If there is good actual fact to bring up the mushroom cloud statement possibly, otherwise it's only for effect for those who have no clue on the actual facts. For some reason people who do not keep up with the news are much easier scared by that statement, but those who do are not.
I know you were not. But the point has no value to me. It's a silly point. Out of all the grand scale issues at hand, whether or not (never established - I believe fourth time now) the US said they should or should not have them thirty years ago is has no value to me. It's a "non issue." Even if it is factual. For some reason, it seems intensely meaningful to you. I didn't say you were a liberal. You assumed I did. What I said was, Again, just throwing a little back your way I think I have the hang of it now! It is all in fun, hrbl. I enjoy the "ribbing" whether passing some out or taking a hit or two myself from time to time. Makes it much more more enjoyable.
They still have Shihab-3 wich can reach speeds over Mach 10.. but well well.. that scenario is much better than a retarded man with a grenade.. Our intelligense locates every shihab-3 missile(or at least most of them), than we blow the nuke facility(as you said) and the missiles. Than we leave the mullahs in the shit.. Do you agree?
The only meaning it has to me is looking at the actual facts from both sides, in my opinion this alone at least partially discredits the US's opinion now that they do not have any need for nuclear power plants. To look at the situation at all objectively you have to look at the facts, not just the facts that supports your countries current agenda. I can see those inside of the US being able to dismiss this fact, I see it however as a different story with those around the world, possibly even some of our current allies. Make a factual point against them, don't use more unfounded accusations as it appears we did in Iraq is my main point with using this information at all. I had to point it out though, again I AM NOT LIBERAL! I take exception to even the mere hint of being called it. lol, almost laughing hysterically now. Better not though, the coffee is fricken hot.
I'm trying to decipher this so if I get it wrong please repost, not sure I totally understand the question laid out to me. Nothing I have read shows proof of any missle being even able to come close to the US. As far as missile hits on our allies during the bombing we can always try our best to safe guard with our patriot missile systems. We leave the Mullah in the shit? Not sure I understand this point at all, do you mean in charge? or?
I didn't say that you should support that they should have it. I was trying to explain the reason why they want it. If you look at the history in the last 15 years, you will see most countries stopped their research in nuclear arms and it was only after Bush that they started seriously in a race to develop atomic weapons. The question should be why? If we want to stop the nuclear race, USA should prove to these countries that it is not a threat to their security, otherwise it is a matter of time only and sooner or later they will have it, since they are driven by a need for their security to get it.
I actually did get that, had to put my opinion on them getting one though in the same point. Sorry if it came out wrong.
Shihab-3 is MRBM with a range of 800 miles. The distance between USA and Iran is little bit more than that. In fact these 2 countries are in different continents.
Not sure on what the patriots can hit or not in terms of medium/short ranged missiles. I said we could 'try', there are also other ways such as warning neighboring countries, and or doing everything to make certain our fist wave of missiles/bombs hit their missile capability. There is always the chance of missiles hitting neighboring countries, but this is also the case in an invasion is it not?
I said that I am ready to agree with you I mean.. not invading them but destroying parts of their millitary from the air(no casualties on our side).
Who is leading the current efforts? The EU and IAEA, and other countries around the world? It's not about "our" country's agenda. It's a world agenda. Think outside of the US here. Again, fifth time now, you've never established this is even true. You only suggest that in the 70's we said this. Good luck with that! Let me know when the EU and IAEA says "whoa nelly, hrbl said the US said they thought they needed nuclear electricity plants in the early 70s. Let's slow this pony down and see what that's all about." Just isn't an issue. It might be important for you personally. I can understand that. Liberal is a very offensive term Heh! I hope you didn't spew!
Yes I may be fully for this in the future depending on if current diplomacy fails, however casulties still can be expected but that is the cost of any war. If it's justified and not misleading of why we are doing it. I don't like casulties, but can stomach them, I simply hope our military can keep them down on our side, of which they are very good at and I have full confidence they will do their best.
YES.. thats why we should locate and destroy their communication system and track their missiles.. like we did in Iraq
hrblcantra, I think Gtech is right and I support him calling you a Liberal since you are a Liberal, here is a definition of liberal: 1- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. on the other hand, Gtech who is not tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others, has authoritarian attitudes and is close minded, is not a Liberal.