Ahmadienjad at Columbia

[frogger]

I do not think it makes sense to bring up our going to war against Nazi Germany based on knowledge or suspicions of concentration camps. It was based on Germany's invasion of other nations and attacking our shipping in support of the UK. It also didn't hurt that Germany declared war on the US. That evidence was certainly tangible.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

Well, that's not true. Enrichment of Uranium increases the reactor yields. The US recently proposed working with the Soviet Union on supplying Iran with enriched Uranium that could be used in a reactor, but not in a bomb.

-Wayne

IIRC, they refused. A clear sign that they are not so serious about the "peaceful use of nuclear power". A brilliant move on the part of the U.S. to discern their true intentions.

[the]

Originally Posted by on-ramp

At least he hasn't sent your sons & daughters to die in the dessert . . .

When I have to go, that's exactly how I want it to go down.

Suffocating on a cream pie to the face. Like a Brady Bunch episode gone terribly wrong.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

Hmm, at the risk of being hugely inflammatory, what tangible evidence did the United States have of the concentration camps in Nazi Germany? History has proven that if we wait for tangible evidence, then a window of opportunity to stop rouge countries may close.

-Wayne

First of all - U.S. was not concerned about concentration camps. That was not why they became involved with WWII.

History shows that if we act impulsively - as in history from about four years ago - we look like asses for doing so - as in Iraq.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Why are you making it so easy for me???

They are enriching uranium. Please tell me how enriched uranium is used in the generation of power? Will make it easy for you, its not. Its used only in the production of weapons.

Iran has admitted that they are in the process of enriching uranium. There is no other use for this material other than making a nuke bomb.

Your move... try to wiggle out of this one.

I think this misconception has been adequately covered.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by dd74

I think this misconception has been adequately covered.

As had the fact that its been proven that they want the uranium for a nuke weapon, not generation of power. Guess you did not see that on the thread...

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I don't really care what any politician in any foreign country says publicly - we should do whatever is necessary to restrict any future nations (friend or foe) from gaining nuclear weapons.

-Wayne

Totally agree. Thank God that we have Israel on our side and they are not afraid to strike when needed.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I don't really care what any politician in any foreign country says publicly - we should do whatever is necessary to restrict any future nations (friend or foe) from gaining nuclear weapons.

-Wayne

I would also suggest that we see if we can help address why these countries feel the need to gain nuclear weapons. Addressing one without the other seems like it has less probability of success.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by frogger

I would also suggest that we see if we can help address why these countries feel the need to gain nuclear weapons. Addressing one without the other seems like it has less probability of success.

Tell us why. They just need a hug?

[frogger]

Reardon, please print Wayne's comment that I quoted, and read it along with my comment. If you still don't follow, please post again for an explanation. It's clear you've miscomprehended my comment, for what ever reason.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

Unfortunately, Israel's misguided effort in Lebanon seems to have given them a black eye, and possibly made them more cautious (like the US) about future "involvement".

-Wayne

Cannot totally disagree. Your comments on their recent action in Syria?

[Joeaksa]

Just for the record, there may not be any homosexuals in Iran. This is the reason why:

http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml

They are being killed by the govt. Proof above in photos....

Suppose some of you guys want the same proof about them making nuke weapons?

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by on-ramp

At least he hasn't sent your sons & daughters to die in the dessert for WMD BS.
Let's put things in perspective.

That's interesting, yesterday's NYTimes (Sunday) top of page 14 in the caption of a picture of Ahmadinejad, it says " Iran sent large numbers of teenagers, older men and some women in human waves against the better equipped Iraqi forces to die in the name of Islam."

So you are right, he didn't send armed military volunteers forces but unarmed civilians.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

The evidence that Iran is working to develop Nuclear weapons is virtually undisputable:

- They have admitted to having 3000 enrichment centrifuges.
- They have built a bunker under the desert, 30 stories deep.
- They have refused the assistance of the Soviet Union to purchase enriched uranium for the purpose of running a nuclear reactor.

American people will be shy to act or confont a potentially more dangerous foe. This could be called being "gun shy." I'm not advocating war or an invasion of Iran. They are clearly in the process of developing nuclear weapons, and they need to be stopped, either through sanctions, international pressure, or ultimately through the use of some type of force.

-Wayne

Ummm...firstly, the word is "indisputable."

Second - none of what you outlined falls under "indisputable."

From Wikipedia involving Uranium Enrichment:
Countries operating large cascades:
Large cascades of gas centrifuges are operated by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and China to produce enriched uranium both for domestic use and for export, and by Japan for domestic use.
By large, they mean more than one or 3,000. Note, for domestic use is underlined, and note as well the countries listed. Finally, note the lyric by "The Kings" - Paranoia will destroy ya.

2) A bunker under the desert 30 stories deep? So what? I can't see how that points to the Iranians having a desire to nuke Israel or the U.S.

3) "They have refused the assistance of the Soviet Union to purchase enriched uranium for the purpose of running a nuclear reactor" Which means what?

Meanwhile, North Korea has an active nuclear program and regularly shoots off rocket tests like it's the 4th of July, yet we fail to have the gumption to "nuke" them.

Face it: one country is a credible threat, while the other is a convenient and timely goat to saber rattle against. No, we've learned nothing since Iraq. Find me the WMDs, then we'll talk about Iran's nuclear program.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

As had the fact that its been proven that they want the uranium for a nuke weapon, not generation of power. Guess you did not see that on the thread...

As if this thread is a bastion of clear, concise and untainted information and truth. You make me laugh.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by dd74

Finally, note the lyric by "The Kings" - Paranoia will destroy ya.

First, the band is called 'The Kinks'

Second, the lyrics are "Paranoia, the destroyer"

And third, your belief that Iran is not trying to build a bomb is silly.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Rearden

First, the band is called 'The Kinks'

Second, the lyrics are "Paranoia, the destroyer"

And third, your belief that Iran is not trying to build a bomb is silly.

Kinks, you're right there.
Lyrics - I won't dispute that.
Third - stick with what you know about the Kinks and lyrics.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Rearden

...And third, your belief that Iran is not trying to build a bomb is silly.

dd, I am surprised that you don't see right thru Ahmadienjad.

I suppose you may just be on the contrary for effect.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Iran represents a greater immediate threat to Israel than to the U.S. but is certainly not a friend of either. As far as immediate action, I certainly could understand if Israel decided to take out the Iranian weapons facilities. If we did it, I hope it would be with the goal of (1) preventing the US from ending up in Iran's (or some terrorist group, supplied with Iranian-made nuclear material) cross hairs and (2) looking at the greater good/big picture in the M.E. I would NOT support the US attacking a sovereign country because of a threat to Israel - I would hope we wouldn't be "doing their dirty work" for them. They're an ally, yes - but we should not be their patsy about something like this. Joint attack? Maybe. A NATO action might be better. Iran could certainly retaliate unilaterally against Israel for a pre-emptive strike, as well as against U.S. interests in Iraq (some would say they've already been doing this, which is possible), but not against a large multinational alliance like NATO.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by dd74

Ummm...firstly, the word is "indisputable."

Second - none of what you outlined falls under "indisputable."

From Wikipedia involving Uranium Enrichment:
Countries operating large cascades:
Large cascades of gas centrifuges are operated by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and China to produce enriched uranium both for domestic use and for export, and by Japan for domestic use.
By large, they mean more than one or 3,000. Note, for domestic use is underlined, and note as well the countries listed. Finally, note the lyric by "The Kings" - Paranoia will destroy ya.

2) A bunker under the desert 30 stories deep? So what? I can't see how that points to the Iranians having a desire to nuke Israel or the U.S.

3) "They have refused the assistance of the Soviet Union to purchase enriched uranium for the purpose of running a nuclear reactor" Which means what?

Meanwhile, North Korea has an active nuclear program and regularly shoots off rocket tests like it's the 4th of July, yet we fail to have the gumption to "nuke" them.

Face it: one country is a credible threat, while the other is a convenient and timely goat to saber rattle against. No, we've learned nothing since Iraq. Find me the WMDs, then we'll talk about Iran's nuclear program.

Sorry but throw all of the above out that uses Wikipedia as source/reference material.

I can post on Wiki that my hair is going to grow back and unfortunately its not true.

Find a source that is not biased and credible and lets try again...