so this guy has been all over the news for quite some time.
heres a few highlights
Ahmadinejad/IRAN:
- He has asked peace talks with the US numerous times, and washington has refused. He even offered to halt his uranium project, in order to be able to speak with the US. He has said numerous times that his intentions are not to use uranium for weapons,. but for peaceful purposes. so it basically looks like (and he has also said it), he just wants to be left alone. Have no nuclear weapons. many experts say iran still needs around 10 yrs to actually be able to produce a nuke. uranium enrichment is only one of the first steps to produce a nuke.
Bush/USA:
- continues to give iran "deadlines" to halt their project. Has threatened with economic sanctions numerous times (along with the UN). refuses to speak with iranian president. Has a history of meddling in world affairs. own an arsenals of nuclear weapons.
so who else finds something wrong with this picture? why can we play with nuclear energy, and they cant? is this some sort of god given right? from what ive read, iran has actually been trying to settle this like adults, by talking. on the other hand, bush throws a fit everytime he is asked to start "negotiations" with iran, pretty childish if u ask me.
so my opinion on this, iran has the right to use nuclear energy, and if they want nuclear weapons, they also have the right to have those. Korean dude has em, and he has never attacked us, its just peace of mind for him in case the US ever tries to invade his country. IMO, that is all Iran wants, to feel safe and protected against a US invasion. after invading 2 countries in less than 5 yrs, I would be worried too if I was the leader of some mideastern country.
oh yeah apparently, Ahmedinejad is already fed up with this and has spoken against the US/Israel. I would be fed up too if someone had been constantly harrasing me ..
heres the link
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.un/index.html
he seems to make sense for the most part, well at least in my personal opinion.
Two things...
Number One:
The difference is that Ahmadinejad heads an unstable country in an extremely volatile region. A lot of Iranians do not like the conservative Ayatollahs and the repressions they're suffering. Did you know that Iran was one of the only places in the Islamic world where they had spontaneous candlelight vigils on 9/11? It's also the only place where the people have spoken out against terrorists in masse. So if there's a pro-freedom revolution and the country is knocked over by a coup what's going to happen to those nukes? Lotta short tempers in that corner of the world. Bad things happen when you're angry enough.
Number Two:
I don't think missilles are the United-States biggest (or only) worry. I think the fact that Iran might build this is what keeps them up at night.
One of the smallest nuclear weapons ever wielded, the Davy Crockett was developed in the late 1950s for use against Soviet troops in West Germany. Small teams of the Atomic Battle Group (charged with operating the device) would be stationed every few kilometers to guard against Soviet attack, using the power of their nuclear artillery shells to kill or incapacitate advancing troop formations and irradiate the area so that it was uninhabitable for up to 48 hours, long enough to mobilize NATO-Forces.
U.S. officials view a Davy Crocket casing.The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield of 10 or 20 tons (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead). The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was actually inserted into the launcher's barrel for firing.
The Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (120 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew.
Both recoilless rifles proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 meters).
That was 1950's era technology. I think Iran can swing it. Get a few hundred of those things in Iraq and we're going to enter a new exciting era of low-level nuclear war.
There's a LOT more to developing a nucelar weapon than just being able to enrich the Uranium and bring it into proximity to the Plutonium.
Iran hasn't got that capability juuuuuuust yet.
I wouldn't give them a pass, but I would be certain to try and foster pro-democratic ideaology there. Iran is a near-failed state (like Pakistan and a lot of other mid-east), so you're basically looking at a time when it's either going to right down the crapper, or it could be rebuilt. I think beating the war drums towards Iran would be as successful an adventure as the one that's currently going on in Iraq.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:There's a LOT more to developing a nucelar weapon than just being able to enrich the Uranium and bring it into proximity to the Plutonium.
Iran hasn't got that capability juuuuuuust yet.
I wouldn't give them a pass, but I would be certain to try and foster pro-democratic ideaology there. Iran is a near-failed state (like Pakistan and a lot of other mid-east), so you're basically looking at a time when it's either going to right down the crapper, or it could be rebuilt. I think beating the war drums towards Iran would be as successful an adventure as the one that's currently going on in Iraq.
I'd be totally against a war with Iran since there are so many pro-Western people there, as odd as that sounds. Of all the Islamic countries, it's the only one where the people 100% believe that there's been no Western influence and they're kind of bummed that their government is still crappy. Attacking them would just turn them against us. Best not to attempt an attack unless there's a direct threat. In any case, even if Iran went nuclear it'd be no danger to us in America. Let the Europeans worry and go to war with them. They're the ones who'd be most likely to get bombs dropped on their heads.
One thing we don't see is what he say in Iran. He has said on Iran TV that he want to kill americans and Jew but when he come on our side of the world he sings a different story. People from Iran have also said that he is preparing for the 12th Iman that will bring the end of the world. He has stated that Islam will rule the world and there will be 1000 years of peace under islamic rule and he would try to bring the events that will facilitate this. It is a shame we don't hear much of these statement he makes. They are rebuilding a temple for his return in Iran. Some of us need to looke deeper that what we are being told in the Media.
Anyone listened to the Speeches at the UN. He came came here and blasted us. He said a prayer at the UN. I am still trying to understand what he siad because it is not you everyday prayer. This guy is intelligent and know what to say to who so not to rub us the wrong way.
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
A few things from my point of view...
We don't have the troops or resources to march into Iran. We're already depleted. And the US population will NOT tolerate a draft to invade yet another country that hasn't attacked us.
The US didn't expect the USSR to develop atomic weapons as fast as they did, so I don't give any credence to their estimates. Further, you don't know how much help North Korea is giving them. It's pretty clear NK does give them SOME help militarily.
Other than that, I don't know what to think.
---
well then we have another problem, i we go to war with iran, we do not ONLY got to war with them. what about cuba? venezuela? korea? we're pretty much screwed if this happens, IMO
There is no easy answer for what is going on regardless what they say. Either way we will be in trouble. We don't do anything we are held hostage to these people and if we pull out it shows the world and these guys we are easily pushed over. We continue to risk the chance to attacks on us because regardless of what we do they still don't like us. So there is no simple way we are going piss someone off. As the saying goes "you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time"
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
Orlandomon wrote:well then we have another problem, i we go to war with iran, we do not ONLY got to war with them. what about cuba? venezuela? korea? we're pretty much screwed if this happens, IMO
Cuba hasn't been a threat for a long time. I don't understand why they are still "the enemy." Yeah they're communist, and so is China. But we're real buddy-buddy with China - and though economic exchange with them, their economy is basically more capitalist than communist now. So what worked on China won't work on Cuba?
I mean c'mon they're our basically next door and we still shun them over spilled milk. Now we even have a terrorist detention camp IN CUBA - so doesn't that kinda make them an ally against terrorism? That is one thing I never understood about this administration.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Bastardking3000 wrote:Cuba hasn't been a threat for a long time. I don't understand why they are still "the enemy." Yeah they're communist, and so is China. But we're real buddy-buddy with China - and though economic exchange with them, their economy is basically more capitalist than communist now. So what worked on China won't work on Cuba?
I mean c'mon they're our basically next door and we still shun them over spilled milk. Now we even have a terrorist detention camp IN CUBA - so doesn't that kinda make them an ally against terrorism? That is one thing I never understood about this administration.
A lot of rich Cubans in Miami are waiting for Castro to die so they can invade the country with mercenaries commit a coup and retake all the land that Castro took in the revolution. Never mind that it's all appartment buildings, hospitals, factories and whatall now. Anyway, all these people pledge their vote (and money) to whoever makes sure that Cuba remains the enemy and that no diplomatic relations be attempted. It's basically the same sort of thing that happens with Israel only somwhat reversed.
As for the detention camp in Cuba, that's land rented from long before the Communists took over. The US pays Fidel rent and they legally get to stay there.
The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area. The current Cuban government rejects the Cuban-American Treaty on the grounds that it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and therefore considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area. However, this article declares a treaty void only if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of international law
I agree on cuba not being a threat. they also just want to be left alone, but for some reason the US keeps harrassing
them...
I don't like Iran any more than the next guy, but refusing to negotiate one on one is pretentious and ignorant. What does it hurt to hear them out? If you don't come to an agreement it's ok, but talking would show that you are not being unreasonable. Although I don't hate this country like Orlando does, I do think this is a very bad move and it shows how egotistical and unreasonable our president is.
_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marijuana.
-Gun control kills!
huh? i never said i hated this country. after all, i am an american also. I dont agree with 90% of what this country does but I never said I hated it. hating would be something like running around yelling death to US.. im just stating facts.
Well To be quite frank..I don't hate Iran ..But i don't trust there political leaders Either ..Nor do I think Our Government has the right to impose sanctions on every Country that doesn't have the same views as our own especially when you have the the dirty Politics that goes on in our own country..We are living in an age were fear rules our lives especially in the higher ranks of the Government and I think that eventually it will be our Country's undoing with other world leaders..
In most cases, sactions are a prelude to war. Santions almost never hurt the governments of the countries they are imposed on but certainly do hurt the citizens. There is very little good that can come of it, the success rate is extremely low.
PAX
I know there are so many difference but the best way to tear a country apart is to divide and conquer. The US has done that before we need to be careful with all that we do here because the rest of the world is watching us. YOu would not carry your families personal business for the rest of your community to just laugh at you. Strong families regardless of the problems will stand up for their each other regardless of what they have done. Imgaine someone dissed your family would you side with them and continue to diss them. That would be just wrong
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
that thing about the experts saying that their is still 10 years for iran to become a threat with nuclear power ..yeah..that was said like 6 years ago. so do they math and we have 4years left some other so called experts say they could have it done as soon as this april. they have already found paperwork tellign them how to make warheads of course it was in a different language korean i believe but could have been russia. and as for china we are not buddy buddy with china we are more like you stay over their we will stay over here, more aquintance then friends. we are buddy buddy with japan though.
do you really want someone that preaches that Islam ruled the world once it will do it again. to have nuclear power? they don't want to just take over isreal they want to take it off the map they want every jew to die. They praise the day that the european countries and the united states are islamic countries. This guy is a nut job. as for cuba yeah i don't see them as a very big threat. and venesula isn't much of a threat either mor elike a pain in the A$$.
Gabe:
First off, intelligence estimates from 10 years ago neglected to include the fact that most Iranian reactors are not capable of making weapons grade isotopes. They have German and (don't quote me on this, I'm going from memory) home-grown nuclear power. The point of these reactors and their enrichment facilities is not to enrich to bomb-grade... you need enriched Uranium to make the domestic power reactors actually work properly. To retrofit to make stable bomb-grade would mean shutting one of the facilities down, retrofitting (which it can't do, even NK isn't producing stable isotopes in quantity yet), and spinning up to test and then full manufacturing ability. This isn't something that you do in a weekend.
If you want to make a warhead, you can find it in most Physics books... you only need a way to make the uranium explode uniformly with the Plutonium (using TNT) and you have yourself a nuclear device. Hell, the Soviets had tactical "Suitcase" bombs, it's not unreasonable to think the US didn't also have them. Who knows where they all are?
As far as China goes: China can put their thumb on NK if they get beligerant enough, they have the largest standing army on the planet, Nuclear weapons and Soviet equivalent aircraft and training. Numbers alone would wipe NK off the map.
Finally: The current president has to do 2 things in Iran to keep it in check, and make their future a little more rosey,
1. Keep fundamentalism at a minimum,
2. Keep the rest of the world from interfering with and disrupting their internal and international business.
I also have yet to read a comment attributed to him saying what you're stating. No world leader is that asinine.
BTW, Venezuela has the right to refuse business to whomever they please... Just like the way Canada is, 20 Billion dollars worth of oil contracts inked this year... with China.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
call me crazy, but i like hugo chavez. I think he's funny. if u understand spanish and have watched his weekly show, you ll know what i mean by funny, and yesi mean funny like LOL, hes a natural comedian.
but anyways, aside from him calling bush the devil, and some other absurd things hes said. I think that looking at tthe big picture, he seems, to make alot of sense. i believe he does have a right to be on the UN, why wouldnt he? because he has a different point of view than the us? last time i checked, when people put many different opinions into something, they can come up with an unbiased solution, or they end up calling each other every name in the dictionary.
Or Pat Robertson asks God to kill them... Either way, it's good for a laugh.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
*bow*
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
funny
i just wanna add something i read in my local newspaper today, (el paso times). apparently, venezuela is one of the worlds biggest oil produces. hes among the top 15 or something.
This is what caught my eye, he said he is a friend of the american people, not the american administration. the article stated that Chavez donates millions of dollars in crude oil to 18 states in our country, to help poor people have heat during the winter. if this is true, which i dont doubt it is, this ones definitely a good guy.
heres a link:
http://elpasotimes.com/search/ci_4380647
sorry i couldnt find an english version, but im sure at least some of u can read.
Heh.. Yeah, I think Venezuela accounts for about 1-5% of the US's daily diet of oil products.
It's not like there is a Venezuelan ministry for giving to poor or under privelidged Americans, but there are probably stipulations in the provisions contracts.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
