Iranian Nuclear Program

We had a discussion several months back about the development of iranian nuclear weapons.

I cannot remember which tool kept asserting that iranian nuclear weaponery is “10-15 years off.”

I’d look it up, but, you know who you are.

Today: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_3

This, plus north korea helping with nuclear know-how, plus the iranians developing their ICMB capability makes this situation even more immediate.

For those of us who knew this guy was going to go on a crash course of nuclear development, this comes as no surprise.

However, I wish I had been wrong.

JeffR

I think the we should not only support the Iranians in their nuclear ambitions. We should fund them. Isn’t that what proper appeasment is all about?

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I think the we should not only support the Iranians in their nuclear ambitions. We should fund them. Isn’t that what proper appeasment is all about?[/quote]

Let’s give them a couple of bombs during their “nuclear celebration”, it could be like the 1812 Overture, but you know - louder.

Source:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.380236179&par=0

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I think the we should not only support the Iranians in their nuclear ambitions. We should fund them. Isn’t that what proper appeasment is all about?

Let’s give them a couple of bombs during their “nuclear celebration”, it could be like the 1812 Overture, but you know - louder.

Source:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.380236179&par=0
[/quote]

Cunnivore/Pat:

You guys need to ask some of these dems/anti-americans to explain the PROPER role of appeasment. If we are talking munich, 1937, we would be GIVING Iraq to iran.

Hey, it’s in the name of peace.

I have to admit to being very anxious about the future. Think about it. The dems think their anti-war stance is their ticket to continued political power. Imagine having to explain to the nitt-wittery how dangerous iran is?
Imagine asking for troops for iran.

I can hear bradley/ted kennedy right now.

I don’t think George can pull if off. He’s too damaged.

Oh, remember when tools were castigating Bush for naming the Axis of Evil.

Sounds like he was right on. (countdown to “it’s Bush’s fault” for n. korea/iraq/iran).

Pray for Rudy.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I think the we should not only support the Iranians in their nuclear ambitions. We should fund them. Isn’t that what proper appeasment is all about?

Let’s give them a couple of bombs during their “nuclear celebration”, it could be like the 1812 Overture, but you know - louder.

Source:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.380236179&par=0

Cunnivore/Pat:

You guys need to ask some of these dems/anti-americans to explain the PROPER role of appeasment. If we are talking munich, 1937, we would be GIVING Iraq to iran.

Hey, it’s in the name of peace.

I have to admit to being very anxious about the future. Think about it. The dems think their anti-war stance is their ticket to continued political power. Imagine having to explain to the nitt-wittery how dangerous iran is?
Imagine asking for troops for iran.

I can hear bradley/ted kennedy right now.

I don’t think George can pull if off. He’s too damaged.

Oh, remember when tools were castigating Bush for naming the Axis of Evil.

Sounds like he was right on. (countdown to “it’s Bush’s fault” for n. korea/iraq/iran).

Pray for Rudy.

JeffR

[/quote]

Of course it is Bush’s fault. The wouldn’t be evil if he didn’t call them evil.

They were such nice guys before Bush came on the scene.

‘Preventive strike would be catastrophic,’ IAEA chief says
Jan 25, 2007
DAVOS, Switzerland - The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency, in an indirect warning to the United States and Israel, said Thursday a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “catastrophic” consequences and only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to make atomic arms.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also cited Western intelligence assessments that Iran may be only four years away from having the capacity to produce such weapons. But he stressed that his agency’s inspectors had turned up no firm evidence of such intentions

U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst
Jan 19, 2007
“I’ve seen some of the planning… You’re not talking about a surgical strike,” said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department’s bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

“You’re talking about a war against Iran” that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

“You’re talking about a war against Iran” that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank…
[/quote]

LOL…When has it been stable!

That’s as sound like the “Explosives Expert” they had on CNN that stated that the bombs used in the London attacks were designed to kill people. I’ll cut my own nuts off if I am lying.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

“You’re talking about a war against Iran” that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank…

LOL…When has it been stable!

That’s as sound like the “Explosives Expert” they had on CNN that stated that the bombs used in the London attacks were designed to kill people. I’ll cut my own nuts off if I am lying. [/quote]

Right, I see your point. How could WE make things any worse?

I feel a draft… be sure to write.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
‘Preventive strike would be catastrophic,’ IAEA chief says
Jan 25, 2007
DAVOS, Switzerland - The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency, in an indirect warning to the United States and Israel, said Thursday a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “catastrophic” consequences and only strengthen Tehran’s resolve to make atomic arms.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also cited Western intelligence assessments that Iran may be only four years away from having the capacity to produce such weapons. But he stressed that his agency’s inspectors had turned up no firm evidence of such intentions

U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst
Jan 19, 2007
“I’ve seen some of the planning… You’re not talking about a surgical strike,” said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department’s bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

“You’re talking about a war against Iran” that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome[/quote]

jtf,

Let’s hear your solution to iran. In your words. Your thoughts.

Make sure you include if we do this, this will happen. If we don’t, this will likely happen. In short, think ahead.

No links, please.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

Who gives a rat-ass if Iran develops nukes. The Russians were a much bigger threat than Iran during the Cold War and never used nukes because of the idea of mutual destruction.

The Iranian president is a kook and says a lot of stupid shit but he doesn’t call the shots in Iran. The mullahs who rule Iran know that the instant they fired off a single shot we would wipe their entire country off the face of the map within an hour. And, like the Russians, they won’t ever do so.

The only reason this is an issue is because the Israeli’s (most of whom hate Christians BTW) and the Israeli/Jewish-dominated AMERICAN media want us to attack Iran.

Sorry, but Israel isn’t worth a single American GI’s life.

Good point, let the filthy jews choke and die, right?

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Who gives a rat-ass if Iran develops nukes. The Russians were a much bigger threat than Iran during the Cold War and never used nukes because of the idea of mutual destruction.

The Iranian president is a kook and says a lot of stupid shit but he doesn’t call the shots in Iran. The mullahs who rule Iran know that the instant they fired off a single shot we would wipe their entire country off the face of the map within an hour. And, like the Russians, they won’t ever do so.

The only reason this is an issue is because the Israeli’s (most of whom hate Christians BTW) and the Israeli/Jewish-dominated AMERICAN media want us to attack Iran.

Sorry, but Israel isn’t worth a single American GI’s life. [/quote]

Mutual assured destruction will not work with people that embrace a martyr mentality.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

jtf,

Let’s hear your solution to iran. In your words. Your thoughts.

Make sure you include if we do this, this will happen. If we don’t, this will likely happen. In short, think ahead.

No links, please.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR
[/quote]

First of all, regardless of what needs to be done with Iran – why would ANYBODY with two brain cells want to be taken into any kind of confrontation WHATSOEVER by the CURRENT administration? That scares me more than a nuclear Iran or North Korea.

We can’t even secure Baghdad – it’s INSANE that we should be thinking about a military action against Iran because they made a VERBAL threat and MAYBE they want to do more than create nuclear power to generate electricity.

An attack on Iran would GUARANTEE an escalation of the Middle East conflict. I don’t want THIS particular administration to do a G-damn thing. If they did NOTHING EVER we’d all be a helluva lot better off.

Plain and simple, if this administration says ANYTHING about ANYTHING, you know it’s WRONG or an outright lie. You should also know by now they will have taken the most intelligent assessment and advice and completely ignored it all.

Nobody wants to take on Iran except Israel. They’ve been hyping the Iran threat everyday since we invaded Iraq, trying to convince the American public it’s in OUR interests to “take care of Iran”. Almost every piece of hyped-up garbage about Iran comes DIRECTLY from a neocon source – same as Iraq.

Do I know what will happen if we don’t confront Iran - no. But you don’t need to be a genius to figure out WILL HAPPEN if we do.

Where did I say “filthy jews” you moron?

I simply said its not worth our boys dying for Israel. We give them enough money/weapons as it is. Let them fight their own battles instead of manipulating us to fight their battles.

[quote]Michael570 wrote:

Mutual assured destruction will not work with people that embrace a martyr mentality.[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Mutual assured destruction will not work with people that embrace a martyr mentality.[/quote]

So Israel will make a tactical nuclear strike on Iran because Iran MIGHT ONE DAY use a nuclear weapon on Israel – meanwhile it’s a mystery why Iran might be trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Fortunately M.A.D. has worked up to now – of course if Israel strikes Iran’s facilities with a nuclear weapon, it would be the first “preemptive” nuclear strike ever.

I can hear the World celebrating already.

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Where did I say “filthy jews” you moron?

I simply said its not worth our boys dying for Israel. We give them enough money/weapons as it is. Let them fight their own battles instead of manipulating us to fight their battles.[/quote]

I guess you’re right. If Israel happens to get wiped off the face of the earth, it’s no business of ours. Helping them out would just make it worse for the US, what with our “Police of the World” image and all. We might want to stop helping out in Somalia, too. And we might as well not even consider helping out in Darfur, we spend millions in Africa as is.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
JeffR wrote:

jtf,

Let’s hear your solution to iran. In your words. Your thoughts.

Make sure you include if we do this, this will happen. If we don’t, this will likely happen. In short, think ahead.

No links, please.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

First of all, regardless of what needs to be done with Iran – why would ANYBODY with two brain cells want to be taken into any kind of confrontation WHATSOEVER by the CURRENT administration? That scares me more than a nuclear Iran or North Korea.

We can’t even secure Baghdad – it’s INSANE that we should be thinking about a military action against Iran because they made a VERBAL threat and MAYBE they want to do more than create nuclear power to generate electricity.

An attack on Iran would GUARANTEE an escalation of the Middle East conflict. I don’t want THIS particular administration to do a G-damn thing. If they did NOTHING EVER we’d all be a helluva lot better off.

Plain and simple, if this administration says ANYTHING about ANYTHING, you know it’s WRONG or an outright lie. You should also know by now they will have taken the most intelligent assessment and advice and completely ignored it all.

Nobody wants to take on Iran except Israel. They’ve been hyping the Iran threat everyday since we invaded Iraq, trying to convince the American public it’s in OUR interests to “take care of Iran”. Almost every piece of hyped-up garbage about Iran comes DIRECTLY from a neocon source – same as Iraq.

Do I know what will happen if we don’t confront Iran - no. But you don’t need to be a genius to figure out WILL HAPPEN if we do.
[/quote]

jtf,

I appreciate your response.

However, I wish I was as calm as you about the situation.

The iranian nutjob has pledged total destruction of Israel and the United States. He is on a crash course to develop nuclear weaponery.

I’m sorry, but, it’s hard not to put those two together.

Finally, besides saying you hate W., you didn’t offer any alternatives.

I’d still like to hear your suggestions.

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Who gives a rat-ass if Iran develops nukes. The Russians were a much bigger threat than Iran during the Cold War and never used nukes because of the idea of mutual destruction.

The Iranian president is a kook and says a lot of stupid shit but he doesn’t call the shots in Iran. The mullahs who rule Iran know that the instant they fired off a single shot we would wipe their entire country off the face of the map within an hour. And, like the Russians, they won’t ever do so.

The only reason this is an issue is because the Israeli’s (most of whom hate Christians BTW) and the Israeli/Jewish-dominated AMERICAN media want us to attack Iran.

Sorry, but Israel isn’t worth a single American GI’s life. [/quote]

Must be nice to be this sure about things.

No chance that they would arm or help our enemies develop nuclear weaponery?

No chance they would have terrorists smuggle such weaponery into our cities?

Again, must be nice to be so sure.

On second thought, USE YOUR BRAIN.

JeffR

[quote]jtf wrote:

So Israel will make a tactical nuclear strike on Iran because Iran MIGHT ONE DAY use a nuclear weapon on Israel – meanwhile it’s a mystery why Iran might be trying to acquire nuclear weapons.[/quote]

JeffR: “I’m on my way over to take everything jtf owns.”

jft: “I wonder why he is driving over to my house?”

JeffR