DescentBB

Seems Iran is building a 3rd enrichment plant that was at a secret location...until now. So if all Iran is constructing these facilities for is \"peacful\" purposes, why hide them?:

\"Iran acknowledged its third facility in a Sept. 21 letter to the IAEA which stated \"that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country,\" agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire said. \"The letter stated that the enrichment level would be up to 5 percent.\"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00289.html

\"Iran's decision to build a secret facility represented a \"direct challenge to the basic compact\" of the global non-proliferation regime, Mr Obama said, making a statement in Pittsburgh, where he is hosting the G20 summit.\"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8274903.stm

Obama says Iran breaking rules on nuclear programs

OMG say it aint so, Man I never saw this one comming.

now the question is what will he do about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/ ... index.html

WTH I didnt quote the EVIL EMPIRE Fox news.

QUICK SOMEONE CALL A WHAMBULANCE. we need to make sure Bee's OK.

The United States, France and Britain have presented \"detailed evidence\" to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog that \"Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility,\" President Obama said Friday.

the same Detailed evidenece that Bush gave before going into Iraq

Ahmadinejad: Obama Will 'Regret' Accusing Iran of Hiding Nuclear Plant

UH OH looks like we're in trouble now. he might just kick Obama's tush

I think we should stop taking the lead in controlling Iran and leave it to some other country. We have enough to worry about and in this case France, Germany, and the UK, should step up and be the main voice.

Bee

while I somewhat agree with you. \"IF\" we leave it up to someone else to do something, that will probably never happen. then Israel will get involved taking a pre-emptive strike in self defense, since Iran has called for Isreal to be wiped of the face of the Earth. and then the shat will hit the fan and we'll get involved anyways. so its probably best that we try to do this diplomaticaly and with sanctions then allowing senario #2

I just hope Obama isnt basing his Intel on CIA Info. we all know what Liars they are. Just ask Nancy Pelosi

Nukes….lol, I’m more scared of their wookies…

Awww no fair. All we have are stupid hybrid tech night vision and laser cannons.

Bet51987 wrote:I think we should stop taking the lead in controlling Iran and leave it to some other country. We have enough to worry about and in this case France, Germany, and the UK, should step up and be the main voice.

Bee

Yeah, WW1 and WW2 are shining examples of how well isolationism worked.

Cmon Duper you know better than to throw Historical facts at someone

Owch Cuda.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat history's mistakes. Listening to the liberals try to spin how talking with our enemies will somehow prevent any conflict, makes me clearly understand Neville Chamberlain and his promoters prior to WW2 breaking out. The question remains if America/Britain/France aggresively prevented Hitler from building up a arsenal of weapons early on, how many lives would have been saved?
I just hope we are not discussing this 10 years from now after Israel and Iran have a nuclear exchange with 3 million + people dead. I suspect we would understand then that bombing out Irans nuclear capability now would have been a very cheap price indeed. I wonder how the peace at all cost crowd will spin things.

Duper... Where did I say that we should isolate ourselves. I simply said that we should take a back seat and support whoever is up front. It seems that every time there is a problem everyone waits for the U.S. to take the lead, do most of the work, and afford most of the costs. I think the U.K., France, or someone else should take the lead, do the work, and afford the cost. We will back up whatever path they choose with equal work and cost.

Bee

Hey, why don't we just let someone else worry about our utility bills?

Woody, precisely. On all counts.

Bee, I realize that that (i hate using 2 \"thats\") isn't what you said exactly, but it can be implied. If you recall, ... well you're probably too young... that this is how Desert storm started. a couple of years of \"diplomacy\" followed by a couple years of Hussein thumbing his nose at every agreement that he signed with NATO. ... Which is what also happened the second as well. Everyone (or nearly everyone) was backing us and saying \"givem what for!\" until the media started whining that it wasn't over in a week.

In recent history, it's been pretty much that way. It's a fact that no major confrontation was resolved with diplomacy. Humans by nature are not nice creatures. And I would also like to point out that the last 1 to 2 years concerning this matter has ALL been diplomacy and THEY WERE BOLDFACED LYING TO OUR FACES! Sure, they want peace. (carcasim) and in such cases, it's highly unlikely that diplomacy will work. I'd like to be the first and probably the Only one to say this .. but this is NOT ABOUT OIL. Although in 5 years (assuming Woodies concerns do not come to fruition) will be made to seem like it was.

And just what are we supposed to do, apply more sanctions that only hurt the innocent? Either we take decisive action regarding the threat, or step aside as Bee suggests.

sorry, forgot to really address the \"why\" aspect. Because we're the only one's with balls enough to do it. (outside Israel.) and up till very recently, hand enough money to manage it. ... no thanks to several trillion in bail out debt. The brits were fairly reliable, but since their latest PM and their media went all mushy on us. (that, of course, is a generalization) And where's the REST of NATO on this??
what? doesn't \"I TOLD YA SO\" translate into all the other languages???

Duper wrote:sorry, forgot to really address the "why" aspect. Because we're the only one's with balls enough to do it. (outside Israel.) and up till very recently, hand enough money to manage it. ... no thanks to several trillion in bail out debt. The brits were fairly reliable, but since their latest PM and their media went all mushy on us. (that, of course, is a generalization) And where's the REST of NATO on this??
what? doesn't "I TOLD YA SO" translate into all the other languages???

There is no NATO. Just look at the disproportionate help we received for the Afghanistan operation which was a valid NATO operation. Even then, they left the actual combat to us. Look how many U.S. soldiers died fighting the Taliban compared to the rest of NATO. President Bush called it a coalition but it wasn't.

The last thing I want to see is our resources being drained by an Iranian conflict while the rest of the free world sits back. I say stay out of it and let the other nations know why. Maybe then, they will do something.

Bee

The “cost” of taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “political” not “monetary”. (mostly)

Someone said “if we don’t learn from history…” well that’s exactly right, but it’s the European’s that must learn, and do something. If they let the threat persist as they did in the past…well, what can I say, they will reap the results.

If it’s Israel that faces the threat, then let Israel do something about it.

But no one is going to do anything, as long as they believe America will protect them with ABMs or some such. Or if they feel we will go in and destroy the threat for them.

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:sorry, forgot to really address the "why" aspect. Because we're the only one's with balls enough to do it. (outside Israel.) and up till very recently, hand enough money to manage it. ... no thanks to several trillion in bail out debt. The brits were fairly reliable, but since their latest PM and their media went all mushy on us. (that, of course, is a generalization) And where's the REST of NATO on this??
what? doesn't "I TOLD YA SO" translate into all the other languages???

There is no NATO. Just look at the disproportionate help we received for the Afghanistan operation which was a valid NATO operation. Even then, they left the actual combat to us. Look how many U.S. soldiers died fighting the Taliban compared to the rest of NATO. President Bush called it a coalition but it wasn't.

The last thing I want to see is our resources being drained by an Iranian conflict while the rest of the free world sits back. I say stay out of it and let the other nations know why. Maybe then, they will do something.

Bee

Bee Canadian soldiers have been dying in Afghanistan since 2001 and been asking for more help from NATO and the US to no avail for years now. End result is the Taliban now own 80% of the country.
http://www.icosfilm.net/static/video/050_map.pdf

Oh and the first snide comment about the Canadian military proves the poster has no respect for the Canadians dying in Afghanistan, and deserves a punch in the mouth.

correct Spidey.

Bet, this really has nothing to do with Afghanistan; neither directly nor within analogy. There are multiple concerns here. One, Iran WILL attack Israel. or almost certainly. They're leader has been very clear about wiping them off the map (his words). They will then come after us. More over, they will sell arsenal to the Taliban and THAT will be a threat to more than just our troop in Afghanistan. Pakistan will also be able to buy from Iran which will put India at risk.
Bottom line is, you don't give a 12 year old that is a profiled pyromaniac a Bic lighter.

I'm not suggesting that we rush in and glass the place over. That wouldn't be very green. But some action will need to be taken in the end. Lets pray for a lot of chest beating and Iran's surrounding Arab neighbors shout them down.

But Spidey is correct and there is a price to be paid for peace.

and btw Canuck, you guys have an awesome Airshow team! (seriously, the Snowbirds Rock!)