Iran will be allowed to keep thousands of centrifuges. After a decade, restrictions removed

You underestimate Israels abilities, I promise.

You also have no clue about attacking things like this.

Hint: you don't have to destroy every little facility to knock their nuke program back a few decades. Just a few tactical strikes on the most important facilities and pop goes the weasel.
 
The 'attack to prevent' thinking is probably what comes from growing up with tv where disputes were fixed in 30 or 60 minutes via gunplay. In the real world, it doesn't work quite the same way. :)

Yes it does. Israel attacked Iraq to prevent them from obtaining a nuke.

And guess what? It worked beautifully.

Difference there was Iraq had one site to attack. Iran has well over 100 and more we don't know about. Time for a Israeli type strike was 30 years ago. Far too late now.
100? Where do get that? there is no 100s of nukes plants in Iran :slap:
 
Yea, he's famous for making up numbers.

That being said, it's more than 1. But its surely not more than Israel can handle in one wave.
 
Yea, he's famous for making up numbers.

That being said, it's more than 1. But its surely not more than Israel can handle in one wave.


He lives in his own world....

_58738852_iran_nuclear464x290_v2.gif


BBC News - Iran s key nuclear sites
 
The 'attack to prevent' thinking is probably what comes from growing up with tv where disputes were fixed in 30 or 60 minutes via gunplay. In the real world, it doesn't work quite the same way. :)

Yes it does. Israel attacked Iraq to prevent them from obtaining a nuke.

And guess what? It worked beautifully.

Difference there was Iraq had one site to attack. Iran has well over 100 and more we don't know about. Time for a Israeli type strike was 30 years ago. Far too late now.
100? Where do get that? there is no 100s of nukes plants in Iran :slap:

Didn't say nuke plants retard. Said 'sites,' which if you actually knew anything about what you're trying to talk about you'd udnerstand refers to sites contributing to their nuclear program.
 
But if you knock out the main nuclear facilities (only a handful) all these other "sites" that contribute to their nuclear program would have nothing to contribute to.
 
Why should we feel the need to attack power plants / non-military nuclear sites? Deliberately targeting non-military infrastructure is generally considered to be a war crime.
 
The 'attack to prevent' thinking is probably what comes from growing up with tv where disputes were fixed in 30 or 60 minutes via gunplay. In the real world, it doesn't work quite the same way. :)

Yes it does. Israel attacked Iraq to prevent them from obtaining a nuke.

And guess what? It worked beautifully.

Difference there was Iraq had one site to attack. Iran has well over 100 and more we don't know about. Time for a Israeli type strike was 30 years ago. Far too late now.
100? Where do get that? there is no 100s of nukes plants in Iran :slap:

Didn't say nuke plants retard. Said 'sites,' which if you actually knew anything about what you're trying to talk about you'd udnerstand refers to sites contributing to their nuclear program.
Sites? What sites? You destroy the plants you destroy the program. Now go back into your little room and do what it is you do in you'r screwed up Anti-American, Anti -reality world :cuckoo:
 
Obama made Iran an offer they couldn't refuse....


No it's the other way around, Iran dictates the terms, as they scream with no respect at that idiot John Kerry and those useless European bureaucrats
 
He was made a fool of and instead of saying "Ok I was wrong" he tries to move the goalposts not only out of the stadium, but down the street, to save face. Fool says they have 100's of nuke sites and when told he's an idiot and proven with a graph that he's way off, he tries to change the definition of "is."

Its readily apparent he has no clue about which he speaks. I wish this forum had a mute button.
 

Forum List

Back
Top