Iran enrichment capacity expanded dramatically on Obama's watch

reply to post by ketsuko


We would go through some hard times before we adapt. You know like bring our manufacturing base back home or at the least relocate it to somewhere else. Since the most of our oil comes from here, I'm sure we would be able to adapt to the decrease in oil import from Mexico and Canada, or switch to alternative fuels if oil became too expensive.

I'm not exactly worried about any of that, your examples would probably end up benefiting our country in the long run.

SLAYER69
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

You know, I completely agree. Now, turn that discerning eye towards the other trouble makers of the world. The European continent and the ME (not to mention Russia] are just chalked full of others many here seem not willing to acknowledge as well?

There is enough blame to go around. There are no victims just protagonists on all sides.

Although Iran has been the victim of many crimes done by the western countries during the last centuries including several discriminating treaties between Iran and the British, the1957 coup,sabotages,sanctions,8 years of war with western backed Iraq,terrorist activities and the blockage of Iran's assets all over the world,etc,etc...Iran is not playing victim at all, and all Iranians are saying is to just leave us alone,except us as what we are and let us be like any other nation in the world,, I think that is absolutely not playing victim....Zionists on the other hand are the masters of the victims and they are not shy to show it off overtly.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


In the long run, and in the meantime, we'd tear ourselves apart. You know it.

reply to post by ketsuko


I've been very vocal on this site that any significant change to actually fix the problems in our country would cause hardship. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I've been very vocal on this site that any significant change to actually fix the problems in our country would cause hardship. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

True, but what kind of an omelet would result? My fear is that what happened at the Founding with a free system that did a reasonable job of safeguarding liberties was the anomaly rather than the rule. Most times you get a rather nastier, and more tyrannical, result.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

there is no way to know truthfully if Iran is willing to use nuclear weapons or not until they actually have them, unless they come out and say that they will absolutely use nuclear weapons if they get them. Anything else could be interpreted as a lie.

By the same token, the only way to demonstrate a "lack of willingness" to use nuclear weapons, is to possess, and to not use them. As I see it, any attempt to gain access to those types of weapons, does, indeed, indicate a willingness to use them.

I would be willing to say that since another radical Muslim country, Pakistan, shows responsibility with them, then Iran could be trusted with them.

Quite honestly, I don't "trust" anyone to not use nuclear weapons. That is especially true of countries that have been deemed "radical". Further proliferation only increases the likelihood of those types of weapons being used.

So unless you have physical proof that Iran would indeed be willing to use nuclear weapons if they got them, then I'd say you don't have an argument.This is what I was getting at when I first responded to you.

I knew what you were "getting at". And, that comment only proves that you still don't understand what I was "getting at". I never said, nor did I even imply, that "Iran would indeed be willing to use nuclear weapons if they got them".

Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand?

Why did you quote yourself with a link back to the original quote?

The post that I linked to was the SOURCE of my comment, and I didn't want you to have any doubt as to where it came from.

I'm perfectly capable of scrolling up to the top of the screen and rereading what you wrote.

I'm sure that you are. I only doubted your willingness to do so.

In fact it looks like you are trying to post proof for your argument

My only claim, in that post, was that you had intentionally misrepresented my words. The source that I provided, WAS, "IN FACT", proof of that "argument".

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by ketsuko


What makes you think our government would be dissolved if these things were to happen? I mean sure there would be a massive economic collapse, much disorder and chaos, but that doesn't mean that our government would cease to exist or anything.

BenReclused
By the same token, the only way to demonstrate a "lack of willingness" to use nuclear weapons, is to possess, and to not use them. As I see it, any attempt to gain access to those types of weapons, does, indeed, indicate a willingness to use them.

It could also mean that they want to level the playing field in case someone wants to use nukes against them. What's wrong with wanting to adequately defend yourself? It's not like any country can just launch satellites into space that shoot nukes out of the sky like America can.

Quite honestly, I don't "trust" anyone to not use nuclear weapons. That is especially true of countries that have been deemed "radical". Further proliferation only increases the likelihood of those types of weapons being used.

So what makes America so high and mighty that they get to tell the rest of the world who can and cannot use them? Because in the history of the world the ONLY country that has ever used nukes against another country is America. I'd say that America has demonstrated more willingness to use nukes then any other country that we may be talking about today. Just because we lipspeak a reluctance to do so now doesn't excuse our past actions.

I knew what you were "getting at". And, that comment only proves that you still don't understand what I was "getting at". I never said, nor did I even imply, that "Iran would indeed be willing to use nuclear weapons if they got them".

Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand?

What's difficult to understand is you getting annoyed at me. I'm just trying to have a discussion here.

The post that I linked to was the SOURCE of my comment, and I didn't want you to have any doubt as to where it came from.

I'm not a child, treating me as such is a huge insult. Seeing as how I had to hit the reply button above your post, I am more than capable of knowing where that information came from. Please don't patronize me.

I'm sure that you are. I only doubted your willingness to do so.

See now you are making brash assumptions about my intelligence and willingness to see opposing points of view. I could maybe understand this if we've had heated arguments in the past, but I don't recall ever having a debate with you. So why the animosity? What is your problem? I'm trying to remain civil here, but you are seriously trying to push me into anger.

My only claim, in that post, was that you had intentionally misrepresented my words. The source that I provided, WAS, "IN FACT", proof of that "argument".

See ya,
Milt

See you did it again. If you keep this up with your next response to me, I'm going to have to bid you adieu now. I think what you are doing right here is uncalled for. I don't recall insulting you or doing anything that would constitute this chip on your shoulder towards me. How about you drop that # and just discuss this with me like a man?

ETA: By the way, if you truly believe I don't know what you are originally referring to, you could have just elaborated on your original point and not have to get snide and snippy. You didn't exactly have the world's largest post to begin with. But whatever, like I said, if you continue acting the way you have in the last two posts I won't even respond to you again.

Who cares? I worry more about Israel having the bomb. They are far more likely to bomb another country than Iran is. The west has no right to tell any nation they can't have nuclear power. There is Zero proof that they are developing weapons grade enrichment and you can't legally sanction a country based on speculation.

This is all about international bankers wanting control over Iran's monetary supply. Plain and simple.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You must know something which is much greater than the nuclear bomb.

This is manipulation of the world economic system by Western governments and corporations.

The economy has been "designed" for supremacy of Anglo-Saxons.

Of course as rest of the world has prospered both materially and technologically, they would demand a change in status quo.

Iran is a very small player. There are much larger guerrillas in the arena. Worry about them.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

It could also mean that they want to level the playing field in case someone wants to use nukes against them. What's wrong with wanting to adequately defend yourself? It's not like any country can just launch satellites into space that shoot nukes out of the sky like America can.

That only adds support to my claim of:

any attempt to gain access to those types of weapons, does, indeed, indicate a willingness to use them.

So what makes America so high and mighty that they get to tell the rest of the world who can and cannot use them? Because in the history of the world the ONLY country that has ever used nukes against another country is America. I'd say that America has demonstrated more willingness to use nukes then any other country that we may be talking about today. Just because we lipspeak a reluctance to do so now doesn't excuse our past actions.

None of that has anything to do with what I said:

Quite honestly, I don't "trust" anyone to not use nuclear weapons. That is especially true of countries that have been deemed "radical". Further proliferation only increases the likelihood of those types of weapons being used.

What's difficult to understand is you getting annoyed at me. I'm just trying to have a discussion here.

I'm not a child, treating me as such is a huge insult. Seeing as how I had to hit the reply button above your post, I am more than capable of knowing where that information came from. Please don't patronize me.

See now you are making brash assumptions about my intelligence and willingness to see opposing points of view. I could maybe understand this if we've had heated arguments in the past, but I don't recall ever having a debate with you. So why the animosity? What is your problem? I'm trying to remain civil here, but you are seriously trying to push me into anger.

See you did it again. If you keep this up with your next response to me, I'm going to have to bid you adieu now. I think what you are doing right here is uncalled for. I don't recall insulting you or doing anything that would constitute this chip on your shoulder towards me. How about you drop that # and just discuss this with me like a man?

ETA: By the way, if you truly believe I don't know what you are originally referring to, you could have just elaborated on your original point and not have to get snide and snippy. You didn't exactly have the world's largest post to begin with. But whatever, like I said, if you continue acting the way you have in the last two posts I won't even respond to you again.

That's nothing more than a bunch of passive-aggressive nonsense. My habit of linking to previous posts doesn't have a damned thing to do with you. And, I have no intention of changing that habit, just to suit your overly sensitive nature.

Considering your tendency to misconstrue my words, and my actions, I would, quite honestly, PREFER that you DON'T RESPOND to any more of my posts.

See ya,
Milt

PS:
As a gesture of kindness, I didn't source any quotes this time. I sincerely hope that you can appreciate that. I've never, intentionally, NOT done that before.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


OP failed to cite the important quote from Kerry:

"In 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges," Kerry said in a news conference held in the early hours of Nov. 24. "That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing."

Faux News

Kerry's point was that Bush II refused to negotiate with Iran in 2003 when it had far fewer centrifuges and a less developed enrichment program, AND the US and Iran had a common enemy in Sunni terrorist organizations in the region, but Bush completely dropped the ball by -- amongst other things -- putting Iran into the same category as Iraq under Saddam Hussein and North Korea. So yeah, Bush's non-diplomacy with Iran helped to push Iran to develop its nuclear capability -- that and Bush II invading and occupying the two countries with the longest borders with Iran, as well as keeping a nuclear-armed fleet off Iran's coast. It was also Bush II's daddy, Bush I, who had his navy shoot down a civilian Iranian airliner right off the Iranian coast, killing over three hundred men, women and children. So is it any wonder that Iran went forward with its nuclear program under Bush II?

The fact that the Bush II administration failed to reign-in North Korea, which also tested its first nuclear bomb in 2006, and after which it could no longer threatened with military force by the US, might also have been a factor in Iran's decision to go forward with its nuclear program.

But you wouldn't want to address these facts, but rather just blame Obama for everything because that is so much more convenient for conservatives and right-wingers, not to mention crypto racists.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Whats the solution bomb Iran back to the Stone age? yeah thats a real grand plan.

reply to post by BenReclused


Ah yeah Israel that has over 300 Nuclear Weapons and has used Chemical warfare agaisnt the oleo in Gaza i feel great about it.

Ok lets say Israel takes over West bank and Gaza what then? are they going to claim that Syria belongs to them to now? oh wait they already are.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

But you wouldn't want to address these facts, but rather just blame Obama for everything because that is so much more convenient for conservatives and right-wingers, not to mention crypto racists.

Exactly.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Ah yeah Israel that has over 300 Nuclear Weapons and has used Chemical warfare agaisnt the oleo in Gaza i feel great about it.

Ok lets say Israel takes over West bank and Gaza what then? are they going to claim that Syria belongs to them to now? oh wait they already are.

Explain why you feel that detracts from what I said:

Over a period of many years, both Israel, and the United States, have demonstrated an extreme lack of willingness to use nuclear weapons. The same can't be said for Iran.

Here's a clue for you: It doesn't!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Whats the solution bomb Iran back to the Stone age?

If anyone truly wanted to do that, that would have already happened.

What's your solution? Allow Iran to produce the means to bomb Israel "back to the Stone age"?

See ya,
Milt

It looks like the law of accelerating returns is well in effect with Iran's nuclear capabilities.

C'est la vie.

reply to post by BenReclused


The US and Israel over many years have shown their unwillingness to use nuclear weapons???

Ever hear of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? How about the Bush II regime's decision to move away from the doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons, and the US research into small nuclear bunker-busting bombs/missiles?

What about Israel's threat to incinerate Iraq, during the Gulf War, should Iraq use chemical weapons against Israel?

What about the US giving proprietary cruise missile technology, meant for nuclear armed missiles, to Israel, a rogue nuclear state.

And just exactly what has Iran ever said or done to suggest it is willing to use nuclear weapons? And please don't cite the specious, mistranslated quote of the Iranian foreign president, who actually said something to the effect that the illegitimate state of Israel will someday be erased from the map just like the Soviet Union was.

And let's be clear: it's been two nuclear armed thug powers, the US and Israel, that have been threatening a non-nuclear armed Iran with military attacks if it doesn't do what these two thug nations demand of it.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I would be happy if there were no nukes in the middle-east, including those with Israel.

The problem now is that Israel has a hidden arsenal. Saudis can get bombs from Pakistan at any time. So it is natural for Iran to feel insecure.

My problem with USA acting unilaterally to destroy Iran's reactors etc. is that such actions are making a mockery of UN and other international treaties. The destruction of international system is not conducive to peace on this planet.