What should we do about Iran

[Charles_Main]

Well?
Oh sweet a misspelling in the Poll. LOL

Meant to say Seize the Nuke Sites not Cease

 

[Indofred]

Do sod all.

Iran has no nuclear weapons and can't get them for many years anyway.
That's not to say Iran isn't dangerous while that bunch of bloody idiots is in charge but a war is unlikely.
They depend on China and India for pretty much everything and China depends on Iranian oil.
China owns 70% of Iranian oil reserves under the 2004 deal.
China will hold them back.

Fat chance of them starting a war but if the oil supply to China is under threat, the US may just find itself starting a real war with burning US cities.

It would be a very foolish move.

 

[Noomi]

The US does not need to get itself involved in a third war in less than 10 years. Iran is not a threat, so for the time being, leave them alone.

 

[there4eyeM]

We need to attack!
We should kill them with kindness!
We should seduce them with our superiority!
We should invite thousands of their students to American universities free!
We should send thousands of students there free.
We should increase all cultural contacts to the maximum.
We should share our philosophy, concepts and principles by every means.
In other words, all-out war!

 

[there4eyeM]

Sorry, did I kill this thread?

 

[Katzndogz]

The time to do something about Iran has passed. It was in 2009 when obama dithered it out.

The sanctions are having an effect. The entire country is mobilized to develop and build enough nuclear bombs to destroy Israel and the US as the way to end the sanctions.

 

[Charles_Main]

/

 

[hjmick]

Wait until Obama's invasion of Syria is complete, then deal with them...



(You just know it's coming...)

 

[Indofred]

The time to do something about Iran has passed. It was in 2009 when obama dithered it out.

The sanctions are having an effect. The entire country is mobilized to develop and build enough nuclear bombs to destroy Israel and the US as the way to end the sanctions.

Hang on.
If the time to attack has passed, does that mean such an attack was wrong on the grounds that there are still no weapons so any such attack would have done nothing?

Now to the issue of nuclear systems of any kind.
The Iranian nuclear power industry started in 1950 when the US installed the first equipment into the country.

2003 IAEA saw no evidence of any nuclear weapons activity.

2005 - US team found nothing

2007 - IAEA - found nothing

2008 IAEA - found nothing

2009 IAEA - low grade uranium suitable for power but not useful for weapons

2010 - IAEA - Iran has 20% enriched uranium that could be further enriched

May 2012 - still nothing that could be used in weapons.

Mow to the negative.
If Iran managed to develop weapons - how would it deliver such to the US for an attack?

Given that Iran has zero chance of an attack on the US, why should the US attack it?

 

[Charles_Main]

[
If Iran managed to develop weapons - how would it deliver such to the US for an attack?

That is an incredibly Naive way to look at it. Who says they have to launch a Nuke on a Missile to Attack the US? They Could simply ship a bomb to our Shores, they could give one to Terrorist, and they of course could attack countries as far away as SE Europe with Nukes on Medium Range Missiles.

Not to mention the fact that they will be able to use there sheer threat of using them to Dominate the Region, as well as setting off a Race among their Neighbors to keep up. Next Saudi and will want them.

So silly and Naive to pretend that it does not matter because they can't reach us with a ICBM lol, and extremely Naive as well to Cite the UN finding nothing as Proof there is nothing.

You don't Raise a Facility to the ground and remove 6' of top soil before you let it be inspected because you have nothing to hide. You don't Research Nuclear Triggers for Power Applications, You do not need the Number of Centrifuges they are employing for Civilian Power Applications.

anyone who does not believe Iran is actively attempting to Build Nukes is Extremely Ignorant. IMO.

Sorry gotta tell it like I see it.

 

[tjvh]

Wait until Obama's invasion of Syria is complete, then deal with them...



(You just know it's coming...)

I think we should bring back that time tested Liberal slogan with an Obama twist: "Obama Lied and our Soldiers Died"

 

[there4eyeM]

What is really naive is to think that nuclear weapons present the greatest danger. In fact, I am amazed that these nations, such as Pakistan, North Korea, India and, perhaps, Iran were and are so intent on the high risk, high cost development of these devices.
Modern societies are so fragile and vulnerable that many means are available to wreck havoc. I really don't want to make a list here for fear of being identified as promoting them, but just think about the substances and facilities in your region which could be used for enormous destruction.
The US was fortunate that, if there really were 19 dedicated young men who perpetrated '911', they chose a relatively harmless method of attack. America's might or homeland were not seriously affected by killing 3,000 secretaries and office workers (sad, of course, as that was). If they had managed to cause even one or two nuke melt-downs, it would have been much worse. A gas storage facility could have taken out Boston.
Nukes are complicated, detectable and problematic. Many other 'weapons' are far more available. What is need to combat this potential is friendliness, not animosity. People rarely attack people they like.

 

[Moonglow]

The time to do something about Iran has passed. It was in 2009 when obama dithered it out.

The sanctions are having an effect. The entire country is mobilized to develop and build enough nuclear bombs to destroy Israel and the US as the way to end the sanctions.

and the Creature From the Black Lagoon was real!

 

[Moonglow]

Wait until Obama's invasion of Syria is complete, then deal with them...



(You just know it's coming...)

I think we should bring back that time tested Liberal slogan with an Obama twist: "Obama Lied and our Soldiers Died"

sorry your 40 years too late.

 

[Moonglow]

What is really naive is to think that nuclear weapons present the greatest danger. In fact, I am amazed that these nations, such as Pakistan, North Korea, India and, perhaps, Iran were and are so intent on the high risk, high cost development of these devices.
Modern societies are so fragile and vulnerable that many means are available to wreck havoc. I really don't want to make a list here for fear of being identified as promoting them, but just think about the substances and facilities in your region which could be used for enormous destruction.
The US was fortunate that, if there really were 19 dedicated young men who perpetrated '911', they chose a relatively harmless method of attack. America's might or homeland were not seriously affected by killing 3,000 secretaries and office workers (sad, of course, as that was). If they had managed to cause even one or two nuke melt-downs, it would have been much worse. A gas storage facility could have taken out Boston.
Nukes are complicated, detectable and problematic. Many other 'weapons' are far more available. What is need to combat this potential is friendliness, not animosity. People rarely attack people they like.

Well if you do get attacked then you know somebody doesn't like you, and you should arm youself and be able to defend yourself.
I usually kill first, ask questions later.

 

[Indofred]

[
If Iran managed to develop weapons - how would it deliver such to the US for an attack?

That is an incredibly Naive way to look at it. Who says they have to launch a Nuke on a Missile to Attack the US? They Could simply ship a bomb to our Shores, they could give one to Terrorist, and they of course could attack countries as far away as SE Europe with Nukes on Medium Range Missiles.

Iran | Country Profiles | NTI

November, 2011
Iran could develop in the next "six to eight years a ballistic missile capable of delivering a 1,000kg nuclear warhead to a range of 2,000km

In other words, in six years, Iran could miss Italy. (if all goes to plan)

I assume the US will dismantle all its nuclear submarines and all its aircraft carriers.

Iran, a country that has attack no one in modern history, is not allowed weapons but the US, a country will a terrible record of starting wars, is allowed whatever it wants.

Not to mention the fact that they will be able to use there sheer threat of using them to Dominate the Region, as well as setting off a Race among their Neighbors to keep up. Next Saudi and will want them. .

You mean like Israel.

So silly and Naive to pretend that it does not matter because they can't reach us with a ICBM lol, and extremely Naive as well to Cite the UN finding nothing as Proof there is nothing..

You mean like WMD in Iraq

You don't Raise a Facility to the ground and remove 6' of top soil before you let it be inspected because you have nothing to hide. You don't Research Nuclear Triggers for Power Applications, You do not need the Number of Centrifuges they are employing for Civilian Power Applications.

Unless you happen to be totally pissed off with some interfering bastard who sticks his fat nose in all the time.
Frankly, I can understand that.

anyone who does not believe Iran is actively attempting to Build Nukes is Extremely Ignorant. IMO.

Sorry gotta tell it like I see it.

Given the possibility of a US attack on yet another sovereign country, why are they no allowed to develop weapons to defend themselves?

They may well be trying to develop nukes but you can't attack just in case they're doing it.

Perhaps I should pop round and kick you in the balls because I thought you looked at a five year old child in a sexual manner and I thought you fancied sex with him.

No evidence and the police report said they found nothing but I really know you're about to have sex with his bum so my size 10 boots are coming to your place.

Is that reasonable?

You're listening to and believing what you're told to believe.
Even a simple search will expose lies such as the 'missiles into Europe' thing.
Now you've seen that's a lie, how about looking at the rest of the story again but without the blinkers on?

 

[JWBooth]

Maintain a wary eye, and leave them the hell alone.

 

[Indofred]

Maintain a wary eye, and leave them the hell alone.

Perfect solution.

 

[Unkotare]

Do sod all.

Iran has no nuclear weapons and can't get them for many years anyway.
That's not to say Iran isn't dangerous while that bunch of bloody idiots is in charge but a war is unlikely.
They depend on China and India for pretty much everything and China depends on Iranian oil.
China owns 70% of Iranian oil reserves under the 2004 deal.
China will hold them back.

Fat chance of them starting a war but if the oil supply to China is under threat, the US may just find itself starting a real war with burning US cities.

It would be a very foolish move.

Everything about that post was stupid and wrong.

 

[Indofred]

Do sod all.

Iran has no nuclear weapons and can't get them for many years anyway.
That's not to say Iran isn't dangerous while that bunch of bloody idiots is in charge but a war is unlikely.
They depend on China and India for pretty much everything and China depends on Iranian oil.
China owns 70% of Iranian oil reserves under the 2004 deal.
China will hold them back.

Fat chance of them starting a war but if the oil supply to China is under threat, the US may just find itself starting a real war with burning US cities.

It would be a very foolish move.

Everything about that post was stupid and wrong.

I think you're supposed to explain why.