In other news....

Fantasy until the day they unveil one. The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium. That's your pet project. What more do you need?

Oh, I know .... a big friggin' hole in the ground where a city once stood.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

Does the USA have nuclear weapons? Is the USA is compliance with IAEA? Is the USA allowed to have such weapons and Iran not allowed to have such weapons? Why or why not?

Please. No personal attacks. I’m not anti-USA but I am pro-fairness.

__________________
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight D. Eisenhower

I can almost smell the fear coming off of you.

Let me explain a few military realities, while you change your pants.

Only two adversaries of the United States have ever developed the technical capacity for a viable delivery system (i.e., ICBM) capable of hitting the united states. USSR and China. A nuclear delivery system of that capacity is an extremly complex and costly technical problem. Even if Iran wanted to make ICBMs capable of suborbital flight - missles that could circumvent the planet - to hit us on the other side of the world, they are many, many years, perhaps decades away, from making that happen.

Okay, so Iran could probably never hit us with nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your lifetime. Wouldn't they just give their nuke to al qaeda, you ask? Don't make me laugh. The Shia government of Iran is not about to hand their nukes over to enemies of the state. The fundamentalist sunnis of al qaeda would just as soon cut a persian Shia's head off, as spit on his grave. I give the iranians more credit for not being stupid, than you.


That leaves us with prioritizing the problem. In my view, Iran enriching uranium is only a problem if it can be verified that they intend to have nuclear weapons-grade uranium. A good reason to keep pressure on them to comply with all IAEA requests and inspections. As far as enriching civilian-grade uranium - even President Bush says they have a right to civilian nuclear power. That is enshrined in international law. So, in terms of priorities, while cons are shitting their diapers over iran, the real potential of a nuclear attack on us comes from blackmarket uranium from the poorly guarded stockpiles of the former soviet union. And guess what? When bush came into office he downgraded the US government assistance to the eastern bloc to secure their stockpiles, and now Bush is talking about cutting port security for the United States.

Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds. Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense. So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.

On one hand you say only two nations have developed delivery systems, then you turn right around and point out one of those nations as being a threat for have unsecure weapons on the black market.

Which is it?

And of course you want to blame Bush. LMAO.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

I see. You have no comment on the misdirected priorities of your president.

I will assume therefore, that you see Iran - a nation for which there is no evidence of weaponized uranium, or nuclear delivery platforms - as a greater threat and worthy of more posts, than the actual and real threat of existing and real enriched weapons-grade uranium that has made its way onto the black markets from the former soviet states. A problem that bush and his followers have either downgraded or ignored.


Can we get a new president now?

Yeah...nothing to worry about....

why worry about Iran enriching their own uranium in any quantity they need...
even as they work to develop the Shahab 7 missile (9300 Mile range)

we need to worry about AQ getting their hands on that 500 GRAMS of enriched uranium the Russian hoods are peddling...they could take it back to
their caves and mount it on a camels ass where one big big Allah induced fart
might hurdle it across the sky to land in Chicago....or AQ might sail that 500 GRAMS into the heart of NY on one their camel dung fired subs.....
So lets get our priorities in order.....fear AQ not Iran....

moron reasoning at its best....

__________________

_________________________________________
Biden was asked, 'Is he ready?' He answered, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is.
The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'
"I think that I stand by the statement," Biden (the smartest of the two)

This is sad. Its not my job to educate you on how terrorists could use stolen enriched uranium stolen from the former USSR to make low tech radiological devices, or dirty bombs. "Hurling it from the caves" is so stupid, its not worth addressing.

Google is your friend, if you care to turn off the Limbaugh show and learn.

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Because Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.

__________________
The keys to enormous American prosperity have always been individual liberty and personal responsibility. Liberals want to undermine both, and the former in the ways most restrictive of those things geared toward prosperity.
-M14 Shooter

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
--Barack Hussein Obama, July 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/

How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?

__________________
The keys to enormous American prosperity have always been individual liberty and personal responsibility. Liberals want to undermine both, and the former in the ways most restrictive of those things geared toward prosperity.
-M14 Shooter

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
--Barack Hussein Obama, July 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/

There is a wonderful novel you should read... and I recommend it:

http://www.amazon.com/5th-Horseman-C...60/ref=ed_oe_h

__________________
"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility. "

John Kenneth Galbraith

I already explained it's an issue of priorities. I really don't want to have to type it all over again:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.p...33&postcount=4

Aha.

Military realities? Where?

Iran doesnt need to be able to hit the US for a nuclear-capable Iran to be a serious threat -- Iran can hit Israel, all of the middle east, and all of Europe, presently.

You forget:
Iran funds/supports several Shia terrorist groups, the most notable of which is Hezboulah. Why do you suppose the Iranian government would not give a nuke to their terrorist appendage, and why do you suppose that appendage woudl not use it on Israel?

__________________
The keys to enormous American prosperity have always been individual liberty and personal responsibility. Liberals want to undermine both, and the former in the ways most restrictive of those things geared toward prosperity.
-M14 Shooter

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
--Barack Hussein Obama, July 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/

Is America allowed to have nukes and Iran not allowed to have nukes?
If so, then why is this? Won’t someone explain this to me?

__________________
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight D. Eisenhower

It -has- been explained to you, using terms you should be able to understamnd (since they're YOUR terms).

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.

__________________
The keys to enormous American prosperity have always been individual liberty and personal responsibility. Liberals want to undermine both, and the former in the ways most restrictive of those things geared toward prosperity.
-M14 Shooter

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster. It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
--Barack Hussein Obama, July 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...evolving_view/