The US REJECTS Israeli arms request

1356

Comments

  • John Briggs 2008
    John Briggs 2008 Posts: 1,024
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    They're already arming Israel. This is just a big political shit on public awareness.

    That's it in a nutshell.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/366902/1/.html
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    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.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    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
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • freindlyfired
    freindlyfired Posts: 297
    good ol AIPAC!!!
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... dicts.html
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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?

    give this a try.

    http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power-weapons/civmil/?searchterm=tokyo
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    mammasan wrote:
    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" ?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy, just because sanctions have been placed does not mean there is proof of Iran wanting to make bombs. that logic is just pure nonsensical.

    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....
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    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?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    _outlaw wrote:
    no. israel does not have any fucking right. why can Israel have nuclear weapons but Iran can't?

    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    spyguy, just because sanctions have been placed does not mean there is proof of Iran wanting to make bombs. that logic is just pure nonsensical.

    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....

    I never said there was proof. try to pay attention.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    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.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    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.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    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


    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    reborncareerist wrote:
    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.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    I never said there was proof. try to pay attention.
    then what the fuck are you even arguing

Categories