IAEA Finds Unexplained Plutonium, Enriched Uranium Traces in Iran Waste Facility

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 01:53 PM) [snapback]348833[/snapback]</div>

France and England, yes. China, not sure. USA definitely not. We are an aggressor nation who invades other countries unprovoked. Our dear leader declared Iraq, Iran and N. Korea to be the "axis of evil", just before we invaded Iraq. What did you expect Iran and N.K. to do?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 14 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]349006[/snapback]</div>

So Doberman - what would you do? Clear and concise question, and i would like a detailed answer, please. People here are giving their opinions, stating that they don't feel the world would back a move the US made, and you sit back and hound them without proposing anything yourself. So give us a detailed plan - a time table, number of troops, foreign aid, etc for what you want to do.

As for who i choose to defend... i wasn't defending anyone - i was just pointing out how biased you are. Someone doesn't agree with your point of view, so you choose to attack them based on something other than their actual argument to the question at hand. it's a poor strategy which pretty much gets you no where. As for reading all his posts... sometimes, just sometimes, people choose to support a particular idea, and not all of someones ideas. I haven't read *all* of his posts, and probably never will (lets face it, i don't have time to read the millions of posts on this site...), but that won't stop me from supporting someone if and when they make a valid point. in fact, i would even support you if you made a valid point. but i'm not going to hold my breath.

Now, please answer the question - what would you do? what would your exit strategy be, and how would this be any different than Iraq? Is it smart for us to be fighting on multiple fronts? Is it smart for us to be seen by the world as the aggressors? Whats next... Should we slowly work over every country in the world that has or may have WMD's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 04:35 PM) [snapback]349033[/snapback]</div>

How do you know what my belief is on this? Oh, I forgot, you make up the "truth".

 

Interesting that you see things only as black and white. Must be a really simple world you live in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 14 2006, 05:23 PM) [snapback]349076[/snapback]</div>

Why do you insist on having a label put on something? Good/Evil. Black/White. Very few things are one or the other. There's always another side to the coin, whether you agree with it or not. Your out-of-hand dismissals of other peoples opinions gives the perception that you really don't want to hear them. If you don't really want to have a discussion, stop asking the questions. If you do, show a little respect for other points of view.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 14 2006, 04:59 PM) [snapback]349055[/snapback]</div>

Oh, you're funny. For a guy that pisses & moans about others hating too much, you sure got a nice little reservoir yourself.

Now, I ask you seriously. You believe that Iran is a threat and shouldn't have nuclear capabilities. I have no argument with that. The question from eagle33199 is a valid one. What should be done and how should it be done. If the solution force, what happens once an invasion is underway? How do you contain the radical element and "win the peace" once the undesirables are thrown out? These are legitimate questions. If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.

And, if force isn't your solution, then what should we do? Again, there needs to be a fully thought out solution.

FYI - asking me the same question without answering isn't an answer. Neither is asking over-and-over whether or not I want Iran to be nuclear. This is an important issue to you. So tell us what your solution to the problem is. If someone here doesn't think it's important, they don't have to provide a solution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 05:23 PM) [snapback]349076[/snapback]</div>

You live in a comic book fantasy world of superheros and evil-doers. In fact, you fancy yourself a superhero. You are: Truthi-Man, sidekick to Bush the Crusader. You travel the internets identifying nations, governments, and even citizens as either "good" or "evil" (as well as all of western Europe). You posses a truthi-serum, in the form of a questionnaire: a multiple-choice with only 2 choices per question (couldn't be any simpler). Of course, anyone (e.g. Dragonfly) who refuses to answer the simple questionnaire is obviously an evil-doer.

Alas, as a superhero, you have your kryptonite. Truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 14 2006, 12:38 PM) [snapback]348784[/snapback]</div>

You MUST be kidding, right? I mean, did I actually just READ that? Because, if I did, that means someone must have typed it... and THAT would be SCARY.

GeronimoPFudgemuffin

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 15 2006, 07:16 AM) [snapback]349392[/snapback]</div>

And I (among others) would like you to explain your proposed solution for Iran. You believe that Iran is a threat and shouldn't have nuclear capabilities. I have no argument with that. What should be done and how should it be done? If the solution is force, what happens once an invasion is underway? How do you contain the radical element and "win the peace" once the undesirables are thrown out? These are legitimate questions. If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.

And, if force isn't your solution, then what should we do? Again, there needs to be a fully thought out solution.

Asking me the same question without answering isn't an answer. Neither is asking whether or not I want Iran to be nuclear. You feel this is important ... so tell us what your solution is to the problem.

 

So Doberman, let me get this right... earlier when i proposed we handle it through the UN, you replied with:

Indicating that you wanted American action, and that the UN was pretty much good for nothing... then a few posts later you go on to say:

Nice flip flop.

At any rate, i thank you for proposing a potential plan - now i get to try to poke holes in it

Lets start with the embargo you mention - exactly what technology is this you would ban? the Internet? (remember, Bush and his cronies recently actually put nuclear schematics up on the web for a few days before removing them...) Because, simply put, there are no real "technologies" needed to create nuclear weapons. You need nuclear material, which it seems they can already produce, some simple circuit boards, and a few other simple items. All of the items that go into a nuclear bomb can either be used for other purposes (You can make a fairly large bomb out of fertilizer and a clock, why should this be that much more difficult?) or obtained by cannibalizing current weapon systems. the only real difficult part of a nuclear weapon is obtaining or creating the material and doing the math behind it. No embargo can stop this.

You propose aerial bombardment and special forces for select targets - Sure, i think that might work, but only for the facilities we know about. It's pretty common knowledge that, during the cold war, we didn't know where all of Russia's weapons and facilities were, and they didn't know where all of ours were. What makes you so sure that we know where all of Iran's are? Imagine we start the assault, take out everything we know about. then out in the desert somewhere an underground bunker/silo we didn't know about opens up and launches a nuke - It may be targeted at the US (although doubtful they would have ICBM's), more likely at their enemies in the area, or maybe somewhere in Europe at one of our allies... who do you think the world would blame? Sure, Iran launched the weapon, but only after we initiated aggressions.

Hopefully you can see that everything isn't as easy as you would like - It would be nice to be able to just sit back and lob bombs and rockets and missiles into a country and destroy their infrastructure. But there are usually reasons why it wouldn't work. Now, what do you think would happen if we went ahead with such an attack and the UN didn't back us? We did that with Iraq, and lost a lot of political respect from the world. Do you think that, if they see us being aggressors again without support from other nations in the UN, they'll just sit back, twiddle their thumbs, and wait for their turn to be our target?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 14 2006, 03:37 PM) [snapback]349036[/snapback]</div>

I'll take a stab at this one for myself. We pretty much know where all their crap is. We know where adimijad hangs out, and we know where most of the science for this stuff is going on.

I'd hit it all so hard that these areas turn into what looks more like a gravel pit when the smoke clears. That includes the main palaces, universities and any possible place where the science and research is going on. A lot of this stuff is deep in the ground, so I'm hoping we have enough to bust that up, or just bury it so deep under rubble, it'd be 10 years before anyone got back inside to work on it again. If we managed to get adimijad in the process, score +100 for Dubya.

Of course, everything that gets a broken window or worse will have been a hospital or mosque... When we hear that on aljazera, we don't apologize, we just say that it's part of the consequences of having the top guy out trying to build nukes when the rest of us said to stop.

I consider anyone hanging out in and around those fascilities to be part of the problem, so don't even start on me with anything about innocent civilians and how the janitor was just trying to provide for his family.

 

My god, thats just bloodthirsty. Have you even thought of the level of civilian casualties from that? Sure, it's one thing to want to wipe out their research... another thing entirely to propose not only killing their current researchers, but also the thousands of innocent students who attend those schools.

It's easy to say "bomb the s**t out of them", but hard to live with the consequences. Is there any difference between bombing a university and rounding up all the students, faculty, and staff and putting them all, one at a time, on a firing line? I hope you would balk at the idea of individually killing innocent students whose only crime was wanting a higher education - so why is dropping a bomb on them any better?

This is just one more example of whats wrong with our country and the world these days. Strategies like this (bomb the universities and research labs, take out the "human resources") is something that one would probably employ in a video game - but in real life? It's truly sick to be willing, and even eager, to take such drastic measures against the innocent for their governments doing. For once, i am truly ashamed to even be a member on this site, while people spout ideas like this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 15 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]349441[/snapback]</div>

The world you live in contains people in Iran building nuclear devices aimed at killing as many innocents in Isreal, the US, and if I may be so brazen to say so, hopefully the first instance is in one of the non-supporter countries. Hopefully it never happens... Wouldn't it be fun to think we will never have an Iranian or NK nuke go off anywhere... I think one will detonate, so if we have to see one go off in a population center, I hope it's in one of the places where the country and/or it's people have been talking crap on America for that prior 10 years.

If it has to be in America, then I hope it's in your back yard and not mine. Too bad we can't get all the "innocents and civilian" arguers all in the same city for when the event happens. It's going to suck to see it happen in a place where people were calling for preemptive action but got none. Let's have this happen where all the pacificts are hanging out together.

Mostly I wanted to point out that your neighbors in Iran are building a bomb to blow you up. You and all the innocent civilians around you. Yes, they would take the opportunity to line you and all your neighbors up and shoot you in the head one at a time.