Ron 10 #126 November 22, 2004 Quoteno 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... Thats just saying it would be hard, not impossible. Quoteready to reenlist to take down Iran? Can't re-enlist...Disabled accodring to the Army. But if called, I would of course go back. would you?"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 #127 November 22, 2004 QuoteDiplomats: 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. Knowing they seem ready to continue to develop Nukes, and that the US is the largest target....You think the US should do nothing?"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 #128 November 22, 2004 QuoteTrue, but we would still need to make sure we had a force in the Pacific to match them. With our bombers, missiles , ect...I doubt someone could get close enough to do anything. The real threat is a crazy person with a "borrowed Nuke" QuoteAt 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. Nuke includes "dirty bombs"....Hell, a large release of a nerve agent in the NY subways would do it. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should 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. Now you will not believe this, but I don't think there should be nukes as well....The problem is that they do exist. Even if the Manhattan Project had not been done, they still would have been invented. Germany and Japan both had programs....I have read that Japans was very close. Now that they do exist, and no one is able wave a magic wand and make them "poof" away. Now the problem starts. So, since they DO exist, and are not going to go away...Who should have them? Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should 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. And I agree...We already have enough to destroy the world. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think that country NEEDS nukes? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would you need a nuke? Easy to answer, in fact even though you are a "peace guy", you already have that answer. To keep someone from using them on you.....If you know you will die if you launch one, you are much less likely to use them. MAD Mutual Assured Destruction. Some lunitic that plans on Jihad and getting those 100 Virgins (never got that anyway, I don't want a Virgin...I want a girl that knows what to do...Oh well) Does not care if he takes the wolrd out. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do 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. OK so don't predict the future...You are a smart guy, give me a guess baised on your thoughts...I mean the US has lost Nuclear material, Anthrax ect...And we all know that the USSR Nukes are SOMEWHERE, but we don't know where....So do you think that Iran caould, or even would be able to keep them safe? I don't, I think they would LOVE to have a nuke take out a US city."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 #129 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteDo 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? I believe the US has had a couple of "broken arrows" and that the US is unable to account for some 2 tonnes of plutonium from its inventory. Why all the worry about what Iran might do? You should worry about what we have done.... 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
nacmacfeegle 0 #130 November 22, 2004 "the US is unable to account for some 2 tonnes of plutonium from its inventory" I think we've touched on this before, John. Isn't this down to the 'standard' way they count this stuff, and inherent inaccuracies in that process? I don't think its just USA and FSU, I recall us Brits having a hard time balancing the books for this sort of material too.-------------------- 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
kallend 2,150 #131 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuote I don't, I think they would LOVE to have a nuke take out a US city. Why? We shit all over the French and they don't nuke us. Neither do the Russians or Chinese, and we spent 50 years hating them and all they stood for.... 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 Ron 10 #132 November 22, 2004 QuoteI believe the US has had a couple of "broken arrows" and that the US is unable to account for some 2 tonnes of plutonium from its inventory. Why all the worry about what Iran might do? You should worry about what we have done. Who said I am not worried about the US failures? However, we have a government that is trying to keep them out of Terrorists hands, not give nukes to them. I doubt that Iran would try so hard."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 #133 November 22, 2004 QuoteWhy? We shit all over the French and they don't nuke us. Neither do the Russians or Chinese, and we spent 50 years hating them and all they stood for. They are not in an area of the world with friends that would love to blow themselves up to destroy us. lus I think the Fench, Russians and Chinese are smart enough to know about the MAD principal....The Jihadists (is that a word?) WANT to destroy everything."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 PhillyKev 0 #134 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotePlease 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. I guess you're forgetting that we were told, prior to the war, that we knew where they were, hell, we had picutres of the facilities where they were supposedly stored. What I find funny is you think we can know where all these chemical and biological weapons are before the war, but when we actually have troops on the ground, not only can't we find them, we can't find any facilities used to produce or house them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #135 November 22, 2004 Quote guess you're forgetting that we were told, prior to the war, that we knew where they were, hell, we had picutres of the facilities where they were supposedly stored. What I find funny is you think we can know where all these chemical and biological weapons are before the war, but when we actually have troops on the ground, not only can't we find them, we can't find any facilities used to produce or house them. Nope, I think we had bad intel and were wrong. However, I think the UN resolution spelled it out that he had to SHOW us he didn't have them...And he did not. Also he clearly did have plans to start up as soon as he could. I find it funny that you think 390 tons can dissapear, but a few tons should be easily found."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 PhillyKev 0 #136 November 22, 2004 Quotehe had to SHOW us he didn't have them Please explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #137 November 22, 2004 QuotePlease explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Ok simple. Come over and look around. If I play a hide the shell game with you, kick you out before you are finished, fail to show you what i did with the ones you KNEW I had (Since I had bought it from you, and had used others) then you are free to assume I still have them. If you and your buddies told me I can't have them or you will kick my ass, and I fail to allow you to look, or play hide and seek with you and them, or fail to show how I got rid of them, then you and your buddies are free to try and kick my ass. Simple really. He never complied and the inspectors said that. Now they also said that they were doing a better job, of playing along, but they also said they had a long way to go. He never complied. But thats another thread. Iran is trying to build a nuke. That is bad."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 PhillyKev 0 #138 November 22, 2004 QuoteIran is trying to build a nuke. That is bad. According to the same people who gave us what you called "bad intelligence". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #139 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotehe had to SHOW us he didn't have them Please explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Iraq produced a long (12,000 pages I believe) report in Dec. 2002 on the dismantling of its WMD program. Bush summarily dismissed it. Of course, it turned out that Bush was wrong, as Duelfer has told us.... 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 mr2mk1g 10 #140 November 22, 2004 One of the nuclear inspectors that are working in Iran was on BBC radio 4 this morning. He said that they’d been looking round all Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and found lots of uranium and materials used to enrich it (shock horror) – but only uranium good for electricity production… not nuclear weapons. He pointed out it was easy to tell between the two – uranium for power stations only needs to be 2-3% pure. Weapons grade uranium must by 90% pure. They hadn’t found anything like that – but then Iran keeps saying it’s only interested in nuclear power stations not weapons (ok – so they say). He also expressed major dissatisfaction with the way politicians were playing on his findings so far. He, and the rest of the nuclear inspectors are hopping mad about it actually, as they can see through the mistruths that are being pedalled by US politicians about the Iranian nuclear program. His major gripe was that the politicians keep on coming out with statements that Iran has chemical X or product Y or producing material Z as proof positive of a nuclear weapons program when these are items also used in producing nuclear material for a power station. He’s not saying that this is proof that they are not making a bomb… simply that it's not proof of anything. Point is, politicians are going round saying “Iran’s making a bomb – look we have proof” when what they actually have is chemicals which could be used to do so or which may have an entirely innocent purpose. I.e. not proof of anything at all. It’s worrying when politicians start getting confused between facts which are indicative of something and facts which are proof of something – there’s a BIG difference. It’s even more worrying when politicians start putting forward those same facts to the public and proffer them as proof of something. Telling us X and Y is proof of something when it's actually only a possibly indicative element of a bigger picture is called lying. It’s like saying “We know they’re dealing drugs – we found massive quantities of baking soda” after raiding cake factory... sure it could be used to cut drugs... but it’s certainly not proof that the cake factory was dealing. Then they wonder why people don't trust everything they say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #141 November 22, 2004 QuoteTelling us X and Y is proof of something when it's actually only a possibly indicative element of a bigger picture is called lying. No it's not. Haven't you learned anything? It's only lying if you say it under oath. This is just relying on bad intel, which is perfectly acceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #142 November 23, 2004 sounds ALOT like reading intel with statements like '20 tankers at site X' that miraculously become interpreted as '20 possible chemical weapons transports at site X" sure they COULD be used to transport chemical weapons... they could also be used to transport milk or water...... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #143 November 23, 2004 Quote Knowing they seem ready to continue to develop Nukes, and that the US is the largest target....You think the US should do nothing? JohnRich said the same thing - and here was my reply to him: I didn't call for in-action - I am asking for people to think outside the box. We have the same typical reaction to everything with politics and war and we are in an endless cycle. Something is very broken. Nothing can change unless someone tries something new. We have seen that even when we try to "liberate" a country we run into serious issues - now imagine what will happen if we outright attack with no chance to call it a liberation. (Plus we just can't afford a fourth front (Iraq, Afghan, USA, and Iran - Bush just asked for a $800 billion cap raise on the deficit, we had to send more troops to Afghan, and they asked for 5,000 more troops in Iraq today). There are already plenty of deadly NBC items out there that could be found for the right price and used against us. We have a country that can now hit Alaska with missles and a leader that is goofy enough to do it. The target we have on our back is visible already. The dangers are already very real, letting Iran into the Nuke Club may actually settle and bring peace to that area, but it could also raise the risk. Then again, we may have immediatly removed a threat in Iraq but in the long term we may have increased the risk to our borders from the backlash. There needs to be better long term planning. No, I don't have the answers (yet?), but then again, if I am one of the only ones thinking outside the box; we never will find the answer._________________________________________ 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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 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
Ron 10 #132 November 22, 2004 QuoteI believe the US has had a couple of "broken arrows" and that the US is unable to account for some 2 tonnes of plutonium from its inventory. Why all the worry about what Iran might do? You should worry about what we have done. Who said I am not worried about the US failures? However, we have a government that is trying to keep them out of Terrorists hands, not give nukes to them. I doubt that Iran would try so hard."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 #133 November 22, 2004 QuoteWhy? We shit all over the French and they don't nuke us. Neither do the Russians or Chinese, and we spent 50 years hating them and all they stood for. They are not in an area of the world with friends that would love to blow themselves up to destroy us. lus I think the Fench, Russians and Chinese are smart enough to know about the MAD principal....The Jihadists (is that a word?) WANT to destroy everything."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
PhillyKev 0 #134 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotePlease 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. I guess you're forgetting that we were told, prior to the war, that we knew where they were, hell, we had picutres of the facilities where they were supposedly stored. What I find funny is you think we can know where all these chemical and biological weapons are before the war, but when we actually have troops on the ground, not only can't we find them, we can't find any facilities used to produce or house them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #135 November 22, 2004 Quote guess you're forgetting that we were told, prior to the war, that we knew where they were, hell, we had picutres of the facilities where they were supposedly stored. What I find funny is you think we can know where all these chemical and biological weapons are before the war, but when we actually have troops on the ground, not only can't we find them, we can't find any facilities used to produce or house them. Nope, I think we had bad intel and were wrong. However, I think the UN resolution spelled it out that he had to SHOW us he didn't have them...And he did not. Also he clearly did have plans to start up as soon as he could. I find it funny that you think 390 tons can dissapear, but a few tons should be easily found."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
PhillyKev 0 #136 November 22, 2004 Quotehe had to SHOW us he didn't have them Please explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #137 November 22, 2004 QuotePlease explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Ok simple. Come over and look around. If I play a hide the shell game with you, kick you out before you are finished, fail to show you what i did with the ones you KNEW I had (Since I had bought it from you, and had used others) then you are free to assume I still have them. If you and your buddies told me I can't have them or you will kick my ass, and I fail to allow you to look, or play hide and seek with you and them, or fail to show how I got rid of them, then you and your buddies are free to try and kick my ass. Simple really. He never complied and the inspectors said that. Now they also said that they were doing a better job, of playing along, but they also said they had a long way to go. He never complied. But thats another thread. Iran is trying to build a nuke. That is bad."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
PhillyKev 0 #138 November 22, 2004 QuoteIran is trying to build a nuke. That is bad. According to the same people who gave us what you called "bad intelligence". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #139 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotehe had to SHOW us he didn't have them Please explain how you do that. I think you have illegal guns in your house. Show me you don't. Iraq produced a long (12,000 pages I believe) report in Dec. 2002 on the dismantling of its WMD program. Bush summarily dismissed it. Of course, it turned out that Bush was wrong, as Duelfer has told us.... 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
mr2mk1g 10 #140 November 22, 2004 One of the nuclear inspectors that are working in Iran was on BBC radio 4 this morning. He said that they’d been looking round all Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and found lots of uranium and materials used to enrich it (shock horror) – but only uranium good for electricity production… not nuclear weapons. He pointed out it was easy to tell between the two – uranium for power stations only needs to be 2-3% pure. Weapons grade uranium must by 90% pure. They hadn’t found anything like that – but then Iran keeps saying it’s only interested in nuclear power stations not weapons (ok – so they say). He also expressed major dissatisfaction with the way politicians were playing on his findings so far. He, and the rest of the nuclear inspectors are hopping mad about it actually, as they can see through the mistruths that are being pedalled by US politicians about the Iranian nuclear program. His major gripe was that the politicians keep on coming out with statements that Iran has chemical X or product Y or producing material Z as proof positive of a nuclear weapons program when these are items also used in producing nuclear material for a power station. He’s not saying that this is proof that they are not making a bomb… simply that it's not proof of anything. Point is, politicians are going round saying “Iran’s making a bomb – look we have proof” when what they actually have is chemicals which could be used to do so or which may have an entirely innocent purpose. I.e. not proof of anything at all. It’s worrying when politicians start getting confused between facts which are indicative of something and facts which are proof of something – there’s a BIG difference. It’s even more worrying when politicians start putting forward those same facts to the public and proffer them as proof of something. Telling us X and Y is proof of something when it's actually only a possibly indicative element of a bigger picture is called lying. It’s like saying “We know they’re dealing drugs – we found massive quantities of baking soda” after raiding cake factory... sure it could be used to cut drugs... but it’s certainly not proof that the cake factory was dealing. Then they wonder why people don't trust everything they say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #141 November 22, 2004 QuoteTelling us X and Y is proof of something when it's actually only a possibly indicative element of a bigger picture is called lying. No it's not. Haven't you learned anything? It's only lying if you say it under oath. This is just relying on bad intel, which is perfectly acceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #142 November 23, 2004 sounds ALOT like reading intel with statements like '20 tankers at site X' that miraculously become interpreted as '20 possible chemical weapons transports at site X" sure they COULD be used to transport chemical weapons... they could also be used to transport milk or water...... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #143 November 23, 2004 Quote Knowing they seem ready to continue to develop Nukes, and that the US is the largest target....You think the US should do nothing? JohnRich said the same thing - and here was my reply to him: I didn't call for in-action - I am asking for people to think outside the box. We have the same typical reaction to everything with politics and war and we are in an endless cycle. Something is very broken. Nothing can change unless someone tries something new. We have seen that even when we try to "liberate" a country we run into serious issues - now imagine what will happen if we outright attack with no chance to call it a liberation. (Plus we just can't afford a fourth front (Iraq, Afghan, USA, and Iran - Bush just asked for a $800 billion cap raise on the deficit, we had to send more troops to Afghan, and they asked for 5,000 more troops in Iraq today). There are already plenty of deadly NBC items out there that could be found for the right price and used against us. We have a country that can now hit Alaska with missles and a leader that is goofy enough to do it. The target we have on our back is visible already. The dangers are already very real, letting Iran into the Nuke Club may actually settle and bring peace to that area, but it could also raise the risk. Then again, we may have immediatly removed a threat in Iraq but in the long term we may have increased the risk to our borders from the backlash. There needs to be better long term planning. No, I don't have the answers (yet?), but then again, if I am one of the only ones thinking outside the box; we never will find the answer._________________________________________ 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
