DescentBB

With Irans posturing and \"supposed\" nuke program, It is looking more and more like Bush will be dragging us into yet another war. All of us astute enough to remember the same \"Lies\" that got us into the Iraq war, will understand Iran doesn't really have a nuclear program. Bush just wants another excuse to send American boys off to yet another foreign land to die. So I say lets just ignore Iran. If Iran does drop a couple of big ones on FC, then we can get all mad and moral like to do something. Don't believe for a instant that Iran has a clandenstine nuke program, any war by Bush against Iran is really about the oil. Doesn't this all sound terribly familiar?

You are a funny guy Woody.

woodchip wrote:Doesn't this all sound terribly familiar?

Well, yeah! Everything you say starts to sound the same after a while.

woodchip wrote: If Iran does drop a couple of big ones on FC, then we can get all mad and moral like to do something.

No...wait...it's coming to me... If we get nuked than we're toast. There will be nobody left to get mad and moral...

Skyalmian wrote:Iran is Israel's problem, not ours.
However, since the government listens to Israel and not We the Slaves, it is of course our problem. Just like Afghanistan and Iraq.

You need to read your history books and open your ears to what Iran is saying. We don't need to step up on Iran, just bomb there enrichment centers and let them start over again along with sanctions.

I really think our agenda with the middle east is getting way overhand.
It seems to me that all i hear on the news now is something about the middle east, and how we're stopping \"terrorism\". Someone please remind me why OUR troops are on foreign soil, while continually more and more foreigners are coming in our country?

woodchip wrote:With Irans posturing and "supposed" nuke program, It is looking more and more like Bush will be dragging us into yet another war. All of us astute enough to remember the same "Lies" that got us into the Iraq war, will understand Iran doesn't really have a nuclear program. Bush just wants another excuse to send American boys off to yet another foreign land to die. So I say lets just ignore Iran. If Iran does drop a couple of big ones on FC, then we can get all mad and moral like to do something. Don't believe for a instant that Iran has a clandenstine nuke program, any war by Bush against Iran is really about the oil. Doesn't this all sound terribly familiar?

ya know, when I saw the thread title, I thought 'aw great, woody is complaining about how the left is so evil and crap.'

but now that I've read it, I am completely blown away.

Why? because it's almost exactly what I think about Iran and the current administration, too.


More lies to get the american public to accept another war of aggression on a country that 'supposedly' will have a nuke in 16 days, when in fact they won't have a nuke FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS.

let me say that last part again, just in case anyone missed it.

Iran won't have a nuke for at least ten years.

They've enriched uranium to a little over three percent. Not enough for a bomb, but JUST enough to use in nuclear reactors. Iran seems to be the only country to follow the NPT to the letter. Has Israel? nope. they keep building nukes in violation of the NPT. The states too. they're back to building more nukes.


Cuda: bomb their enrichment centers? are you insane? that would spread radioactivity all over the place. Kind of like what happened when Chernobyl blew. not only that, but it's basically a declaration of war. Iraq is a little kitten compared to the panther that is Iran.

The Iraq war was proven to be sold with a load of bullshzt, and it's happening again with Iran.

Wake up.

Personally, I'm not gonna be fooled again.

The problem with Iran is that it shares a border with Pakistan.

So, any change in Pakistan can speed up Iran's nuclear ambitions because Pakistan already has nukes, and thats assuming Pakistan's current reigme has tight reins in its nuclear security.

yeah, right.

I'd be very interested to here where all you folks bashing Bush and the USA get your information... if it is so reliable and accurate and all... I mean, wtf? Some guy in BFC (Ferni) has an inside line to the scientific break-throughs in Iran?? (No offense Fern) and Woodchip, I don't know where your from but your intelligence operations must be awesume.

Iran, for the sheer fact that its run by religious mullahs, is lying. They will seek to build a nuclear weapon.

What scares me is that \"Allah is great\" will be written on each one.

Bee

Ferno wrote: Cuda: bomb their enrichment centers? are you insane? that would spread radioactivity all over the place. Kind of like what happened when Chernobyl blew. not only that, but it's basically a declaration of war.

Different process and a different kinda facility. The latter being of consequence as the Iranian facilities are under ground a good bit. Chernobal was above ground and them some. The kinda bombs used to destroy underground or hardened targets don't send a lot of material "up". They puncture the walls and explode inside.

Personally, I would like to see us "sit this one out". Isreal is an ally. It IS our concern. The ting is though that I'm sure most Iranians are very nervous about this whole thing as most don't hold the "towering power and might" thing you hear their gov spew on TV. I worked with a gal from there and she said that the radicals are a minority but have the loudest voices and control most of the power. The general public doesn't agree.

Skyalmian wrote:Iran is Israel's problem, not ours.

Iran is the world's problem, just as Germany was the world's problem. We all left it far to late in WW2 leading to a complete waste of life. I abhor war, but this "nip em at the bud" policy is the way to go. If Iran starts to bloom then i'm sure Israel will start to nip, like they did before.

Agreed.

The thing I admire about Isreal (on the whole) is they don't take any crap from anyone and when push comes to shove ..they grab a shovel and anything else they can. It's kinda like pissing off a little dog....with a rotwiler standing behind it. (or however you spell it. )

ten years? I give them 3 tops.If they have the tech to whip out material this fast, constructing hightech nukes won't take long at all. Most of the info is out there fairly easy to get if you know where to look. And given their scientists are highly educated in the area, I don't thing they have to rehash the idea from the stone age. Iran is a fully industrialized nation. They are NOT 3rd world.

VonVulcan wrote:Woodchip, I don't know where your from but your intelligence operations must be awesume.

Don't know me very well do you

Duper wrote:
Different process and a different kinda facility. The latter being of consequence as the Iranian facilities are under ground a good bit. Chernobal was above ground and them some. The kinda bombs used to destroy underground or hardened targets don't send a lot of material "up". They puncture the walls and explode inside.

In order for this to work, the facility in question has to be buried quite a distance underground for the explosion to be 'contained'. But if it's, say ten feet underground, there's gonna be a big crater.


three years duper? sorry, but all experts on the planet don't agree with that.


VV: If i did tell you where I got my info, lame attacks like 'tinfoil hat', 'leftist', 'conspiracy', etc would be used. I'd rather not have muddy waters.

Bet51987 wrote:Iran, for the sheer fact that its run by religious mullahs, is lying.

Religious mullahs always lie? How extraordinary!!

Non-religious people lie just as much, only without as much shame, so that was an irrelevant statement.

As for \"bush bashing\" vulcan, do you really mean that you approve of his job of running the country into turmoil these past 6 years or so now?

Behemoth wrote:As for "bush bashing" vulcan, do you really mean that you approve of his job of running the country into turmoil these past 6 years or so now?

In general? Yes, Turmoil? There is always turmoil. What you see as turmoil I see as normal political debate.
Do I aggree with everthing he has done? No.
Do I think he has lied? No.
Do I believe he is doing better then Kerry would have done? Yes.
Do I think the war in Iraq could have been handled better?
Maybe, probably, but you can armchair quarterback any conflict and come up with better stratagies.
Over all though I support and agree with his positions in the war on terrorists and the countries that support them.

Ferno wrote:

Duper wrote:
Different process and a different kinda facility. The latter being of consequence as the Iranian facilities are under ground a good bit. Chernobal was above ground and them some. The kinda bombs used to destroy underground or hardened targets don't send a lot of material "up". They puncture the walls and explode inside.

In order for this to work, the facility in question has to be buried quite a distance underground for the explosion to be 'contained'. But if it's, say ten feet underground, there's gonna be a big crater.




VV: If i did tell you where I got my info, lame attacks like 'tinfoil hat', 'leftist', 'conspiracy', etc would be used. I'd rather not have muddy waters.

Fern, are you forgetting how deep his bunkers were? 10 feet isn't even close.

As far as your sources, You are taking a position and backing it up with figures that who knowes wheather they are accurate or not. You don't know, I don't know. I wouldn't know even if you told me what your sources are. You can form an opinion from your observations just like I can but you can't quote supposed facts. It always just comes off like another opertunity to Bash the USA and Bush. Anyway, thats what it all looks like to me.

PS.. that goes for all you other USA/Bush bashers to.

Vulc: if you re-read what I typed, you'd know I never claimed them to be 'ten feet underground'.

one of my sources would be the news that comes from the IAEA. If the IAEA doesn't know, then no one knows.

Religious mullahs always lie? How extraordinary!!

yea, no kidding Ded. If they're muhallas, they must be lying!

And thats the real problem, the IAEA does not really know either. Iran wont open up and show all. We have a good idea but thats it. So the problem really is how Iran has performed in the past with hard liners in charge and that answer is not good at all. Along with that they are saying to destroy Isreal and that the U.S. should not be a power greater than Muslims because Muslims are destined to rule the world and no one can be stronger than them (sounds like Hitler type talk to me). These are not a backward people and should be taken very seriously. I see no choice but either a pre-emptive strike or a declaration of war with them. The only choice left is let them attack us, anyway thats the way I see it.
I do agree Bush needs to go at the end of his term. I strongly disagree with his notion of extending his stay in office because we are at war.

um yea actually cuda.. they have.

\"I strongly disagree with his notion of extending his stay in office because we are at war.\"

agreed. he screwed up royally before.. why give him another chance to top that?

Ferno, I spent the last hour or so over on the IAEA web site reading there reports. And as near as I can tell they have alot of information that Iran provided them, but it is limited on what they have been able to verify. Unless I missed a document, and there are many of them, the IAEA has only verified less than half of what has been reported by Iran. One of the biggest concerns seems to be there pusuit of heavy water over light water nucluer plants because light water cannot be used for weapons. The other concern was there project being secret for the last 20 years and they want to know what they have done and what direction they are going in because heavy water is not a good direction.
Assuming I am missing something, can you show me the document where they are in compliance?

Ferno wrote:Vulc: if you re-read what I typed, you'd know I never claimed them to be 'ten feet underground'.

This is what you typed...

"In order for this to work, the facility in question has to be buried quite a distance underground for the explosion to be 'contained'. But if it's, say ten feet underground, there's gonna be a big crater."

What am I missing?
It's not going to be 10 feet under ground...

exactly. most bunker busters can only go about ten feet deep, probably a little deeper. a bunker on the other hand is going to be buried (if they were thinking ) at least 50 feet underground, if not more.

So bunker busters aren't exactly going to be effective.

I remember watching a video of a bunker buster in action. it went through what looked like six, seven feet of material and then popped off.

Now something tells me a bunker is not going to be given away by a large bump in the ground, definitely won't be just ten feet underground, and certainly won't be open on either side.

Also, the US is thinking of using low yield 'tactical' nukes for bunker busters. to hit the uranium enriching sites.

doesn't sit well with me.

Cuda: the information on the IAEA site about iran is pretty old. I guess they have yet to publish their latest findings. Currently they're taking the findings they have obtained from Iran, and assembling that into a report to submit to their board

Cuda, Fern...you guys do understand this is Bush's 2nd term and he can't be voted back in? Seems to me we should all be wondering who is going to be the next president and how they will handle things. Might just be you'll be wishing for the good 'ole glory days of GWB.

Fern, was that video of the missles going horizontally through material? A hardened case dropped can go through a lot more than those demos.

it was goin vertically, Testi.

\"you guys do understand this is Bush's 2nd term and he can't be voted back in?\"

yup.

woodchip wrote:Cuda, Fern...you guys do understand this is Bush's 2nd term and he can't be voted back in? Seems to me we should all be wondering who is going to be the next president and how they will handle things. Might just be you'll be wishing for the good 'ole glory days of GWB.

Yup, but he is trying to use the excuse that since we are at war, he is a wartime president and his term should be extended. Although the consenus is that it wont pass.

Cuda68 wrote: Yup, but he is trying to use the excuse that since we are at war, he is a wartime president and his term should be extended. Although the consenus is that it wont pass.

Where is your source! I have never heard of such a thing. I must have failed to learn that in Government class. Maybe I was sleeping that day.

While I don't really have anything terrible against GW I do not believe there is any possible way that he will stay in office any longer. The people simply wont allow it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/

Not sure how accurate it is though, but it has been done during war times in the past.

It will never fly though.

I say we go in.

Cuda68 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Cuda, Fern...you guys do understand this is Bush's 2nd term and he can't be voted back in? Seems to me we should all be wondering who is going to be the next president and how they will handle things. Might just be you'll be wishing for the good 'ole glory days of GWB.

Yup, but he is trying to use the excuse that since we are at war, he is a wartime president and his term should be extended. Although the consenus is that it wont pass.

Is he really, or do just some people like to hope that he will do that because they dislike him?

He may not be the sharpest guy, but I'm sure even he knows trying that would just make him look stupid.

Cuda68 wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/

Not sure how accurate it is though, but it has been done during war times in the past.

It will never fly though.

Are you trying to be funny? lol. First of all you quote the register?......On April fools day?

Of course it's not true. I think this idea came about exactly like Paul said it.

W has a bad problem: he already cried \"WOLF!\".

Now that there really IS a wolf, no one wants to listen.

It's foolish to say that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program in full swing. For goodness sake, they are sitting on some of the largest oil and gas deposits in the world, they simply do NOT need nuclear power at ALL - not for at least 50 years!

You honestly believe that a nutcase like Ahmenidejad who postures regularly about how Israel will be \"wiped out by the coming storm\" is not extremely interested in nuclear weapons??? I mean, come on, how naive is that?

The only good thing about the current situation is that the experts think that it is 5-7 years before they have enough weapons-grade uranium, and enough technology to actually create a bomb or three.

That means that W does NOT have to do ANYTHING.

He can pass the problem onto someone with more smarts, and better credibility. (i.e. the next Democratic president).

Personally, I think the USA would be amazingly stupid to tangle with Iran in a military way. You think gas is expensive now? Wait until there's no supplies coming from Iran at all, and Venezuela gets uppity with the USA.

Can you say \"$5 a gallon\"?

good points Mobius. (omg.. did I actually just say that?!??! )

I prefer that we leave this one in the UN's lap until they ask for help. Iran will cause a problem as soon as they are able. (not the whole nation of course.)

Where oil and gas is concerned. We have oil deposites just as large as the middle east. The only problem is that it's a heavier grade and takes a bit more to refine. Sweet crude is much easier to refine.

current average price for petrol here in sunny Brisbane Australia is $5.50/gallon, yet we also have oil reserves \"capped until we need it\"

Duper wrote:good points Mobius. (omg.. did I actually just say that?!??! )

I prefer that we leave this one in the UN's lap until they ask for help. Iran will cause a problem as soon as they are able. (not the whole nation of course.)

Where oil and gas is concerned. We have oil deposites just as large as the middle east. The only problem is that it's a heavier grade and takes a bit more to refine. Sweet crude is much easier to refine.

X2 - and we should use are own at this point and pay are own people the money instead of shipping it in.