us commander says iran could have missiles ready to hit u.s. by 2015

[doniston]

Surely you know Iran is OPENLY pursuing nuclear power? Just as Saddam OPENLY used WMDs that for some reason means he didn't have any.

So if the Iranians nuke someone ... does that mean Iran doesn't have any nukes?

???? Are you TRYING to confuse the issue?

 

[doniston]

It's documented fact Iran is pursuing nuclear power. Once Iran has nuclear power, how many times do YOU guys get to be wrong?

Just once .....

How many times do we get to be wrong about Russia, China, Israel, etc. etc. ect. Nuclear power does not necessarily mean Nuclear Bombs, and if that was what they wanted, they could already have bought one from several places.

 

[doniston]

So the French, the British, the German and the rest of the EU Governments are all Bush's stoogies? They are all lying for Bush? They are all working on sanctions to prevent Iran from getting Nukes, that Iran is not trying to get?

Unbelievable. As for weapons grade, umm thats the whole point , they ARE able to produce weapons grade already. They refuse to allow inspections and will not disclose all the sites to be inspected.

Once again for the truly slow, IT IS NOT JUST BUSH. Let me get this right, 15 people run up to you and tell you that a neighbors house is on fire and because you do not trust one of therm, you don't believe the other 14 either?

The gillible can be talked into anything, and don't you think the French and english (especially) haven't been impressed by Chicken-little?

 

[DeadCanDance]

So the French, the British, the German and the rest of the EU Governments are all Bush's stoogies? They are all lying for Bush? They are all working on sanctions to prevent Iran from getting Nukes, that Iran is not trying to get?

Unbelievable. As for weapons grade, umm thats the whole point , they ARE able to produce weapons grade already. They refuse to allow inspections and will not disclose all the sites to be inspected.

Once again for the truly slow, IT IS NOT JUST BUSH. Let me get this right, 15 people run up to you and tell you that a neighbors house is on fire and because you do not trust one of therm, you don't believe the other 14 either?

I suggest you stop getting your news from Rush Limbaugh's webiste. Either Limbaugh is lying to you, or you're lying to yourself. Its no wonder you got fooled into Bush's war.

There is NO evidence that Iran has or is even capable of producing weapons grade uranium. That is a complex engineering and techincal feat. IAEA inspectors have found no evidence of it.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Iran's civlian nuclear program is entirely legal. Every nation on the planet has a right to peaceful, civilian nuclear technology. Even Bush has said Iran has a right to civilian nuclear technology. The Iranians have had a nuclear research progam since the days of the Shah, when we were their good buddies.

The issue is transparency. IAEA is able to confirm certain aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, but there are still outstanding issues in terms of inspections and transparancy. These are technical matters that have to be worked out - it does NOT mean neccessarily that Iran has a bomb, is building a bomb, or is even close to having the capacity to produce weapons grade uranium.

Its definetly a problem. IAEA needs to be assured that all aspects of the iranian civilian nuclear program is transparent to international inspections, and that no declared material is diverted into a weapons program.

 

[Gunny]

Please don't enable the NeoCons to lie us into another war.

You can't make a nuclear bomb with uranium enriched to civilian-grade use. Civilian grade uranium is enriched to only about 4 or 5% purity. Its useless for weapons-grade bomb material. And the iranians haven't even yet demonstrated they can civilian grade enrichment on any significant scale.

Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to about 20% purity, which is a very significant technological and engineering challenge. Far beyond what is required for civilian grade uranium.

Nobody lied us into a war, and nobody's trying to. I'm not stuffing my head in the sand either. North Korea had only "civilian-grade" uranium as well.

Iran's government is controlled by Islamic fundamnetalists who openly support terrorist organizations, and openly stand for the complete destruction and genocide of a nation.

I'm not for war. Any means used that keeps Iran from possessing nuclear power works for me.

What's going to happen though is people like you are going to ensure it's too late before anything's done just as happened preceeding WWII.

 

[Gunny]

???? Are you TRYING to confuse the issue?

Are you? I responded to another post. Simple as that.

 

[Gunny]

How many times do we get to be wrong about Russia, China, Israel, etc. etc. ect. Nuclear power does not necessarily mean Nuclear Bombs, and if that was what they wanted, they could already have bought one from several places.

Oh, so you mean we DIDN'T live through 30+ years of Cold War BECAUSE Russia and China had nuclear weapons? Perhaps age has clouded just how close we came to nuclear annihilation in Nov 63?

Your post is nonsensical. Russia stole the plans for nuclear weapons from us for the express purpose of developing nuclear weapons. You chose your examples poorly.

The difference between our Cold War opponents and Iran, is the former respected life as much as we do ... the latter will happily sacrfice their own lives to take everybody with them.

Sorry, but it is not worth taking the chance on your theory.

 

[doniston]

Oh, so you mean we DIDN'T live through 30+ years of Cold War BECAUSE Russia and China had nuclear weapons? Perhaps age has clouded just how close we came to nuclear annihilation in Nov 63?

Your post is nonsensical. Russia stole the plans for nuclear weapons from us for the express purpose of developing nuclear weapons. You chose your examples poorly.

The difference between our Cold War opponents and Iran, is the former respected life as much as we do ... the latter will happily sacrfice their own lives to take everybody with them.

Sorry, but it is not worth taking the chance on your theory.

YOU see, you missed the pointy entirely. You are questioning our chances if Iran has the Bomb. I am sying that we shoul allso compare our chances with any other nation which has the bomb. Any one of them could turn on us at any time. If you can't see that, then you are in trouble. and yes, I know full well what might have happend in 63. I just think you are rather dense if you can't see the same threat from any number of directions. We are in even greater danger from Israel. No, Israel won't attack us, but quite likely will attack someone who, in retaliation will attack us.

 

[Gunny]

YOU see, you missed the pointy entirely. You are questioning our chances if Iran has the Bomb. I am sying that we shoul allso compare our chances with any other nation which has the bomb. Any one of them could turn on us at any time. If you can't see that, then you are in trouble. and yes, I know full well what might have happend in 63. I just think you are rather dense if you can't see the same threat from any number of directions. We are in even greater danger from Israel. No, Israel won't attack us, but quite likely will attack someone who, in retaliation will attack us.

No, I did not miss your point at all. It's nonsense. In the realm of possibilities, are we more likely to be attacked by an ally, a nation with benign feelings towars us, or a nation that has at one time held our diplomats hostage for ove a year, refers to the US as "the Great Satan," denies the Holocaust, and openly supports to known, international terrorist organizations?

The math ain't that hard.