Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PARIS (Reuters) - Iran would need another three to eight years to make a nuclear bomb, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in an interview published on Monday, warning against any rush to use force to curb its nuclear ambitions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told France's Le Monde newspaper there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.
Did you even read the article? Or did you just think the title was good enough to get your point across?
The article flies in the face of everything you're trying to make people believe.
Are you talking to the wind? or what? Remind who of what? The whole thing is supposition, by EVERYONE listed and referenced by the article,(even Chenny)--- and with the sole exception of the Israeli Rep. ----which is simply par for the course.working on the bomb. And of course claim that you know this because the Bush Administrartion is liars and frauds, Further remind us how the UN watchdog has made no claim the Iranians are working on a bomb...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071022/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_elbaradei_dc
Are you actually going to pretend that the head of your beloved Nuclear watchdog agency did NOT say Iran could have the bomb in as little as 3 years and no longer than 8 years?
Well of course you did, cause your to stupid to understand the written word.
Lets recap shall we?
According to the UN watch dog for Nuclear energy, the beloved peacenik, Iran is within 3 to 8 years of developing a Nuclear weapon. Further he announced, that this is backed up by the WORLD'S Intelligence Agencies ( wait, I thought only Bush believed this, and Israel of course) They all agree that it will be 3 to 8 years.
Now lets try again, Since only ( according to you leftoid moonbat retards) Bush and his cabal of neocon idiots believe Iran wants and is capable of building a nuclear weapon, why is it that the entire world believes they are 3 to 8 years away from having one? Which by the way IS exactly what the US has been saying, that Iran wouldn't have the bomb tell around 2016. You know, the same US that is lying to everyone.
This is the Agency that is task with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and you do not give one good rats ass that even the head of it says that in as little as 3 years Iran could have a nuclear weapon. Wait now, why would he even say that IF they could not actually have said bomb?
One has to be working on and HAVE THE technology and capability to be that close to making a device. But sure thing you retards bury your heads in the sand and pretend otherwise.
Ohh and yes I DID read the article, I suggest you go back and read it until it sinks into your ignorant thick skull what it is saying.
Indeed it does...nuclear power is something everyone is going for as there is now a huge downturn of oil...
Too bad you guys don't read your articles..it would make for better discussions.
Are you talking to the wind? or what? Remind who of what? The whole thing is supposition, by EVERYONE listed and referenced by the article,(even Chenny)--- and with the sole exception of the Israeli Rep. ----which is simply par for the course.
Edited for your last response. Did you by chance read the word "COULD" in that report? or are you intentionally ignoring it??
Hey Retired...Good to see you are still keeping up the fight! Maybe we should try a steel spike projected by an air hammer, projected by a 105m, projected by a tomahawk missle, projected by a particle beam. Maybe then some people would get it!
All I know is, if (when) we go to war with Iran and Iran happens to get lucky a few times, like taking out the Nimitz or something, and we start to lose the upper hand...All I can say is BOHIC...(BEND OVER HERE IT COMES)
And of course one of the most oil rich nations on Earth that doesn't even have to pay export/import duties is in dire need of nuclear power ....
I do think that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, but to be fair, they don't have refining capacities (which would take a lot of money and time to build) and oil is their only significant means to foreign exchange (so it is better if they can export it than consume it, provided energy needs are met). So, it wouldn't be irrational (necessarily - have to do the math on costs) for them to want nuclear power.
Wouldn't be irrational, nor would it be as imperative as Iran is making it out to be.
You answer your own question re: time and money ... the Russians, who DO have the capability to refine nuclear material get "discounted" oil in trade.
Wouldn't be irrational, nor would it be as imperative as Iran is making it out to be.
You answer your own question re: time and money ... the Russians, who DO have the capability to refine nuclear material get "discounted" oil in trade.
I love the crowds response. Iran is just building nuclear power plants. Umm ok, why do they need massive ability to produce nuclear fuel ( weapons grade I might add) for a none existant nuclear facilty chain?
Wouldn't one want to actually BUILD power plants first and then determine the needed fuel production capacity, rather then build a massive fuel capacity for a non existant string of Nuclear power plants?
Ohh and where exactly ARE these nuclear power plants they are building?
I am sure that Iran is doing whatever it can to make its nuclear program as efficient and inexpensive as possible. Whether it is imperative or not is a value judgement. Iran may feel that the benefits of a nuclear program (in terms of energy sufficiency & and the maximization of hard currency) are sufficient to undertake the project.
Do I believe that they are only interested in nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons? No.
Could I conceive of a circumstance where another country in Iran's position would be interested in nuclear energy solely? Possibly, although to determine if it is truly efficient would require a greater level of knowledge about Iran, nuclear power and economics than I possess.
IMO, a nation controlled by Islamic extremists who are willing to kill themselves to murder those who will not cowtow to their beliefs should not be allowed to get anywhere near such a weapon of mass destruction.
What do you expect when people willfully blind themselves to the obvious?
I don't know if I completely agree with your characterization of Iran's leadership, but I do agree that they cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be the same as giving a loaded 45 to a two year old.
And of course one of the most oil rich nations on Earth that doesn't even have to pay export/import duties is in dire need of nuclear power ....
