US planning air strikes on Iran

[DeusExMachina]

Then Jeb Bush? D:

Nope, Guliani or McCain . Hopefully...

 

[CptStern]

No, the Shehab 3 and Fajr 3 have everything to do with this thread. Why is the United States planning airstrikes against Irans Nuclear Capabilities?

Its because of those missle programs.

missles that will hold what exactly?

according to the IAEA iran is 5-10 years away from having enough enriched uranium for a single missle ...so how exactly does your point fit into this?


even if they had those missles you say they had, even if they developed a deployable nuclear bomb, even if it was a dozen nukes ..who gives you the right to invade? If anything, the US should be invaded, they are more of a danger to world stability than any other nation ..the US has invaded nations with absolutely NO justification, the US has used nukes on two seperate occasions, killing almost half a million civilians in the process ..and you say a handful of lunatics with a handful of weapons are a threat to world peace, give me a ****ing break

 

[B_MAN]

The Date on that Article is well after the US/Iran relations went down the toilet. I see no difference in this response, or Irans.

Its scaring me both.

the US points the finger at Iran, North Korea, Iraq etc
but at the same time, they're doing their best to jumpstart their own nuclear program
basically they're saying, we can have it but you can't

instead of always flexing their military and economical muscle around the globe, why dont they strive to find peaceful solutions to growing concerns?
that way maybe there wouldnt always be a steady increase in international animosity towards them
they need to stop being the bully.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

missles that will hold what exactly?

In my articles they cite that the Shehab and Fajr [an off shoot of the Shehab with a more powerful engine] are capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads as far as Turkey.

They do not need an ICBM to target Israel, or an ICBM to mount a Nuclear Warhead.

The preplanning of military airstrikes is indeed a reply to the Farj program, which threatens Israel's Missle Shield. Iran has always stated it would eliminate Israel, and frankly, I would'nt want that to occur.

If your looking for a comment on nuclear airstrikes against Iran, I DON'T WANT THAT TO OCCUR EITHER.

instead of always flexing their military and economical muscle around the globe, why dont they strive to find peaceful solutions to growing concerns?
that way maybe there wouldnt always be a steady increase in international animosity towards them
they need to stop being the bully.

They all need to stop being bullies and learn how to coexist. I can't believe some people on this earth see it feasible to genocide another group of people simply because of they're beliefs.

 

[CptStern]

In my articles they cite that the Shehab and Fajr [an off shoot of the Shehab with a more powerful engine] are capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads as far as Turkey.

They do not need an ICBM to target Israel, or an ICBM to mount a Nuclear Warhead.

The preplanning of military airstrikes is indeed a reply to the Farj program, which threatens Israel's Missle Shield. Iran has always stated it would eliminate Israel, and frankly, I would'nt want that to occur.

If your looking for a comment on nuclear airstrikes against Iran, I DON'T WANT THAT TO OCCUR EITHER.

again kerberos, take the time to fully read my post before hitting that reply button ..what exactly are they going to put in those missles? daisies?

missles that will hold what exactly?

according to the IAEA iran is 5-10 years away from having enough enriched uranium for a single missle ...so how exactly does your point fit into this?


even if they had those missles you say they had, even if they developed a deployable nuclear bomb, even if it was a dozen nukes ..who gives you the right to invade? If anything, the US should be invaded, they are more of a danger to world stability than any other nation ..the US has invaded nations with absolutely NO justification, the US has used nukes on two seperate occasions, killing almost half a million civilians in the process ..and you say a handful of lunatics with a handful of weapons are a threat to world peace, give me a ****ing break

 

[K e r b e r o s]

again kerberos, take the time to fully read my post before hitting that reply button ..what exactly are they going to put in those missles? daisys?

Why does Iran need Shehabs and Fajr's? Both are capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads, and this is not ignoring the fact Iran has already procured them, or at least developed enough prototypes in its own capacity.

This is also ignoring the fact the Shehab and Fajr's can mount Chemical and Biological Warheads, or Conventional Explosive Warheads. The Fajr can carry a multiple warhead payload, which means it can target Israeli bases and civilian dwellings.

According to the tests, the Fajr is accurate and probably one of most advanced missle systems ever produced.

If this information is true, Israel's in for a lot of shit, so is the Coalition in Iraq, aswell as the Iraqi's themselves.

 

[Remus]

No coment

 

[CptStern]

Why does Iran need Shehabs and Fajr's? Both are capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads, and this is not ignoring the fact Iran has already procured them, or at least developed enough prototypes in its own capacity.

again who cares ...without nuclear material they're just conventional missles ...the US has far far worse, as does israel

This is also ignoring the fact the Shehab and Fajr's can mount Chemical and Biological Warheads, or Conventional Explosive Warheads. The Fajr can carry a multiple warhead payload, which means it can target Israeli bases and civilian dwellings.

yes just like bush said about iraq's missle capabilities ..we knew this to be true when the US invaded iraq and saddam sent dozens of missles loaded with anthrax, serin toxin, bubonic plague, coodies and std's at israel, who suffered huge losses of life

According to the tests, the Fajr is accurate and probably one of most advanced missle systems ever produced.

funny how they've yet to use them ...still wouldnt stand a chance against the US' nukes ..which is the most advanced missle system in the worlsd

If this information is true, Israel's in for a lot of shit, so is the Coalition in Iraq, aswell as the Iraqi's themselves.

you're completely blind ..wtf did you learn nothing from iraq? I can guarentee should the US attack iran, the gloves will come off ..there will be reprisal attacks against the US for decades that will make 9/11 look like a freakin picnic in comparison ..you are participating in your own doom

 

[K e r b e r o s]

again who cares ...without nuclear material they're just conventional missles ...the US has far far worse, as does israel

The US has its Nuclear Stockpile thanks to the Cold War. A war it did'nt start, but indeed helped to fuel.

Israel has its stockpile to deter other middle-eastern nations from attacking it.

Iran has vowed to destroy, and even if they're unconventional, those missles are capable of carrying a large payload. One of these missles with its original armament could clear two blocks of houses (or barracks), and possibly more.

The Shehab is capable of mounting High Explosive Warheads, which are more then capable enough to do just that.

yes just like bush said about iraq's missle capabilities

Bush's banter was about WMD's Iraq never had. Bush's banter was about missle systems that were scrambled from as soon as Coalition Fighters took to the skies.

I also don't think anyone anticipated their President to have lied.

Iran has that capability, and damn, do I hate saying that again.

funny how they've yet to use them

They've already tested them, and have planned on using them. Did you read that quote from Irans Interior Ministry I provided?

you're completely blind ..wtf did you learn nothing from iraq

We're not blind. So, you want us to allow Iran to develope a Nuclear Stockpile? Because it will -- there's no denying that a country whose ever had a chance to do so, has'nt.

I can guarentee should the US attack iran, the gloves will come off ..there will be reprisal attacks against the US for decades that will make 9/11 look like a freakin picnic in comparison ..you are participating in your own doom

You can guarentee, from whom? From, who I should say. As for those attacks, care to tell us what they are and how they will happen? I think you already know somethings in place.

 

[Gray Fox]

with nukes? that's ok by you? did you read the links posted? did you watch the video? nuke bunker busting is ineffective and dangerous ...not too mention that even if Iran continues t work towards nuclear warheads it's at least a decade away from when they would produce their first nuke capable warhead ...funny how short people's memories are ..this is exactly the justification the US used with Iraq ..and we all know how badly that turned out

It does not need to be with nukes, simply bomb it with conventional bombs.
And according to the CIA Iran will be able to produce nukes in 3 to 5 years.
The differance between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq did not have plans to make WMD's, while Iran has. Everyone knows Iran is building nukes just like NK is. As much as I disagree with most of Bush policies, I would not like a country like Iran to have nukes.
Now if your thinking about saying to that I'm a hypocrit cause the US supports Israel, another country which has illegally build nukes. Well don't, cause if I was in power i would have done something about that to, or and there would have not been an invasion of Iraq. Simply do not attribute PNAC policies to me. I do not want a country like iran to have nukes, it's that simply. it may be unfair, but Iran is much much more dangerouse then the US.

P.S. and yes I do know that Iraq proved that having WMD's would safe you from a US invasion, cause if saddam had those, and threatend to use them, no way would Iraq have been invaded, so i can udnerstand why Iran wants nukes. But I still would bomb their sites, but then again under me they would not have to fear an invasion.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I do not want a country like iran to have nukes, it's that simply. it may be unfair, but Iran is much much more dangerouse then the US.

Exactly.

Also, don't put those PNAC Policies on my shoulders either.

I hate the circumstances the world is in, but I fight it like I have no choice.

 

[B_MAN]

I do not want a country like iran to have nukes, it's that simply. it may be unfair, but Iran is much much more dangerouse then the US.

how can you be so sure? do you have any examples of them being more dangerous?
id be willing to bet you believe this because thats what the mainstream media has spoonfed you over and over again

oh no, thats right, Iran was the nation that travelled across the globe and invaded a country on the pretext of supposed WMD that threatened 'democracy and freedom'
and, in doing so, took the lives of countless innocent civilians
right
yeah, that was Iran... not the US

 

[Gray Fox]

how can you be so sure? do you have any examples of them being more dangerous?
id be willing to bet you believe this because thats what the mainstream media has spoonfed you over and over again

oh no, thats right, Iran was the nation that travelled across the globe and invaded a country on the pretext of supposed WMD that threatened 'democracy and freedom'
and, in doing so, took the lives of countless innocent civilians
right
yeah, that was Iran... not the US

Does Iran have the power to do that, can Iran spend 400/500 billion dollars a year on the military, does Iran have nukes, is Iran a superpower. By letting them get nukes you are giving them one more ingredient needed to become a local superpower, if Iran was in the position the US is now, we would be all speaking arabic, and repeating verses from the koran dozens times a day. In relatieve terms Iran is a lot worse. What the US did in Iraq is bad, but hell Iran threats it's own people a lot worse then the US threats the iraqi people, Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to what happens in Iranian prisons.
And as far as your comment on the media, I could say the same thing about what you said about the US. How do you know they are really that bad, maybe there were WMD's in Iraq, but the "liberal" media never reported it.
Or we could both just see the folly in using such arguments and leave them out of a conversation.

 

[ríomhaire]

You can guarentee, from whom? From, who I should say. As for those attacks, care to tell us what they are and how they will happen? I think you already know somethings in place.

If you don't honestly believe a US attack on Iran will increase terrorist attacks you are incredibly naive. If you believe that Stern is part of attacks then you're just paranoid.

 

[kaf11]

What terrible news. I find it very sad that I encounter Americans who would happily support military action in Iran based on lies similar to those used to gain support to invade Iraq. There are many of us in America who will certainly not stand for this. I just hope that we are heard this time around.

 

[CptStern]

It does not need to be with nukes, simply bomb it with conventional bombs.

who gives them a right to strike whom they please? pre-emptive strikes are contrary to international law ..do you really want to escalate global tension and jeopordize millions of lives on the say so of the US? the US doesnt exactly have the best reputation for telling the truth.

And according to the CIA Iran will be able to produce nukes in 3 to 5 years.

according to the CIA saddam was capable of launching nukes within 45 minutes. Sorry i'll take the IAEA's word for it before I listen to the CIA

The differance between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq did not have plans to make WMD's, while Iran has.

not according to the bush admin pre invasion:

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

Everyone knows Iran is building nukes just like NK is.

and if they were? it's their right as a signatory to the non proliferation act ..why doesnt the US act against israel? their clandestine nuke program has NO obligations to meet any sort of international rules and regulations

As much as I disagree with most of Bush policies, I would not like a country like Iran to have nukes.

it doesnt matter what you want or the what the US wants ..pre-emptive strikes are illegal ...do you really want to plunge the world into a war that will kill potentially millions on the say so of a country that not 3 years completely destroyed iraq with absolutely not one shred of evidence?

Now if your thinking about saying to that I'm a hypocrit cause the US supports Israel, another country which has illegally build nukes. Well don't, cause if I was in power i would have done something about that to, or and there would have not been an invasion of Iraq. Simply do not attribute PNAC policies to me. I do not want a country like iran to have nukes, it's that simply. it may be unfair, but Iran is much much more dangerouse then the US.

this isnt the schoolyard, this is the international stage where people's lives hang in the balance ..global stability is much more important than the needs of the US. It cannot be allowed to run rampant and do whatever it pleases

P.S. and yes I do know that Iraq proved that having WMD's would safe you from a US invasion, cause if saddam had those, and threatend to use them, no way would Iraq have been invaded, so i can udnerstand why Iran wants nukes. But I still would bomb their sites, but then again under me they would not have to fear an invasion.

I'm glad you brought that up ..what did you expect? the US has consistantly shown that it has utter contempt for international law and will get their way by any means necessary ..for rogue states like iran the only defense is a strong offense ..they're literally pushing them up against a wall

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think we probably should've gone after Iran's leadership rather than Iraq, if I could go back in time and have influence I'd change things around.

A free Iran could've spurred a successful Iraqi rebellion likely (with massive US aid and such still, but not a commitment of regular forces en mass)

 

[CptStern]

I think we probably should've gone after Iran's leadership rather than Iraq, if I could go back in time and have influence I'd change things around.

A free Iran could've spurred a successful Iraqi rebellion likely (with massive US aid and such still, but not a commitment of regular forces en mass)

what makes you think iran wouldnt be another iraq? iran wasnt softened by 12 years of crippling sanctions and bombing

 

[Teta_Bonita]

:O

I guess all that america bashing has finally payed off, stern.

 

[DeusExMachina]

what makes you think iran wouldnt be another iraq? iran wasnt softened by 12 years of crippling sanctions and bombing

What makes you think it would? You're too cynical.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

what makes you think iran wouldnt be another iraq? iran wasnt softened by 12 years of crippling sanctions and bombing

Military action in Iraq definately didn't have to turn out how it has today. At a boots on the ground level operations have gone off as best as they possibly could. How the civillian leadership utilizes that skill has been a cluster****.

Automatic army disbanding was the biggest mistake I suppose.

Suppose things were went about right in Iran, and not pussyfooted around (saving many more lives in the process than did in Iraq) it would've gone off without a hitch.

Iraq unfortunately is cluster****ed. Bush has failed in managing the situation and hopefully someone like McCain or Giuliani can salvage it. A complete troop withdrawal immediately makes things worse, but the current course of action does too. Staying the course is now idiocy. We need to adapt the course. The military has very well to the situation it is put in- the leadership has not in the least.

 

[Gunner]

Does Iran have the power to do that, can Iran spend 400/500 billion dollars a year on the military, does Iran have nukes, is Iran a superpower. By letting them get nukes you are giving them one more ingredient needed to become a local superpower, if Iran was in the position the US is now, we would be all speaking arabic and repeating verses from the koran dozens times a day. In relatieve terms Iran is a lot worse. What the US did in Iraq is bad, but hell Iran threats it's own people a lot worse then the US threats the iraqi people, Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to what happens in Iranian prisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi

Iran is not an arab nation.

Oh and before you warmongers demand more bloodshed, remember that the current regime in Iran is america's doing, more blowback for you to enjoy on CNN.

 

[B_MAN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi

Iran is not an arab nation.

Oh and before you warmongers demand more bloodshed, remember that the current regime in Iran is america's doing, more blowback for you to enjoy on CNN.

nice.
:smoking:

 

[15357]

Stop planning and get it done.


Ahem.

Yeeah, I'll leave now. :0

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I've just read this thread through.

Can we please please agree that K e r b e r o s needs to shut the hell up.
Argue points for gods sakes, dont just insult the guy your argueing with.

Its childish and very very annoying.

 

[DeusExMachina]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi

Iran is not an arab nation.

Oh and before you warmongers demand more bloodshed, remember that the current regime in Iran is america's doing, more blowback for you to enjoy on CNN.

Who the hell are you calling warmongers? Is someone making assumptions?

 

[Gray Fox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi

Iran is not an arab nation.

Oh and before you warmongers demand more bloodshed, remember that the current regime in Iran is america's doing, more blowback for you to enjoy on CNN.

So what if it america's doing, shit happens. The us has created a lot of extremist terrorist with it's policies, does that mean I want them to have nukes, **** no.

 

[CptStern]

shit happens? are you pulling my leg? they overthrew a democratically elected left leaning secular government ..and installed a brutal dictator who's secret police (SAVAK) murdered hundreds of people

 

[Gray Fox]

shit happens? are you pulling my leg? they overthrew a democratically elected left leaning secular government ..and installed a brutal dictator who's secret police (SAVAK) murdered hundreds of people

Yes I would consider that shitty/bad. Don't you.

Now i was writing anwsers to your previous post here it go's.

who gives them a right to strike whom they please? pre-emptive strikes are contrary to international law ..do you really want to escalate global tension and jeopordize millions of lives on the say so of the US? the US doesnt exactly have the best reputation for telling the truth.

The global tension wil be even more so if Iran had nukes and there would be a lot more lives in jeopardy.



according to the CIA saddam was capable of launching nukes within 45 minutes. Sorry i'll take the IAEA's word for it before I listen to the CIA

Then take IAEA"S word for it, they themselves are saying that Iran has not been forthright, is uncooperatieve, and is hiding something.

not according to the bush admin pre invasion:

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

So they lied, simple as that. But in the case of Iran the US isn't the only one saying that Iran is headed in the direction, a lot of european leaders are to. Iraq did not have nuclear reactor fitted to produce weapons grade plutonium. Iran does not need those kind of reactors just for nuclear energy.



and if they were? it's their right as a signatory to the non proliferation act ..why doesnt the US act against israel? their clandestine nuke program has NO obligations to meet any sort of international rules and regulations

That the US does not act against one ****ed-up nation does not mean it should leave another one alone. I'd rather have one crackpot nation have nukes then 2 crackpot nations have nukes.


it doesnt matter what you want or the what the US wants ..pre-emptive strikes are illegal ...do you really want to plunge the world into a war that will kill potentially millions on the say so of a country that not 3 years completely destroyed iraq with absolutely not one shred of evidence?
How will millions die of an airstrke at a Nuclear facility.
What world war would there be, if the world did not act upon Iraq then they shure as hell will not act if Iran gets airstikes on a nuclear facility. Infact a lot might be happy, even muslim countries, they aren't exactly all friendly vs eachother in that region. The same would happend there that happend when India gained Nukes, it will start an arms race with more nations getting nukes, and each one will say in turn, why strike on us when you let Iran have nukes, why can't we


this isnt the schoolyard, this is the international stage where people's lives hang in the balance ..global stability is much more important than the needs of the US. It cannot be allowed to run rampant and do whatever it pleases

I have no idea how that was an anwser to my argument, but you are right, the world stage is no schoolyard, and we shoull leave the idealictic bullshit behind in the real world and simply see it as it is. As at stands now the world is far better of with Iran not having nukes then iran having nukes.


I'm glad you brought that up ..what did you expect? the US has consistantly shown that it has utter contempt for international law and will get their way by any means necessary ..for rogue states like iran the only defense is a strong offense ..they're literally pushing them up against a wall

 

[CptStern]

Yes I would consider that shitty/bad. Don't you.

Now i was writing anwsers to your previous post here it go's.

could you reply without putting both my quotes and your replies in a single quote? makes it that much more difficult to read/reply to

The global tension wil be even more so if Iran had nukes and there would be a lot more lives in jeopardy.

you didnt answer my question:

who gives them a right to strike whom they please? pre-emptive strikes are contrary to international law .

again what right do they have?

Then take IAEA"S word for it, they themselves are saying that Iran has not been forthright, is uncooperatieve, and is hiding something.

and? how does that justify invasion ..the US does the same, does that justify invasion of the US?

So they lied, simple as that.

what the hell do you mean simple as that? hundreds of thousands of people died because of their lies, and you find this acceptable? because of those lies the US has zero credibility in international affairs, even allies are weary of anything coming out of washington

But in the case of Iran the US isn't the only one saying that Iran is headed in the direction, a lot of european leaders are to.

and? how does this justify invasion? The EU has said invasion is NOT an option ..Iran is voluntarily complying with inspectors even though they are not obligated to do so

Iraq did not have nuclear reactor fitted to produce weapons grade plutonium. Iran does not need those kind of reactors just for nuclear energy.

propaganda lies:

The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.

Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.

Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ("heavy water") facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.

State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (an alternative to fissile plutonium for bombs) or covert facilities for extracting plutonium. Neither of these claims are especially credible, since the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.

The testable part of the claim -- that the Bushehr reactor is a proliferation threat -- is demonstrably false. There are several reasons, some technical, some institutional.

--The Iranian reactor yields the wrong kind of plutonium for making bombs.

--The spent fuel pins in the Iranian reactor would, in any case, be too dangerous to handle for weapons manufacture.

--Any attempt to divert fuel from the Iranian plant will be detectable.

--The Russian partners in the Bushehr project have stipulated that the fuel pins must be returned to Russia, as has been their practice worldwide for other export reactors.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEE20060202&articleId=1877

How will millions die of an airstrke at a Nuclear facility.

so the US will just stop at that? ..destroy their weapons facilities and move on ...why didnt they do the same for Saddam?

What world war would there be, if the world did not act upon Iraq then they shure as hell will not act if Iran gets airstikes on a nuclear facility. Infact a lot might be happy, even muslim countries, they aren't exactly all friendly vs eachother in that region. The same would happend there that happend when India gained Nukes, it will start an arms race with more nations getting nukes, and each one will say in turn, why strike on us when you let Iran have nukes, why can't we

and who exactly are they going to get the materials from ...it's taken Iran almost 30 years to get their reactors online ..another 10 to produce enough uranium to fuel 1 nuke ...one. So remind me again how this will lead to a middle east arms race?

 

[jverne]

What would happen if a more powerful (modern and advanced) nation wanted to take your (US) all of your nukes and weaponry? i'll laugh so much when that happens!

picture this: on the halflife4.net forums there will be the debate

"XXXYYY planning air strikes on USA"

and someone like grey fox will say: "i'm really worried that such a crackpot like the US has nukes! we should blow them up!"


would you like that you arrogant, etnocentric asshole?! ha?

 

[Gray Fox]

What would happen if a more powerful (modern and advanced) nation wanted to take your (US) all of your nukes and weaponry? i'll laugh so much when that happens!

picture this: on the halflife4.net forums there will be the debate

"XXXYYY planning air strikes on USA"

and someone like grey fox will say: "i'm really worried that such a crackpot like the US has nukes! we should blow them up!"


would you like that you arrogant, etnocentric asshole?! ha?

Ethnocentric assholes do not care to use agruments in a discussion, they percieve their own right of opinion in their own perceieved superiority, and that is enough for them to justify their believes and or reasons. I do not do that, I'm simply stating my opinion, and I base it on reasonable arguments that can be counterd.

 

[Gray Fox]

you didnt answer my question:

I do not know if they have a right do so, probably not by international law. They did sign the nuclear non-proliferation threaty, but as far as I know that still doesn't prohibit them from enriching uranium. But what do they need to enrich uranium for if they only want peacfull nuke energy.
Now no country recieved permission by the security council to act in darfur, I was still for a military intervention there. The same is true for the genocide between the tutsi's and hutti's. What I am trying to say, even if an action is strictly illegal by international law and does not have the support of the security council it does not mean for me that I do not want it to happen. In this case, Iran having nukes is for me a far worse scenario then the consequences of the US attacking it's facilities. Mostly because a country like Iran is filled with people prepared to sacrefice themselves so something like MAD does not work on those countries, Iran is a far greater risk with nukes then the US, then the USSR was under Stalin.

and? how does that justify invasion ..the US does the same, does that justify invasion of the US?

Does the US do that. I haven't seen the IAEA complain about the US. I don't know maybe the bunkerbuster. Okay thats pretty bad, there should be sanctions against the US. But considering the US has 10 megaton startegic nukes, has good security, and thus less chances of those nukes getting in terrosirst hands. Do bunkerbusters don't really add much more to the danger then, no not in my opinion.

what the hell do you mean simple as that? hundreds of thousands of people died because of their lies, and you find this acceptable? because of those lies the US has zero credibility in international affairs, even allies are weary of anything coming out of washington

So it's still a plain and simply lie, thats all i stated. I never stated that was acceptable, nor anything close to that. Again what do you hope to achieve by twisting and hyperboling my arguments and then attacking them. That the Us has zero crediblity means jack shit, when the EU and IAEA are also saying that Iran is most likely planning to make nukes.

and? how does this justify invasion? The EU has said invasion is NOT an option ..Iran is voluntarily complying with inspectors even though they are not obligated to do so

I'm not advocating a dammed invasion, why are you constantly twisting my arguments so you can more easly attack them. Now they do not need to comply with the inspections, but if they do not comply then the only information we have to base our actions on would be that from intelligents agencies. And they are not complying fully with inspections otherwise the IAEA would not bitch about them.

DICKEY: You´ve said you´re running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean?

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.

source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html

propaganda lies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by globalresearch.com
The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.

Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.

Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ("heavy water") facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.

State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (an alternative to fissile plutonium for bombs) or covert facilities for extracting plutonium. Neither of these claims are especially credible, since the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.

The testable part of the claim -- that the Bushehr reactor is a proliferation threat -- is demonstrably false. There are several reasons, some technical, some institutional.

--The Iranian reactor yields the wrong kind of plutonium for making bombs.

--The spent fuel pins in the Iranian reactor would, in any case, be too dangerous to handle for weapons manufacture.

--Any attempt to divert fuel from the Iranian plant will be detectable.

--The Russian partners in the Bushehr project have stipulated that the fuel pins must be returned to Russia, as has been their practice worldwide for other export reactors.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=1877

It's propagande when it comes from a leftwing site. It's pretty much a fact then the dammed IAEA is concerned weather or not Iran can make nukes. If the reasctors Iran has were not capable of enrishing uranium this whole thing would have ended with the IAEA inspecting the sitrs and comming to the same conclusion, but they did not, just like the rest of the dammed world.

and who exactly are they going to get the materials from ...it's taken Iran almost 30 years to get their reactors online ..another 10 to produce enough uranium to fuel 1 nuke ...one. So remind me again how this will lead to a middle east arms race?

Natural uranium is not har to get by, weapons grade plutonium is. but if you can enrish uranium thats not a problem. It took the us what 150 years since it;s creatin to get the first nuke, but when they got their first nuclear reactors that could enrish uranium it went really really fast. Same with Iran, it may have taken them a long way to come here, but now that they have the capability they can produce dozens of nukes in a couple of years.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Natural uranium is not har to get by, weapons grade plutonium is. but if you can enrish uranium thats not a problem. It took the us what 150 years since it;s creatin to get the first nuke, but when they got their first nuclear reactors that could enrish uranium it went really really fast. Same with Iran, it may have taken them a long way to come here, but now that they have the capability they can produce dozens of nukes in a couple of years.

Especially if they focus all their resources into producing one, they could have a prototype up within months.

 

[CptStern]

I do not know if they have a right do so, probably not by international law.

no they dont, but using 9/11 as a pretext they used that as a justification to attack iraq in 2003 ...this is the exact same situation

They did sign the nuclear non-proliferation threaty, but as far as I know that still doesn't prohibit them from enriching uranium.

no it doesnt:

"Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, obstensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

But what do they need to enrich uranium for if they only want peacfull nuke energy.

"Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, obstensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program"

Now no country recieved permission by the security council to act in darfur,

yes there's reasons for that but that's best left to another discussion

I was still for a military intervention there. The same is true for the genocide between the tutsi's and hutti's. What I am trying to say, even if an action is strictly illegal by international law and does not have the support of the security council it does not mean for me that I do not want it to happen. In this case, Iran having nukes is for me a far worse scenario then the consequences of the US attacking it's facilities. Mostly because a country like Iran is filled with people prepared to sacrefice themselves so something like MAD does not work on those countries, Iran is a far greater risk with nukes then the US, then the USSR was under Stalin.

again personal opinions play no part in this. What you think should be done doesnt make it the most viable course of action. Any US strike can be considered as a war crime because they have absolutely no justification except for an emotional one

Does the US do that. I haven't seen the IAEA complain about the US. I don't know maybe the bunkerbuster. Okay thats pretty bad, there should be sanctions against the US. But considering the US has 10 megaton startegic nukes, has good security, and thus less chances of those nukes getting in terrosirst hands. Do bunkerbusters don't really add much more to the danger then, no not in my opinion.

yes they do ..watch the animation

So it's still a plain and simply lie, thats all i stated. I never stated that was acceptable, nor anything close to that. Again what do you hope to achieve by twisting and hyperboling my arguments and then attacking them. That the Us has zero crediblity means jack shit, when the EU and IAEA are also saying that Iran is most likely planning to make nukes.

once a liar always a liar ..and IAEA isnt saying they are planning to make nukes, in fact they're saying the opposite is true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447_pf.html

The fundamental conclusion which constitutes the essence of the whole safeguards system pertaining to non diversion of nuclear material and activities to military purposes is, in the meantime, sustained. Since November when the Director General reported no evidence of diversion, a robust system of verification has been effectively and extensively in place. The conclusion remains the same. There is no evidence of diversion today; there will not be such evidence tomorrow, nor there will ever be such evidence or indication of diversion in the future.

I'm not advocating a dammed invasion, why are you constantly twisting my arguments so you can more easly attack them. Now they do not need to comply with the inspections, but if they do not comply then the only information we have to base our actions on would be that from intelligents agencies. And they are not complying fully with inspections otherwise the IAEA would not bitch about them.

again the IAEA isnt saying that at all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447_pf.html

source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html

your quote is meaningless as all they're saying is that they need more time to finish inspections.

It's propagande when it comes from a leftwing site. It's pretty much a fact then the dammed IAEA is concerned weather or not Iran can make nukes. If the reasctors Iran has were not capable of enrishing uranium this whole thing would have ended with the IAEA inspecting the sitrs and comming to the same conclusion, but they did not, just like the rest of the dammed world.

they've been at it for 3 years ..they are complying with inspections, the IAEA has found NO evidence of a nuclear program

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060325&articleId=2171

time and again they've said the same thing:

"The fundamental conclusion which constitutes the essence of the whole safeguards system pertaining to non diversion of nuclear material and activities to military purposes is, in the meantime, sustained. Since November when the Director General reported no evidence of diversion, a robust system of verification has been effectively and extensively in place. The conclusion remains the same. There is no evidence of diversion today; there will not be such evidence tomorrow, nor there will ever be such evidence or indication of diversion in the future."


http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/Misc/2004/zamaninia13032004.html

Natural uranium is not har to get by, weapons grade plutonium is. but if you can enrish uranium thats not a problem. It took the us what 150 years since it;s creatin to get the first nuke, but when they got their first nuclear reactors that could enrish uranium it went really really fast. Same with Iran, it may have taken them a long way to come here, but now that they have the capability they can produce dozens of nukes in a couple of years.

sorry but that's completely incorrect

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

Especially if they focus all their resources into producing one, they could have a prototype up within months.

no:

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

 

[SilentKilla]

**** america. I'm moving out of this shit hole. Why don't we just bomb china and japan and korea and canana and Washington D.C. while we are at it? I heard everyone of those places have mini nuke storage areas in the local mcdonalds.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon"

Yea, a decade away from manufacturing them in the way America understands such a weapon to be created or bought off the black market. They're not telling us something ... stupid government.

**** america.

Hey, you want America to change, you've got to be that change.

 

[Zeus]

I read in the paper bush dismissed these possible strikes as 'wild speculation'

 

[CptStern]

yes because bush would come out and say:

"hehe ya got me red handed, I admit it, boy do I ever look silly!, sorry Iran, thems the breaks"

Yea, a decade away from manufacturing them in the way America understands such a weapon to be created or bought off the black market. They're not telling us something ... stupid government.

you know I could probably have linked to a story that said, "Bush admits making up Iranian nuke story, apologises for being an idiot" and you'd still say something like: "Maybe the Iranians brainwashed him into saying that"

 

[Sebastian]

If bush tried to attack Iran, there would surely be an impeachment. His approval rating is already at 40% and that is more than likely falling. Everyone is starting to realize that this war on terror is a crock of shit, so theres no way he would lead us into another war. The crazy thing is that Kim Jong of North Korea has declaired that he posesses nuclear capability, but I don't see us doing anything about that. Motto for the day: f*ck Bush and F*ck his administration.