RE: Iran not building nukes

RE: Iran not building nukes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

Stimpy -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/8/2007 3:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP quote: ORIGINAL: Stephanos It is also good to know that President Bush HAS done the right think, in putting pressure both economic and political on Iran. If I understand you correctly, you are crediting Bush with Iran not having nukes. If so, you're wrong. So this sounds almost like a concession that these people listen more to millitary threats than diplomacy then. The fact is the report DOES say that UNTIL 2003 they WERE persuing them. They stopped during Bush's first term. The question is WHY did they stop?

Stimpy -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/8/2007 4:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP Of course every country has secrets, but to the best knowledge of our country's intelligence resources, it has been determined Iran was not pursuing nukes for the past few years, in blatant contradiction to what Bush, Cheney, others said. Let me clue you in on something, Bush and Cheney are NOT on the ground themselves in Iran to do the intelligence legwork. They also do not have the TIME required to do it themselves. Therefore they have to rely on the work of OTHERS to provide them with such things and until this report came out (which initially was a few months ago I believe), the belief had been that Iran was STILL pursuing nukes. The report DID confirm that this had at least been true at one point and disputes whether it is CURRENTLY true. Also, just because they issue a report saying that Iran STOPPED pursuing nuclear weapons DOESN'T automatically mean they failed to acquire the KNOW HOW to build one while they WERE. If someone finds what they are looking for, WHY would they CONTINUE to look for it?!? quote: Common sense? You mean the same common sense that some people espoused when saying Iraq had 45 minute WMD deployment capabilities? And where do you suppose such intel might've come from? Perhaps some of the SAME sources you seem so quick to deem as "credible" NOW?!?

Stimpy -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/8/2007 4:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP Because you and others who said a war on Iran would've been justifiable on grounds Iran was developing nuclear weapons now have nothing to say about the nukes Iran wasn't even trying to build. That's assuming that "enriching uranium" doesn't count as "trying to build nukes". Unless it somehow IS being done simply for "nuclear power", I think that still constitutes "building nukes". I'm not so quick to believe a country that would take members of our EMBASSY hostage, is suddenly to be trusted simply because a report claims they may have stopped trying to pursue it. quote: A last straw? "ah, but at least they had a program in place..." So what, you think a country that went through the effort to obtain nukes in the first place is just going to DISPOSE of anything and everything (other than the uranium) they may have acquired to that point?!? That's like me expecting that a mere girlfriend of mine dispose of all previous boyfriends' and/or boy "friends'" phone numbers just because we are currently together. I might desire her not to call them, but I don't expect her to put "all her eggs in one basket" with me and completely severe ANY ties she might have with them. It would be too much for me to ask of her when we are only DATING. So why would Iran dispose of that either and require themselves to have to start over from scratch? The idea that they're still "enriching uranium" only increases the suspicion that they don't want to have to wait THAT MUCH LONGER (the time required to make it "weapons grade") once they were to resume the program. It's NOT evidence that the program has been PERMANENTLY halted! quote: If you can show me evidence that Iran was, till 2003, laboring to craft nukes, then we'll talk. Because you lack such evidence and the NIE's classified parts are not for my eyes or yours. So what constitutes "crafting nukes"?!? The implication here is that the actual building of a MISSLE to deliver the nuke is required! That is the ultimate EVIDENCE of it, but I'm a little more concerned with their ability to MAKE the nuke in the first place, not the ability to deliver it. After all, Iraq had the ABILITY to reach Israel, just not the ability to NUKE them. It would seem to me that if I wanted to continue a COVERT nuclear program, that the LAST thing I want to be seen doing is designing the DELIVERY system which would be much harder to hide. That still doen't mean they don't possess any sort of documentation on HOW to build it. When I "trusted" (not being privy to what they KNOW to be true) the intel that claimed Iran was pursuing nukes, I didn't LITERALLY think that meant they had already constructed the missles that were merely waiting for a warhead to put in them. I was more inclined to believe the OPPOSITE as constructing the warhead first seems to me like it would be easier to hide.

Stimpy -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/8/2007 4:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RichLP 1. Israel being proximate to Iran means it's right? Not automatically no. And on the flip-side, being suspicious of Israel doen't make them wrong either does it? quote: Well, Turkey, Syria, and even Kuwait did not feel threatened by post 1991 Iraq. Why did Israel? I don't know, maybe because Saddam had actually LAUNCHED SCUDS into Israel in '91?!? I likened Saddams policies to that of an abused child who, because they lacked the power to take on their dad (in this case the U.S.) who was beating them, decided to take it out on their mom (in this case Israel) instead, who they felt they had a better chance against. quote: And as I said: the Israelis are militarily VERY powerful. They have nukes. If they want Iran to be attacked, fine... let them deploy ISRAELI troops and use ISRAELI military resources and pay for it with ISRAELI TAXPAYER MONEY! Well if it's percieved that Iran at some point has nukes and nothing else has been done to that point, I'm sure Israel won't wait for our "permission" to take out the site(s). They've done it before. I think what we are most concerned about is other Mid-East countries uniting against Israel thus ensuring the beginning of WWIII. As "Christians", as much as we may not want to admit it, we KNOW it's going to happen EVENTUALLY.

rlj -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/8/2007 6:51:15 PM)
Alert! Please adjust your tinfoil hats before reading further! quote: What did Reagan do to bring those hostages home, other than be elected? Oh great, hasn't the "October Surprise" been declared a farce enough yet? Haven't the dems held enough hearings on the evidence, hearings on the lack of evidence, hearings on the hearings on the hearings already? There was no October Surprise. quote: It would seem to me that if I wanted to continue a COVERT nuclear program, that the LAST thing I want to be seen doing is designing the DELIVERY system which would be much harder to hide. Don't underestimate the delivery system. They have planes that can drop things they have a delivery system. It was how Israel deployed their first nukes in 1973. Any country with a reactor can hack together a weapon. Any country with a jet can deliver one. quote: The Iranians wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan was inagurated, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. That's like saying it didn't start raining until the clouds came, but the clouds had nothing to do with it. From the 40s through 1979 we played a major role in supporting the Shah of Iran who was thoroughly corrupt and thoroughly unpopular. Perhaps since it was the dems who helped the pro-western, anti-commie leader(half unconstitutional king/half dictator) gain and hold his power in the first place they were more favourably inclined to like Republicans? ; ) This is why Pakistan scares me atm. They have nukes Iran didn't in 1979.

ljmac -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/10/2007 2:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac quote: ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger quote: ORIGINAL: Abbreviated Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ? It took Reagan to bring those people home. If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell. I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. It is a self-defeating argument. The Iranians wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan was inagurated, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. That's like saying it didn't start raining until the clouds came, but the clouds had nothing to do with it. Strawman What did Reagan do to bring those hostages home, other than be elected? It could be that all he needed to do was be elected.

cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/10/2007 3:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctipton quote: Whose policy ? How long of a transition period ? Abbreviated, it may be best for me to briefly explain to you why I have come to this conclusion. All of my life I have had the attitude expressed by Leon_figg. And after ten years of Sadam thumbing his nose at us and all the other things, I thought that invasion was necessary. For, as is mentioned, we are the problem solvers of the world, and Saddam needed to be solved into the grave. And, I did my part, spending 2005 in Al Anbar in the uniform of the United States Army. And frankly we did a great job.... When I returned home, though, I found that the same people who were as quick to send the troops into Iraq had changed their tune. NOW they decide that we should not be there and wanted to pull out all troops before the job could be finished. I have decided this "law". The law of American Will is that if a military conflict lasts longer than a television season, the American people will not and perhaps cannot maintain the will to finish the conflict. And I am angry. Very angry. And in about half a year I will be back in that nasty nation, knowing that the American people do not really want us to finish the job; they just want us to turn tail, as if we failed. So, in my view, if the nation will not have the will to see military action through to the end. it should never, ever send me or my comrades from our homes and families. It is just not right. And then I learned of Congressman Ron Paul. And I think he is right about a policy of non-intervention and it fits in well with my thoughts above. Anyway, I hope this explains why I feel the way I do. I admit that I am very biased and it is based on very personal reasons that may make me not the best judge on the matter. But I feel better expressing my views anyways. charlie Americans love a good war as long as there aren't too many body bags (don't be showing any pictures of flag-draped coffins because it offends our patriotic sensibiliteis) and the cost gets deferred long enough (what would we do without China?). Also, American Idol must NOT be pre-empted. Otherwise, *Bring 'em on!!*

stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/12/2007 4:24:45 PM)
The nukes may not be under construction at the moment, but a delivery system sure is being worked on BIG TIME. quote: Iran tested a newly developed ballistic missile on the day of Annapolis conference, Channel 10 News reported Wednesday. The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow. According to the Channel 10 report, the new missile is an improvement on the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel. This provides for a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect. But don't worry - Be happy!

RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/12/2007 4:47:42 PM)
Iran first needs to learn how to develop a nuclear device. And even after successful weaponization of nuclear fuel, creating a warhead small and versatile enough to fit it onto a missile is not easy. North Korea has a nuclear bomb, but it was estimated to be weaker than Little Boy or Fat Man, and we know how big and cumbersome those were. So, since Iran is several years away from even being in a position to test a nuclear device, it's A LONG TIME away from being able to fit nukes onto a missile. So if anyone wants to be alarmist about nuclear weapons or missiles with warhead tips in the Middle East, look to Israel. Oh, my bad. They never signed the NPT. [8\|]

RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/12/2007 4:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben But don't worry - Be happy! I salute you for this scriptural admonition. [:)]

Abbreviated -> RE: Iran not building nukes (1/3/2008 7:53:03 PM)
What if Iran just goes next door & confiscates Pakistan's nukes ?

cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (1/4/2008 10:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Abbreviated What if Iran just goes next door & confiscates Pakistan's nukes ? Invading and controlling another country is not as easy as it appears. Especially one as well armed as Pakistan. Also, the nukes aren't stored in Musharref's garage. If slapping together a nuke was easy, somebody would have already dropped one down America's chimney for Christmas. The technology and logistics are quite complicated.

Abbreviated -> RE: Iran not building nukes (1/5/2008 3:38:23 PM)
The current risk is that Pakistan, the only Islamic nation with a nuclear arsenal, is on the brink of political chaos in which radical Islamic factions could emerge to control the country' nuclear weapons.

stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/13/2008 3:26:05 PM)
Now on to the news... First there's this - Iran Puts Uranium Gas in Centrifuges... Granted, small amounts, for now anyway, but still akin to that kid playing with fire who grows up to be an arsonist. Then this - Russia warns Iran on missiles, uranium enrichment quote: Russia warned Iran on Wednesday that its development of rockets and continued uranium enrichment was creating the impression Tehran was intentionally ignoring the concerns of the international community. "We do not approve of Iran's actions in constantly demonstrating its intentions to develop its rocket sector and continue enriching uranium," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies. And the Russians just finished delivering nuclear fuel not too long ago. Maybe they never heard the Who - "Won't be fooled again".

WormHeart -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/13/2008 3:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Abbreviated What if Iran just goes next door & confiscates Pakistan's nukes ? Just how would a non-nuclear power win a war against a country with ... well ... nukes? That like robbing weapons from the military installation next door. [8\|] WormHeart

Jhud -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/13/2008 3:43:11 PM)
quote: First there's this - Iran Puts Uranium Gas in Centrifuges... Granted, small amounts, for now anyway, but still akin to that kid playing with fire who grows up to be an arsonist. That's interesting. It reminds me of the program A. Q. Khan instituted when he developed Pakistans nukes. Of course, the West will be as oblivious now as it was then.

cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/13/2008 6:39:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: First there's this - Iran Puts Uranium Gas in Centrifuges... Granted, small amounts, for now anyway, but still akin to that kid playing with fire who grows up to be an arsonist. That's interesting. It reminds me of the program A. Q. Khan instituted when he developed Pakistans nukes. Of course, the West will be as oblivious now as it was then. Yes, that would be our "staunch ally", Pakistan, would it not? And that champion of freedom and democracy Musharref. At least Iran makes no bone about not liking us. The real danger is our "friends". Where were most of the 9/11 guys from:Saudi Arabia. Where do the Taliban and you-know-who hide out: Pakistan. We don't need enemies. We've got friends!

Jhud -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/13/2008 7:53:51 PM)
quote: Yes, that would be our "staunch ally", Pakistan, would it not? And that champion of freedom and democracy Musharref. At least Iran makes no bone about not liking us. The real danger is our "friends". Where were most of the 9/11 guys from:Saudi Arabia. Where do the Taliban and you-know-who hide out: Pakistan. We don't need enemies. We've got friends! Actually, it started long before Musharref was in power - and while I agree that we have some pretty poor friends (frenemies?), that is no argument for ignoring those who have made their intentions toward us clear.

cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/14/2008 2:48:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes, that would be our "staunch ally", Pakistan, would it not? And that champion of freedom and democracy Musharref. At least Iran makes no bone about not liking us. The real danger is our "friends". Where were most of the 9/11 guys from:Saudi Arabia. Where do the Taliban and you-know-who hide out: Pakistan. We don't need enemies. We've got friends! Actually, it started long before Musharref was in power - and while I agree that we have some pretty poor friends (frenemies?), that is no argument for ignoring those who have made their intentions toward us clear. As a black man once said: "I feel safer sometimes with Klansmen around because at least I know what to expect. But I never know what's going to happen with white people that say they aren't racists." IOW, I'd rather be dealing with Iran or France and their ilk than Pakistab or China. [&:]

WesP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/14/2008 4:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes, that would be our "staunch ally", Pakistan, would it not? And that champion of freedom and democracy Musharref. At least Iran makes no bone about not liking us. The real danger is our "friends". Where were most of the 9/11 guys from:Saudi Arabia. Where do the Taliban and you-know-who hide out: Pakistan. We don't need enemies. We've got friends! Actually, it started long before Musharref was in power - and while I agree that we have some pretty poor friends (frenemies?), that is no argument for ignoring those who have made their intentions toward us clear. As a black man once said: "I feel safer sometimes with Klansmen around because at least I know what to expect. But I never know what's going to happen with white people that say they aren't racists." IOW, I'd rather be dealing with Iran or France and their ilk than Pakistab or China. [&:] LOL! [sm=Llol.gif][sm=Llol.gif][sm=Llol.gif]

rowsdower -> RE: Iran not building nukes (2/19/2008 1:08:52 PM)
Actually there was an article recently in a major news outlet, perhaps AP or something, that said the report stating that Iran wasn't building nukes was in fact wrong, and they are actively pursuing it. I'll have to look for the article. It was just a few weeks ago. Anyhow, I don't trust Iran, period. I don't have any doubt that they want nukes. And if they could pull the trigger tomorrow and nuke Israel they wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (4/8/2008 1:56:12 PM)
With Iran Says It Tests Advanced Centrifuges and Iran starts installing new nuclear centrifuges, I'm sure there's no cause for concern. Might even be a translation problem...[8\|]

WesP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (4/8/2008 2:06:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben With Iran Says It Tests Advanced Centrifuges and Iran starts installing new nuclear centrifuges, I'm sure there's no cause for concern. Might even be a translation problem...[8\|] Yep. Prolly just means that they are trying to generate a bit more electricity. [&:]

darren.beene -> RE: Iran not building nukes (4/8/2008 6:37:04 PM)
We shuld just go ahead and nuke them Iraynian terrist devils now! That'd probly solve alotta are terrism problem all around the world. All I know is I dont trust them Moslems any farthar then I can throw them! In fact I dont trust noboddy who wonts to blow us to smithereens and kill us all!!!

Jhud -> RE: Iran not building nukes (4/8/2008 11:05:38 PM)
quote: With Iran Says It Tests Advanced Centrifuges and Iran starts installing new nuclear centrifuges, I'm sure there's no cause for concern. Might even be a translation problem... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtan....

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI