I'm not one to to normally voice political views, but this guy has to go....

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Send in the Frenchies.......

No seriously. A lot of people state these "theories" that the US can't do it alone or the UN has to do it. Since you say this, I want to know what your solution to the problem is.

[Dave-S]

No seriously. A lot of people state these "theories" that the US can't do it alone or the UN has to do it. Since you say this, I want to know what your solution to the problem is.

I don't have a solution Jeff. But having the US go it alone won't work either. The last thing we need to do is get buried in another huge confrontation with a middle eastern country by ourselves. Since we already have major undertakings in Afghanisatan and Iraq, I question whether we are capable of taking on Iran alone. And the American people will, in all likelihood, not support a solo effort either. We need the support of other countries and that is what we should be pushing for either through the UN.....which as you point out is not too effective.....or thru our own diplomacy directly with others. This problem is a serious one with all the sabre rattling being done by Iran but unlike the situation with Iraq, this time many more countries are very concerned by what's going on here.

[RangerBob]

Read this

Big George

[Dave M]

I find it ironic that Bush reportedly considers using nuclear weapons to keep another country from aquiring them.

If we were to attack Iran, they would obviously consider it an act of war. They would then be free to attack our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. They would likely target Isreal as well, just because they are our allie and this would be their chance. If we were to undertakle any type of military action against Iran, no matter how small, we'd better be sure we have the pieces in place to wage an extended campaign, because Iran wouldn't let the issue drop after having it's facilities bombed.

Military action would be a mistake unless a huge coalition of forces waged an all-out war on the country, similar to the '91 gulf war. Iran's president has a lot of public support, and any attack would likely galvanize that support.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I find it ironic that Bush reportedly considers using nuclear weapons to keep another country from aquiring them.

If we were to attack Iran, they would obviously consider it an act of war. They would then be free to attack our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. They would likely target Isreal as well, just because they are our allie and this would be their chance. If we were to undertakle any type of military action against Iran, no matter how small, we'd better be sure we have the pieces in place to wage an extended campaign, because Iran wouldn't let the issue drop after having it's facilities bombed.

Military action would be a mistake unless a huge coalition of forces waged an all-out war on the country, similar to the '91 gulf war. Iran's president has a lot of public support, and any attack would likely galvanize that support.

Agree.

Why do we feel that only we should be able to posess nuclear weapons?

To date, we are the only country in the history of the world with a track record of actually using one in a war.

[Dave M]

Agree.

Why do we feel that only we should be able to posess nuclear weapons?

To date, we are the only country in the history of the world with a track record of actually using one in a war.

Agree with you 100% Jay. Why does any other country have less of a right to it's defense than we do? If we say it's because they are a threat... any country could become a threat in the future. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the earth several times over, and have used them. Shouldn't other countriies feel threatened by us?

[Dave-S]

Read this

Big George

I read the article and wiping out their nuclear capabilities is probably doable without a lot of difficulty. It's all the repercussions that come afterwards that really are the issues if we act alone. Our country is hated in large part because we are perceived to be "aggressors". Whether that label is right or wrong can be debated forever, but unless such action is done with the support and backing of the majority of the free world countires, it would be a mistake IMHO.

[Joe 1320]

Agree with you 100% Jay. Why does any other country have less of a right to it's defense than we do? If we say it's because they are a threat... any country could become a threat in the future. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the earth several times over, and have used them. Shouldn't other countriies feel threatened by us?

Rational governments who value peace respect the capability. It's the governments that are bent on the destruction of those around them that should be denied access to the materials needed to even create WMD. If someone needs assistance in generating power, all they have to do is ask the world community and they will get the assistance, albiet monitored for everyone's safety. It's pretty darned simple. It is the responsibility of the creators of such horrible technology to keep it out of the hands of those who are not responsible enough to use it wisely.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Rational governments who value peace respect the capability. It's the governments that are bent on the destruction of those around them that should be denied access to the materials needed to even create WMD.

Once again, we are the only country to have ever used these weapons. We have launched more military offensives in the last five years than any other country in the world. By "rational government that respects peace", who exactly are you talking about?

I'm not saying that we are war mongers or that we can't be trusted with posession of WMDs. But let's step away from the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality and realize that places like Iran are independent, sovereign nations. Our arrogance is the only thing that makes us think we're the only ones who should posess these weapons - nothing more.

[Joe 1320]

Our arrogance is the only thing that makes us think we're the only ones who should posess these weapons - nothing more.

That is not what I said. My point was that it is the responsibility of the creators of such a horrible technology to make sure it doesn't end up in the hands of people on a mission of destroying others. Not all governments are on that mission. Australia for example. Any problem with them having nuclear material? The reason is that they are not hostile.

I don't think Iran should be denied atomic energy. Let Russia jointly build a plant with them and provide the material to run it in exchange for oil. Staff the entire process with Iranians and Atomic Energy Commission inspectors looking over their shoulders and life would be just fine. There is no need for nuclear weapons to be developed in a country where they publicly call for the extermination of a neighboring country. Iran also doesn't need nukes because there are no threats to their national security..... nobody really wants to invade their sandbox. Saddam is no longer a threat to them. Status quo should be fine, but no...... Iran wants to push the issue that it has the "right" to enrichment without inspection. Fine...... you have some rights. We have the right to bend time and space, to create a black hole within our solar system that will destroy everything within it's reach. That doesn't mean we have the technology to do it, nor does it mean we should even do it. Yes, there are moral implications in every twist and turn. The bottom line is that I don't think a single country is thrilled with a state sponsored terrorist group having nuclear weapons that could be smuggled into their country in a suitcase and detonated all under the name of a God. The fanatics that have the mentality that if you don't adhere to a single strict religion or school of thought you should be executed, should not be tolerated in today's society.

Dammit...... it's a big chuck of rock we live on. People should get with the program and just learn to live with each other.


And Jay, I don't think it's arrogance. It's FEAR! Tell me you don't fear a suitcase sized nuke being smuggled in here and it came directly from Iran, a state that sponsors and funds those exact tactics only they don't quite have the nukes yet..... for now they have to rely on high explosives.


Haven't you ever hear the analogy, that you catch alot more flies with Honey than vinegar?

[Roger in Kensington]

I sometimes think people haven't thought this thing through.

Iran aspires to "eliminate the Zionist entity" (i.e., Israel) and to acquire the means to do it (i.e., nuclear weapons). And some people sit around saying, "Well, why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons?"

Let's say Iran gets nuclear weapons.

And let's say they launch a nuclear attack against Israel.

What happens?

Does Israel respond?

Of course.

Against whom?

Tehran? Yes.

But you don't think little "one-bomb-to destroy" Israel is going to die quietly and only strike out at Iran, do you?

Here's what they'll do: In addition to Tehran being vaporized, add Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, other major cities in surrounding countries and, oh yes, the "holy" cities of Mecca, Medina, Qom and so forth.

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is jeopardizing the governments and populations of at least six other Mideast countries.

Those countries know this.

I suspect about now, those countries are putting together hit squads to "educate" Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Interestingly, the one country not likely to be attacked would be Iraq.

Could someone please tell me how radioactivity can be removed from oil?

[Joe 1320]

Could someone please tell me how radioactivity can be removed from oil?

Time. A few thousand years might do the trick.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

To date, we are the only country in the history of the world with a track record of actually using one in a war.

That's taking a small piece of a much larger puzzle out of context of the situation. There were 2 choice before using the atom bomb in world war 2. To use it and kill a couple of hundred of the enemy who refused to surrender even though they new they had been beaten or to not use it and invade Japan where the loses were estimated to be a million Japanese AND a million Americans. Anybody that choose the later is not a leader.

Why does any other country have less of a right to it's defense than we do? If we say it's because they are a threat... any country could become a threat in the future. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the earth several times over, and have used them. Shouldn't other countriies feel threatened by us?

Iran openly admits that it want to acquire nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. That is NOT defense. That IS offense. There is a gigantic difference there. Even Russia never said that. The US and Russia have practiced a policy of open deterrence for 60 years now. That is plenty long enough to show anyone that are intentions are defensive and not offensive. The only countries that are threatened by the US having nuclear weapons are countries that intend us harm. I hope no one wants to get rid of our nuclear weapons to make those people feel better.

Why do we feel that only we should be able to possess nuclear weapons?

We don't. We just don't want someone to poses it who openly admits to using it in an offensive action.

I find it ironic that Bush reportedly considers using nuclear weapons to keep another country from aquiring them.

Every administration makes plans on any and every scenario just in case it is needed. The US has plans to invade or annihilate every country in the world. There is nothing new here. This is what we pay them to do. Be prepared for anything. If we didn't the headlines would read "It has been revealed today that the Bush administration has made no plans for taking care of Iran (insert any country here) if needed." This is not news.

I don't have a solution Jeff. But having the US go it alone won't work either. The last thing we need to do is get buried in another huge confrontation with a middle eastern country by ourselves. Since we already have major undertakings in Afghanisatan and Iraq, I question whether we are capable of taking on Iran alone. And the American people will, in all likelihood, not support a solo effort either. We need the support of other countries and that is what we should be pushing for either through the UN.....which as you point out is not too effective.....or thru our own diplomacy directly with others. This problem is a serious one with all the sabre rattling being done by Iran but unlike the situation with Iraq, this time many more countries are very concerned by what's going on here.

There are times when the perfect solution isn't possible. In those cases you have to try and find the best alternative. If no one else has the will to take care of the problem the problem will get worse. You have added stipulations that may not be possible. So if no one else will help, we should sit back and wait for Iran to use their nuclear weapon which by their own inference in the same sentence tells you they want to do. I don't think that is a very smart thing to do.

Iran has a history of backing up it's "sabre rattling" with actions. There are a lot of terrorist actions that can be traced directly back to Iran. If the administration does not take them for their word they would be derelict in their duties.

Everybody needs to realize that there are some Muslims that want to kill us. Every one of us. There are some that have declared war on us whether we acknowledge that or not. 9/11 shouldn't have been such a big surprise to everybody. They told us several months before that they were going to do it. We ignored it because we just want everybody to be happy. Well that's not the reality of the world we live in. We have 2 choice here. Let them bring the war to us or we take it to them. What's it going to be. They are not going to stop no matter how much you negotiate with them. Negotiation is not an option. Appeasing them only puts the problem off until later. That is what we have done up until now. Finally we have a leader in the US who has the balls to do something about it rather than put it off on to the next administration like the last administration did. It's too bad the rest of the world doesn't have any balls.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I have a question. Is Iran building a nuclear power reactor for this uranium they are enriching?

[Dave-S]

Jeff..........your answer on the reactor is here:

Other Iranian nuclear facilities: In the coastal city of Bushehr, Iran is building a civilian nuclear power station with the assistance of Russia. Moscow has agreed to provide fuel for the plant, but the deal commits Iran to return any spent fuel.

Iran also is building, in Arak, a heavy-water reactor whose construction it also attempted to keep secret. Ostensibly a research reactor that could produce medical isotopes, the reactor concerns the West because Iran could produce about 20 pounds of plutonium a year, enough to make one bomb. Construction is scheduled to be finished in 2009.What's at stake

Taken from:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky...d/14353765.htm