Weapons-grade uranium found in Iran

[SpiritualMadMan]

Originally posted by carpro:
"...it's amazing if you step back and think about it that the main concern of the world right now is what we're going to do about the Iranian program, not what the Iranians are going to do."

Author unknown

With all the rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map...

I don't think most sane people have a doubt of any kind as to what Iran will do once they get Nukes...

SMM

 

[KenH]

No one has yet proven that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

No one yet shown that, even if Iran builds nuclear weapons, Iran would attack Israel, especially considering the fact that the Iranian leaders know that if they attack the United States or one of our allies(such as Israel) that thirty minutes later they and their country will cease to exist.

I don't think that the Bush administration should start a third Middle East war, which would destroy the U.S. and world economies, over stupid rhetoric spewed forth by the Iranian president.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

If the rabid dogs growls at you...

Do you turn your back and walk away?

Do you back cautiously away hoping you don't have to shot it?

No, I don't think so...

You have to put rabid dogs down because they attack children and pass the diesese onto others in the area...

Let *them* prove they aren't 'infected' then I'll consider backing away from the rhetoric...

But, with all the foaming at the mouth and growling the symptoms are there...

At the very least a suspected rabid animal is captured and quarantined long enough to tell for sure if it's infected or not...

SMM

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
No one has yet proven that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

No one yet shown that, even if Iran builds nuclear weapons, Iran would attack Israel, especially considering the fact that the Iranian leaders know that if they attack the United States or one of our allies(such as Israel) that thirty minutes later they and their country will cease to exist.

Ascribing western thinking to a fundamentalist islamic republic is dangerous.

All it takes is for the man in power to believe that allah will smile on the destroyed Iran and they will all achieve martyrdom in exchange for destroying Israel or some part of America.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Scary, but true point... Carpro

SMM

 

[Scott J]

Hey, I am all for sitting this one out. Bush and the US tried to do the right thing by stopping Saddam and what has he/we gotten for our trouble?

Yes. WWIII may ensue because these nuts get nukes but that's OK- at least we will not have done anything horrible like removing the butcher of Baghdad from power or isolating/battling a menacing terrorist organization on its own turf.

It is time that the French, Russians, Germans, etc. step up... then again, the Russians and Germans have their own embarrassing history concerning the right of Jews to live, huh? Maybe we should all just relax and not worry about it. The Iranians wouldn't really supply terrorists with nukes would they?

Unfortunately, by the time we "know" they have them... it will probably be too late. If I were them, the first thing I'd do with a nuke is sneak it into the US through the Canadian border... or maybe pay drug dealers to bring it in. Their sympathizers already own property here and Lord knows we wouldn't want to infringe upon anyone's rights to plant a nuclear weapon in an abandoned building.

What a bargaining chip, huh? Leave us alone as we decimate Israel or else we'll kill all the Jews in NY City... along with everyone else.

 

[KenH]

Consider this from a geopolitical standpoint. If Saddam Hussein was still in power Iraq would be an enemy of Iran and would be serving as a check against the ambitions of the Iranian president.

As the old saying goes, and it sometimes true, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Also, the debacle in Iraq makes it much less likely that the American people will support a third war in the Middle East.

And how many of you who are chomping at the bit to start hostilities with Iran are willing to state on this board that as a result of hostilities you will be glad to lose your job as the U.S. economy crumbles under the weight of at least $150/bbl. oil as a result of these hostilities?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

Is this the lesser of two evils argument that you and your CP isolationist buddies so fiercely rejected at different times during the election campaign?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

I am discussing international relations, not domestic politics.

By the way, I am an internationalist, not an isolationist. Remember, I may be the only person on this board that likes the CFR and the UN.

 

[saturneptune]

Now here is an idea. Send Bush to Iran, let him put his nose down in the dirt. If it comes up glowing, we can use him as a nightlite.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KenH:
Consider this from a geopolitical standpoint. If Saddam Hussein was still in power Iraq would be an enemy of Iran and would be serving as a check against the ambitions of the Iranian president.

Or they'd more than likely be motivation for each other.

As the old saying goes, and it sometimes true, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Except that both of those devils were/are interested in promoting terrorism agains the US and Israel.

Also, the debacle in Iraq makes it much less likely that the American people will support a third war in the Middle East.

Actually I would say that has alot more to do with the consistent spin against the war by the MSM and Bush's opportunistic political adversaries. During the Cold War, neither party would have weakened the US globally to gain more power for themselves. The Cold War "America first" attitude would not have attempted to destroy Bush due to the pre-war intel failures.

The downside is that those failures might have probably never have been known since that would have been seen as detrimental to the US as well.

And how many of you who are chomping at the bit to start hostilities with Iran are willing to state on this board that as a result of hostilities you will be glad to lose your job as the U.S. economy crumbles under the weight of at least $150/bbl. oil as a result of these hostilities?

Don't worry Ken. The attacks on Bush have been completely effective. He's politically impotent. His poll numbers are in the 30's. There is a very good chance he'll lose both houses of Congress. He is worse than lame duck at this point. This is how we reward a man who acts on values and what he believes to be "true" as opposed to the high approval ratings given to one who spends his whole presidency managing poll numbers.

It is truly said that a people gets the government it deserves. Whether one likes Bush or not, it will be some time before anyone dares come to the WH with the intent of leading based on a set of core values and convictions. We're ensuring that our future presidents will lie to us about their beliefs and motives.

He couldn't act to stop Iran if he wanted to... there are Dems that want him impeached now over Iraq. There is no way he has the political capital to get approval for action against Iran.

We are left hoping that the Russians, French, and Germans aren't as corrupt and spineless and devoid of vision as they were on Iraq... Unfortunately, this will be the "hope" we hand to our children.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by KenH:
Consider this from a geopolitical standpoint. If Saddam Hussein was still in power Iraq would be an enemy of Iran and would be serving as a check against the ambitions of the Iranian president.

As the old saying goes, and it sometimes true, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Also, the debacle in Iraq makes it much less likely that the American people will support a third war in the Middle East.

And how many of you who are chomping at the bit to start hostilities with Iran are willing to state on this board that as a result of hostilities you will be glad to lose your job as the U.S. economy crumbles under the weight of at least $150/bbl. oil as a result of these hostilities?

No way. Iraq cannot whip Iran. If you think they can you don't know anything about the countries. Iraq never COULD whip Iran. Why do you think they used chemicals to keep Iran from overrunning their borders.

If you are going to rely on Saddam to police the middle East you have an awfully skewed view of middle eastern politics.

I wish I could show you a lot of info on the two countries, but sadly it is restricted; but you would see the military capability is just not there.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Iraq cannot whip Iran.

I didn't say it could. You reading into my statement more than what I said.

 

[artjaggard]

And exactly how many atoms of a substance equals a trace? The amount could be ridiculously small. I have traces of uranium on an old watch that glows in the dark. But we won't get many bombs from that little bit.

Art Jaggard

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Art,

You do have a valid point...

But, it can be taken in either direction...

That a small reference sample was there at one time and 'traces' got left behind in the cleanup...

Or, enough to make a bomb was there ate one time and when they cleaned up the neglected a 'trace'...

Irregardless, weapons grade material has only two uses...

Weapons or Fast Breeder Reactors...

I haven't heard of any actual proof or research into Fast Breeders in Iran...

That only leaves Weapons...

Last I heard, fuel for a Power Plant tops off at around 5 to 6 percent enriched... (And, that is quite high.)

Weapons Grade is above 90%. That's quite a disparity...

SMM