Israel is in the advanced stageas of preparing to attack Iran.
This is basically an op ed piece where the US is trying to wash it's hands of any wrong doing when Israel finally does decide to attack Iran.
Watch how quick the weapons are made avail after the strike.
The scheduling seems to be right on time, and I feel bad that people can't see this.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
......The U.N. Security Council has slapped three sets of sanctions on Iran over its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium, which can produce the ingredients for a bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.......
......The U.N. Security Council has slapped three sets of sanctions on Iran over its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium, which can produce the ingredients for a bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.......
how bout CNN. is that Liberal enough for you?
You need to enrich at over 90% to make a bomb...not 3%
That requires specialized reactors...not reactors designed for power generation.
So.... does Iran posess these bomb making reactors, or is this all just bullshit propaganda?
hmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
where are you getting 3%? and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?
look up uranium enrichment sometime...
and nuclear power generation as well...
then look up what the IAEA does....they seem more than satisfied..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
...
I think they would need a longer ranged standoff weapon, such as an AGM-130, to hit targets in Iran. Israel would have to use either F-15 or F-16 fighters since they do not have any heavy bombers. And Iraq (a.k.a U.S. Military) would have to grant permission to fly over their air space, which Israel would probably not request and would do it anyway. That leaves our Air Force in the region to deal with Israeli warplanes illegally entering the airspace with hostile intent. It gets really ugly from there.
...
And actually, it's kind of ironic that Iran's nuclear program was originally concieved to fend off... Iraq. With the immediate threat of Sadam Hussein out of the picture, they can train their cross hairs on Israel. Funny and sad at the same time.
Heavy bombers would probably be less effective than F-15s or F-16s with PGMs, anyhow. F-16s did the dirty work in Iraq. The Israelis probably already have AGM-130s ... As for flying though Iraqi airspace, I think such a thing could be arranged. The question of whether or not the US should let Israeli aircraft through can be debated ... Regardless, I think the US would aid such a strike in anyway possible, short of actually participating in the bombing.
I agree with your points ... It IS funny and sad.
then look up what the IAEA does....they seem more than satisfied..
I'm well aware about enriched uranium. are you going to back up your claim. I'll ask again. where are you getting the 3% number and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?
I'm well aware about enriched uranium. are you going to back up your claim. I'll ask again. where are you getting the 3% number and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?
It's common knowledge as far as I'm aware....but you're free to use wikipedia or google to find out.
....and if Iran already has specialized bomb making reactors that nobody knows about then bombing their power stations isn't going to make one scrap of difference other than make them race to build nuclear weapons on their secret ones.
again the IAEA is happy...
it's all bullshit propaganda designed to make a case for WMD so Iran can be attacked.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's common knowledge as far as I'm aware....but you're free to use wikipedia or google to find out.
....and if Iran already has specialized bomb making reactors that nobody knows about then bombing their power stations isn't going to make one scrap of difference other than make them race to build nuclear weapons on their secret ones.
again the IAEA is happy...
it's all bullshit propaganda designed to make a case for WMD so Iran can be attacked.
ooooo ok. so you make up percentages and call them common knowledge. too funny.
anywho Iran is still refusing to halt enrichment but are willing to talk......just a cat and mouse game at this point
anyhow this is entirely about screwing over a country to protect ones personal interests... Viva la Empire.... obey or else...
Let's not pad the sentiment...and spin the propaganda more than it already is.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You need to enrich at over 90% to make a bomb...not 3%
sigh. I was referring to this post when you said 3%. maybe I misunderstood, if so I apologize, but you are implying the Iran has only enriched about 3% so far?
i'm asking where you got this number. sounds made up to me, but maybe its common knowledge.
I read an article, I will have to look for it, that quoted a Pentagon source who stated that Israel is basically waiting on two possible outcomes. First is the US election. If McCain wins Israel will probably not attack because they know that McCain will be more likely to attack Iran than Obama. If Obama wins then Israel might see this as a sign that they need to do the job. The second is once Iran reaches, I can't remember the exact number, a certain amount of enriched uranium. Once that number is reached Israel would deem that the time is right for an attack. Either way we probably would see an attack anytime before the November elections. Again, I will look for the article so that I can post it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
sigh. I was referring to this post when you said 3%. maybe I misunderstood, if so I apologize, but you are implying the Iran has only enriched about 3% so far?
i'm asking where you got this number. sounds made up to me, but maybe its common knowledge.
In power generation uranium is typically enriched at 3-4% To get highly enriched uranium neede to make a nucler weaopn, you need to build specialized military grade reactors as they need to be brought offline frequently to change the rods...or something like that. Not feasable with power generation, as you'd be shutting on and off the power all the time to make the stuff.
This is why I think it's funny that Iran is being targeted for only 3% enrichment, and so few people realize what is involved in the process so all thei propaganda is still flying despite the reality...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I read an article, I will have to look for it, that quoted a Pentagon source who stated that Israel is basically waiting on two possible outcomes. First is the US election. If McCain wins Israel will probably not attack because they know that McCain will be more likely to attack Iran than Obama. If Obama wins then Israel might see this as a sign that they need to do the job. The second is once Iran reaches, I can't remember the exact number, a certain amount of enriched uranium. Once that number is reached Israel would deem that the time is right for an attack. Either way we probably would see an attack anytime before the November elections. Again, I will look for the article so that I can post it.
The latter sounds a lot more plausible ... I don't think there is any good evidence that McCain would be more likely to attack Iran than Obama.
I read an article, I will have to look for it, that quoted a Pentagon source who stated that Israel is basically waiting on two possible outcomes. First is the US election. If McCain wins Israel will probably not attack because they know that McCain will be more likely to attack Iran than Obama. If Obama wins then Israel might see this as a sign that they need to do the job. The second is once Iran reaches, I can't remember the exact number, a certain amount of enriched uranium. Once that number is reached Israel would deem that the time is right for an attack. Either way we probably would see an attack anytime before the November elections. Again, I will look for the article so that I can post it.
Correction on the second to last line. We wouldn't see an attack before November. I'm still looking for the article but to hold anyone who is interested over I fond this one.
In power generation uranium is typically enriched at 3-4% To get highly enriched uranium neede to make a nucler weaopn, you need to build specialized military grade reactors as they need to be brought offline frequently to change the rods...or something like that. Not feasable with power generation, as you'd be shutting on and off the power all the time to make the stuff.
This is why I think it's funny that Iran is being targeted for only 3% enrichment, and so few people realize what is involved in the process so all thei propaganda is still flying despite the reality...
again, you are assuming to know what type of reactors Iran has. and that it only has the capablity to enrich 3%. you are completely making this up.
and furthermore why is the international community (many other countries besides the US) concerned that they continue to enrich it?
I read an article, I will have to look for it, that quoted a Pentagon source who stated that Israel is basically waiting on two possible outcomes. First is the US election. If McCain wins Israel will probably not attack because they know that McCain will be more likely to attack Iran than Obama. If Obama wins then Israel might see this as a sign that they need to do the job. The second is once Iran reaches, I can't remember the exact number, a certain amount of enriched uranium. Once that number is reached Israel would deem that the time is right for an attack. Either way we probably would see an attack anytime before the November elections. Again, I will look for the article so that I can post it.
then the question becomes, does Israel have the right to attack these nuke facilities when Iran has reached this "certain amount of enriched uranium" ?
then the question becomes, does Israel have the right to attack these nuke facilities when Iran has reached this "certain amount of enriched uranium" ?
no. israel does not have any fucking right. why can Israel have nuclear weapons but Iran can't?
no. israel does not have any fucking right. why can Israel have nuclear weapons but Iran can't?
o geez. fine lets give nukes to everyone since the US has em. The problem is, you think Iran is a great country who deserves to have their finger on the trigger of a nuke.
Similarly, North Korea has nukes, the South does not. If the South, a regime friendly to the West, suddenly said "hey, we need nukes, too", I'd still join you guys in crying bullshit. They do not. We need fewer nuclear weapons in the world, not more.
uhh...so what of all these reports and findings the IAEA has come forward with that says were only looking at the 3-4% enrichment level inhehrent in power generation?
what of that?
Is that what you call me just making shit up?
Yeah... I just fabricated the IAEA, and various US inteligence agencies that claim it's legit... :rolleyes:
I don't know why I bother sometimes.... (most times)
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Tit-for-Tat arguments with regards to nukes are kinda weak ... Unless one supports nuclear proliferation, that is.
Hey, because Pakistan and India both have nukes, why not Bangladesh?
... See, it doesn't really work.
no.
the only thing that is weak is a country being completely hypocritical in its stance, on causing wars based on it.
I'm not saying let's give Iran weapons (which should have been so very obvious), but I love that no one has a problem (especially in this thread) with Israel having weapons, yet Iran having them would mean the end of the world.
Comments
figures. of course Iran wants nukes. ask russia? WTF?
This is basically an op ed piece where the US is trying to wash it's hands of any wrong doing when Israel finally does decide to attack Iran.
Watch how quick the weapons are made avail after the strike.
The scheduling seems to be right on time, and I feel bad that people can't see this.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
then you havent been paying attention...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/02/iran.germany.nuclear.ap/
......The U.N. Security Council has slapped three sets of sanctions on Iran over its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium, which can produce the ingredients for a bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.......
how bout CNN. is that Liberal enough for you?
You need to enrich at over 90% to make a bomb...not 3%
That requires specialized reactors...not reactors designed for power generation.
So.... does Iran posess these bomb making reactors, or is this all just bullshit propaganda?
hmm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
where are you getting 3%? and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?
look up uranium enrichment sometime...
and nuclear power generation as well...
then look up what the IAEA does....they seem more than satisfied..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Heavy bombers would probably be less effective than F-15s or F-16s with PGMs, anyhow. F-16s did the dirty work in Iraq. The Israelis probably already have AGM-130s ... As for flying though Iraqi airspace, I think such a thing could be arranged. The question of whether or not the US should let Israeli aircraft through can be debated ... Regardless, I think the US would aid such a strike in anyway possible, short of actually participating in the bombing.
I agree with your points ... It IS funny and sad.
I'm well aware about enriched uranium. are you going to back up your claim. I'll ask again. where are you getting the 3% number and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?
It's common knowledge as far as I'm aware....but you're free to use wikipedia or google to find out.
....and if Iran already has specialized bomb making reactors that nobody knows about then bombing their power stations isn't going to make one scrap of difference other than make them race to build nuclear weapons on their secret ones.
again the IAEA is happy...
it's all bullshit propaganda designed to make a case for WMD so Iran can be attacked.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's it in a nutshell.
ooooo ok. so you make up percentages and call them common knowledge. too funny.
anywho Iran is still refusing to halt enrichment but are willing to talk......just a cat and mouse game at this point
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/366902/1/.html
Sigh...was the task too hard? ouch... I have to compensate for your lack of knowledge and I'm the idiot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment
anyhow this is entirely about screwing over a country to protect ones personal interests... Viva la Empire.... obey or else...
Let's not pad the sentiment...and spin the propaganda more than it already is.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
sigh. I was referring to this post when you said 3%. maybe I misunderstood, if so I apologize, but you are implying the Iran has only enriched about 3% so far?
i'm asking where you got this number. sounds made up to me, but maybe its common knowledge.
In power generation uranium is typically enriched at 3-4% To get highly enriched uranium neede to make a nucler weaopn, you need to build specialized military grade reactors as they need to be brought offline frequently to change the rods...or something like that. Not feasable with power generation, as you'd be shutting on and off the power all the time to make the stuff.
This is why I think it's funny that Iran is being targeted for only 3% enrichment, and so few people realize what is involved in the process so all thei propaganda is still flying despite the reality...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The latter sounds a lot more plausible ... I don't think there is any good evidence that McCain would be more likely to attack Iran than Obama.
Correction on the second to last line. We wouldn't see an attack before November. I'm still looking for the article but to hold anyone who is interested over I fond this one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... dicts.html
again, you are assuming to know what type of reactors Iran has. and that it only has the capablity to enrich 3%. you are completely making this up.
and furthermore why is the international community (many other countries besides the US) concerned that they continue to enrich it?
give this a try.
http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power-weapons/civmil/?searchterm=tokyo
then the question becomes, does Israel have the right to attack these nuke facilities when Iran has reached this "certain amount of enriched uranium" ?
why don't you look up the IAEA reports of there being no proof of Iran making bombs?
it's funny, they play the same fucking games over and over, and people still fall for it.
Iraq has WMDs... ok, they don't...
but Iran wants to make nukes....
Tit-for-Tat arguments with regards to nukes are kinda weak ... Unless one supports nuclear proliferation, that is.
Hey, because Pakistan and India both have nukes, why not Bangladesh?
... See, it doesn't really work.
I never said there was proof. try to pay attention.
o geez. fine lets give nukes to everyone since the US has em. The problem is, you think Iran is a great country who deserves to have their finger on the trigger of a nuke.
uhh...so what of all these reports and findings the IAEA has come forward with that says were only looking at the 3-4% enrichment level inhehrent in power generation?
what of that?
Is that what you call me just making shit up?
Yeah... I just fabricated the IAEA, and various US inteligence agencies that claim it's legit... :rolleyes:
I don't know why I bother sometimes.... (most times)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
the only thing that is weak is a country being completely hypocritical in its stance, on causing wars based on it.
I'm not saying let's give Iran weapons (which should have been so very obvious), but I love that no one has a problem (especially in this thread) with Israel having weapons, yet Iran having them would mean the end of the world.