The Israelis are happy to be sure but evidently they already feel comfortable with or see no less support from BHO. Yesterday the Israeli ambassador to the UK was questioned regarding Romney's speech and he stated that it was good to hear the same view on Iran as BHO's which is we cannot be satisfied with containment but must work for the prevention of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

EXCELLENT NEWS!

More than that, it seems that even Iran's potential to start basic research on such will not be tolerated, and said potential merely refers to developing ordinary nuclear energy.

More than that, it seems that even Iran's potential to start basic research on such will not be tolerated, and said potential merely refers to developing ordinary nuclear energy.

Who ya gonna believe; the CIA or Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs?

Nobody it's not my business.

Correct.

This is just more proof that Israel absolutely runs us...both from over there and from New York City.

Somebody tell me again why I should vote for Romney?

To get the half breed out of there, genius.

EXCELLENT NEWS!

Nobody it's not my business.

Where's Steve_NO to tell me I'm a Joo hater? lol

Correct.

This is just more proof that Israel absolutely runs us...both from over there and from New York City.

I am a genius, you on the other hand I'm not so sure about.

we have a lot of folks on the forum that blindly hate Jews. I seriously doubt that a Jew ever did a damn thing to any of them.
Funny thing, is if you compare our Jew haters to Nazis, they get all incensed.
I wonder how many of our TRHs, Derby Dudes, Bristoes, RKamps and the like would enjoy working the concentration camp jobs.

My IQ tested out at 148,..

I Didn't quite make the 150 mark, you?

Not that it matters much, IMO.

Why Anarchy will never truly work. It will always be dominated and ruled, while they sit there and ask what just happened?

"We ignored them, why'd they subjugate us!?"

Head in the sand is not a wise position as it leaves your backside sky high!

My IQ tested out at 148, has little to do with common sense or many other factors of real life. So what if I can figure out a puzzle quickly or do math in my head? Rational thought can be grasped and lived by many folks of many different IQ levels.

To allow the evil in this world to run amok unchecked when one has the power to do something about it AND when that evil has set its sights upon you and yours is irrational in my opinion.

Agreed. Far more important than IQ, once a certain minimum is surpassed, is knowledge-base and wisdom.

Agreed.

A head in the sand approach is neither...

Without touching your anarchy red herring, don't you think the suggestion that Iran, a backwards third world nation, constitutes a viable threat to the United States just a bit silly?

Why Anarchy will never truly work. It will always be dominated and ruled, while they sit there and ask what just happened?

"We ignored them, why'd they subjugate us!?"

Head in the sand is not a wise position as it leaves your backside sky high!

Wow!

My double digit IQ opinion ...

I think, although I'm not quite sure, the threat comes from a backwards third world nation obtaining nuclear weapons.

HAJ, is that it?

I am a genius, you on the other hand I'm not so sure about.

Wow!

My double digit IQ opinion ...

I think, although I'm not quite sure, the threat comes from a backwards third world nation obtaining nuclear weapons.

HAJ, is that it?

Having nuclear weapons is one thing delivering them is another thing.

Obviously, you favor gun control.

Having nuclear weapons is one thing delivering them is another thing.

Obviously, you favor gun control.

You really don't understand anarchy. If you really think anarchists will just sit around and do nothing to defend themselves you are nuttier than I think you are. What anarchists won't do is involve ourselves in other peoples business. Anarchy is about minding one's own business and voluntary cooperation.

Without touching your anarchy red herring, don't you think the suggestion that Iran, a backwards third world nation, constitutes a viable threat to the United States just a bit silly?

Wow!

My double digit IQ opinion ...

I think, although I'm not quite sure, the threat comes from a backwards third world nation obtaining nuclear weapons.

HAJ, is that it?

Both the Soviet Union and Red China had them, far more than Iran will ever likely acquire, and yet somehow the US survived.

What IS incredibly silly is your naive question, it almost defies credulity. Iran can and in a very short time, completely disrupt the world's oil supply that even if it didn't affect us would cause a complete encomic collapse of the majority of our trading parteners, in turn causing our economy to collapse even further. Not to mention is if once they can deliver nukes (and forget Israel for now), to their arch-enemy Iraq and destroy their oil refining capabilites, an even bigger catastrophe WILL ensue. Apparently you've swallowed the dangerously idiotic notion RP (the kook) has that all we need are a few submarines, some apologies, and a hug.

A single high-altiltude electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could do a lot of damage to the US. Launching it off the deck of an oil freighter along one of our coasts would make it hard to intercept and difficult to tell where it came from. The Iranians are just crazy enough to try a stunt like this knowing full well that MAD applies.

Both the Soviet Union and Red China had them, far more than Iran will ever likely acquire, and yet somehow the US survived.

A single high-altiltude electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could do a lot of damage to the US. Launching it off the deck of an oil freighter along one of our coasts would make it hard to intercept and difficult to tell where it came from. The Iranians are just crazy enough to try a stunt like this knowing full well that MAD applies.

Nah. Those who rise to positions of real state power are never true religious fanatics. Power hunger operates against true religious fanaticism. The true religious fanatics are used by such people, but the powerful themselves wish to remain alive so they can continue to enjoy the manifold privileges of power. It's essentially a law of human nature. Suggestions to the contrary are propaganda, plain and simple.

You are know in DD level of stupidness...

You're correct. "Somehow" the US survived.

Are you willing to trust the freakin' rag heads with nukes?

And ... numbers don't matter. It only takes one.

We have a missile defense network that would make that approach difficult.

More likely, and proven to already be a M.O., they would build the EMP here in the States from scratch. The delivery system? Well, that needs to be no more complex than a weather balloon....

That's why they use other groups to do their dirty work. Plausible deniability. Follow the money man!

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that the idea that Iran's foreign policy is "none of our business" is a head in the sand position.

Case by case, TRH. That's my approach.

For example. India and Pakistan have been in an arms race for a while now. Is that our business?

Well, Pakistan harbors people that seek to do us harm. These weapons that the Pakistani Government are racing to build in order to defend themselves from India, somehow keep finding their way into the hands of those that wish to do us harm.

The conflict between India and Pakistan may not be our business, but the fallout from such a conflict is certainly worth us keeping an eye on.

Iran has a very well established posture and position in which it has repeatedly and clearly stated that it would like to harm Western Culture.

You are a big proponent of "following the money" yet you do not apply it to the dealings of Iran. If you had, you'd see that Iran is funding every group out there that seeks to harm Westerners.

Small bands of marauders in and of themselves may not be able to conquer a nation, but with the right equipment, planning, and financial backing, they sure can bring one to it's knee's.

Iran is not going to invade American soil with uniformed Military any day soon. They are however - and they make no bones about it - working towards the demise of Western Culture.

This has nothing to do with American World-Policism, it has everything to do with our National Security.

You think that would stop the US war machine from turning the entire Middle East into a giant glass parking lot after a nuke strike on US soil? They don't think that either.

Sadly, I do. Consider Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We knew the attacks of 9/11 came from those places. Yet, they are not glass parking lots...

Two blunderbuss armed enemies in a room full of TNT could say the same thing, I suppose.

They're more than willing to fire a blunderbuss in a room full of TNT.

I never suggested that they'd just sit around and do nothing. I certainly suggest that they lack the ability to present a unified front and to build a deterrence. The mass organization is lacking.

Sadly, I do. Consider Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We knew the attacks of 9/11 came from those places. Yet, they are not glass parking lots...

Nah. Those who rise to positions of real state power are never true religious fanatics. Power hunger operates against true religious fanaticism. The true religious fanatics are used by such people, but the powerful themselves wish to remain alive so they can continue to enjoy the manifold privileges of power. It's essentially a law of human nature. Suggestions to the contrary are propaganda, plain and simple.

Nor has anyone detonated a nuke on US soil, other than the US military, that is.

We have a missile defense network that would make that approach difficult.

More likely, and proven to already be a M.O., they would build the EMP here in the States from scratch. The delivery system? Well, that needs to be no more complex than a weather balloon....

Dang and here we wasted all that money on nuclear ballistic submarines. All we needed to launch a nuclear warhead was a weather balloon.

They don't need to go that large scale though.

Bomb a subway.
Bomb a school, a park, anything.
Poison a small town water supply...

Somehow the RP guys think that just because nobody is going to take us over, they are no threat.

9/11 was not an attempt to take us out, but it was a coordinated attack nonetheless and American's died as a result. This is somehow acceptable to RP'er's when compared to the military-industrial complex...

The folks in actual power aren't fanatics. They just like to give that impression. What they are is power hungry, because they enjoy their lives filled with the privileges of power. They want to continue living the good life, like everyone else in real power. True religious fanatics don't rise to positions of real power.

You're ignoring one key difference in the mentality of jihadists.

They're more than willing to fire a blunderbuss in a room full of TNT.

The fanatics in power aren't the ones that do the fighting. It's their will and the power they wield that counts.

Did Hitler ever kill anyone with his own hand?

The folks in actual power aren't fanatics. They just like to give that impression. What they are is power hungry, because they enjoy their lives filled with the privileges of power. They want to continue living the good life, like everyone else in real power. True religious fanatics don't rise to positions of real power.

Nope, they aren't likely to. That's propaganda to make international bankers more rich and powerful.

really? these people rioted all over Europe over a cartoon in a newspaper....or was all that a fabrication by international bankers?

really? these people rioted all over Europe over a cartoon in a newspaper....or was all that a fabrication by international bankers?

The folks in actual power aren't fanatics. They just like to give that impression. What they are is power hungry, because they enjoy their lives filled with the privileges of power. They want to continue living the good life, like everyone else in real power. True religious fanatics don't rise to positions of real power.

Indeed!

What IS incredibly silly is your naive question, it almost defies credulity. Iran can and in a very short time, completely disrupt the world's oil supply that even if it didn't affect us would cause a complete encomic collapse of the majority of our trading parteners, in turn causing our economy to collapse even further.

True religious fanatics don't rise to positions of real power.

no it goes to the mindset of the people so wrapped up in a religion that they are willing to kill over a cartoon.....yeah, lets give these [bleep] nukes....

How can you say that after Jim Jones in South America, he wnt with his people???

Sadly, I do. Consider Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We knew the attacks of 9/11 came from those places. Yet, they are not glass parking lots...

Those [bleep] won't ever have nukes. The ones with nukes will be those who rule their states. Those folks enjoy life far too much to throw them away.

A single high-altiltude electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could do a lot of damage to the US. Launching it off the deck of an oil freighter along one of our coasts would make it hard to intercept and difficult to tell where it came from. The Iranians are just crazy enough to try a stunt like this knowing full well that MAD applies.

Pat Buchanan

and the ones that rule their states are the ones funding the guys willing to do that chit or have you completely missed that......all it takes is one fanatic with access, doesnt have to be the leader....

Who ya gonna believe; the CIA or Ahmadinejad and the

Ayatollahs?

Seriously?

Muslims tend to be concerned more about the "afterlife" than life in the "here and now".

True believers don't rise to true, state ruling, positions of power. The power hungry, and those who enjoy the privileges of power, do. Their main concern is maintaining their life of privilege. If that requires a pretense at being a religious fanatic, they are happy to oblige, but it's a pretense.

That is quite the assumption about religious fanatics.....

you really have a piss poor understanding of history TRH

What IS incredibly silly is your naive question, it almost defies credulity. Iran can and in a very short time, completely disrupt the world's oil supply that even if it didn't affect us would cause a complete encomic collapse of the majority of our trading parteners, in turn causing our economy to collapse even further. Not to mention is if once they can deliver nukes (and forget Israel for now), to their arch-enemy Iraq and destroy their oil refining capabilites, an even bigger catastrophe WILL ensue. Apparently you've swallowed the dangerously idiotic notion RP (the kook) has that all we need are a few submarines.

Baby Huey,

We were attacked by people, not countries. To imply that countries should have been attacked because of acts of its people independent of their governments is a dangerous concept. For instance, Baby Huey, you're a war monger on edge of wanting to attack everyone whom you fear and know is your intellectual superior. Say you lose it -a very possible potentiality- and detonate a bomb in London. Using your logic, the British, instead of going after you decided to nuke our country. You would call that a justifiable response???

Baby, Huey, you're good with attacking Iran with someone else's kids. Why don't your kids enlist in the military and sacrifice their lives fighting Persians???



R

How many heads of state have, for example, strapped on explosives and, while shouting alaakbar, charged into a crowd while detonating themselves? Find me one. One will do.

The nature of state ruling power seekers and the nature of true believing religious fanatics are incompatible with one another. People seek state ruling power mainly to enjoy the privileges attached thereto, not in order to blow themselves up. One can do the latter easily enough without first seeking a position of state ruling power.

What are the odds? I feel the same about you and your ilk.

rattler,

I'd love to hear your take on history, especially American history. God knows how many times Steve_No & his lemmings, especially Baby Huey, have tried to revise it.


R

its a losing proposition to think we can maintain a mixed bag of cultures that control a commodity we desperately need while we continue to support the one entity that unites them against us.

We live in fear of them getting their hands on a nuke because we continually antagonize them.

We're never going to know peace as long as we keep poking our fingers in their chest, over a fight that isn't ours, and expecting them to fall in line with our views on democracy and Israel's views on land ownership.

We're barely keeping a lid on the powder keg now and we have troops on the ground in two countries, threatening at least 2 more militarily and constantly bribing the rest of them. Its bankrupting us.

And the pro Israel war hawks have many believing we have no choice because "you just can't put a price on protecting ourselves from those crazy towel heads"

its absurd.

going back and forth with Derby, TRH, that ghost person and some of the others is not unlike trying to educate a dog or a cat about physics.
Their brains just can't comprehend the subject matter.

Nope, they aren't likely to. That's propaganda to make international bankers more rich and powerful.

its a losing proposition to think we can maintain a mixed bag of cultures that control a commodity we desperately need while we continue to support the one entity that unites them against us.

We live in fear of them getting their hands on a nuke because we continually antagonize them.

We're never going to know peace as long as we keep poking our fingers in their chest, over a fight that isn't ours, and expecting them to fall in line with our views on democracy and Israel's views on land ownership.

We're barely keeping a lid on the powder keg now and we have troops on the ground in two countries, threatening at least 2 more militarily and constantly bribing the rest of them. Its bankrupting us.

And the pro Israel war hawks have many believing we have no choice because "you just can't put a price on protecting ourselves from those crazy towel heads"

its absurd.

Why would they do that when they can convince others to do it instead?

going back and forth with Derby, TRH, that ghost person and some of the others is not unlike trying to educate a dog or a cat about physics.
Their brains just can't comprehend the subject matter.

history is full of leaders that have done things that turns out were not in their own best interest and they died cause of it.

To believe that if we just let them wipe out Israel, then all would be hunky dory is just ignoring the facts.

Not intentionally. Find me one example of a state ruler strapping on a bomb and running into a crowd. One example will do.

Exactly. When it's a nuke, and not a strapped-on bomb, it might as well be the rulers as some chump doing it, because the result for them will be the same.

I would love to see an Iranian "regeime change" at the point of some guns held by Isreali and US forces. War mongering terrorism exporting Ayatollahs, getting the guillationne in public and on international TV. Needed to happen yesterday. Or the day, week, month, year before that.

Big time Hawk on the side of Isreal's right to remain in tact and in peace, big time hawk on blowing the ever luvin crapola out of anything in Iran that remotely smells of nuc power here.

Why would they do that when they can convince others to do it instead?

Your premise is absurd. Israel is a modern nuclear power.

We should have taken care of IRan in 91 while we had all that muscle over there..

seriously? i swear you are just dumber than a post.....leaders dont do that chit they send others.

This is my point. With a nuke, the result for the leaders would be the same regardless if they did it themselves or had someone else do it. That's why MAD works.

This is my point. With a nuke, the result for the leaders would be the same regardless if they did it themselves or had someone else do it. That's why MAD works.

Which is why it would never be direct. It would be indirect, and easily deniable.

Think Black Water.

They do things we as a Nation wouldn't "condone". They get caught, we say, sorry, we'll punish them for you...

The Statist in Iran isn't the man in charge....

for a guy that lives and breaths conspiracy theories you would think this would be his specialty in pointing this chit out to us.....guess conspiracy theories are not possible when the government is the other guys, only ours....

They've been a Nuclear power for decades and have been invaded by foreign Armies repeatedly....

There's a segment of the American population whi9ch will accept any lies that leads America to war in the Middle East.

Israel has figured this out.

actually given my daughter is going to go into the military i dont take this chit lightly......

MAD doesnt work with nut cases......

There's a segment of the American population which will accept any lies that leads America to war in the Middle East.

Israel has figured this out.

If you don't take it lightly, you need to talk her out of it.

Ain't nothing good going to come from another American war in the Middle East,...especially for the people who actively participate in it.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

It's your call,...but Romney and Obama both have kids.

I don't expect to see any of them at a recruiters office.

,...and believe me,...both of them know more about the situation than you do.

And there should be no doubt, based on the cultist beliefs of Iran�s clerics and president, once Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, these men will not hesitate to use it in fulfillment of their self-proclaimed destiny to prepare for the 12th Imam�s return.

Born in the ninth century, the 12th Imam disappeared at the age of five and supposedly exists in a state of occultation, destined to return to Earth in the future. He will establish a global caliphate, making all other religions submissive to Islam. The 12th Imam�s return will occur only as the world is embroiled in chaos. But it is here the Iranian leadership�s beliefs differ from the vast majority of Muslims. While most believe that world chaos must evolve naturally, Iran�s leadership believes man can trigger it. No wonder, then, Tehran is fanatically committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, according to an expert on the subject, the belief is the 12th Imam will not return in an odd-numbered year.

Second, Ahmadinejad reportedly told other Middle East leaders the 12th Imam will return while he is still president. Ahmadinejad�s second term in office ends in August 2013. As he is limited to serving two terms, Ahmadinejad would have 15 months�if the required chaos is to occur in an even-numbered year�to initiate the process.

Odummy's kids wouldnt spend anytime in the military no matter what as its "below their royal status".....same goes for the dip chit himself....

Yes, Hitler killed millions with his own hand and the stroke of a pen.

Good Grief!
Take your left ear in your right hand and your right ear in your left hand and slowly pull your head out.

Don't get caught up in official titles. The head of state I'm referring to is the guy, or group of guys, who actually make such decisions, not the figurehead with the title, assuming those two are different.

Look how long this bullshit has been going on,...and at who has been calling the shots.

,...and you're comfortable with letting one of yours get in the middle of it?

,...better think,..

from 2002

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/7/154220.shtml


Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says the U.S. war on terror shouldn't end with Iraq.

Iran is just as dangerous and a top priority for a regime change, Sharon said this week. He argued that although Iraq is an "insane" regime, Iran is a "center of world terror."

In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, Sharon said that as soon as Iraq is dealt with, he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

So what? What would their response to a nuke strike be? That's what we're talking bout, right?

Everyone wants to make this about nukes

Bingo.

That's news, how?

There's a segment of the American population which will accept any anti-American conspiracy that lulls America to sleep in the middle east.
Iran et al have figures this out.

HAJ, it seems you never read the article that this thread is about.

lulls America to sleep? We have troops in Afghanistan, troops in Iraq and we wonder why Iran is sabre rattling and needing a nuke? We have them surrounded by countries we have conquered in the last decade.

The only they have figured out is we're setting up camp in their backyard. We're a long damn way from being lulled to sleep. Unfortunately the hook in mouth American public just keeps biting the bait thrown at him about it.

The best part is when they start telling fiscal hawks "you don't grasp the severity of this" when our country is on the brink of losing its ability to be a world power because we're knee deep in the ass end of the world trying to stop a king of the mountain game on religious soil.

your premise that we started it, is a fallacy.

How will stopping all military action fix one thing in our Government?

I've noticed you have a great talent to read a post and take away a meaning that isn't there.

I've noticed you have a great talent to read a post and take away a meaning that isn't there.

that is a serious question?

Yes sir, I have. Like I said though, nukes are a small part of the big picture. I think Romney's getting a view of the big picture and knowing the power that the phrase "nuclear weapons" brings to the table, that's where his kind are making their stance.

I just wish somebody on the National Stage would stop insulting American intelligence and explain that it's a far bigger issue than some nuclear capability. Then again, maybe the average American just lacks the ability to comprehend this, and that's why politicians resort to using "catch phrases".

It's not the face of Iran that scares me, it's the heart. Is it true that a Nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES! Is it also true that a non-nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES!

Does that mean we need to go to war with the Nation of Iran? NO!

We just need to stop kidding ourselves and fall for the idea that this is all because of Operation Ajax. That operation was a catalyst in a movement that is far older than Western Culture....

You mean you don't believe that interventionism is to blame?

Because, that's pretty much the argument posited above...

?????

Operation Ajax = Kook definition of Interventionism.

Interventionism is to blame for all our problems.

The threat of nukes is the rallying cry of interventionist.





These are the arguments that are posited ad nauseum around here. The problem is that they simply aren't grounded in facts.

Just because people like Romney and others see Iran for the threat that they are, doesn't mean that War is the only answer.

Just because we perceive and address a threat doesn't mean that we are interventionist.

The article was basically saying that Romney is being swayed into warmongering because Israel doesn't play nice with it's neighbors.

That's just head in the sand crackpot lunacy. Israel isn't our enemy. Israel doesn't get us into fights. Threats do, period.

Where's Steve_NO to tell me I'm a Joo hater? lol

that's a different animal than saying we started it.

but that is the crux of much of these arguments - anything short of a long term decades long engagement is the equivalent to cutting and run - another idea embedded into the American psyche.

My question is - at what point does our support for a never ending engagement actually force change? When our country's credit rating is shot because of debt? When a loaf of bread is $7 or a gallon of gas is $15? When we can't build a bridge or pave a road? When we shutter police stations, schools and VA hospitals? At what level of pain do we have to suffer before Americans with your perspective say "enough - we're leaving and getting out of this craziness".

Because I believe we can both say that what we are doing is unsustainable yet the middle east issue is never ending.

For that matter our world dominance is never ending. Its an ongoing maintenance program costing hundreds of billions if not a trillion+ yearly.

How does that get resolved before our country is tanked and China becomes the worlds newest (and perhaps only) superpower?

Maybe you could elaborate on that a bit for me, as this is exactly what it's been used to say around here...



I disagree. Americans have no problem with cutting and running. I will agree with the idea that Nation Building is not strategically advantageous. Hunt and kill is.

Either strategy can become very time consuming and labor intensive. The difference is one is wasteful and unproductive, and the other is the essence of security.



The root of the problems that you are referring to has to do with the culture of endless spending in Washington. It doesn't matter if we bring all our military actions to an end, the politicians will find other things to do with that money. They sure as hell won't just be giving it back to us. Defense Spending needs to be addressed. There is no question about that. There is a lot of waste involved. I'm happy to say that I have a job now where I examine efficiency in military operations in order to cut out waste. It's nice to be a part of the solution rather than the problem.

The priority given to the Federal Government is to keep Americans safe. That's one of the reasons we switched from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. We The People demanded security. We even permitted the collection of taxes specifically for that reason. In a perfect world, Defense Spending wouldn't be 20% of our Federal Budget, it would be almost 100% of our Federal Budget (the founders saw some value in spending on the arts and sciences as well). Now, that Federal Budget would be a mere fraction of what it is today, but the point is, our Constitution is clear that the purpose of taxation is for the security of the Nation.

Ceasing all Military action would not enhance our security one bit, nor would it fix the culture of spending in Washington.

Yes, I can agree that the culture of spending in Washington is unsustainable and that threats to a free society are never ending.



Defense spending needs to be addressed. Yes.
National Defense and infrastructure are the real only reasons any spending should be happening at all, though. Never compromise on security.



Reign in Washinton, unleash America.

I hope you don't do the finances in your household.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'll help...

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Boy that Iraq was sure a threat...

It's all a fuggin crock o' schit.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I'll help...

According to the Constitution, what's the purpose of the Federal Government?

Yeah, good luck backing that claim up, Mr. The-Whitehouse-Was-Stormed-By-The-Brits-In-1812....

How much are you paid to hang out here, HAJ?

I'll help...

Not a red cent. Think I can convince Rick to hook me up!?

During the War of 1812, British not only stormed the White House, they burned it. Madison had to escape in the middle of the night because British troop were going to hang him.

It just goes to prove that you're a died-in-the-wool noecon liberal prone to revising history to suit your leftist agenda.


R

Boy that Iraq was sure a threat...

It's all a fuggin crock o' schit.

I bolded key words you seem to have skipped over.

No.

I didn't skip over it at all. It's my whole emphasis here.

Iran's leadership is a threat to The United States of America. Even moreso if they become a Nuclear Armed Power.

Not that hard to understand.

I didn't skip over it at all. It's my whole emphasis here.

Iran's leadership is a threat to The United States of America. Even moreso if they become a Nuclear Armed Power.

Not that hard to understand.

so the argument is that our government is just going to spend the money on something, might as well be long term military engagements?

we are truly screwed as a nation if this is the fall back position on military spending.

By that definition, we won't be secure till we've conquered the entire world. Do you suppose the Founders has a redo of the Roman Empire in mind?

Pakistan is more of a threat to us in regards to nuclear weapons, and guess where they got them from.

You keep in line and maybe you will get yourself a Government job.

Let's invade Pakistan.

By that definition, we won't be secure till we've conquered the entire world. Do you suppose the Founders has a redo of the Roman Empire in mind?

Where am I suggesting that we Conquer Iran?

The whole world isn't continuously threatening to destroy Western Culture....

Iran does though...

"Death To America" ring a bell?

That would be dumb.

That would be dumb.

You also understand Persian, impressive.

So arming and paying them $3B a year to keep Bin Laden on ice is smart.

Don't forget who gave them their nukes.

consider the source. the paulie crazy crowd just continue to embarrass themselves, and underscore the reason their boy couldn't win a primary.....anywhere.

I'm hoping they'll at least go radio silent when they all pile in the clown car for the triumphant road trip to Paulapalooza in Tampa.

I have zero desire for us to take over Iran, just eliminate the threat.

You may be okay with very real actionable threats levied at our people, but I'm not.

You're either completely propagandized yourself or a deliberate disseminator of propaganda.

Translation: I don't live in Conspiracyland....


Reality is what it is TRH. It still impresses me to no degree that you have such distrust for our Government and so much faith in Iran, a Government that has stated time and time again that they desire to see us eliminated....


At least our Government somewhat attempts to hide the fact that they want to subject us to their self declared sovereignty.

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

Conspiracy theorist BS...



How could I? I lived on their border for 3 years!

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

TRH you are a pig for questioning HAJ's honor. GFY.

I got it, the Pakis are our friends, they never cashed the checks, General Zia never existed, and Bin Laden was killed in Nova Scotia.

Well Bin Laden was on ice for 8 years. He may have been killed in Nova Scotia. assuming he was killed at all.

No body, no pics, no Bin Laden.

His posts make it clear he has none, and for defending his tactics, neither do you.

He's served, what the [bleep] have you done you POS mommy boy?

I doubt anyone would be surprised if you turned out to be a snowbird version of Sandusky.

Now [bleep] off and die.

His posts make it clear he has none, and for defending his tactics, neither do you.

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

I would say a new low, but since I have increasingly limited time (or desire due to this exact type of thing?) to spend on here, I'm sure I've missed some real pearls.... thank God. Pathetic.

You know, Hawk, a lot of people here put up with you despite your bat-schit craziness because most of the time you're polite about it.

But sometimes that slips. Impugning HAJ's honor...

Azz-wipe.

Pretty much says it all right there. There are thousands of Campfire members I'd love to spend a little time around a real campfire with and I've had the pleasure with somewhere around 50 if I could count them all but if TRH, DD or a couple others showed up I'd get up and walk away since it's only a matter of time until one of these guys tin foil hat slips and they go nuts.

No fear of that of course since they'll never show up anywhere outside the virtual world.

No, now who's reading something into what isn't there?

The argument is that the Government is supposed to spend money on National Defense.

Nation Building (currently what's happening in Afghanistan) is not in the interest of National Defense.

Seek and destroy threats is in the interest of National Defense.

That's premise number one.

Premise number two is that HOW we are spending money on National Defense is flawed and certainly needs to be addressed.

Premise number three is that Iran is a threat and needs to be addressed. A Nuclear Iran will be much harder to address.

Premise number four is that our weakness is in our culture of spending in Washington. That's what has weakened us in regards to a Global Superpower. The heavy burden of taxation the Federal Gov exerts on the private sector economy has driven industry to such places as China. The wasteful spending conducted by Washington has left us unable to compete.

so put Steve_NO down for the "we can't afford not to spend whatever we have to in order to protect Israel" column

big shock for everyone I'm sure.

yea, those Muslims and their westward attack on America...they've come here to attack us by the *dozens*

I never would have guessed that would be his position on the matter.

yes, they have, but you retards seem to need constant reminding.




I don't have HAJ's patience anymore to treat you sick dogs like normal people and list all the terror attacks in the US, since you're impervious to reason and consumed by your own fantasies, so just focus on that one.

but you still won't address the main question - are we supposed to spend money we don't have on national defense?

and your response was basically to say that Washington is going to spend money we don't have anyways, so make it on defense. That's a cop out that avoids the question.

Yes or no - is there a limit to the debt we incur and the sacrifice we'll make in order to maintain a presence in the middle east and the world militarily?

btw, when Reagan was president the tax rate on the wealthy was hovering near 50% and we had arguably the largest military expansion per capita since WWII. He still couldn't do it without deficit spending. I'm not sure the taxation argument has any merit.

The reality is that 1 out of 2 people in this country are at the poverty level and we have 10K a day people retiring, many of which depend on Social Security to support them. The idea that we can change the culture of spending in Washington against a voting public depending on Washington spending isn't going to fly. The reason I throw that in is because to say we can continue to spend on military by diverting waste and entitlement spending isn't reality.

And HOW the government spends military money may be a debate but for every person who thinks we can't allow a nuclear Iran, they'll be another that tells us why we can't close the base in Korea, or Japan.

Clean up wasteful spending in the Military, which is my job. Meanwhile clean up wasteful spending in entitlement spending, unnecessary bureaucratic agencies and red tape. Deal with social security, medicare and Medicaid.

Deal with all the fluff that is not provided for informational the Constitution and then let's revisit this question. I'd bet money wouldn't be an issue at that point.

Clean up wasteful spending in the Military, which is my job.

We're not going to deal with the fluff voting for a mainstream candidate. It just doesn't work that way. That "fluff" is what they have to promise to get elected.

Yer a complete and utter failure.

Yer a complete and utter failure.

Sounds mysteriously like 'suck a kock'.

Yer a homo I reckon.

we have a lot of folks on the forum that blindly hate Jews. I seriously doubt that a Jew ever did a damn thing to any of them.
Funny thing, is if you compare our Jew haters to Nazis, they get all incensed.
I wonder how many of our TRHs, Derby Dudes, Bristoes, RKamps and the like would enjoy working the concentration camp jobs.

That's as about worn out as the race card.

Yeah,..any discussion about America's involvement with Israel which expresses anything less than glowing adulation brings out that tired old nonsense from a few people,....some of them with an agenda,...some who are ignorant enough to parrot those with an agenda.

It's always been contrived and it's so flagrantly off base today that it seriously brings into question the integrity (or possibly the intelligence) of anyone who engages in the hyperbole.

One has to take them on a case by case basis to determine if dishonesty or ignorance is being demonstrated.

Joseph Sobran.

That's as about worn out as the race card.

Who ya gonna believe; the CIA or Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs?

From the article: "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 – that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon – reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 – has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb."

You know, Hawk, a lot of people here put up with you despite your bat-schit craziness because most of the time you're polite about it.

But sometimes that slips. Impugning HAJ's honor - when he has shown extraordinary patience with you and spent hours going back and forth with you over your craziness - is one of those slips. And a pretty shabby one, too.

When you cross over the line like that, you open yourself up to all sorts of uncomfortable comments about your own life that you probably don't appreciate.

Like the fact that you walked away from a career in law enforcement out of a failure of nerve. Walked away from a career in law because you didn't have what it took to pass the bar exam. And walked away from a career in clinical psychology, no doubt from a similar lack of courage.

So now, here you are, working as a school teacher because it's about the only profession you could find where you can be confident you won't be fired for incompetence and nobody in your administration expects a whole lot from you, sniping at people who actually do some pretty significant things for a living, secure in the knowledge that you will never, ever be forced to make eye contact with any of them.

It never fails. You make nice for a few weeks, but then you just can't help dropping your pants and making a total douche of yourself. You're not the only douche on the fire, but the fact that you're among the most intelligent and well educated of them just makes you that much worse.

Azz-wipe.

"Who ya gonna believe; the CIA or Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs? "

neither

Tim,

This post is an act of desperation. You cannot refute The_Real_Hawkeye's posts; therefore, your only alternative was to viciously attack his character. In doing so you stooped to deep chasms in which only the slimy dive. You have become the enemy against whom you rail.


R

the flipside to that is none of them, nor any American for that matter, ever did anything to Israel or Jews, yet it is America that continues to pay for the collective guilt of the holocaust. That's why someone like Mannlicher can throw out some Nazi statement and for some people they back down. Because if you question something about Israel - as in why its America that has to bear the brunt regarding the true cost of Israel's existence in the world, then obviously you're a Nazi.

I gave up long ago caring what label some pinhead uses to try to keep me quiet on a subject where I express no bias or hatred. Throwing out labels is a weak attempt to squelch the basis of the argument. It can't be good for them if too many people start questioning why we have a one sided alliance that costs us American lives and money with Israel.

I don't start discussions talking about a dislike for the Jews, my discussions have always been focused on Americas biased and unequal support for a nation.

If a person can't separate the two, that isn't a concern of mine, nor will it ever slow me down in my opinion on it.

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

Tim,

This post is an act of desperation. You cannot refute The_Real_Hawkeye's posts; therefore, your only alternative was to viciously attack his character. In doing so you stooped to deep chasms in which only the slimy dive. You have become the enemy against whom you rail.


R

From the article: "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 � that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon � reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 � has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb."

IAEA Expert Team Returns from Iran

22 February 2012 | A senior IAEA expert team is returning from Iran after two days of discussions with Iranian officials held on 20 and 21 February 2012. The meeting followed previous discussions held on 29 to 31 January 2012.

During both the first and second round of discussions, the Agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place.

Intensive efforts were made to reach agreement on a document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions. Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document.

"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said. "We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."

Could Iran be building nuclear weapons? A scientific perspective



There is much concern that Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Such a development, we�re told, could induce Israel to launch a unilateral military strike with all types of unpredictable consequences.

Now Iran, of course, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty � unlike many other Middle East nations � and thus far the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) has found no direct proof of nuclear weapons development in Iran. I don�t know whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons � or, if it is, why.

On the other hand, I can provide a bit of background on why the IAEA and many countries have come to be so concerned about Iran�s nuclear ambitions.

Iran�s first nuclear power plant, located outside the southwest city of Bushehr, was opened last year. It has already begun contributing electricity to the domestic power grid. Construction of a second power plant is underway in Darkhovin, north of Bushehr, and the country is dotted with nuclear research facilities, most prominently the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.

Of particular concern to the IAEA, though, are the uranium enrichment facilities located in Natanz and Fordow, both south of Tehran. To understand why enrichment facilities cause consternation in the international community, we have to understand the process of nuclear fuel enrichment.

I�ll start with some physics and chemistry. Chemical elements found in nature are distinguished from each other by the number of protons in their atomic nuclei. Every atom of each particular element has the same number of protons in its nucleus. But it�s not that simple: most chemical elements actually consist of a collection of different nuclear isotopes.

Isotopes of the same chemical element have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but different numbers of neutrons.

Different isotopes of hydrogen: Hydrogen-1 (with no neutrons), Hydrogen-2 (with one neutron), and Hydrogen-3 (with two neutrons).

We can specify which isotope we�re talking about by identifying the combined number of protons and neutrons in the isotope�s nucleus. So, for example, naturally occurring potassium is made up of the isotopes Potassium-39, Potassium-40 and Potassium-41, with relative abundances of 93.26%, 0.01% and 6.73% respectively.

These numbers mean that 93.26% of naturally occurring potassium is composed of Potassium-39, and so on. All three potassium isotopes have almost exactly the same chemical properties, but their nuclei are completely different.

Why is this important? Because different isotopes of the same element can have very different properties. Unlike other potassium isotopes, Potassium-40 is radioactive. Potassium is an essential ingredient of all living organisms, and the nuclear radiation from the Potassium-40 within our bodies is responsible for about one quarter of our natural background radiation dose.

This brings us back to nuclear energy. Naturally occurring uranium consists of 99.3% Uranium-238 (U-238) and 0.7% Uranium-235 (U-235). Of the two, only U-235 undergoes nuclear fission � the splitting of atoms to generate massive amounts of energy � with low-energy neutrons.

(While U-238 will fission when bombarded with high-energy neutrons, not enough of these are emitted from the fission of other uranium nuclei to sustain a nuclear chain reaction.) As a result, most nuclear power plants need uranium fuel to be �enriched� in U-235.

This means increasing the relative concentration of U-235 in the uranium to 3.5%�5% relative to U-238, as opposed to 0.7%. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, need U-235 to be concentrated to a much higher level � 80% or greater. Low-enrichment nuclear fuel cannot be made to explode like a nuclear weapon.

A model of the Uranium-235 isotope. Its nucleus contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons. Wikimedia Commons

To accomplish this enrichment, then, one must find a way to concentrate U-235 relative to U-238. This a very difficult task because one cannot use chemical processes to distinguish the two isotopes. The nuclear industry has now settled on centrifugal enrichment technology as the most economical method of separating U-235 and U-238.

In this process, uranium-hexaflouride � a processed, gaseous form of uranium � is spun extremely rapidly in a metal cylinder (the centrifuge). Since U-235 is slightly lighter than U-238, it tends to collect at the centre of the cylinder, where it is skimmed off.

The output of one centrifuge is fed into another, each one slightly enhancing the ratio of U-235 to U-238. The process is continued until the desired enrichment is obtained.

Monitoring the level of enrichment is crucial, both for the operator of the program and for outside observers such as the IAEA. Luckily, because of the different nuclear properties of U-235 and U-238, the enrichment level can very easily be measured.

U-235 is about ten-times more radioactive than U-238, and the pattern of gamma-rays from U-235 is very different from that of U-238. The combination of these two characteristics makes it easy to determine the relative concentrations of the two isotopes.

The IAEA does this with equipment placed outside containers holding the enriched uranium, the input uranium and the leftover tails from the process.

Containers of fresh high-enrichment uranium from a Chilean reactor. NNSANews

I find reports that Iran is enriching fuel to 20% � as opposed to the 5% required for electricity production � very worrying. Although uranium enriched to 20% will not make an effective nuclear weapon, it could be a sign they�re testing their procedures to make weapons-grade uranium.

On the other hand, some research reactors used to make medical radioisotopes require 20%-enriched uranium. This is the reason given by Iran for its production of higher-enrichment uranium.

Nevertheless, any plant capable of enriching uranium in sufficient quantities to make nuclear fuel can be configured to enrich that uranium to 80%. One simply feeds it though the sequence of centrifuges until the desired concentration is reached.

Because achieving 80% enrichment is the most complex and difficult part of manufacturing nuclear weapons, undeclared enrichment facilities represent the strongest technological indication of a nuclear weapons program � which is why they are monitored so closely by the IAEA.

Iran has the world�s second largest natural gas reserves, enough to supply the country�s domestic electricity needs for centuries. Furthermore, it is relatively easy for a government to buy nuclear fuel (albeit with conditions, such as being required to permit snap inspections of all nuclear facilities). In my opinion, it is not necessary for Iran to have built their own enrichment plants.

Nevertheless, now that the facilities have been built, it is easy enough for the IAEA (if given access) to determine the level of enrichment of the nuclear fuel being produced, and to make sure this matches the amount of natural uranium fed into the plant. This way they can detect whether any uranium has been diverted into other, undisclosed programs.

It is therefore vital, above all, that the IAEA inspectors continue to be allowed access to Iran�s nuclear facilities.

BBC News Middle East
6 March 2012 Last updated at 10:15 ET
Q&A: Iran nuclear issue

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that medium-level uranium enrichment had begun at the Fordo plant near Qom in northern Iran.

Tehran has said it plans to carry out uranium enrichment there for purely peaceful purposes. The West argues Iran is building a nuclear weapons capacity.

In November 2011 the IAEA released its latest report on Iran's nuclear programme, presenting new evidence suggesting that Iran is secretly working to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed the claims as fictitious.

What does the IAEA report say?

The IAEA has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but its latest report (November 2011) lays out the case in much greater detail than before.

Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.

The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.

There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.

Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.

In March 2012, it was announced that Iran had agreed to take part in fresh six-party talks and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site at Parchin, under certain conditions.

The UN Security Council has ordered Iran to stop enrichment. Why?

Because the technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion.

Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities.

Under international law, an order from the Security Council is held to supersede rights granted by other international organisations. The Council has ordered sanctions under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which enables it to decide "what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions". The Council has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an arrangement allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

How does Iran justify its refusal to obey the Security Council resolutions?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection by the IAEA. Iran is under inspection, though not under the strictest rules allowed because it will not agree to them. Only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends to enrich only for power station fuel or other peaceful purposes. It says the UN resolutions are politically motivated. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights."

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?

It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. Following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons, has said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

This would depend on Iran taking the decision to make a nuclear device and Iran says it will not do so. But experts believe that technically it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within a few months. A US general said in April 2010 that Iran could still take several years after that to make a device. Former CIA chief Leon Panetta said in June 2010 that it could take two years. Israel's retired intelligence chief Meir Dagan has said it could take until 2015.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in January 2011 that sanctions had slowed down Iran's nuclear work. She also said that Iran had faced technical difficulties, possibly a reference to a computer virus said to have affected its centrifuge machinery. But in July 2011, Iran said it was installing new, faster centrifuges to speed progress in uranium enrichment. If successful, it could shorten the time needed to stockpile material that can have civilian as well as military purposes, if processed much further.

In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would raise suspicions and leave itself open to attack. If, while remaining in the treaty, it enriched to nuclear weapons level or was found diverting material for a bomb in secret, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

But what about the US intelligence assessment issued on Iran in 2007?

The National Intelligence Estimate played down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assessed "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE added: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

However, Israel did not accept the conclusions and there was also doubt elsewhere. In 2008, the then director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack, saying: "Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

What sanctions has the UN imposed on Iran?

The UN has imposed four sets of sanctions, in Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929.

These seek to make it more difficult for Iran to acquire equipment, technology and finance to support its nuclear activities. They ban the sale to Iran of materiel and technology related to nuclear enrichment and heavy-water activities and ballistic missile development, restrict dealings with certain Iranian banks and individuals, stop the sale of major arms systems to Iran (Russia has cancelled the sale of an anti-aircraft missile system) and allow some inspections of air and sea cargoes.

However, they do not stop the trade in oil and gas, the major source of Iran's income.

What about additional sanctions by the US and EU?

The US brought in restrictions on trade with Iran after the taking of American hostages in 1979, which it tightened in 1995, and in 2010 additionally targeted Iranian finances, shipping and the Revolutionary Guard.

In January 2012 the US imposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and against three oil companies that trade with Iran, including China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. The sanctions prevent the companies from receiving US export licences, US Export Import Bank financing or any loans over $10m from US institutions.

Later that month European Union foreign ministers formally adopted an oil embargo against Iran. This involves an immediate ban on all new oil contracts with Iran, while existing contracts will be honoured until 1 July 2012.

What are the chances of an attack on Iran?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran, so the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains.

In March 2012, Mr Netanyahu said that time was running out to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon, before any such programme became too advanced or went underground. He said he would never allow Israelis to "live in the shadow of annihilation".

Wikileaks revelations have shown that Gulf Arab states have urged the US to attack Iran.

American officials have stressed the instability that would result from any attack on Iran. They appear to be hoping that even if Iran continues to develop its nuclear expertise, it will not try to build a bomb.

US President Barack Obama said there was "still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution". He warned that "loose talk of war" was playing into Iran's hands, but has stressed that all options remain open.

How does the nuclear plant at Bushehr fit in?

This reactor was started in the 1970s under the Shah but then put on hold until recently when the Russians finished it. The Russians will provide raw fuel and take away the spent fuel, which could potentially be used to make a plutonium-based nuclear bomb.

Bushehr is technically separate from the issue of enrichment. However, the US says that because Russia is providing the fuel, Iran does not need its own enrichment programme. Iran says that the reactor shows that it does have a civil nuclear power plan and that it needs to develop enrichment to serve this in the longer term.

What about fuel for the Tehran research reactor?

There is a small research reactor in Tehran making medical isotopes, installed by the Americans many years ago. This is running low on fuel, which has previously been provided from abroad. The US, Russia and France proposed taking Iran's stock of low-enriched (3.5%) uranium out of the country and return it as higher-enriched (20%) fuel rods. The idea was to get the low-enriched stock out of Iran and prevent it from being potentially used for a nuclear device.

On 17 May 2010 it was announced in Tehran that, after talks with Turkey and Brazil, Iran had agreed to ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey. However, Iran also said it would continue to enrich other uranium to 20%. Western governments rejected the deal and said it did not solve the basic enrichment issue.

What about Iran's enrichment plant at Qom?

A new and previously secret enrichment plant being built underground near Qom was revealed in 2009. The IAEA said it should have been declared much earlier and is demanding that construction stop. Iran says it broke no rules - there is a dispute about its obligations to the IAEA - and stated that it was constructing the plant in a mountain in order to safeguard its technology from an air attack.

Iran said the plant, known as the Fordo fuel enrichment plant, would enrich uranium up to 5% and would have 3,000 centrifuges.

In June 2011 Iran said the purpose of the plant was to enrich uranium to 20%, as well as carry out research and development.

In January 2012 the IAEA confirmed that Iran had started the production of uranium enriched up to 20% at the plant.

Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament. Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not covered by the NPT.

Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

Iran seeking to build long-range missile, warns David Cameron

Prime minister says Iran is planning inter-continental weaponry, but urges Israel to give sanctions more time.


David Cameron has warned that Iran is seeking to build an inter-continental missile that would threaten the west, as he urged Israel to allow time for sanctions to force the Iranians to change their strategic stance.

He was speaking after the cabinet was briefed for an hour by the national security adviser, Sir Kim Darroch, on the imminence of the threat to the UK posed by Iran.

It is the first time Cameron has made such an explicit warning that Iran could endanger UK security, and has faint echoes of the warnings from Tony Blair's government that Iraq could fire weapons of mass destruction with 45 minutes' notice.

It is understood that the government's National Security Council is also looking at potential reprisals in the UK if Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike against an Iranian nuclear site. Critics accuse Iran of planning to use its enrichment of uranium for weapons. Cameron will be briefed by President Barack Obama next week on the US approach to any such strike when the two leaders meet in Washington.

Speaking to MPs on the Commons liaison committee, the prime minister said Tehran's ambitions were dangerous for the Middle East.

But Cameron also added that Iran "is a danger more broadly, not least because there are signs that the Iranians want to have some sort of inter-continental missile capability.

"We have to be clear this is a threat potentially much wider than just Israel and the region."

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told an American Jewish group in Washington on Monday that diplomacy and sanctions had failed and that "none of us can afford to wait much longer" to act against Tehran.

On Tuesday six global powers agreed to resume negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, calling for "concrete and practical steps" to restore international trust in Tehran's stated intentions.

In a letter to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, the EU foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton, said the negotiations should restart as soon as possible, at a venue to be decided.

Writing on behalf of a negotiating group comprising the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany, Ashton said: "Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme, while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation treaty]."

The last set of talks broke down in Istanbul in January last year. Western diplomats said Jalili refused at that meeting to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme or any confidence-building measures previously discussed, such as an exchange of Iranian enriched uranium for foreign-made fuel rods for the Tehran research reactor.

At the meeting, the Iranian negotiator laid down preconditions for talks including the lifting of all sanctions and a guarantee that Iran could continue its nuclear programme, including the most controversial element, uranium enrichment.

Tehran says the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the west and Israel allege it is a front for an effort to build a nuclear arsenal, or at least establish the capacity to build a bomb at short notice.

Jalili's reply to Ashton was delivered in February, four months after her proposal, suggesting talks on "a spectrum of issues" including "Iran's nuclear issue".

French officials argued that in order to satisfy Israel that all was being done to resolve the nuclear crisis by peaceful means, the international response would have to make it absolutely clear that the talks would have to end with the "full implementation" of UN security council resolutions calling for the suspension of uranium enrichment. That language was spelt out in Ashton's latest letter.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), presented to the agency's board this week, said Iran had tripled its rate of production of 20%-enriched uranium � seen by the west as a particular proliferation threat � and reported that Iran had not co-operated with an inspection visit last month, refusing access to a sensitive military site known as Parchin.

Iran is thought to have already developed a ballistic missile which can travel approximately 1,200 miles. The International Atomic Energy Agency has asked Iran to explain evidence that it once worked on a missile payload design that could be used to deliver a nuclear warhead.

There is evidence that the Iranians and North Koreans cooperated in the past on missile technology. However, there is no proof of North Korean involvement in any payload design, nor is there conclusive proof that Iran itself has pursued the development of such a weapon.

Cameron stressed that Iran should not be seen as "a mini superpower" but as "a disastrous country" with mass unemployment and a dysfunctional economy.

He said he still believed the track of sanctions should be pursued, arguing EU-wide sanctions were causing dislocation to the Iranian foreign exchange position and "should not be sniffed at".

He said the next step was to get the Indians and Chinese to also refuse to buy Iranian oil.

"The more pressure we pile on Iran through sanctions the more incentive they have to take a different path � it is the best option we have".

The prime minister said that no plans were being laid at this stage to increase the UK military presence in the region.

� This article was amended on 9 adn 12 March 2012 because quotes attributed to David Cameron went farther than his words as spoken. Headings said, Iran 'seeking to build nuclear weapon', warns David Cameron; and Prime minister says Iran is planning an 'inter-continental nuclear weapon'. Story text said, David Cameron has warned that Iran is seeking to build an 'inter-continental nuclear weapon' that threatens the west. These have been corrected to conform with his remark about an intercontinental missile capability quoted elsewhere in the story. An assertion that Iran is working with North Korea to turn an existing Iranian missile into one that can accommodate a nuclear warhead has been replaced by a more detailed account. Finally, the original article mentioned possibility of a pre-emptive strike against an Iranian "nuclear weapons site". This has been changed to nuclear site.

� 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON � A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided �ample evidence� to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.

According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in �a conspiracy to support Hamas,� a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.

The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites �ample evidence� that CAIR participated in a �criminal conspiracy� led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas�s main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR�s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

�The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR�s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas,� Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.

The evidence includes documents introduced by the government showing CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas� U.S. wing, known as the �Palestine Committee.� In addition, FBI wiretaps and agent testimony have placed both Ahmad and CAIR�s acting executive director � Nihad Awad � at a secret meeting last decade with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. Meeting in a hotel room, participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicide bombers and their families as charity.

CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad, who arranged and led the secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia

�The attendees agreed not to mention the word Hamas but to refer to Hamas as �Samah,� which is Hamas spelled backwards,� Solis said. �The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future.�

During the meeting � which was organized and led by CAIR founder Ahmad � the Hamas operatives agreed to form CAIR as an outwardly benign front group skilled in media manipulation. �They did not want to be viewed as being aligned with terrorist groups,� he said.

The judge did not dispute �press accounts and blog entries� that �CAIR is a criminal organization that supports terrorism,� according to the ruling.

The government�s evidence undermines CAIR�s public face as a �civil-rights advocacy organization,� while corroborating the findings of the bestselling book, �Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That�s Conspiring to Islamize America.� The book chronicles the undercover investigation of P. David Gaubatz and his son, who interned at CAIR�s national headquarters.

CAIR has sued the Gaubatzes for trespassing, but has not denied any of the book�s explosive findings tying CAIR closer to terrorism.

According to Politico.com, a federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR emerging from the Holy Land trial, while also reviewing the thousands of pages of evidence gathered in the �Muslim Mafia� investigation. Prosecutors subpoenaed the evidence shortly after the book was published last fall.

CAIR, which has not been charged with a crime, denies allegations it works for Hamas � even as it refuses to condemn the terrorist group by name.

�CAIR is not a front group for Hamas,� insisted CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, �or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with.�

CAIR maintains it is simply a Muslim-rights group, but the Justice Department says it is a front group not only for Hamas, but for its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood � a worldwide jihadist movement that prosecutors say has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.

�From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,� said assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a separate court filing.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, implicated in a major terror case, shakes hands with undercover intern Chris Gaubatz at CAIR headquarters in Washington.

In 2007, U.S. prosecutors first named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families. A jury in 2008 convicted the charity and its leaders on all 108 felony counts.

�CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization � a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,� said assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.

The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it is not a terror front.

�Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,� advised assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Media outlets � including Fox News, which is financed by the same Saudi prince funding CAIR � continue to invite Awad and other CAIR leaders on the air to argue against airport profiling and other issues on CAIR�s agenda. Fox has offered CAIR guests full segments unopposed by critics and without viewer caveats regarding CAIR�s court-documented terror connections.

We need a Holy Crusade and it looks like Iran is it. Facts be damned!

Never forget we are doing God�s work here!!!!!

Tim,

This post is an act of desperation. You cannot refute The_Real_Hawkeye's posts; therefore, your only alternative was to viciously attack his character. In doing so you stooped to deep chasms in which only the slimy dive. You have become the enemy against whom you rail.


R

Tim demonstrates the absence of character and honor so common among the neocons here at the Fire. This, I have found, is a characteristic of leftism in general. He produces a list of so-called shortcomings on my part that are the product purely of his imagination and that of others of his ilk, lacking substantiation. Nothing screams poor character and absence of honor like that.

Start messin' with somebody's cognitive dissonance, they'll get pissy every time.

�The nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity, rather than a weapon of defense. The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride. Its possession is disgusting and shameful.�

�Iran can recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.�

Ahmadinejad Wants To Push Ahead With Developing Nuclear Weapons

VIENNA � Iran's president wants to shed the nation's secrecy and forge ahead openly with developing nuclear weapons but is opposed by the clerical leadership, which is worried about international reaction to such a move, says an intelligence assessment shared with The Associated Press.

That view, from a nation with traditionally reliable intelligence from the region, cannot be confirmed and contrasts with assessments by other countries that view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as relatively moderate on the nuclear issue compared to the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Attempts to interpret Iran's goals are important because as it expands uranium enrichment, it is moving closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon by the day, even as it asserts that it is not interested in such arms and its programs are geared only to making reactor fuel.

A U.S. official cited one assessment he has seen suggesting Ahmadinejad may be more "moderate" � more open to talks with the international community on resolving nuclear concerns than Khamenei. He asked for anonymity because his information was privileged.

But a blunt comment by Ahmadinejad last month raises questions. While repeating that Iran does not want nuclear arms, he openly reinforced its ability to make them, telling Iranian state TV that "if we want to make a bomb, we are not afraid of anybody."

That defiant statement fits the scenario laid down by the intelligence assessment shared with the AP, depicting Ahmadinejad as wanting to move publicly to develop a nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is pushing "to shake free of the restraints Iran has imposed upon itself, and openly push forward to create a nuclear bomb," says the assessment. But Khamenei, whose word is final on nuclear and other issues, "wants to progress using secret channels, due to concern about a severe response from the West," says the report.

Officials at the Iranian president's office were not available for comment Friday.

The varying views reflect the difficulties that intelligence agencies face when probing a secretive nation that plays its cards close to its chest. Lines of division are murky. Alliances shift and positions change, leaving governments and private analysts frustrated as they try to nail down Tehran's nuclear end game.

They converge, however in noting that recent political divisions between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have spilled over to encompass Iran's nuclear activities to a greater degree than before.

While much about Iran's nuclear program is opaque, the growing capacity � if not the intention � to make weapons is on the record, captured in International Atomic Energy Agency reports documenting the expansion of Iran's enrichment program from its clandestine beginnings more than a decade ago to one that has produced enough material for more than two nuclear bombs.

More recently Iran has begun enriching to higher levels that would lessen the time needed to make weapons-grade material. And its stonewalling of an IAEA probe based on U.S. and other intelligence of secret work on components of a nuclear weapons program is adding to concerns raised by Tehran's refusal to freeze enrichment despite U.N. sanctions.

"They claim that all of their activities are for peaceful purposes," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the AP Friday. "But we have information that might have military implications and there are other activities that we don't know well, so it is difficult for us to draw a conclusion it is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Intelligence reports of tensions between Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics are in line with other signs showing Ahmadinejad at odds with Khamenei with less than two-years to go into his presidency.

In recent months, Ahmadinejad apparently fired � and was forced by Khamenei to reinstate � his interior minister in what some analysts see as a rebuffed attempt by the president to eliminate rivals to candidates he would like to see in positions of power, once his second and last term ends in 2013. That prompted an outburst of public criticism and led rivals in parliament to start proceedings that could in the most extreme case lead to impeachment.

Reports of disagreement on nuclear issues predate that dispute, but some officials from member nations of the Vienna-based IAEA see tensions over the future of the nuclear program sharpening.

Proliferation expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says his briefings from European government officials who have seen the latest U.S. intelligence assessment on the Islamic Republic seem to support the assessment shared with the AP that Khamenei is worried about how the world would react to a nuclear-armed Iran.

"There is a lot of caution in the regime about the implication of building nuclear weapons," says Albright. Asked whether Ahmadinejad or Khamenei have been the most circumspect, he says "the implication is that it was the Supreme Leader."

The leadership is "worried about starting a nuclear weapons race and worried about the international impact," said Albright, naming reactions from regional powers Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey as that of greatest concern to Tehran. Both Egypt and the Saudis have indicated that they would contemplate acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran had them.

One theory voiced by government officials and private analysts is that Iran might be looking to reach the level just short of making nuclear weapons � but able to do so quickly if it feels threatened. That would fit in with Khamenei's reported cautious stance.

In any case, Ahmadinejad seems to be further weakened by the dispute. That leaves the Revolutionary Guard � the military-industrial powerhouse that is increasingly asserting itself in most aspects of Iran's society � as a beneficiary says the intelligence assessment.

"Khamenei has decided to transfer engagement with the most sensitive parts of the nuclear program, including activity that can be used for nuclear weapons, from ... the group of scientists at the Defense Ministry, who are identified with Ahmadinejad, to a special body in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.," it says. "This, due to the increasing lack of trust the Leader has in people in sensitive positions, who are identified with the President."

The summary interprets the apparent decision to give the guard greater say over nuclear issues as a boost to its quest "to establish its status as a leading power force in the regime."

From the article: "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 � that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon � reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 � has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb."

Now, go repeat that in the mirror as nobody is more guilty of it in this particular thread than yourself....

I put you in a corner and all you had left was to call me a propagandist and a man without honor.

Facts and reality a little hard to swallow there, TRH?

Then again, what would you know about honor?

I agree with this post; the US is saddled with the collective guilt for Nazi atrocities and keeps paying Israel to mitigate this guilt. Peace in the middle-East can not be gained as long as Israeli "settlers" keep building settlements on land that is within the agreed areas (by both parties) that are Palestinian.

see: "Israelis were warned on illegality of settlements in 1967 memo "; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-settlements-in-1967-memo-469443.html

see: "Israelis were warned on illegality of settlements in 1967 memo "; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-settlements-in-1967-memo-469443.html

It's amazing to me that I need professional help for finding the national government too conspiratorial yet you guys find a conspiracy in everything that Iran does and you guys don't need professional help.

It's amazing to me that I need professional help for finding the national government too conspiratorial yet you guys find a conspiracy in everything that Iran does and you guys don't need professional help.

Start messin' with somebody's cognitive dissonance, they'll get pissy every time.

The difference is that I distrust all Governments equally and most of you guys distrust our Government the most.

In my mind, the American Government isn't trustworthy AND the Iranian Government isn't trustworthy.

The way most of your boys talk is that ONLY our Government is not trustworthy. Iran? Bah, thems good ol' boys!

the anti-Iranians tend to try to paint the Iranians as so ludicrously.... insane and irrational and bloodthirsty and pure eeeeevil.... that it begs a response.

Rather, the anti-Iranians tend to try to paint the Iranians as so ludicrously.... insane and irrational and bloodthirsty and pure eeeeevil.... that it begs a response.

you don't have to "paint" Iran that way or any way, you just have to listen to their words. only willful refusal to face an ugly fact can explain anybody trying to whitewash Iran's intent both toward the US...and any other infidel state that gets in the way....and Israel.

if the Iranians' ability to inflict damage ever equals the reach of their intentions, look out. preventing that should be the goal of western policy......blocking that, and ramping up the threat to Europe, the US, the Sunni Arab states, and yes, Israel, is the reason China and Russia are assisting Iran and egging her on.

you obviously don't understand what a conspiracy is, in the first place. Iran can't conspire with itself.

it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to listen to what Iran explicitly says it wants to do, see a country that is floating on a sea of oil and gas spend a huge part of its GDP and resist years of sanctions to purse a nuclear program that makes zero sense for peaceful uses, and refuses international inspections which could verify the claim.

exactly....anybody who buys the story that they need to spend a huge chunk of GDP to generate nuclear electric power is just looking for a reason to deny reality.

Radiology also requires a nuclear program.

ive gotta save that one for posterity......Hawk you truly lack any critical thinking ability, no wonder you decided not to be a cop, lawyer or psychologist and instead became a teacher....

The difference is that I distrust all Governments equally and most of you guys distrust our Government the most.

In my mind, the American Government isn't trustworthy AND the Iranian Government isn't trustworthy AND the Israeli Government isn't trustworthy.

The way most of your boys talk is that Israel and our Government are not trustworthy. Iran? Bah, thems good ol' boys! Wouldn't hurt a fly!

you dont build a nuke to get the stuff yah need cause your gonna build some x-rays.......thats like buying a plane to get free peanuts.....

But there's no evidence they're building a nuke.

Steve and HAJ,

Thanks for the replies.

Where I stand on it is that even if we were in a position to initiate another major war, and we are not, a nuclear Iran is not a reason to do so. If anything, it will be a stabilizing influence on the region, much as it has been for India/Pak.

....... and the neurologist just told me I can probably ski this winter, so I am one happy dude! WAY to happy to talk politics. Y'all will have to carry on without my brilliant and insightful commentary.........

your not serious? so now your stance is Iran doesnt have a research reactor and hasnt been enriching uranium? [bleep] me they say they have, hell we gave them the reactor in '67......

no was using your reference to a nuclear power plant......

So radiology isn't among the potential uses for enriched uranium?

Finally, someone in the current regiem that admits there are terrorist coming over the border. Duh!! How many terroists does it take to kill and innocent American? I'd say just one. And, one is too many. Come on Janet. Pull you head out of your rear. Jeez! kwg

The Israelis are happy to be sure but evidently they already feel comfortable with or see no less support from BHO. Yesterday the Israeli ambassador to the UK was questioned regarding Romney's speech and he stated that it was good to hear the same view on Iran as BHO's which is we cannot be satisfied with containment but must work for the prevention of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

Nobody it's not my business.

I support Israel. I'll be voting for Mitt.