Thought Iran Was 5-10 Years From A Bomb

[glockmail]

I will certainly try again later when i have time, i gotta run right now.

As far as being open minded, you oughta try that yourself. I don't advocate possibly pre-emptively invading or using nuclear missiles against a country, spending another Trillion dollars or more to do so, and in the meantime choking the economic life out off them.

You seem to have your mind made up already. I'm open to continuing dialogue with them, continuing inspections, and demanding transparency.

I'll admit that we AT LEAST have a right to know what they're doing when it comes to nuclear ANYTHING. It's too serious a situation to have anyone be doing anything in secret, but the same goes for us as well. We have our closet open right now, they know what we got, so yes, we have a right to know what they're doing as well.

If Iran really isn't building a weapon, then they're really only aggravating the situation by being secretive about it.

It's just not something worth killing another million people ovre, and spending billions more that we don't have as it is.

Actually I was talking about you keeping an open mind about the ir website. the article I quoted is in there but the way their sytem works is not directly linkable. So if you are interested you have to follow my earlier instructions.

Its also interesting that whenever Ahmadinejad is aslked direct questions on this issue he always avoids giving a direct answer.

 

[CSM]

No, I have never stated CATEGORICALLY that the US does anything there has to be oil involved. In fact, I specifically gave two occasions where NO oil was involved...

You are correct...you did not CATEGORICALLY state that.

So how about telling us all what third world, second rate country you are from so we can bash your leaders a little?

 

[Dr Grump]

You are correct...you did not CATEGORICALLY state that.

So how about telling us all what third world, second rate country you are from so we can bash your leaders a little?

New Zealand...and go for it....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Actually I was talking about you keeping an open mind about the ir website. the article I quoted is in there but the way their sytem works is not directly linkable. So if you are interested you have to follow my earlier instructions.

Its also interesting that whenever Ahmadinejad is aslked direct questions on this issue he always avoids giving a direct answer.

What's so interesting about that? That's what politicians do.

 

[CSM]

New Zealand...and go for it....

Ah, now I understand....no chance of Iran nuking New Zealand anytime soon. Besides, if they did you guys have them nasty hobbitses to protect you!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know how to tell a New Zealander from an Australian?

The Australian has a red ring around their ankles and a New Zealander has one leg shorter than the other.

 

[CSM]

You know how to tell a New Zealander from an Australian?

The Australian has a red ring around their ankles and a New Zealander has one leg shorter than the other.

Kiwis are alright for the most part. I just fail to understand why a Kiwi would have so much interest in bashing Bush or even caring one way or the other what Iran does or does not do.

 

[Warner]

Can you people please try to keep to the topic at hand? In this case the Iranian A-Bomb?

If you want to stray seriously off topic, start a new thread!

 

[CSM]

Can you people please try to keep to the topic at hand? In this case the Iranian A-Bomb?

If you want to stray seriously off topic, start a new thread!

Well golly gee! I mentioned Iran...what more do ya want?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can you people please try to keep to the topic at hand? In this case the Iranian A-Bomb?

If you want to stray seriously off topic, start a new thread!

The ones that need to get ON topic are the ones in denial and claiming there is no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ones that need to get ON topic are the ones in denial and claiming there is no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons.

Lesse...
Its not OK for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons...
But it IS Ok for Iran to have nukes.

Hmmm.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Lesse...
Its not OK for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons...
But it IS Ok for Iran to have nukes.

Hmmm.

Well, yes, but those are truly apples and oranges.

First of all, hold onto your panic, people. There's a lot more to building a nuke than producing enough fissile material. Just because they may have enough enriched uranium in 18 months or so does not mean they will magically have even a crude bomb at that time. Just ask the North Koreans.

Secondly, if posturing and belligerent pronouncements were the standard by which we judged intent, then North Korea would be far more of a risk to use a nuclear weapon than is Iran. So too would Israel, for that matter.

Anyone with a lick of sense has known from the outset that non-proliferation is just a delaying action. Any sovereign nation that wants nukes and that has a sufficiently developed infrastructure will eventually build them. You can only stop it if you're willing to tinker with the notion of sovereignty . . . and I strongly suspect that the nationalistic types really don't want to go there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, yes, but those are truly apples and oranges.

Obviously, because law-abiding citizens carrying handguns is more of a threat to the security of the world than a nucelar-capable Iran.

First of all, hold onto your panic, people. There's a lot more to building a nuke than producing enough fissile material. Just because they may have enough enriched uranium in 18 months or so does not mean they will magically have even a crude bomb at that time. Just ask the North Koreans.

That's meaningless when the argument is "its OK for them to have them".

Secondly, if posturing and belligerent pronouncements were the standard by which we judged intent, then North Korea would be far more of a risk to use a nuclear weapon than is Iran.

I'm not following.
Should the people that are saying Iran shoudl not have a nuke also be saying that NK should not have nukes?
I beleive they are. So...?

So too would Israel, for that matter.

I'm not at all aware of Israel making any belligerent remarks regarding their posession/use of nukes. In fact, Israel hasn't publicly admitted that they have them at all.

Anyone with a lick of sense has known from the outset that non-proliferation is just a delaying action. Any sovereign nation that wants nukes and that has a sufficiently developed infrastructure will eventually build them.

The NPT creates a peaceful framework under which such states can be pursuaded to not develop them. If that fails, force is always an option.

You can only stop it if you're willing to tinker with the notion of sovereignty

Hardly. You dont have to address the issue at all.
A state may be sovereign, but that doesnt in any way create an argument that if said state presents a credible threat, other nations cannot act against it.,

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Obviously, because law-abiding citizens carrying handguns is more of a threat to the security of the world than a nucelar-capable Iran.

No, but a usually law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapon may well be more of a threat to my security -- or yours -- than is Iran under any circumstances.

Apples and oranges, as I said. One can't apply the same set of criteria to nations as to individuals. Especially not when the whole "community of nations" thing is so very primitive and nebulous.

That's meaningless when the argument is "its OK for them to have them".

But that wasn't the original argument. I was returning to the first post in the thread in the attempt to get things back on track.

I'm not following.
Should the people that are saying Iran shoudl not have a nuke also be saying that NK should not have nukes?
I beleive they are. So...?

Yes, but what are you willing to DO in order to keep them from having or using nuclear weapons? I really don't care how many people think Iran "shouldn't" have nukes. That and a buck eighty will get you a decent cup of coffee. It's only when some nitwit starts making noises about invading Iran to prevent them from getting nukes that my FLIR* starts giving a warning.

As I said, I am unwilling to breach any nation's sovereignty for the sake of non-proliferation. The real issue isn't who has nukes but how those warheads can be delivered.

I'm not at all aware of Israel making any belligerent remarks regarding their posession/use of nukes. In fact, Israel hasn't publicly admitted that they have them at all.

No, they remain silent on the fact that they have nuclear weapons. This, in itself, is disturbing. When one has such weapons as deterrents, one wants their existence as well known as possible.

Israel remains extremely pugnacious and belligerent in their dealings with the rest of the region. They claim, of course, that it is due to the lack of respect given them by their neighbors. The neighbors claim that the Israelis started it. Never trust five year olds bickering in a sandbox with loaded firearms . . . or nations that behave like bickering five year olds with nuclear weapons.

The NPT creates a peaceful framework under which such states can be pursuaded to not develop them. If that fails, force is always an option.


Hardly. You dont have to address the issue at all.
A state may be sovereign, but that doesnt in any way create an argument that if said state presents a credible threat, other nations cannot act against it.,

Yes, well, it's all in that word "credible" now isn't it? Besides, the usual standard isn't "credible" but rather "imminent".


*Free Liberal Internet Radar -- don't leave home without it

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, but a usually law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapon may well be more of a threat to my security -- or yours -- than is Iran under any circumstances.

Hmm. A general nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel is less of a threat to you than me carrying a gun?

But that wasn't the original argument. I was returning to the first post in the thread in the attempt to get things back on track.

And I was merely stating that, given your argument that 'it is just a matter of time', the 'it takes a long time' argument doesnt mean much.

Yes, but what are you willing to DO in order to keep them from having or using nuclear weapons? I really don't care how many people think Iran "shouldn't" have nukes. That and a buck eighty will get you a decent cup of coffee. It's only when some nitwit starts making noises about invading Iran to prevent them from getting nukes that my FLIR* starts giving a warning.

Who, with any relevance, has said anyting abut invading Iran?

No, they remain silent on the fact that they have nuclear weapons. This, in itself, is disturbing. When one has such weapons as deterrents, one wants their existence as well known as possible.

So, you withdraw your statement regaring Israel's posturing and belligerent pronouncements regarding their use of nukes.

Yes, well, it's all in that word "credible" now isn't it? Besides, the usual standard isn't "credible" but rather "imminent".

Sometimes, part of it being credible is it being imminent.
And, the final judge of the cedibility and/or imminent nature of the threat is the country that makes the determination. No state need ask permission to defend itself.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Hmm. A general nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel is less of a threat to you than me carrying a gun?

If such an exchange happened then no. You have to take the probability of each event into account though.

What's more likely to happen in my lifetime, a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran or some Rambo wannabe making an extreme error in judgment and shooting up innocent bystanders whilst I'm innocently standing by? Neither is particularly likely but the latter much more so, I submit.

And I was merely stating that, given your argument that 'it is just a matter of time', the 'it takes a long time' argument doesnt mean much.

Que? The original post to this thread called to task those people who said that Iran is five to ten years -- actually ten to fifteen by what I've read -- away from having nuclear weapons. This assertion was made on the basis of the fact that Iran has been on a centrifuge building binge and is now churning out enriched uranium on an almost industrial scale. I answer the assertion by pointing out that there's more to a nuclear weapon than just enriching uranium.

That's all I was saying in that bit.

Who, with any relevance, has said anyting abut invading Iran?

Now that's a reasonable question. Apart from yahoos on internet forums, no one on the right has been talking about it much at all. On the left, though, we're picking up too many disturbing signs. Similarities between recent rhetoric from our domestic militarists and their rhetoric in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Since that ill-considered adventure did indeed take place, we're hoping not to be fooled again.

So, you withdraw your statement regaring Israel's posturing and belligerent pronouncements regarding their use of nukes.

I meant their belligerence in general, not specifically with regard to using nuclear weapons. As I say, I'd rather they weren't so secretive on that score.

Sometimes, part of it being credible is it being imminent.
And, the final judge of the cedibility and/or imminent nature of the threat is the country that makes the determination. No state need ask permission to defend itself.

And THAT is one thing I would like to change.

Be that as it may, this country will never again make a preemptive strike against another without a huge outcry and national debate. And it should be so, too. Rest assured, we libs and lefties will do our damnedest to make it as difficult as possible to ever make another such adventure.