's railroads, to irrigation and agricutural construction and to it's National Bank. You could see that Iranians might feel particularily exploited, because they lacked the protection that colonial status afforded them.

- I am interested that this feeling of exploitation culminated in the Shah, and the fear of centuries of violation by Turkic Nomads and European powers, and aggravated by the US led coup of Mosadeq - naturally led to the Revolution - a chance at self-respect and self-determination. Irans pursuit of Nuclear Power status, or of greater power in general seems a natural, and healthy outgrowth in the development of a country.

- I am interested that despite poverty, Iran has a very low crime rate - which is not a result of totalitarinism, but of a stong social mortar, much like Turkey.

- I am interested that in 1980, the Iranian "students" pieced together hundreds of documents that the US diplomats had shredded before the siege - tens of thousands of stips of paper, each less than an 1/8th of an inch wide. While this may make Iranians seem obsessive, or neurotic - there is no doubt that they are a capable culture that should be taken seriously. Iran managed to go from little presence in Lebanon in the 80's, to virtually controlling large pockets of the country a few years later. Using a surrugate - Hezbollah - they didn't even have to invade, as Israel did.

I don't know what Iran is up to, but I happen to think they are in a good position to be a pro-american country, just as long as they are allowed to come to such a place on their own terms. Their country is not fragile, like Pakistan or N Korea, nor totalitarian like Iraq was. If anything, they still have a chip on their shoulder from not getting the respect they feel they deserve - and attacking/intervening in their affairs would probably push them further away from our interests. As far as pointing to their leadership and saying "oh, they must be completely insane" is both inaccurate and misleading. GWB hardly encapsulates the feelings and opinions of the US populace, and rhetoric is a time-honored tool of the Politician.

[skunk]

I know there are people of no action on anything. Europe took that approach with Hitler and it worked very well...........for Hitler.Please don't give us that rubbish again.

Good post, Blackfox.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Please don't give us that rubbish again.

Good post, Blackfox.Why not because it was true? Anyways iam against the proliferation of Nuclear weapons period, no spinning and twisting phrases and comments as so many are experts at here is going to change my mind. Arguing for the spread of Nuclear material is ignorant and unaware.

[takao]

i just read that in 2005 germany decided to triple it's uranium enrichment capabilities
and on top of that in the 2. munich scientific reactor they are using high enriched uranium with a 93% concentration (compare that to the 3% enrichment of iran) and thus weapon grade uranium ...

[OnceUGoMac]

i just read that in 2005 germany decided to triple it's uranium enrichment capabilities
and on top of that in the 2. munich scientific reactor they are using high enriched uranium with a 93% concentration (compare that to the 3% enrichment of iran) and thus weapon grade uranium ...

I think that I can speak for others when I say, "I have no idea what that means.":confused: :p

[skunk]

I think that I can speak for others when I say, "I have no idea what that means.":confused: :pWhat it means is that even if Iran goes for what is called "weapons-grade" uranium (93% pure), it could still be used for producing civilian nuclear power.

[MarkCollette]

Simply? Are they not on the list of Terrorist sponsor states?

This might not sound popular, but there are degrees of terrorism. Some sponsors send money, some send AK-47s. Each different degree warrants a different response. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're implying that Iran would use its nukes for terrorism. I think that they understand that the value of small crappy nukes, in the face of western nuclear arsenals, is merely as a deterrent, not as an arbitrary offensive weapon.

[skunk]

This might not sound popular, but there are degrees of terrorism. Some sponsors send money, some send AK-47s. Each different degree warrants a different response. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're implying that Iran would use its nukes for terrorism. I think that they understand that the value of small crappy nukes, in the face of western nuclear arsenals, is merely as a deterrent, not as an arbitrary offensive weapon.Exactly right. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

[zimv20]

Anyways iam against the proliferation of Nuclear weapons period, no spinning and twisting phrases and comments as so many are experts at here is going to change my mind.
all i'm getting from your recent posts is that you're anti-islam and can conceive of it solely as a violent religion. that's not the case and that's one of several points where your argument fails.

pakistan is a muslim country. they have nukes. they haven't used them.

the majority religion in the US is christianity. not only is the US the only country to have used nukes, it's actively contemplating using them again.

[blackfox]

Why not because it was true? Anyways iam against the proliferation of Nuclear weapons period, no spinning and twisting phrases and comments as so many are experts at here is going to change my mind. Arguing for the spread of Nuclear material is ignorant and unaware.
Not wanting further nuclear proliferation is a fine goal. Yet, you've got to be realistic.

Any possible chance for non-proliferation resides in the current Nuclear powers to voluntarily disband their nuclear arsenals, and present an integral united front against any nation trying to aquire such weapons.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely to ever completely succeed, as many countries legitimately use Nuclear Power for Energy, and with the decline of Oil, will probably expand those efforts. So nuclear-free countries will be impossible, and a country could always attempt to hide it's weapons program under the auspices of civilian uses. Then there will always be countries who couldn't give a damn.

Another huge factor is "technology creep". As time goes on, and more and more countries grow in technological sophistication and with the continuation of Global markets of goods and ideas, it is only a matter of time before ALL countries are nuclear capable. You might as well try and stop countries from learning how to make a microwave, a plasma-screen or a telephone.

In this light, you must ask yourself whether the means is justified by merely a delay in the inevitable end. I don't think it is.

[Dont Hurt Me]

all i'm getting from your recent posts is that you're anti-islam and can conceive of it solely as a violent religion. that's not the case and that's one of several points where your argument fails.

pakistan is a muslim country. they have nukes. they haven't used them.

the majority religion in the US is christianity. not only is the US the only country to have used nukes, it's actively contemplating using them again.Im anti religion and Islam is one of the worst, i am also anti Nuclear Weapons. If Iran wants a peaceful energy program thats fine, but not a secret we snubb our noses at the world nuclear program.

[stubeeef]

OK first off-no link here.

Second I heard on NPR that most of the countries with Nuke Energy don't enrich their own U, that you need a lot of Nuke Plants for enrichment to pay for itself. Therefore the reason so many believe they have hid the program and are enriching U for a single purpose of bomb making. Any proof? No! but I hope a nuke going off is not the first real indication.

[skunk]

I hope a nuke going off is not the first real indication.I think that's something we can all agree on. :)

[solvs]

That is why Iran has to be stopped from producing this material.
K. How? Do you really trust GW to screw this one up too?

You know what really pisses me off? I'm defending Iran. Like I said, boy who cried wolf. Remember what happened to the boy in that story? Yeah, me too. Still doesn't mean I'm going to follow him to go kill the wolf. Especially if it's the wrong wolf, or even the right one, but it turns out the boy was pulling on it's tail and throwing rocks at it when it was just sitting there minding it's own business or looking for food. What's sad is, it's not even the one that pulls it's tail or throws rocks at it that it bites, it's the innocent bystanders. I fear a wolf biting me as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support shooting them all just because they have teeth. Even if I know they're pissed off. Poking them in the eye with sticks is a bad idea too.

That was a really long analogy, but I feel it's rather apt.