We will start withdrawing from Iraq by Summer 2006

[YourGrandpa]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

[R00k]

So you're reasoning is that Iraq was the right move......................because we should also attack Iran right now?

[R00k]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

There is a huge difference between having what's necessary for nuclear power and building a nuke. Like years worth of work for one thing. Just because they build a nuclear power plant doesn't mean they also will be able to use the leftovers for a warhead.

[jester!]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

Do you seriously believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon? Seriously now.

Name the country that has used nuclear weapons against their enemies. :icon32:

And yes, negotation, treaties, and not provoking attack are alternatives to just bombing country after country into the ground breeding more US haters and continueing the fantastic cycle that the US is propagating. gg though bud. :icon26: Or were you looking at an alternative to spreading US agenda and control to every corner of the world sorry you will have to just keep up the warmongering for that one.

I shall repeat again, no country will actually be stupid enough to again us nukes unless its the US. Nobody else has the clout in the international arena to get away with it. Just keep on fearing though...

[YourGrandpa]

So you're reasoning is that Iraq was the right move......................because we should also attack Iran right now?

That's not an answer to my question, is it? In fact, that looks like another question. But I'll play along and answer your question with what I said before. Saddam should have been brought down when he attacked Kuwait. Just because the U.N. didn't do it then does not excuse the severity of what he did. I don't like the fact that false intelligence was used to start the war we are in now. In fact, if the false intelligence was all we had I'd be really pissed that the U.S. is there. But that's not all the U.S. had. The U.S. had Saddam's history as a dictator and the fact he was denying U.N. inspectors access, even after every American inspector was pulled from the inspection teams.

So yes, I think the removal of Saddam was justifed.

Can you answer?

[jester!]

Did the UN approve of the US going in due to the blockage of UN inspectors?

[YourGrandpa]

There is a huge difference between having what's necessary for nuclear power and building a nuke. Like years worth of work for one thing. Just because they build a nuclear power plant doesn't mean they also will be able to use the leftovers for a warhead.

Hey jackass, did I say they were going to build nuclear weapons? I'll answer for you since you obviously can't grasp the concept of answering. NO I DIDN'T. I said they would be subject to inspections.

Try to follow along and don't attempt to express thoughts for me

[YourGrandpa]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

Do you seriously believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon? Seriously now.

Name the country that has used nuclear weapons against their enemies. :icon32:

And yes, negotation, treaties, and not provoking attack are alternatives to just bombing country after country into the ground breeding more US haters and continueing the fantastic cycle that the US is propagating. gg though bud. :icon26: Or were you looking at an alternative to spreading US agenda and control to every corner of the world sorry you will have to just keep up the warmongering for that one.

I shall repeat again, no country will actually be stupid enough to again us nukes unless its the US. Nobody else has the clout in the international arena to get away with it. Just keep on fearing though...

You do know that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be something that wipes out an entire country. They can be made and used on small areas to attain massive destruction. Also, using a nuclear weapon isn't always what's intended when they're developed. It's the threat. If Iran develpoed nuclear weapons they would have the ability to ignore world policies beyond what they've done in the past. Because now if you invade them, they could nuke you.

Try thinking past your nose. Better yet, do yourself a favor and shut up.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

gramps you're still a world class idiot. good going

[jester!]

You do know that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be something that wipes out an entire country. They can be made and used on small areas to attain massive destruction. Also, using a nuclear weapon isn't always what's intended when they're developed. It's the threat. If Iran develpoed nuclear weapons they would have the ability to ignore world policies beyond what they've done in the past. Because now if you invade them, they could nuke you.

Try thinking past your nose. Better yet, do yourself a favor and shut up.

Are you serious?! I thought 1 nuke = world domination!! Idiot.

Maybe...oh I dont know, dont invade them?! You talk as if its a forgone conclusion that the US is going into Iran next. Just keep fearing man, as long as your afraid your government will keep on abusing you taking away your rights and liberties one piece at a time. :icon26:

[YourGrandpa]

gramps you're still a world class idiot. good going

Another reply from someone with no affective alternative.

Keep up the hate douche bag, it's all you got.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

gramps you're still a world class idiot. good going

Another reply from someone with no affective alternative.

Keep up the hate douche bag, it's all you got.

all i've got (or at least some of it) has been public here for years. i pointed out the lies as they were happening and talked a lot about what could be done, before the war actually started. Do you remember anyof those discussions about things like targeted sanctions which actually effect those in power and have proven effective? Probably not because you are some sort of sociopath with add who can't see how launching a devastating war which is bound to kill hundred's of thousands of innocents is something to be avoided at all costs.

[YourGrandpa]

You do know that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be something that wipes out an entire country. They can be made and used on small areas to attain massive destruction. Also, using a nuclear weapon isn't always what's intended when they're developed. It's the threat. If Iran develpoed nuclear weapons they would have the ability to ignore world policies beyond what they've done in the past. Because now if you invade them, they could nuke you.

Try thinking past your nose. Better yet, do yourself a favor and shut up.

Are you serious?! I thought 1 nuke = world domination!! Idiot.

Maybe...oh I dont know, dont invade them?! You talk as if its a forgone conclusion that the US is going into Iran next. Just keep fearing man, as long as your afraid your government will keep on abusing you taking away your rights and liberties one piece at a time. :icon26:

I've said nothing of the sort. I proposed a very viable situation that could arise in the future. Nice try at ad libbing though and the attempt to drag the conversation in a different direction is dually noted. But you don't seem very secure with your answer either. Would you care to expound? Just try to stay focused and on topic.

[YourGrandpa]

gramps you're still a world class idiot. good going

Another reply from someone with no affective alternative.

Keep up the hate douche bag, it's all you got.

all i've got (or at least some of it) has been public here for years. i pointed out the lies as they were happening and talked a lot about what could be done, before the war actually started. Do you remember anyof those discussions about things like targeted sanctions which actually effect those in power and have proven effective? Probably not because you are some sort of sociopath with add who can't see how launching a devastating war which is bound to kill hundred's of thousands of innocents is something to be avoided at all costs.

I love how you idots like to put words in my mouth and then play off the fictious aura you create. I never said I wanted to go to war with anyone. I asked for affective, alternate solutions to war.

BTW, Saddam was sanctioned for years and it didn't affect him a bit. It affected his people. Besides, a sanction would never stunt the development process of nuclear weapons. In fact, it would be hard to impose and inforce sanctions once the weapons were developed.

[Nightshade]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

No, developing nuclear power.

If they can produce nuclear power, they could produce nuclear weapons and would be subject to regular inspection by the U.N.

What if Iran (with nuclear power) gives the big FU to U.N. weapons inspectors and absolutely refuses to let them in, even after months and months of negotiations?

Erm, that's a bit tricky. I don't see how the US has the right to tell any nation that it can't develop a nuclear program or possess nuclear weapons. I'm not saying that every nation should be given a tactical nuke when they open a bank account, just that there's no small difficulty in determining who can have them and who can not. I honestly can't answer this question, because I do think that there's a risk that Iran might develop nuclear weapons, and that they might hand one of them over to Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah. But, I think that any nation has the right to seek to provide energy for its citizens.
See, this whole assumption of one nation having the right to tell another what it can do is the height of arrogance. Hell, I still think the entire concept of borders is fucking ridiculous. I realize that maybe Iran shouldn't have any sort of nuclear technologies, but sovereign nations should be able to do as they wish, as long as it's peaceful.
If they do develop a nuclear power program under UN oversight and they tell the UN to fuck off, well, it's clobberin' time.

All these issues are far more complicated than fucking dolts like Midnight make them out to be. But, I guess if you're that simple, you must see the world simply.

[Nightshade]

BTW, Saddam was sanctioned for years and it didn't affect him a bit. It affected his people. Besides, a sanction would never stunt the development process of nuclear weapons. In fact, it would be hard to impose and inforce sanctions once the weapons were developed.

Actually, he was prevented from getting vital components on a couple of occasions. Specifically kryton switches, used to trigger the conventional explosives that force the core to critical mass.

[MidnightQ4]

Let's consider if Saddam did have nukes, or some other kind of weapon such as biological or chemical, when he attacked Kuwait. Don't you think that poses a significant problem for the world in trying to deal with him and get him out of Kuwait?

See the leaders of these countries are not very sly about hiding their agendas and the fact that they are willing to attack other nations. That is why many of these countries are on the UN's watch list. Because they are known to be unstable and unpredictable.

So do answer the question do I think that Iran would use nukes, yes I don't put it past them in the least. They and/or Iraq used outlawed chemical weapons against each other in the Iran Iraq war less than 20 years ago, and yes I would say that if they had another such weapon that could wipe out entire cities in one fell swoop they would not hesitate to use it.

You guys don't seem to get the leverage position that having nukes would give these irational countries. Once they have nukes you have to deal with them in ways that you may not want to, such as letting them commit genocide on their neighbors, because you don't want to get nuked. Whereas if we control their access to such weapons then we can prevent them from committing such atrocities.

[MidnightQ4]

Gramps I get the picture that we are the only Americans in this forum. These people's views are jaded as they have been brainwashed by the idea that we are fighting with Iraq only to benefit our country. Ya we are spending close to a trillion dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters so that we can get oil savings worth nothing even remotely close to that. Right? Ya that's it. And of course so that we can occupy Iraq for the next 100 years and appoint our puppets in their government. :icon32:

[jester!]

Find me the projected total values of all the oil in Iraq, what it means to the American economy, and also the political and military advantage of having a pro-america country in that region of the world.

You dont think the price the US is paying is worth that? Your leaders would disagree it seems.

Edit. Does Sudan have nukes?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Another reply from someone with no affective alternative.

Keep up the hate douche bag, it's all you got.

all i've got (or at least some of it) has been public here for years. i pointed out the lies as they were happening and talked a lot about what could be done, before the war actually started. Do you remember anyof those discussions about things like targeted sanctions which actually effect those in power and have proven effective? Probably not because you are some sort of sociopath with add who can't see how launching a devastating war which is bound to kill hundred's of thousands of innocents is something to be avoided at all costs.

I love how you idots like to put words in my mouth and then play off the fictious aura you create. I never said I wanted to go to war with anyone. I asked for affective, alternate solutions to war.

BTW, Saddam was sanctioned for years and it didn't affect him a bit. It affected his people. Besides, a sanction would never stunt the development process of nuclear weapons. In fact, it would be hard to impose and inforce sanctions once the weapons were developed.

I am talking about something different known as targeted sanctions. Understand now? They weren't tried even though they've proven very effective.

Also your assertions about sanctions not stopping nuclear development are silly. Care to back it up somehow? As well, sanctions could be imposed on a nuclear power. Do you even understand the concept of a sanction?

Finally the point is that wars of aggression are a no-no. The U.S. is not exempt from this no matter how much they claim to fear a country like Iraq which has never attacked the U.S.A. and never could.

You really should have been paying more attention in the political threads here over the last few years gramps. You'd probably sound a lot less like the spastic cunt you're coming off as now.

[MidnightQ4]

There is a huge difference between having what's necessary for nuclear power and building a nuke. Like years worth of work for one thing. Just because they build a nuclear power plant doesn't mean they also will be able to use the leftovers for a warhead.

Wow, years worth huh. Ok in that case we have nothing to worry about.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

must be a fairly pleasant life as a zombie

[losCHUNK]

Gramps I get the picture that we are the only Americans in this forum. These people's views are jaded as they have been brainwashed by the idea that we are fighting with Iraq only to benefit our country. Ya we are spending close to a trillion dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters so that we can get oil savings worth nothing even remotely close to that. Right? Ya that's it. And of course so that we can occupy Iraq for the next 100 years and appoint our puppets in their government. :icon32:

i like the way that because someone doesnt agree with your views you disown them as a fellow american

and your country thrives on oil, lives and tax money come 2nd

[MidnightQ4]

I am talking about something different known as targeted sanctions. Understand now? They weren't tried even though they've proven very effective.

What would you propose we target exactly?

Finally the point is that wars of aggression are a no-no. The U.S. is not exempt from this no matter how much they claim to fear a country like Iraq which has never attacked the U.S.A. and never could.

Never is a pretty strong word, so I'll disagree with that statement. Besides, you seem to forget who was the agressor in this war, it was Iraq. They started the war. All they had to do was let the UN inpsectors do their job and there would have been no war. So it is completely and fully on them that this war happened. They had the easy out and didn't take it.

And besides, since it is the U.S. that is always called on when countries like Kuwait are being pummelled, I think that gives us some say as to how we inact prevention of such things. It is easy for other countries to sit back and not give a fuck cause they never see themselves getting called on to help out. So you could say our stance is that since we are asked to bail out other countries who can't stand up for themselves all the time, we get to also do what we want so as to prevent thug countries like Iraq from getting weapons that they would use against us. Even if they don't use it directly against U.S. territories, they can use it against us in a conflict exactly like Kuwait, which is not something we want to allow for obvious reasons.

If you guys are so keen on allowing countries like Iraq and Iran to have their WMDs, then you all can duke it out with them next time some tiny country is calling for help. Frankly we should have free reign to do what we need to so far as policing these countries, or we should stay out of it alltogether. But having to go bail people out like Kuwait and at the same time being on everyone's shit list for how we try to prevent it is total hypocrital bullshit that frankly we don't need or want.

Really it would be ironic if Iran became the next Nazi Germany-like regime and started infiltrating other countries including Europe, and we just stayed out of it. I mean do you really think that the conflict between them and Iraq is over for good? I don't. It's only been a few years (17) since the war ended, and I would expect they'd like to have another go at it again, only next time with more leverage (weapons) on their side.

You really should have been paying more attention in the political threads here over the last few years gramps. You'd probably sound a lot less like the spastic cunt you're coming off as now.

Oh he's not coming off that way at all, the rest of you are. He's the one with the calm and collected posts. It is everyone else who is being nuts.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

listen buddy don't waste your breath. if you come back to planet earth we'll talk okay? If you are truly interested in learning more about the perspective opposite of yours i will put together a comprehensive reading list for you. just ask.