Are you saying you are not taking both sides of issues? Afterall, I didn't mention anyone specifically. Did the shoe fit? Who says they don't, or are not working towards, having a nuclear bomb? If Europe is worried about it, something's wrong, that's for sure. Enriched uranium?
Oh my god, well #1 you were obviously trying to disprove my points, #2 you've accused me of this before. Where am I taking both sides just because I disagree on subpoints of someone where I agree on the larger issue? That is not taking both sides, one side is left one is right as I've already stated I'm more in the middle so of course by all logic I will have some beliefs on the left and some beliefs on the right, sorry for having my own actual thought process independant of any group. Not saying they aren't saying where is the proof? Did you read any of my previous posts? Explains enriched uranium in them already.
An example where I will lie in the middle, Lets say for example the Left does not want any attack on Iran, the Right wants a full out invasion. I however see if there is good proof of WMD, or Nuclear research facilities to bomb them. This is a middle ground area, not a full out invasion and not a 'lets not do anything' stance. This is not both ways, this is totally independant of either side subissues from there however I may agree with one side or another, this however is not taking both sides. Taking both sides would be having the same stance an an issue as both sides do of which I do not!
I do believe that the ultimate goal is to build nuclear weapons, but I think they have some legitimate reasons to build nuclear powerplants and they know it. The thing is we can't just go and attack a country over what we think they are going to do without having much proof. And to do anything in Iran after having failed to communicate the Iraq situation from the start properly, will take like 98% of proof to do so. The interesting thing is Iran would probably not try to take out the U.S. but Israel, so we would be doing thing for an ally. Which in this case many in the U.S. don't care for Israel anyways, so that would be hard to sell to the public.
I really am liking your comments and opinions on this forum. Thank you for speaking your mind and laying out your beliefs with good reasoning. (I have to spread it around more before giving you any - boy, that sounds a bit strange.)
Was I trying to disprove your points? I never mentioned anyone specifically. That's what I was saying basically. Where's the proof they are not? Edit: Left out the link: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...0809/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran&hl=en What is the crisis then? What's all the worry?
But, the U.S. needs to take some time and keep the support of as many countries on this one. Although, I am not saying take all the time in the world, because the world does not have that kind of time. Also, how we deal with it will be a huge issue. Taking out the facility at the right time will deal with a major part of the problem and still keep many of our allies. I don't see this as anything like Iraq to begin with. From what I know of Iran, the people seem to be more in agreement with its government than Iraq ever was.
That still is far from proof of an actual nuclear bomb, getting involved and sanctions, inspections, etc can and still could work. What is your stance, dismantling any WMD or Nuclear weapons facilities or a full out invasion on Iran? If you have the full out invasion approach, how do you suggest we are going to pay for it? There are many things to think of above the lets go get them attitude, there is a much larger picture when talking about a full out invasion. I would hope Iraq would have taught many people that.
Maybe not but the having it both ways argument was just brought up directly to me by you last night, so if it wasn't me then who was it? Sorry it looked like the logical solution
Do you know that your source Alireza Jafarzadeh is a member of a organization that is classified by USA as a terrorist organization? It seems even terrorists are useful sometimes as was bin laden before or do they just need another Ahmed Chalabi who was the source for Iraq's WMD?
But it's certainly not proof they are not. In fact, if Europe is concerned about it, it should send a signal to others. Proof works both ways. What are they worried about? What is the rest of the world worried about regarding Iran? Neither, right now. Your first option isn't an option Iran will consider. There is an active committee working towards a solution, though it seems difficult and a cat and mouse game at best. I think they will try for nuclear weapons and hide their efforts to do so, either way. In the end, I think it's reasonable to think Iran will (or already has) develop a nuclear weapon. What other reason could there be so much energy towards the situation? What is your stance? I currently don't foster that opinion, so it's a moot point. There are others calling this a crisis and realize it's something to worry about. If they are not worrying about nuclear weapons, what are they worried about? Who's willing to wait for the first mushroom cloud before beginning to worry?
He's not my source. Not that I would ever think you were worried about terrorists, but if it bothers you, you should consult with Yahoo where the article originated.
Reguardless of where the info comes from, the centrifuges can be used for nuclear power plants as well, of which the US 'used' to state Iran needed but now does not even though their population is higher, their oil refining capacity is lower and their electrical need is higher. How exactly does that work? I'm not saying they are not making nukes or trying to, but it's far from any proof, especially proof enough for a full out invasion.
Maybe not, which goes to my point #1 which you go on below and I will answer there. If a resolution is not reached than at that time I feel the bombing of the installations would be warranted. As far as so much energy, even if they came out directly with everything do you think the US would back off? Or would it simply give the US a nice tidy little bombing map? Had to make it quick as I have to run now
Another typical BS from Gtech. 1- Where is the Bomb? 2- Where is the delivery system for such bomb? You don't mean they are going to send it with a commercial airline? 3- Where is the guidance system for such nuclear bomb? 4- what purpose is going to serve such an attack on USA? They must know if they attack with 1 small nuclear bomb, USA will attack with much larger force. There is no logic and reason in what you suggest, but on the other hand nobody can accuse you of being logical.
Ahmed Chalabi, the great source of Bush administration for Iraq's WMD was also on Yahoo, Google, MSN and other news agencies thanks to CIA but we all know how reliable he was, don't we?
I'm not worried about the US backing off of a nuclear threat. A more important question would be if the world would back off? http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...hoo.com+ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran&hl=en We're backing the EU on this, as are many other countries around the world. What will the IAEA and the EU do if Iran doesn't back off? Solicit a response, other than a letter with some strong words in it?
I support nuclear disarmament of all countries including USA. Unfortunately with present American government and it's aggressive policies, many countries believe that the only way to security and peace is to develop their own nuclear arms as deterrence to USA. This is a very unfortunate development but I do not believe any country including Iran or North Korea is considering attacking USA or are any danger to American security.