Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I REALLY, REALLY think that Iran or NK getting/having nukes is a very bad idea. Just the idea of them having nukes injects a ton of instability in an already unstable world.
Would there be backlash if the USA took down the nuke development facilities of NK and Iran...........of course! But the alternative is a lot worse.
The USA should makes deals with countries that would be angered if we took down both of these country's nuclear capabilities.....then do it.
I ASSUME the USA has several plans in place for the possibility that Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Islamic Jihadists???
I'd we're going to attack a country for having nukes why not first go after Pakistan? Even if Iran has nukes so what? They don't even have the technology to use them. At least not fit long distances
If we increase sanctions we may be back to the beginning, these negotiations are an enormous step after decades of severed diplomatic ties. If congress decides to take this step Iran will go back to work as before, these type of negotiations are never perfect but this is truly progress.
Statement by the Deputy Secretary of State Blinken:
Quote:
Before the JPOA, despite an unprecedented sanctions regime, Iran’s nuclear
program was rushing toward larger enriched uranium stockpiles, greater
enrichment capacity, the production of plutonium that could be used in a nuclear
weapon, and ever shorter breakout time. Today, as the result of the constraints
in the JPOA, Iran has halted progress on its nuclear program and it has rolled
it back in key areas for the first time in a decade, and it has allowed us to
have greater insight and visibility through more intrusive and more frequent
inspections.
.................................................. ..
Congress is now considering legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran, to be triggered by the failure of negotiations. I know that the intent of this legislation is to further increase pressure on Iran and, in so doing, to strengthen the hand of our negotiators to reach a comprehensive settlement. While the administration appreciates that intent, it is our considered judgment and strongly held view that new sanctions, at this time, are unnecessary and, far from enhancing the prospects for successful negotiations, risk fatally undermining our diplomacy and unraveling the sanctions regime so many in this body have worked so hard to establish.
The stalemate over nukes, and now a Tehran-backed coup in Yemen, show that Obama isn’t tough enough.
By DENNIS ROSS, ERIC EDELMAN and RAY TAKEYH
Iran doesn't have ""nukes" (snicker).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Obama has never stated a hard deadline - ....
Neither did Bush.
That's a lie by omission on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
If only he had retained quality advisors like Ross and maintained a more realistic, hardline position with iran, but in obama's puny brain, he is always right, even when he's not.
Ross? Ross is an ass-clown. He might as well go work for the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
I love how the "children" are arguing against a war, but they never offer any other options to terminating iran's illegal nuclear weapons program, or stopping its march of conquest across the mideast.
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.
Why is the US march of conquest just and proper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Every one of the clueless toads arguing against a war to remove iran's regime of thugs and murderers needs to offer a rational alternative; otherwise, GTFO of this thread.
Sure, just as soon as you correct all the lies you tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Is logical reasoning beyond the ability of the left and the ron paul sycophants in this forum? Can you contemplate these questions:
Do you want a massive arab/israel vs. iran war? You will get it in 5 years if iran goes nuclear.
Iran isn't going nuclear. Did you read the IAEA reports? Didn't you read the assessments of your own government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Already iran has conquered FOUR other countries; lebanon syria, iraq, and now yemen - do you think that they will stop there once they achieve nuclear weapons status?
Do you have photos of the Iranian flag flying high over the Capitals of those States?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Over 50% of the world's energy flows through Iran's waterways, so they have an easy ability to stop it and drive the per barrel costs to over $300 per barrel - do you think that that would positively affect the world economy?
Do you think oil-addicts are cool?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Do you believe saudi arabia and the other arab countries will not also go nuclear, creating an infinitely more dangerous scenario in the world's most dangerous region?
Well, uh, Iran's been "going nuclear" since the 1970s.
One can only imagine they're building each atom quark-by-quark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Yes, it is Israel's problem - and we refused to allow them to attack iran almost ten years ago when they could have done so on their own.
That's a lie.
Israel could never do it alone. It's matter of physics.
And logistics.
You wouldn't know anything about that.
Israel does whatever it wants to do, whenever it wants to do it, so you're wrong about that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
What I do notice amongst the clueless like this poster is relentless hot air about how "crazy" an attack against iran would be, but never ever a word addressing my earlier questions in this thread,....
Oh, yeah, questions....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
While the iranians build nuclear weapons? You would allow them to have an arsenal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What kind of nuclear weapons?
Just trying to correct lies and liars....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
You have absolutely nothing to offer, and it would be best if you stayed out of my threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Can't handle when someone calls out your completely unfounded claims?
You sound like John McCain - angry, unhinged, and completely lacking any facts or even a casual knowledge of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
That poster asked a nonsense question: "What kind of nuclear weapons?"
Which is totally irrelevant - what does the type of nuclear weapon iran is developing make ANY difference, all are illegal. Rather than address MY OP, they entered my thread and started trolling.
Then, they accused me of lying with this line: "Just trying to correct lies and liars...." With no evidence, no facts, obviously here simply to troll.
Given that i know more about iran and the mideast than you by about 50,000 times, perhaps you should be the ones asking questions, instead of slinging BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The question is nonsense only to those people who know nothing about nuclear weapons.
It does make a difference to those seeking Truth. I've asked the question numerous times of people claiming Iran has "nukes" and it typically killed the thread.
People like you refuse to answer the question, because 1) you don't really know the answer, and 2) it impedes your ability to propagandize and spread disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
If you claim that given the vast amount of evidence they are not building one, then that says A LOT about your abject lack of intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Did you read the IAEA report?
It says Iran is enriching uranium ore to 20% U235. Total fail for a nuclear weapons program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Side note to the troll: flooding my thread with off-topic volumes of irrelevant text will not be allowed to derail,....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You're doing such a fine job of derailing your own thread, I see no reason to get in your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
...and the next time you accuse me of lying you will be reported so fast your head will spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Then I guess I better activate my prayer capsule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
What is pathetic is that I can't get a single rational adult into this thread with a reasoned argument addressing the cancer that is iran.
What kind of "nukes?"
Are you ever going to answer the question or just continue to weasel and dodge?
The type of nuclear weapon is relevant.
Not every State has the ability or capability to produce certain types of nuclear weapons. That inherently poses limitations on the types of nuclear weapons that can be built, and it impacts the maximum yield of those weapons and how they may be employed.
You would know that if you knew what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul
I ASSUME the USA has several plans in place for the possibility that Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Islamic Jihadists???
What would be the point?
Suppose you ended up with one of Pakistan's "nukes."
What do you think -- in your fantasy world of hallucinations -- you're going to do with that weapon?
And please don't say you would detonate it, because that would make you look dumb, stupid and silly.
Atomically...
For crying out loud; what will it take to elevate Iran to the status of a dangerous enemy? Would it take them occupying an embassy, holding American citizens hostage for a year or more, sponsorship of terrorism over a 40 year period, perhaps even sponsor the killing of a bunch of Americans.
I REALLY, REALLY think that Iran or NK getting/having nukes is a very bad idea. Just the idea of them having nukes injects a ton of instability in an already unstable world.
Would there be backlash if the USA took down the nuke development facilities of NK and Iran...........of course! But the alternative is a lot worse.
The USA should makes deals with countries that would be angered if we took down both of these country's nuclear capabilities.....then do it.
I ASSUME the USA has several plans in place for the possibility that Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Islamic Jihadists???
Did an adult just walk in the room...I think they did
Welcome aboard!
You've introduced so many of the posters here to the concept of something very new to them, called consequences and thinking ahead.
The consequences of iran testing a nuclear device would be horrific to contemplate; there is no greater threat to the world than that.
I'd we're going to attack a country for having nukes why not first go after Pakistan? Even if Iran has nukes so what? They don't even have the technology to use them. At least not fit long distances
#1, pakistan is not threatening anyone other than India right now, and while it is an absolute train wreck of a country - it is quite possible the US might have to go in an capture its warheads - it is not currently selling the tech to others, the way n korea is, or operating terrorist proxies across the planet the way iran is.
Second, how do you know exactly what missile delivery capabilities iran has?
Third, they have tested ICBMs that can extend well past Europe, at what point do you start to think, "you know, they are becoming a serious threat"?
#1, pakistan is not threatening anyone other than India right now, and while it is an absolute train wreck of a country - it is quite possible the US might have to go in an capture its warheads - it is not currently selling the tech to others, the way n korea is, or operating terrorist proxies across the planet the way iran is.
You forgot to add Israel to that list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Second, how do you know exactly what missile delivery capabilities iran has?
I think Mircea asked you that same question and you accused him of trolling.
I love how the "children" are arguing against a war, but they never offer any other options to terminating iran's illegal nuclear weapons program, or stopping its march of conquest across the mideast.
They ignore the consequences of allowing iran to go nuclear, spouting juvenile nonsense like "its not our war" or "we need to take care of our own", as if the year is 1612 and we are not living in a highly connected, global environment. What is truly amazing is how awful the caliber of people obama has surrounded himself with who ignore that fact; that the attainment of nuclear weapons breakout capability of the iranians will lead to much more violence and dangerous wars in the mideast for years, if not decades - when we could have stopped it now.
Every one of the clueless toads arguing against a war to remove iran's regime of thugs and murderers needs to offer a rational alternative; otherwise, GTFO of this thread.
What "march of conquest?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
