OK two things on this.
First-
The "EXPETS" said North Korea wouldn't get a nuke until roughty 2010-2015 either...they got one 2 years aftert those experts said that....
Th timeline is between 3-10 probably more 3-6 now to years of dign nothgin about it.


Secondly ok fine.you have 10 years either solve it and end their program or you agree that you will go to war?
Course not..the we got all the time in the world to do nothing is just a cop out and nothing more.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

yeah.. "EXPETS" make me sad too. its horrible they are put into cages and euphenized because everybody wants the cute kitten / puppy instead of the weathered critter who would be your companion up until the point you or it dies

you know that countries want nukes to use as both deterrence and to threaten to get their way with certain issues (ie trade / property). just because they have a nuke, doesnt mean that they are going to use it with ill intent.

also.. remember the last time we tried to play world super hero trying to get rid of the evildooers? bad idear sir >.<

ps said bukakae because it filtered bs spelled out and felt the need to put extra spite into it ^_^

Another day of infamy, Japan was castigated for bombing without a declaration of war.

But if you would like the US to be thought of as cowardly then you go ahead. The Bush policies are already making the US a dirty name.

Are you under the impression that the US holds the monopoly on patriotism?

And you don't think such actions will engender more hate for the US. In times of national crisis the population of a country will rally round a war leader with the most radical point of view, then Iraq really would have a flood of Iranians crossing the borders baying for US blood. How many conflicts can the US handle at any one time? The US is running out of troops now.

Bush is sending over 21,500 troops to Iraq and having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find them. The US hasn’t got a viable military option. The US military is already over burdened.

this would have been possible with any president up to "George Alcoholic"
This nutcase is too dumb for that.

Funny thats what the #2 of al Qaeda very recently said about Bush.




So tell me again how you don't like al Qaeda yet mouth their propaganda.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

So who was that to Duh2 or just a generalisation of anybody who disagrees with you?[

quote="royal25";p="343548"]
this would have been possible with any president up to "George Alcoholic"
This nutcase is too dumb for that.[/quote]

Duh2 Do you disagee that Bush is stupid or that he was a drunk?

or was it:-

I can't tell who you think is a friend of Al Qaeda?

I unable to debate about what you think of as "propaganda" and what is genuine opinion gained from facts.

I guess you're right. Countries that already have nuclear weapons won't give them up unless we achieve world peace or something. That's why Iran getting nukes is a step in the wrong direction. If they get them then more countries will want them. Either we believe in non-proliferation and we stop more countries from getting them, or we allow more and more people to have the capability to kill millions of people and bring our fragile world closer to the brink of catastrophe.

As for that other thing. You're right. Somethings I really don't need to know.

__________________
Love Angel Music Baby

It probably would have been tougher for them to buy centrifuges, If people "in the know" wouldn't have...umm...maybe influenced Halliburtons deal with Iran Oil Kish...

Halliburton Sold centrifuges for enrichment to Iran's, Cyrus Nasseri, cheif Nuclear Engineer and Oil Kish rep....


Set em up, and a bunch of misguided GI's will knock em down...

Bad analogy since the US didn't state a policy of whiping Japan out of existance like Iran has. Frankly I don't care what the world thinks, if it rids Iran of having nukes and some countries think us cowardly for it I feel pretty secure in knowing I'd sleep like a baby under that realization. I'm sure many thought Churchill a coward for his suggestions too when they sided incorrectly with Chamberlain.

Where did I state or imply that?

Not necessarily no. I think many would blame their leader. And if your statement were always true Mussolini wouldn't have found the end of a rope.

You need a handful of planes and a dozen troops in total to drop bombs. If Iranians started flooding the border to fight troops some of those bombs would find their way to the border.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Wow... I'm going to respond to a whole range of posts made here without any quoting any.

Firstly, the suggestion that Iran would abandon its nuclear program if Israel, Pakistan and India could be convinced to do so is both impractical and false. Israel, India and Pakistan will not surrender their nuclear weapons because:

1) They guarantee that they are able to deter any significant attack against them.
2) The idea that countries would relinquish power and influence in exchange for nothing is simply naive.

As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, nations act primarily out of self-interest. Iran's interest at the moment is not to pursue a "peaceful nuclear program" (they have the world's fourth largest oil reserves, for the love of God) but to expand their influence and prestige by being the first Muslim country to obtain the bomb and act as a counter-balance to Israel. In other words, the object is not the bomb itself, but the increase in Iran's power once they posses the bomb. Considering the fact that Iran is essentially a theocratic dictatorship which has called for the destruction of Israel and is funding Shi'a militias in Iraq and Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, increasing Iranian influence is definitely NOT something that any of us want.

My next point is that those of you who claim that America would not be able to fight a war in Iran because it is stretched too thinly or the US military would be incapable of competing with the Iranian military are firstly (quite clearly) not military experts, and more importantly, are grossly underestimating the military capabilities of America. Iran's Arab neighbors, Turkey, Israel and (of course) the United States are all threatened by an Iran that possesses nuclear weapons, and would therefore either look the other way or assist America in case of an American attack on Iran.

The execution of this attack, however, is the key. A ground invasion of Iran is completely unfeasible at present, but more importantly, it is unnecessary and even undesirable when considered in the context of American interests in the region. The attack will have to take the form of a bombing campaign spanning over perhaps a week in which strategic military and nuclear sites will be targeted. The American air force is second to none, and certainly is not threatened by the Iranian Air Force, which is in fact made up of reverse engineered American fighters from the time of the Shah (mainly F-4s and F-5s). The reason that the attack must not exceed a very short time period is that Iran, unlike Iraq, is not fractured and divided, but united by a strong sense of Persian nationalism, and the majority of the population supports the Iranian nuclear program. Thus, a long operation would risk brewing strong anti-American sentiment in the country.

This leads me on to my final point in which (and, forgive me for this) I will make a specific reference to one of the members who posted in this thread. Ashleykennedy, which from my brief flicking through the Middle-East forum seems to be quite keen on Middle-Eastern politics, suggests that an American operation would:

1) Topple the Iranian regime
2) Bring into power a more radical regime

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American interests in the Middle-East, and also of the Iranian people and nation. Firstly, it is important to understand that despite America's harsh rhetoric, it has no interest in toppling the Iranian regime. If anything, America has an interest in ensuring that this regime stays in power, but does not pose a threat to the security of the pro-American Sunni Arab states. In other words, America's objective would be to weaken Iran, but not to destabilize it politically. This is because, while there is some degree of Iranian power in the Middle-East, American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will remain firmly in the American camp out of a desire to ensure their own security.

Secondly, an American bombing campaign on military targets and nuclear installations would not topple the government's grip in the country, and even if it by some bizarre chance did, the new regime would not be more radical than the current one. The fact is that despite the aggressive anti-Western rhetoric employed by Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad is merely a puppet in the hands of the Ayatollahs, and the majority of the Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs with a passion. In fact, if the Iranian theocracy were ever toppled, you would likely find that the regime that would replace it would far more pro-Western than the current one (assuming it was genuinely democratic). However, as I pointed out earlier, this is not in the interests of the United States at this point in time.

It's all a very complicated issue.

__________________
"My generation, dear Ron, swore on the Altar of God that whoever proclaims the intent of destroying the Jewish state or the Jewish people ... seals his fate." - Menachem Begin