DoctorNic 0 #51 January 16, 2006 Yes, this has the stench of religion. America as well has a leader who thinks he was sent by Yahweh or Allah or whoever. Remember, this Iranian leader (as one of the young leaders who took the American embassy in 1979) was created by America, just like Kohmieni, the to-be-expected result of our having backed the family of Shah Reza Pahlavi, another cruel despotic creep like the family of Saud next door. JFK (mentioned a few postings back) and his predecessor Ike supported similar disgustos down south, notably Fulgencia Batista of Cuba...thereby creating Castro, a to-be-expected result, and Anastasia Somoza of Nicargua....thereby creating the Sandinistas, a to-be-expected result. America supported the Diem/Nhu family in Vietnam, thus creating the perfect atmosphere in which to grow Viet Cong. So far, few if any of America's duh clumsy actions in the mideast have had surprising results. If America invades Iran, then (in addition to the Iraq Sunnis) we will face roadside bombs created by Shi'ites who so far have held back since we seemed to be helping them. Our great legacy will be to have united the Shia, the Sunni, the Wha'abi (who hate each other) to become allies against our boys and girls, of which over 2,200 have been seriously killed already. I'm a McCain man myself, but at this point miss Bill Clinton something awful. I would happily have the Oval Office occupied by Kaptan Kangaroo. Embarrassing, Bush is, as well as scary, especially when he sez "god bless america". I've got a sick feeling that the god in Bush's head is as nasty, peevish and vengeful as is the god in the head of the Iranian dude. Doctor Nic o' Them Toadsuckers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 January 16, 2006 So you support McCain when he calls the recent deaths to civilians in Pakistan as "unfortunate but necessary" in the war on terror? http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mccain-defends-pakistan-airstrike/2006/01/16/1137259968096.html Do you support McCains call for tough sanctions on Iran ever while admiting it will cause oil prices to sharply increase, perhaps devestating our economy? http://www.wtov9.com/news/6128351/detail.html I don't think you are going to be too happy with Bill Clinton in a few weeks, when it is revealed by the Barrett Report that he used the IRS and Justice Dept. to go after his political enemies, but I'll get back to you then. In the meantime, Google "Riady" and let me know if you support what he did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #53 January 16, 2006 Great news, sanctions will lead to a reduction in oil output, Iran being the 4th largest supplier and all... Our favourite company will get busy, your stock will increase in value, my hourly rate will increase..again. The only down side will be the rise in price of oil. I hope the diplomats make a better job of this one.....-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #54 January 16, 2006 Quote>And what happens when Iran nukes Tel Aviv? They nuke em back, which is why they won't. Correct. A much more likely scenario is that Iran's nuclear material will find its way into a dirty bomb or briefcase nuke that a terrorist then takes to Tel Aviv. Quote An armed Middle East is a polite Middle East. Not when you have a nuclear armed country that has a long and close relationship with terrorists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #55 January 16, 2006 QuoteSo why is the US so hung up about Iran potentially trying to get nukes (yet to be proven anyway) when other countries already have them? . For once in a while, why dont they just mind their own fucking business. The sort of people that are impressed by this sort of thing are either too young to vote yet (or shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway) ' I feel the same way to a degree. I mean MAD seemed to work pretty well, maybe better than trying to control in detail what everybody was doing. The problem is that it appears some of the holders of these weapons are plain fucking crazy. MAD doesn't work against people who don't mind dying soon; and who may have dying soon as their goal (as some twisted way of honoring their God). The most unfortunate thing is that I don't see any resolution on the horizon, and however it works out, an awful lot of civilians are going to get hurt. It's an incredibly complicated/convoluted situation that's either going to end in mushroom clouds, or is going to be around for many, many more generations." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #56 January 16, 2006 >A much more likely scenario is that Iran's nuclear material will find its > way into a dirty bomb or briefcase nuke that a terrorist then takes to > Tel Aviv. If Iraq is any guide, that will not happen UNLESS we attack. >Not when you have a nuclear armed country that has a long and >close relationship with terrorists. We have two of them already; none of them have given nuclear material to terrorists. Indeed, only one country, ever, has both supported terrorism and used nuclear weapons against civilians. But we studiously avoid mentioning that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #57 January 16, 2006 Quote If Iraq is any guide, that will not happen UNLESS we attack. Just like 9/11, and the other bombings before Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 January 16, 2006 QuoteQuote If Iraq is any guide, that will not happen UNLESS we attack. Just like 9/11, and the other bombings before Iraq? Here comes the "there's no proven link between SH and 9/11," despite the growing evidence. Once yu point that out, you will get "even if there was, so what, it still doesn't justify invading Iraq. It was about WMDs." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #59 January 16, 2006 >Here comes the "there's no proven link between SH and 9/11," Why are you quoting Bush? Do you disagree with him on this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #60 January 16, 2006 Quote>A much more likely scenario is that Iran's nuclear material will find its > way into a dirty bomb or briefcase nuke that a terrorist then takes to > Tel Aviv. If Iraq is any guide, that will not happen UNLESS we attack. Iraq is very differerent from Iran, as you well know. Quote >Not when you have a nuclear armed country that has a long and >close relationship with terrorists. We have two of them already; none of them have given nuclear material to terrorists. Indeed, only one country, ever, has both supported terrorism and used nuclear weapons against civilians. But we studiously avoid mentioning that. Fine. Let's just ignore the threat then since we're paralyzed by our own guilt. Should be an interesting Holocaust Symposium they're planning in Teheran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #61 January 16, 2006 >Let's just ignore the threat then since we're paralyzed by our own guilt. Not at all! Get inspectors there and keep them there. They have a right to do nuclear research, as any other country does. If they agree to inspections (which they have so far done) then both sides win. "Blowing the crap out of them" is a really poor solution to most any problem, even if it is fun and slakes the bloodlust of some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #62 January 16, 2006 QuoteShould be an interesting Holocaust Symposium they're planning in Teheran. I wonder whether several of my friends’ grandparents would be welcome there, what with the free tatoos they are still sporting courtesy of the Waffen SS -- or so they would have us believe. That W. Sirota guy I know for one could tell them volumes about the Holocaust from an insider's POV, but as he's the most patriotic pro-American person I've probably ever met I doubt the Mullahs would let him attend, he's definitely a very biased individual. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #63 January 16, 2006 Quote>Let's just ignore the threat then since we're paralyzed by our own guilt. Not at all! Get inspectors there and keep them there. They have a right to do nuclear research, as any other country does. If they agree to inspections (which they have so far done) then both sides win. What good does it do if they allow inspections while at the same time refusing to stop enriching uranium? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #64 January 16, 2006 >What good does it do if they allow inspections while at the same >time refusing to stop enriching uranium? Because if they never enrich uranium past 5%, they can't make any bombs with it. Fuel at those levels of enrichment is good only for reactors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #65 January 16, 2006 Quote>What good does it do if they allow inspections while at the same >time refusing to stop enriching uranium? Because if they never enrich uranium past 5%, they can't make any bombs with it. Fuel at those levels of enrichment is good only for reactors. And if they do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #66 January 16, 2006 >And if they do? If they do what? Enrich uranium to near 100% (i.e. bomb grade?) Then the inspectors note that, and we know they are building bombs. THEN we can act (diplomatically or militarily) with knowledge instead of ignorance - and that is a better place to start from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 January 16, 2006 QuoteQuote>What good does it do if they allow inspections while at the same >time refusing to stop enriching uranium? Because if they never enrich uranium past 5%, they can't make any bombs with it. Fuel at those levels of enrichment is good only for reactors. QuoteAnd if when they do? Fixed it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #68 January 16, 2006 Quote>And if they do? If they do what? Enrich uranium to near 100% (i.e. bomb grade?) Then the inspectors note that, and we know they are building bombs. THEN we can act (diplomatically or militarily) with knowledge instead of ignorance - and that is a better place to start from. Unfortunately, all it takes is some temporary disruption of inspections (for example, Iran "protesting" some issue), and they can get bomb grade uranium without anyone detecting it. Which is why the West is strongly protesting any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. The latest I heard was that Russia was considering the possibility of allowing the enrichment to take place in their country, then shipping it back to Iran. If the Iranians have a problem with that compromise it should tell us something of their real motives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #69 January 16, 2006 > If they do what? Enrich uranium to near 100% (i.e. bomb grade?) Then the inspectors note that... I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. It would be nice to think the Iranian's would be so willing to have a transparent nuclear program. The North Korean's just wanted a reator for their power grid, but also wanted the bomb/warhead and are well on their way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #70 January 16, 2006 Quote it's all Bush's fault that Iran elected a psychotic leader? No, but it is all Bush's fault that the *United States* elected a psychotic leader. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,049 #71 January 16, 2006 >I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to >disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. No. If they waited for that they would not be inspectors. Inspectors watch enrichment; they SEE if they are enriching weapons grade uranium. And if they do? THEN you decide whether to attack or not. I know, actually knowing what's going on with a country's WMD program is a bit alien to us, but we should give it a try. We will probably make better decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #72 January 16, 2006 Quote>I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to >disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. No. If they waited for that they would not be inspectors. Inspectors watch enrichment; they SEE if they are enriching weapons grade uranium. But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? It's just too easy to play a shell game with the stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,049 #73 January 16, 2006 >But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be >sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? Shifts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #74 January 16, 2006 Quote>But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be >sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? Shifts. Is that what's being done today? I'd be very surprised if it were so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,049 #75 January 16, 2006 >Is that what's being done today? I don't know. It's what we should be doing if we're serious about monitoring a country for clandestine nuclear weapons manufacture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
likearock 2 #68 January 16, 2006 Quote>And if they do? If they do what? Enrich uranium to near 100% (i.e. bomb grade?) Then the inspectors note that, and we know they are building bombs. THEN we can act (diplomatically or militarily) with knowledge instead of ignorance - and that is a better place to start from. Unfortunately, all it takes is some temporary disruption of inspections (for example, Iran "protesting" some issue), and they can get bomb grade uranium without anyone detecting it. Which is why the West is strongly protesting any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. The latest I heard was that Russia was considering the possibility of allowing the enrichment to take place in their country, then shipping it back to Iran. If the Iranians have a problem with that compromise it should tell us something of their real motives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #69 January 16, 2006 > If they do what? Enrich uranium to near 100% (i.e. bomb grade?) Then the inspectors note that... I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. It would be nice to think the Iranian's would be so willing to have a transparent nuclear program. The North Korean's just wanted a reator for their power grid, but also wanted the bomb/warhead and are well on their way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #70 January 16, 2006 Quote it's all Bush's fault that Iran elected a psychotic leader? No, but it is all Bush's fault that the *United States* elected a psychotic leader. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #71 January 16, 2006 >I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to >disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. No. If they waited for that they would not be inspectors. Inspectors watch enrichment; they SEE if they are enriching weapons grade uranium. And if they do? THEN you decide whether to attack or not. I know, actually knowing what's going on with a country's WMD program is a bit alien to us, but we should give it a try. We will probably make better decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #72 January 16, 2006 Quote>I suppose your under the assumption that the Iranian's are willing to >disclose this possible weapons grade uranium enrichment to U.N. inspectors. No. If they waited for that they would not be inspectors. Inspectors watch enrichment; they SEE if they are enriching weapons grade uranium. But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? It's just too easy to play a shell game with the stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #73 January 16, 2006 >But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be >sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? Shifts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #74 January 16, 2006 Quote>But unless the inspectors actually lived on site, how could they be >sure the extra enrichment wasn't being done in their absence? Shifts. Is that what's being done today? I'd be very surprised if it were so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,049 #75 January 16, 2006 >Is that what's being done today? I don't know. It's what we should be doing if we're serious about monitoring a country for clandestine nuclear weapons manufacture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
