I don't know that what you are saying is true. Nor did I suggest you were pro giving or allowing them to have nuclear power plants. I noted that Kerry wanted to do such and that we've been down that path before with North Korea. As for having it both ways, it could also be times changing. Of course, I don't know that what you are saying is fact or not. But assuming for the moment it is, times change. I could care less whether someone thinks "having it both ways" is an issue. It's petty. I'm more concerned, along with most of the rest of the world they don't obtain them (if they haven't already done so). And I'm quite glad OTHERS in the world have realized the potential threat enough to do something about it. It's very welcoming to see others take such threats seriously with the initial diplomacy.
Yea, well, there's lots of lame "excuses" floating around in this thread, isn't there Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Not even the craziest of your crazy friends says that Iran has a nuclear weapon, are you suggesting they do? Their long range missile has a range of 800 miles, have you ever looked at a map or know how to calculate a distance? First, you must explain what do you mean by nuclear program, do you mean a nuclear bomb or nuclear plant to produce electricity? I suppose to make such distinctions doesn't serve your purpose of establishing the 4th Reich in USA, does it? If you think the entire country are terrorists, they why do you mix these different topics to make your point? If state sponsor terrorism is bad, which country supports these terrorist organiztions? Contras - Nicaragua Death squads - El Salvador Omega 7 - anti-Castro Cuban exile group - Florida, Cuba Alpha 66 - anti-Castro Cuban exile group - Florida, Cuba Doesn't USA supports the above and many other terrorist organizations in Chile, Argentina and other parts of the world? May be Kim il Jong is crazy but in a world that think of violence, war and guns as the only solution, may be being mad is the only think that works. Saddam had no nuclear weapon or WMD and he is sitting in a prison, Kim il Jong states that he has nuclear weapons and he is ready to use it and he is still ruling his country, do you think he is crazy?
Yes times change, it's possible the US felt Iran was trust worthy enough to have nuclear power plants back in the 70's. Times changing however does not have anything to do with the US once stating they needed them, now with even a greater demand the US stating they do not need them. As am I
Nope not using excuses, debating what is claimed to be factual with facts to show cause why you can not take them with 100% certainty. That is not 'lame' that is using actual thought processes to see there are other options than a short narrow approach to issues.
gworld, where are those facts? You ignored it completely. Where are they? What did I say? I said the exact opposite. Remind me to put you down for a reading comprehension program for Christmas I gave you that opportunity. You chose not to make any distinction. I can't imagine why Get it together boy! You can do better than this...
That's your opinion. Times changing over the course of three decades (if what you are saying is actually factual) does change positions.
Zman is correct, USA should attack every country that has commercial air lines. Of course the problem of Airplanes and airlines in USA will be solved automatically since most of them will go bankrupt anyway.
Yes it does change positions on if a country should have in the respect that they are trustworthy enough to have them, it is a pretty hard sell that it could possibly change to them not needing them especially since the reading i have done shows a much greater need for alternative forms of electricity to Iran not the opposite.
LOL, it's all good I just do realy feel the mushroom cloud statement to the top of the lameness scale That appears to be the republicans catch phrase, all else fails lay the terror or mushroom cloud card.
Search for word Iran MRBM and you will see the range of their missles. MRBM stands for medium-range ballistic missile. If Iran had anything capable of reaching USA, it would have been ICBM which means intercontinental ballistic missle.
Times change. No one agrees to be each other's ally forever. Your point is weak. Will Iran use that (assuming, once again, it's even correct) to convince the EU and IAEA? I don't think so. Cloud every issue with shades of gray so that in the end, no one knows what was originally being discussed. Classic liberalism.
I think at times, it would take a mushroom cloud for people to wake up. Apparently the EU is beyond that possibility, which is a good thing!
How am I supporting the terrorists by agreeing with you? Iran has an Airline, it is called Iran Air and it can be proved that they have it. Airplanes where used in 9/11 attack as you mentioned and this proves that they are a danger. Now you and your friends have a reason to attack Iran.
Actually very confused on this, I was not using that point to ally with Iran or anything of the sort. Simply stating yet again How can the US state at one time Iran did need it then now state Iran doesn't need it? Yes times change, allies change, etc it still does not go to the point of what was previously stated by our government. It appears you who like to cloud with shades of gray and change the issue. Liberalism, for the last fricken time I am far from liberal! Just because I don't agree with you 100% on this issue, but it appears I do in much more than 50% of it that makes my ideas liberal?