ChasingBlueSky 0 #101 November 19, 2004 QuoteSo wait till we’re in a nuclear standoff situation So let's just bomb any country that may not like us? Asking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? QuoteWe didn’t either till we developed it. That’s what they’re doing. So why can't a nation further their own development. Japan has announced they are increasing their Navy - should be paranoid that they may attack Pearl Harbor or Alaska again? QuoteI just don’t know how to respond to that after the corruption we’ve witnessed at the highest levels of the UN. And how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #102 November 19, 2004 QuoteIf I got concerned over your gloomy prdictions, I'd be paranoid, I hope the previous answer to Pajarito explains some of of my thoughts. Quote I'm not as gloomy as you.Quote "I predict we will be in Iran within 6 months or less. " April this year, by you. You should be there by now according to your crystal ball. Nobody's perfect. So I was off a little. At least I'm not afraid to put myself out there. I also predicted last Sping that diplomacy would not work in Fallujah and we would have to go in with a full military assault. QuoteNeither do I share your faith in your administration. "I predict OBL will be in custody before the elections. " Fairly accurate.... I also predicted less than a week ago, that Iran would not honor the latest agreement it made with the UN, and took I a battering from the left for my prediction. Turn on your TV or radio right now, it's all over the news that they aren't complying. I will predict right now that the US will pay less of a role than most think we will, if Iran is in violation of this UN agreement. Quote"What's Europe going to do then? " Its not the first time in the last 100 years that Europe has been closer to Armageddon than anyone else, it probably won't be the last. We'll get by. Good luck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #103 November 19, 2004 "I will predict right now that the US will pay less of a role than most think we will, if Iran is in violation of this UN agreement." I think we both hope you are right on that one, but for differing reasons.Still watching your predictions regarding the House of Saud, though. Really got to go now, blue skies, and frothy cool ones.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #104 November 19, 2004 QuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? That's not a very focused or realistic statement. QuoteAsking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? It appears that you're only focusing on the extremes. I never said that we shouldn't use diplomacy. Where we differ is the amount of time we're willing to concede. I think 12 years was way too long for Iraq to stop playing games and to fully comply. I don't think we can afford to do the same thing with Iran. QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. QuoteAnd how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government. Diversion tactic. Stay on topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #105 November 19, 2004 QuoteThat really is what I'm saying, if there is no UN, who or what will provide a forum to resolve the world's issues.... There currently is not an available alternative, so warts and all, the UN is the best we have. Please tell me what they have done?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #106 November 19, 2004 QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Japan has announced they are increasing their Navy - should be paranoid that they may attack Pearl Harbor or Alaska again? A conventional attack will not do the damage that an NBC attack would....Plus we would see the big battleship comming. A Nuke in LA brought in and placed in a breadbox van parked downtown is totally different. QuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? Asking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? Diplomacy without strength is nothing....Should we just ask nicely for them to quit?...Oh wait we did, and they didn't as far as we can tell. Didn't work in N. Korea either. Diplomacy should be tried...But what do YOU suggest we do if it does not work? Just ask *really* nice again, and maybe send a nice FTD "Please stop building nukes" flower bouquet? Questions for you: Should anyone be allowed to have nukes? I mean anyone at all. Should we not try to reduce the number of nukes out there? Do you think that country NEEDS nukes? Do you think that they could control them in such a way that they would not be used, sold, or stolen?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #107 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? That's not a very focused or realistic statement. QuoteAsking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? It appears that you're only focusing on the extremes. I never said that we shouldn't use diplomacy. Where we differ is the amount of time we're willing to concede. I think 12 years was way too long for Iraq to stop playing games and to fully comply. I don't think we can afford to do the same thing with Iran. QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. QuoteAnd how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government. Diversion tactic. Stay on topic. How is it a diversion? The entire issue is whether certain govts. may be trusted, why exclude the US from consideration? How many nations has Iran invaded over the last 20 years? How many has the US invaded?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #108 November 19, 2004 Quote"I will predict right now that the US will pay less of a role than most think we will, if Iran is in violation of this UN agreement." I think we both hope you are right on that one, but for differing reasons.Still watching your predictions regarding the House of Saud, though.Quote I still think I'm right about that. If you remember in that thread, I also predicted Iran would have nuclear weapons in less than a year. QuoteReally got to go now, blue skies, and frothy cool ones. Yep, gotta stay focused on the important stuff. Have a good weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #109 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat really is what I'm saying, if there is no UN, who or what will provide a forum to resolve the world's issues.... There currently is not an available alternative, so warts and all, the UN is the best we have. Please tell me what they have done? They kept Iraq from developing WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #110 November 19, 2004 >So, Clinton bombing suspected terrorist training camps and aspirin > factories is good, and Bush going in and removing a regime that supplied >money and other support to those training camps is bad? Both were bad; neither one accomplished their objective. Bush killed about 100 times as many people in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #111 November 19, 2004 Quote Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. Then why are we doing further testing on nukes underground in Utah again? Why is Russia announcing they have a new form of nuke that the world has never seen and a possible non-linear flight missle that would be hard to detect on radar? Apparently there isn't a real concensus - and you don't hear much on proliferation anymore, do you? Lets see if we make the cutdown for the 2007 deadline setup under the Clinton administration. Hmm...could make a great election year hotpoint. QuoteDiversion tactic. Stay on topic. It wasn't a diversion tactic at all. Kallend made my point for me in his reply. You are using past transgressions as how to determine future policy. Imagine if you were to do that with our gov't._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #112 November 19, 2004 QuoteHow do you think SS would do if a Nuke took out LA, or NYC? Do you really think this is something I want??? But according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? QuoteVery few countries could actually invade the US...That is old thinking. The new threat is a terrorist group wasting a city with an NBC weapon they got from a Government that is anti US. Yup, the rules have changed - it only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. We send our troops all over the world and we would be spread thin if a third or fourth front appeared. How many troops would there be here to protect our borders or maintain order if something did happen? QuoteN.Korea would not do anything. No COUNTRY will do anything. Anyone in power with half a brain knows they can't compete against the US military and win. Guess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. QuoteThe more Nukes out there...The bigger the chance that one will be stolen, bought ect and used to hit America. You don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. QuoteIf you remove the risk of war, the sanctions have no chance of working. Of course, all bark and no bite wouldn't work. No argument there. Quoteand snipe my thoughts apart. Just following your lead._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #113 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuotedo you think we could wage a second front?? It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. no it couldnt, not now, not with our current troop strength, rotations cycle and depleted equipment levels...and certainly not without the 'non-existant' draft and a hell of a tax/deficit increase... ready to reenlist to take down Iran?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 November 19, 2004 QuotePlus we would see the big battleship comming. True, but we would still need to make sure we had a force in the Pacific to match them. QuoteA Nuke in LA brought in and placed in a breadbox van parked downtown is totally different. At this point it wouldn't even take a nuke to bring this country to a halt - one small dirty bomb that would do limited physical damage would send the threat of nuke terror to every corner of this country....and our markets may not rebound from the "flee" instinct. Quote send a nice FTD "Please stop building nukes" flower bouquet? Are they selling those again? And here I thought they were out of season. QuoteShould anyone be allowed to have nukes? I mean anyone at all. As anti-violence as I am, this should be easy to guess. No, no one should have nukes as weapons. QuoteShould we not try to reduce the number of nukes out there? Yup. And I don't see the need for further testing by this country either. We know they work. QuoteDo you think that country NEEDS nukes? Why would you need a nuke? QuoteDo you think that they could control them in such a way that they would not be used, sold, or stolen? I can't predict the future on that but I have heard plenty of stories of nukes missing after the downfall of the USSR and Antrax missing from our labs here in this country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #115 November 19, 2004 Even more in the news on this today: Diplomats: Iran Is Readying Nuke Processes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Iran is using the last few days before it must stop all uranium enrichment to produce significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Friday. Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas processing facilities in Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press. When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads. Iran last week agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities in a deal worked out with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union. The deal, which takes effect Monday, prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities. But the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tehran was exploiting the window until Monday to produce uranium hexafluoride at its Isfahan plant in central Iran. Asked about quantities, one diplomat said "it's not little," but he declined to elaborate. Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. That amount, converted to uranium hexafluoride and repeatedly spun in centrifuges, theoretically could yield more than 200 pounds of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, enough for about five crude nuclear weapons. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year. Iran is not prohibited from making uranium hexafluoride until the deal takes force. But its decision to carry out uranium processing right up to the freeze deadline was expected to disappoint the Europeans — and give the United States ammunition in its push to have the U.N. Security Council examine Tehran's nuclear activities. Washington says Iran wants to enrich uranium to make weapons. Tehran says it is interested only in low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear power. Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, ahead of the Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting. Although the deal commits Iran to suspension only while a comprehensive aid agreement with the EU is finalized, the pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran to the Security Council when the board meets Thursday. By opting to freeze — and not scrap — the program, Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year. It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But even with 1,500 centrifuges, experts say, Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium for about a bomb a year. Iran, meanwhile, dismissed as "baseless" remarks by Secretary of State Colin Powell on its nuclear program, adding he should review his intelligence sources. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was reacting to Powell's comments on claims by the Iranian dissident group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, which alleged that Tehran was secretly running a program intended to produce nuclear weapons by next year. Powell said Wednesday he had seen intelligence that partially confirmed the claim, including some indicating that Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" for a nuclear weapon. "There is no place for weapons of mass destruction in Iran`s defense doctrine," Asefi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Asefi suggested that U.S. officials "reconsider their intelligence sources." On Thursday, Asefi dismissed the claims of the Iranian dissident group, which the United States and the European Union consider to be a terrorist organization. "The claims are raised to destroy the positive atmosphere that resulted from the Paris agreement," Asefi said, referring to last week's accord on suspending uranium enrichment activities in return for British, French and German guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Asefi said Friday that Powell's claims were "indicative of U.S. anger over Iran`s process of confidence-building and transparency" in its nuclear program, the official news agency reported._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #116 November 19, 2004 QuoteNow we are. After we invade you'll be telling us "I never said it was about the missiles, it was about liberating the people of Iran! And how do you know that in ten years they wouldn't have developed ICBM's? lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #117 November 19, 2004 >It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #118 November 19, 2004 Quote>It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Borrow them? (Well, it works for the money to pay for Bush's war - $20,000 each second).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #119 November 19, 2004 >Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #120 November 19, 2004 Quote>Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Hey, what a great idea! Quote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #121 November 19, 2004 QuoteHey, what a great idea absolutely, let's start a league of nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #122 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic. It might be the way to go since we were just refused support from six of our NATO friends: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_eu/us_nato_iraq_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 November 19, 2004 http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/ Source of Powell's Iran intelligence under scrutiny WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The source of intelligence used this week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program may not be reliable, knowledgeable sources told CNN Friday. The issue surfaced when The National Council of Resistance of Iran -- which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations -- revealed satellite photographs this week it said showed a hidden nuclear plant in Iran, allegations the Iranians denied. "This allegation is timed to coincide with the next meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hussein Moussavian, said. "And every time just before the meeting there are these kind of allegations either from the United States or terrorist groups. And every time these allegations have proven to be false." Powell, en route to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, told reporters he had seen intelligence that appears to "corroborate" the resistance group's information. Some U.S. officials were angered by a report in Friday's edition of The Washington Post which quotes two sources who said Powell used information that was classified, and from a single unvetted source. The Post article said the information Powell shared with reporters came from a "walk-in" source who approached U.S. intelligence and may or may not be reliable. While declining to say whether the Post account was accurate, one U.S. official said "public discussion of the details of the human source of intelligence is irresponsible and a remarkably bad idea." The official called it "disturbing" that other officials would discuss sources and methods in any detail with a journalist. Analysts say the CIA may ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak. Intelligence insiders question whether the leak could have come from their community, which traditionally guards information about sources and methods very carefully. The intelligence upon which Powell based his comments to reporters was disseminated to a range of officials at the State Department, the White House, and the Pentagon, among other entities. A British source also said his government was aware of the information. The Post reported that the "walk-in" source delivered "more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike." Before the Post story appeared, Powell discussed his Wednesday comment with Chilean television. "Now, I made a statement yesterday that said we had some information," Powell said. "I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information, that suggests that the Iranians are also working on the designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile. "This shouldn't be brand-new news. This shouldn't surprise anybody. If they had been working on a nuclear weapon and design a warhead, certainly they were also trying to figure out how they would deliver such a warhead." In October, Iran said it could mass produce the Shahab-3 missile, capable of hitting Israel and U.S. forces in the Mideast, although it insisted that the missiles were only for defensive purposes. Reports at the time said the missile was capable of carrying a conventional or nonconventional warhead. Powell, who has submitted his resignation and will not serve in the second Bush administration, said the Iranians need to "convince the international community that they are not moving in the direction of a nuclear weapon, and they will comply with their obligations to the IAEA."_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #124 November 22, 2004 QuoteDo you really think this is something I want??? I don't know what you want. I think some people would be happy if we had another terorist attack. They could them slam Bush and Ashcroft. QuoteBut according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? See. Quoteit only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. An individual with a NBC weapon is not that much of a threat. Not to many individuals have the money,time, juice to develop an NBC weapon on their own. That means that the threat comes from a crazy individual getting a big, bad weapon from an anti US government. The more WMD's that the world has, and the more WMD's in third world anti-US countries hands the greater the threat that some crazed lunitic will be able to beg, borrow, steal, find, or buy one. QuoteGuess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. No problem not solved. They don't have to use it, they only need to "lose" one. They, like Iraq were much more likely to lose one than say Israel. The Russian weapons are a threat. Do you really want MORE possible weapons out there? QuoteYou don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. I don't know who has them....Do you want more to possibly dissapear?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #125 November 22, 2004 QuotePlease tell me what they have done? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They kept Iraq from developing WMD. What I find funny is that 360 TONS of exposives can dissapear, but you think that a couple of tons of Anthrax should be easy to find."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nacmacfeegle 0 #103 November 19, 2004 "I will predict right now that the US will pay less of a role than most think we will, if Iran is in violation of this UN agreement." I think we both hope you are right on that one, but for differing reasons.Still watching your predictions regarding the House of Saud, though. Really got to go now, blue skies, and frothy cool ones.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #104 November 19, 2004 QuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? That's not a very focused or realistic statement. QuoteAsking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? It appears that you're only focusing on the extremes. I never said that we shouldn't use diplomacy. Where we differ is the amount of time we're willing to concede. I think 12 years was way too long for Iraq to stop playing games and to fully comply. I don't think we can afford to do the same thing with Iran. QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. QuoteAnd how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government. Diversion tactic. Stay on topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #105 November 19, 2004 QuoteThat really is what I'm saying, if there is no UN, who or what will provide a forum to resolve the world's issues.... There currently is not an available alternative, so warts and all, the UN is the best we have. Please tell me what they have done?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #106 November 19, 2004 QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Japan has announced they are increasing their Navy - should be paranoid that they may attack Pearl Harbor or Alaska again? A conventional attack will not do the damage that an NBC attack would....Plus we would see the big battleship comming. A Nuke in LA brought in and placed in a breadbox van parked downtown is totally different. QuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? Asking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? Diplomacy without strength is nothing....Should we just ask nicely for them to quit?...Oh wait we did, and they didn't as far as we can tell. Didn't work in N. Korea either. Diplomacy should be tried...But what do YOU suggest we do if it does not work? Just ask *really* nice again, and maybe send a nice FTD "Please stop building nukes" flower bouquet? Questions for you: Should anyone be allowed to have nukes? I mean anyone at all. Should we not try to reduce the number of nukes out there? Do you think that country NEEDS nukes? Do you think that they could control them in such a way that they would not be used, sold, or stolen?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #107 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo let's just bomb any country that may not like us? That's not a very focused or realistic statement. QuoteAsking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? It appears that you're only focusing on the extremes. I never said that we shouldn't use diplomacy. Where we differ is the amount of time we're willing to concede. I think 12 years was way too long for Iraq to stop playing games and to fully comply. I don't think we can afford to do the same thing with Iran. QuoteSo why can't a nation further their own development. Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. QuoteAnd how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government. Diversion tactic. Stay on topic. How is it a diversion? The entire issue is whether certain govts. may be trusted, why exclude the US from consideration? How many nations has Iran invaded over the last 20 years? How many has the US invaded?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #108 November 19, 2004 Quote"I will predict right now that the US will pay less of a role than most think we will, if Iran is in violation of this UN agreement." I think we both hope you are right on that one, but for differing reasons.Still watching your predictions regarding the House of Saud, though.Quote I still think I'm right about that. If you remember in that thread, I also predicted Iran would have nuclear weapons in less than a year. QuoteReally got to go now, blue skies, and frothy cool ones. Yep, gotta stay focused on the important stuff. Have a good weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #109 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat really is what I'm saying, if there is no UN, who or what will provide a forum to resolve the world's issues.... There currently is not an available alternative, so warts and all, the UN is the best we have. Please tell me what they have done? They kept Iraq from developing WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #110 November 19, 2004 >So, Clinton bombing suspected terrorist training camps and aspirin > factories is good, and Bush going in and removing a regime that supplied >money and other support to those training camps is bad? Both were bad; neither one accomplished their objective. Bush killed about 100 times as many people in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #111 November 19, 2004 Quote Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. Then why are we doing further testing on nukes underground in Utah again? Why is Russia announcing they have a new form of nuke that the world has never seen and a possible non-linear flight missle that would be hard to detect on radar? Apparently there isn't a real concensus - and you don't hear much on proliferation anymore, do you? Lets see if we make the cutdown for the 2007 deadline setup under the Clinton administration. Hmm...could make a great election year hotpoint. QuoteDiversion tactic. Stay on topic. It wasn't a diversion tactic at all. Kallend made my point for me in his reply. You are using past transgressions as how to determine future policy. Imagine if you were to do that with our gov't._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #112 November 19, 2004 QuoteHow do you think SS would do if a Nuke took out LA, or NYC? Do you really think this is something I want??? But according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? QuoteVery few countries could actually invade the US...That is old thinking. The new threat is a terrorist group wasting a city with an NBC weapon they got from a Government that is anti US. Yup, the rules have changed - it only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. We send our troops all over the world and we would be spread thin if a third or fourth front appeared. How many troops would there be here to protect our borders or maintain order if something did happen? QuoteN.Korea would not do anything. No COUNTRY will do anything. Anyone in power with half a brain knows they can't compete against the US military and win. Guess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. QuoteThe more Nukes out there...The bigger the chance that one will be stolen, bought ect and used to hit America. You don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. QuoteIf you remove the risk of war, the sanctions have no chance of working. Of course, all bark and no bite wouldn't work. No argument there. Quoteand snipe my thoughts apart. Just following your lead._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #113 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuotedo you think we could wage a second front?? It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. no it couldnt, not now, not with our current troop strength, rotations cycle and depleted equipment levels...and certainly not without the 'non-existant' draft and a hell of a tax/deficit increase... ready to reenlist to take down Iran?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 November 19, 2004 QuotePlus we would see the big battleship comming. True, but we would still need to make sure we had a force in the Pacific to match them. QuoteA Nuke in LA brought in and placed in a breadbox van parked downtown is totally different. At this point it wouldn't even take a nuke to bring this country to a halt - one small dirty bomb that would do limited physical damage would send the threat of nuke terror to every corner of this country....and our markets may not rebound from the "flee" instinct. Quote send a nice FTD "Please stop building nukes" flower bouquet? Are they selling those again? And here I thought they were out of season. QuoteShould anyone be allowed to have nukes? I mean anyone at all. As anti-violence as I am, this should be easy to guess. No, no one should have nukes as weapons. QuoteShould we not try to reduce the number of nukes out there? Yup. And I don't see the need for further testing by this country either. We know they work. QuoteDo you think that country NEEDS nukes? Why would you need a nuke? QuoteDo you think that they could control them in such a way that they would not be used, sold, or stolen? I can't predict the future on that but I have heard plenty of stories of nukes missing after the downfall of the USSR and Antrax missing from our labs here in this country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #115 November 19, 2004 Even more in the news on this today: Diplomats: Iran Is Readying Nuke Processes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Iran is using the last few days before it must stop all uranium enrichment to produce significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Friday. Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas processing facilities in Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press. When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads. Iran last week agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities in a deal worked out with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union. The deal, which takes effect Monday, prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities. But the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tehran was exploiting the window until Monday to produce uranium hexafluoride at its Isfahan plant in central Iran. Asked about quantities, one diplomat said "it's not little," but he declined to elaborate. Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. That amount, converted to uranium hexafluoride and repeatedly spun in centrifuges, theoretically could yield more than 200 pounds of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, enough for about five crude nuclear weapons. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year. Iran is not prohibited from making uranium hexafluoride until the deal takes force. But its decision to carry out uranium processing right up to the freeze deadline was expected to disappoint the Europeans — and give the United States ammunition in its push to have the U.N. Security Council examine Tehran's nuclear activities. Washington says Iran wants to enrich uranium to make weapons. Tehran says it is interested only in low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear power. Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, ahead of the Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting. Although the deal commits Iran to suspension only while a comprehensive aid agreement with the EU is finalized, the pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran to the Security Council when the board meets Thursday. By opting to freeze — and not scrap — the program, Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year. It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But even with 1,500 centrifuges, experts say, Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium for about a bomb a year. Iran, meanwhile, dismissed as "baseless" remarks by Secretary of State Colin Powell on its nuclear program, adding he should review his intelligence sources. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was reacting to Powell's comments on claims by the Iranian dissident group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, which alleged that Tehran was secretly running a program intended to produce nuclear weapons by next year. Powell said Wednesday he had seen intelligence that partially confirmed the claim, including some indicating that Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" for a nuclear weapon. "There is no place for weapons of mass destruction in Iran`s defense doctrine," Asefi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Asefi suggested that U.S. officials "reconsider their intelligence sources." On Thursday, Asefi dismissed the claims of the Iranian dissident group, which the United States and the European Union consider to be a terrorist organization. "The claims are raised to destroy the positive atmosphere that resulted from the Paris agreement," Asefi said, referring to last week's accord on suspending uranium enrichment activities in return for British, French and German guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Asefi said Friday that Powell's claims were "indicative of U.S. anger over Iran`s process of confidence-building and transparency" in its nuclear program, the official news agency reported._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #116 November 19, 2004 QuoteNow we are. After we invade you'll be telling us "I never said it was about the missiles, it was about liberating the people of Iran! And how do you know that in ten years they wouldn't have developed ICBM's? lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #117 November 19, 2004 >It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #118 November 19, 2004 Quote>It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Borrow them? (Well, it works for the money to pay for Bush's war - $20,000 each second).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #119 November 19, 2004 >Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #120 November 19, 2004 Quote>Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Hey, what a great idea! Quote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #121 November 19, 2004 QuoteHey, what a great idea absolutely, let's start a league of nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #122 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic. It might be the way to go since we were just refused support from six of our NATO friends: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_eu/us_nato_iraq_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 November 19, 2004 http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/ Source of Powell's Iran intelligence under scrutiny WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The source of intelligence used this week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program may not be reliable, knowledgeable sources told CNN Friday. The issue surfaced when The National Council of Resistance of Iran -- which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations -- revealed satellite photographs this week it said showed a hidden nuclear plant in Iran, allegations the Iranians denied. "This allegation is timed to coincide with the next meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hussein Moussavian, said. "And every time just before the meeting there are these kind of allegations either from the United States or terrorist groups. And every time these allegations have proven to be false." Powell, en route to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, told reporters he had seen intelligence that appears to "corroborate" the resistance group's information. Some U.S. officials were angered by a report in Friday's edition of The Washington Post which quotes two sources who said Powell used information that was classified, and from a single unvetted source. The Post article said the information Powell shared with reporters came from a "walk-in" source who approached U.S. intelligence and may or may not be reliable. While declining to say whether the Post account was accurate, one U.S. official said "public discussion of the details of the human source of intelligence is irresponsible and a remarkably bad idea." The official called it "disturbing" that other officials would discuss sources and methods in any detail with a journalist. Analysts say the CIA may ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak. Intelligence insiders question whether the leak could have come from their community, which traditionally guards information about sources and methods very carefully. The intelligence upon which Powell based his comments to reporters was disseminated to a range of officials at the State Department, the White House, and the Pentagon, among other entities. A British source also said his government was aware of the information. The Post reported that the "walk-in" source delivered "more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike." Before the Post story appeared, Powell discussed his Wednesday comment with Chilean television. "Now, I made a statement yesterday that said we had some information," Powell said. "I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information, that suggests that the Iranians are also working on the designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile. "This shouldn't be brand-new news. This shouldn't surprise anybody. If they had been working on a nuclear weapon and design a warhead, certainly they were also trying to figure out how they would deliver such a warhead." In October, Iran said it could mass produce the Shahab-3 missile, capable of hitting Israel and U.S. forces in the Mideast, although it insisted that the missiles were only for defensive purposes. Reports at the time said the missile was capable of carrying a conventional or nonconventional warhead. Powell, who has submitted his resignation and will not serve in the second Bush administration, said the Iranians need to "convince the international community that they are not moving in the direction of a nuclear weapon, and they will comply with their obligations to the IAEA."_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #124 November 22, 2004 QuoteDo you really think this is something I want??? I don't know what you want. I think some people would be happy if we had another terorist attack. They could them slam Bush and Ashcroft. QuoteBut according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? See. Quoteit only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. An individual with a NBC weapon is not that much of a threat. Not to many individuals have the money,time, juice to develop an NBC weapon on their own. That means that the threat comes from a crazy individual getting a big, bad weapon from an anti US government. The more WMD's that the world has, and the more WMD's in third world anti-US countries hands the greater the threat that some crazed lunitic will be able to beg, borrow, steal, find, or buy one. QuoteGuess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. No problem not solved. They don't have to use it, they only need to "lose" one. They, like Iraq were much more likely to lose one than say Israel. The Russian weapons are a threat. Do you really want MORE possible weapons out there? QuoteYou don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. I don't know who has them....Do you want more to possibly dissapear?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #125 November 22, 2004 QuotePlease tell me what they have done? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They kept Iraq from developing WMD. What I find funny is that 360 TONS of exposives can dissapear, but you think that a couple of tons of Anthrax should be easy to find."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #109 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat really is what I'm saying, if there is no UN, who or what will provide a forum to resolve the world's issues.... There currently is not an available alternative, so warts and all, the UN is the best we have. Please tell me what they have done? They kept Iraq from developing WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #110 November 19, 2004 >So, Clinton bombing suspected terrorist training camps and aspirin > factories is good, and Bush going in and removing a regime that supplied >money and other support to those training camps is bad? Both were bad; neither one accomplished their objective. Bush killed about 100 times as many people in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #111 November 19, 2004 Quote Because the world is in concensus that WMD is a bad thing to promote. Then why are we doing further testing on nukes underground in Utah again? Why is Russia announcing they have a new form of nuke that the world has never seen and a possible non-linear flight missle that would be hard to detect on radar? Apparently there isn't a real concensus - and you don't hear much on proliferation anymore, do you? Lets see if we make the cutdown for the 2007 deadline setup under the Clinton administration. Hmm...could make a great election year hotpoint. QuoteDiversion tactic. Stay on topic. It wasn't a diversion tactic at all. Kallend made my point for me in his reply. You are using past transgressions as how to determine future policy. Imagine if you were to do that with our gov't._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #112 November 19, 2004 QuoteHow do you think SS would do if a Nuke took out LA, or NYC? Do you really think this is something I want??? But according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? QuoteVery few countries could actually invade the US...That is old thinking. The new threat is a terrorist group wasting a city with an NBC weapon they got from a Government that is anti US. Yup, the rules have changed - it only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. We send our troops all over the world and we would be spread thin if a third or fourth front appeared. How many troops would there be here to protect our borders or maintain order if something did happen? QuoteN.Korea would not do anything. No COUNTRY will do anything. Anyone in power with half a brain knows they can't compete against the US military and win. Guess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. QuoteThe more Nukes out there...The bigger the chance that one will be stolen, bought ect and used to hit America. You don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. QuoteIf you remove the risk of war, the sanctions have no chance of working. Of course, all bark and no bite wouldn't work. No argument there. Quoteand snipe my thoughts apart. Just following your lead._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #113 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuotedo you think we could wage a second front?? It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. no it couldnt, not now, not with our current troop strength, rotations cycle and depleted equipment levels...and certainly not without the 'non-existant' draft and a hell of a tax/deficit increase... ready to reenlist to take down Iran?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #114 November 19, 2004 QuotePlus we would see the big battleship comming. True, but we would still need to make sure we had a force in the Pacific to match them. QuoteA Nuke in LA brought in and placed in a breadbox van parked downtown is totally different. At this point it wouldn't even take a nuke to bring this country to a halt - one small dirty bomb that would do limited physical damage would send the threat of nuke terror to every corner of this country....and our markets may not rebound from the "flee" instinct. Quote send a nice FTD "Please stop building nukes" flower bouquet? Are they selling those again? And here I thought they were out of season. QuoteShould anyone be allowed to have nukes? I mean anyone at all. As anti-violence as I am, this should be easy to guess. No, no one should have nukes as weapons. QuoteShould we not try to reduce the number of nukes out there? Yup. And I don't see the need for further testing by this country either. We know they work. QuoteDo you think that country NEEDS nukes? Why would you need a nuke? QuoteDo you think that they could control them in such a way that they would not be used, sold, or stolen? I can't predict the future on that but I have heard plenty of stories of nukes missing after the downfall of the USSR and Antrax missing from our labs here in this country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #115 November 19, 2004 Even more in the news on this today: Diplomats: Iran Is Readying Nuke Processes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Iran is using the last few days before it must stop all uranium enrichment to produce significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Friday. Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas processing facilities in Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press. When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads. Iran last week agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities in a deal worked out with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union. The deal, which takes effect Monday, prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities. But the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tehran was exploiting the window until Monday to produce uranium hexafluoride at its Isfahan plant in central Iran. Asked about quantities, one diplomat said "it's not little," but he declined to elaborate. Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. That amount, converted to uranium hexafluoride and repeatedly spun in centrifuges, theoretically could yield more than 200 pounds of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, enough for about five crude nuclear weapons. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year. Iran is not prohibited from making uranium hexafluoride until the deal takes force. But its decision to carry out uranium processing right up to the freeze deadline was expected to disappoint the Europeans — and give the United States ammunition in its push to have the U.N. Security Council examine Tehran's nuclear activities. Washington says Iran wants to enrich uranium to make weapons. Tehran says it is interested only in low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear power. Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, ahead of the Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting. Although the deal commits Iran to suspension only while a comprehensive aid agreement with the EU is finalized, the pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran to the Security Council when the board meets Thursday. By opting to freeze — and not scrap — the program, Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year. It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But even with 1,500 centrifuges, experts say, Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium for about a bomb a year. Iran, meanwhile, dismissed as "baseless" remarks by Secretary of State Colin Powell on its nuclear program, adding he should review his intelligence sources. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was reacting to Powell's comments on claims by the Iranian dissident group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, which alleged that Tehran was secretly running a program intended to produce nuclear weapons by next year. Powell said Wednesday he had seen intelligence that partially confirmed the claim, including some indicating that Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" for a nuclear weapon. "There is no place for weapons of mass destruction in Iran`s defense doctrine," Asefi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Asefi suggested that U.S. officials "reconsider their intelligence sources." On Thursday, Asefi dismissed the claims of the Iranian dissident group, which the United States and the European Union consider to be a terrorist organization. "The claims are raised to destroy the positive atmosphere that resulted from the Paris agreement," Asefi said, referring to last week's accord on suspending uranium enrichment activities in return for British, French and German guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Asefi said Friday that Powell's claims were "indicative of U.S. anger over Iran`s process of confidence-building and transparency" in its nuclear program, the official news agency reported._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #116 November 19, 2004 QuoteNow we are. After we invade you'll be telling us "I never said it was about the missiles, it was about liberating the people of Iran! And how do you know that in ten years they wouldn't have developed ICBM's? lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #117 November 19, 2004 >It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #118 November 19, 2004 Quote>It would be a third front, and yes it could be done. ---------------------- Fallujah fighting takes more lives as wave of violence engulfs Iraq Thu Nov 18, 7:48 PM ET AFP BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah, as 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq (news - web sites) and marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. ---------------------- Analysis: U.S. military tactics falter November 18, 2004 UPI WASHINGTON -- As insurgents launched counterattacks in cities following the U.S. victory in Fallujah, several administration officials acknowledged that U.S. military tactics in Iraq since last April have proved ineffective in destroying guerrilla forces and have acted to weaken popular support for the new U.S.-appointed government. ---------------------- Troops need to remain in Fallujah, officers warn New York Times November 18 2004 WASHINGTON · Senior Marine Corps intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if U.S. troop levels in the Fallujah area are significantly reduced during reconstruction, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. . . . Marine commanders marshaled about 12,000 Marines and soldiers, and about 2,500 Iraqi forces for the Fallujah campaign, but they always planned to send thousands of U.S. troops back to other locations in Iraq once the major fighting in Fallujah was over. This intelligence assessment suggests that such a move would be dangerous. ----------------------- So we certainly need to maintain the same (if not greater) levels of troops in Iraq. We've already used up every military reserve we have. My question is - where do you propose to get another 150,000 troops to start a third war? Borrow them? (Well, it works for the money to pay for Bush's war - $20,000 each second).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #119 November 19, 2004 >Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #120 November 19, 2004 Quote>Borrow them? Like, from Russia? Too bad we don't have a worldwide organization that can put troops from various countries together for peacekeeping and enforcement missions. Hey, what a great idea! Quote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #121 November 19, 2004 QuoteHey, what a great idea absolutely, let's start a league of nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #122 November 19, 2004 QuoteQuote Or we could just do what they did in port cities years ago - get some 20 year old kid drunk, hit him over the head, and have him wake up 10 miles out to sea on a carrier. Might start a war with that tactic. It might be the way to go since we were just refused support from six of our NATO friends: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_eu/us_nato_iraq_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #123 November 19, 2004 http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/ Source of Powell's Iran intelligence under scrutiny WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The source of intelligence used this week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program may not be reliable, knowledgeable sources told CNN Friday. The issue surfaced when The National Council of Resistance of Iran -- which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations -- revealed satellite photographs this week it said showed a hidden nuclear plant in Iran, allegations the Iranians denied. "This allegation is timed to coincide with the next meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hussein Moussavian, said. "And every time just before the meeting there are these kind of allegations either from the United States or terrorist groups. And every time these allegations have proven to be false." Powell, en route to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, told reporters he had seen intelligence that appears to "corroborate" the resistance group's information. Some U.S. officials were angered by a report in Friday's edition of The Washington Post which quotes two sources who said Powell used information that was classified, and from a single unvetted source. The Post article said the information Powell shared with reporters came from a "walk-in" source who approached U.S. intelligence and may or may not be reliable. While declining to say whether the Post account was accurate, one U.S. official said "public discussion of the details of the human source of intelligence is irresponsible and a remarkably bad idea." The official called it "disturbing" that other officials would discuss sources and methods in any detail with a journalist. Analysts say the CIA may ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak. Intelligence insiders question whether the leak could have come from their community, which traditionally guards information about sources and methods very carefully. The intelligence upon which Powell based his comments to reporters was disseminated to a range of officials at the State Department, the White House, and the Pentagon, among other entities. A British source also said his government was aware of the information. The Post reported that the "walk-in" source delivered "more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike." Before the Post story appeared, Powell discussed his Wednesday comment with Chilean television. "Now, I made a statement yesterday that said we had some information," Powell said. "I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information, that suggests that the Iranians are also working on the designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile. "This shouldn't be brand-new news. This shouldn't surprise anybody. If they had been working on a nuclear weapon and design a warhead, certainly they were also trying to figure out how they would deliver such a warhead." In October, Iran said it could mass produce the Shahab-3 missile, capable of hitting Israel and U.S. forces in the Mideast, although it insisted that the missiles were only for defensive purposes. Reports at the time said the missile was capable of carrying a conventional or nonconventional warhead. Powell, who has submitted his resignation and will not serve in the second Bush administration, said the Iranians need to "convince the international community that they are not moving in the direction of a nuclear weapon, and they will comply with their obligations to the IAEA."_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #124 November 22, 2004 QuoteDo you really think this is something I want??? I don't know what you want. I think some people would be happy if we had another terorist attack. They could them slam Bush and Ashcroft. QuoteBut according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? See. Quoteit only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. An individual with a NBC weapon is not that much of a threat. Not to many individuals have the money,time, juice to develop an NBC weapon on their own. That means that the threat comes from a crazy individual getting a big, bad weapon from an anti US government. The more WMD's that the world has, and the more WMD's in third world anti-US countries hands the greater the threat that some crazed lunitic will be able to beg, borrow, steal, find, or buy one. QuoteGuess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. No problem not solved. They don't have to use it, they only need to "lose" one. They, like Iraq were much more likely to lose one than say Israel. The Russian weapons are a threat. Do you really want MORE possible weapons out there? QuoteYou don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. I don't know who has them....Do you want more to possibly dissapear?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #125 November 22, 2004 QuotePlease tell me what they have done? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They kept Iraq from developing WMD. What I find funny is that 360 TONS of exposives can dissapear, but you think that a couple of tons of Anthrax should be easy to find."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
