• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iran Will Have Nuclear Warhead by 2009: Report

Jerry

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,261
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NewsMax.com Wires Tuesday, May 15, 2007
VIENNA, Austria -- Iran is making "slow but steady" progress in its efforts to enrich uranium, but probably still wouldn't have enough fuel for a single nuclear warhead until 2009 at the earliest, a former U.N. inspector said Tuesday.

David Albright, who now heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said Iran still must overcome some tricky obstacles if it intends to enrich uranium to weapons grade _ and it may take tougher sanctions to stop it.

"Iran's been making slow but steady progress," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "We think Iran has been moving faster than (the U.S. government) has anticipated."
<snip>
Click to expand...
Iranian Leader Warns U.S. He’ll Fight Back
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, May 14 (Reuters) —
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Monday threatened “severe” retaliation if the United States attacked his country,
which is locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

“All people know they cannot strike us,”
Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in the United Arab Emirates.

“Iran is capable of defending itself,” he said. “It is a strong country.”

He said the West could not stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear energy program.
15tehran_190_1.jpg


<snip>
Click to expand...

***
Vote carefully next year. I suggest forgetting about domestic issues like abortion and gay marriage when considering your pick for the oval office. Those issues are not decided by the president anyway, and while the president does pick SCOTUS nominations, the likelihood of a Supreme Justice needing to be appointed in the next 4-8 years is slim and overshadowed by the Iranian threat.

Should Iran succeed in testing a nuclear weapon, you can bet your life that Israel won't just sit by while someone else negotiates. Israel is a one-nuke country; in that it would only take a small nuke to destroy Israel, and neither God nor Israeli elected leaders are going to let such a grave threat just sit next door. When Iran develops the bomb, Israel will act decisively.

When Iran expells the UN inspectors, that's when you'll know they're assembling the bomb.

My question to you: Who should be commanding the Situation Room when this goes down? Who has a history of being hard on security?
 
Israel is a one-nuke country; in that it would only take a small nuke to destroy Israel, and neither God nor Israeli elected leaders are going to let such a grave threat just sit next door.
Click to expand...

Hahaha!
You think God is going to stop Iran from nuking Israel?

:lamo

Wait, wait... are we talking about the same God who didn't stop the holocaust?
Are we talking about the same God who allows third-worlders (but not first-worlders) to decompose with leprosy until they are nothing more than ambulatory- and still sentient- piles of rotting flesh?
The same God who allows psychopaths to rape, torture, and murder two-year-olds?

Hahahaha!

Yeah. I'll just bet "God" is gonna stop them.
I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep over Iran and its nuclear program; not with God on the case. He's got our back. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
Vote carefully next year. I suggest forgetting about domestic issues like abortion and gay marriage when considering your pick for the oval office. Those issues are not decided by the president anyway, and while the president does pick SCOTUS nominations, the likelihood of a Supreme Justice needing to be appointed in the next 4-8 years is slim and overshadowed by the Iranian threat.

Should Iran succeed in testing a nuclear weapon, you can bet your life that Israel won't just sit by while someone else negotiates. Israel is a one-nuke country; in that it would only take a small nuke to destroy Israel, and neither God nor Israeli elected leaders are going to let such a grave threat just sit next door. When Iran develops the bomb, Israel will act decisively.

When Iran expells the UN inspectors, that's when you'll know they're assembling the bomb.

My question to you: Who should be commanding the Situation Room when this goes down? Who has a history of being hard on security?
Click to expand...

So let me break it down.

Israel has the bomb

Iran will soon have the bomb too

Israel - or god - will absolutely do something to stop it.

The only issue that matters is who is toughest on security.

Well, Ron Paul is pretty tough on national security and border control. And since god or Israel is taking care of the rest - a policy of non-intervention sounds plausible. Who do you like?
 
1069 said:
Hahaha!
You think God is going to stop Iran from nuking Israel?
Click to expand...

That was just an expression :roll:

If you are capable of acting like an adult I would very much like to read your opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
So let me break it down.

Israel has the bomb

Iran will soon have the bomb too

Israel - or god - will absolutely do something to stop it.

The only issue that matters is who is toughest on security.

Well, Ron Paul is pretty tough on national security and border control. And since god or Israel is taking care of the rest - a policy of non-intervention sounds plausible. Who do you like?
Click to expand...

I believe that one way or another the US is going to be in the middle of it.

Rudy Giuliani is my favorite right now, though he has allot of personal baggage weighing him down.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMAXw3ZZuYU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bM-r3dDMd8&mode=related&search=[/YOUTUBE]
 
Moderator's Warning:
This could be an important and well-debated topic. Let's not focus on one word and allow that minutiae to lead this thread nowhere.
 
A concern that I have is that if Iran has nuclear weapons, I believe that Israel has stated that they consider this an act against their survival and will 'strike first'. This will create problems that will make the ones we have now irrelevant.
 
I dont see a problem here. If Israel strikes it'll be between themselves and Iran anyway. What exactly is it that the US would do in the event of a first strike anyway?

Play honest broker for peace? :rofl
 
EAGLE1 said:
I dont see a problem here. If Israel strikes it'll be between themselves and Iran anyway. What exactly is it that the US would do in the event of a first strike anyway?
Click to expand...

A problem with this point of view is that the Arab world finds it very difficult (perhaps with reason) to separate Israeli action from US action. If Israel does strike first, that action is most likely to be seen as having been with US blessing and/or assistance, either real or imagined (inflight refueling assistance perhaps, one of the few capabilities the IAF is a bit short on). Very seldom is any Israeli action viewed by the Arab world other than within the context of US approval and/or consultation and/or coordination.

Even if an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations were completely independent of US knowledge, assistance, collusion or cooperation in any shape, form or fashion, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to convince the Arab world of that fact. If there were no evidence of US knowledge or collusion, some would be manufactured forthwith.
 
EAGLE1 said:
I dont see a problem here. If Israel strikes it'll be between themselves and Iran anyway.
Click to expand...

rivrrat said:
Let Israel and Iran deal with each other.
Click to expand...

Your wallet will be threatened when the gas prices go up and some group of politicians want to raise taxes for more military spending.

For those of you with 401ks, IRA, and other investments, how do you think such an exchange will affect the stock market?

What are you personally doing to prepare for this event?
 
Jerry said:
Your wallet will be threatened when the gas prices go up and some group of politicians want to raise taxes for more military spending.

For those of you with 401ks, IRA, and other investments, how do you think such an exchange will affect the stock market?

What are you personally doing to prepare for this event?
Click to expand...

Why do we need more military spending when we're staying out of it in my scenario?



I don't have investments, so the stock market matters not to me.
 
rivrrat said:
Why do we need more military spending when we're staying out of it in my scenario?
Click to expand...

That was just a hypothetical...didn't mean to state it otherwise.
rivrrat said:
I don't have investments, so the stock market matters not to me.
Click to expand...

You have a job? 9/11 tripped emergency lock down protocols on the stock market so as to prevent a crash, and we still had a recession.

How close to 1923 do you think a nuclear exchange in the Middle East would bring us?
 
oldreliable67 said:
A problem with this point of view is that the Arab world finds it very difficult (perhaps with reason) to separate Israeli action from US action. If Israel does strike first, that action is most likely to be seen as having been with US blessing and/or assistance, either real or imagined (inflight refueling assistance perhaps, one of the few capabilities the IAF is a bit short on). Very seldom is any Israeli action viewed by the Arab world other than within the context of US approval and/or consultation and/or coordination.

Even if an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations were completely independent of US knowledge, assistance, collusion or cooperation in any shape, form or fashion, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to convince the Arab world of that fact. If there were no evidence of US knowledge or collusion, some would be manufactured forthwith.
Click to expand...


I agree. Whether or not we are involved, we are going to be dragged into it, so it's better to come up with some sort of plan, then to sit back and pretend this isn't happening. Or to say it's between them.

If something isn't done this is going to turn into a very hostile situation, very quickly. Jerry is right when he says we are going to need someone who can handle this situation. If they start blowing each other up over there, it's going to somehow come over to us. I know it's nice to think we could just let them have at it, but oldreliable67 makes a great point of how the USA is perceived over there and how this will effect us.
 
rivrrat said:
Why do we need more military spending when we're staying out of it in my scenario?



I don't have investments, so the stock market matters not to me.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that when these people go after Israel we sit around with our thumbs up our a$$? :roll:

And everyone should own stock. Especially when you're young though sadly most young people don't. The only way to get rich is to have money making money for you while you do nothing. Otherwise you will spend your entire life in the rat race. Just my two cents on that.
 
oldreliable67 said:
A problem with this point of view is that the Arab world finds it very difficult (perhaps with reason) to separate Israeli action from US action. If Israel does strike first, that action is most likely to be seen as having been with US blessing and/or assistance, either real or imagined (inflight refueling assistance perhaps, one of the few capabilities the IAF is a bit short on). Very seldom is any Israeli action viewed by the Arab world other than within the context of US approval and/or consultation and/or coordination.

Even if an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations were completely independent of US knowledge, assistance, collusion or cooperation in any shape, form or fashion, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to convince the Arab world of that fact. If there were no evidence of US knowledge or collusion, some would be manufactured forthwith.
Click to expand...

Right. I see.
Well they wouldnt be too far wrong really since Israel would use F-16s and Apache gunships or the cruise missile to acheive a first strike. However, I see your point.

So given that you and the others here readily acknowledge that they cannot act as honest brokers is instead the idea here to come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?

Does this sound like a proposal you can agree with?
 
Jerry said:
Your wallet will be threatened when the gas prices go up and some group of politicians want to raise taxes for more military spending.

For those of you with 401ks, IRA, and other investments, how do you think such an exchange will affect the stock market?

What are you personally doing to prepare for this event?
Click to expand...

Thats strange, raise taxes for military spending? I thought Bush proved once and for all in 2001 that all you have to do is cut taxes for higher earners and you can pay for any extra spending through a booming economy!?

Dunno much about the gas/oil industry but I cant see the US getting involved in a conflict over jusy gas/ oil. Seems a bit too far fetched.
 
talloulou said:
Are you suggesting that when these people go after Israel we sit around with our thumbs up our a$$? :roll:
Click to expand...

Pretty much.


And everyone should own stock. Especially when you're young though sadly most young people don't. The only way to get rich is to have money making money for you while you do nothing. Otherwise you will spend your entire life in the rat race. Just my two cents on that.
Click to expand...
No thanks. I may gamble a bit here and there (buy a lottery ticket occasionally) but no way in hell am I going to gamble thousands of dollars. I prefer to keep my money under my mattress, so to speak.
 
rivrrat said:
No thanks. I may gamble a bit here and there (buy a lottery ticket occasionally) but no way in hell am I going to gamble thousands of dollars. I prefer to keep my money under my mattress, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Well you should at least have some mutual funds. There is nothing wrong with having your money make money for you and it won't do that under the mattress. :mrgreen:
 
EAGLE1 said:
Right. I see.
Well they wouldnt be too far wrong really since Israel would use F-16s and Apache gunships or the cruise missile to acheive a first strike. However, I see your point.
Click to expand...
So you blame the gun manufacturer and the store, and not the person behind the trigger??

So given that you and the others here readily acknowledge that they cannot act as honest brokers is instead the idea here to come out completely on Israel's side in the event of a first strike and confirm all the Arab suspicions once and for all?

Does this sound like a proposal you can agree with?
Click to expand...

Whats to confirm?? Its not as if they are undecided on the issue. It has already been decided. I'd actually think us getting involved would hamper the Israeli's from what they would want to do. We may lollygag, and **** around with our PC bullshit, such a environment does not exist in Israel, else they would have been wiped off the map long ago......
 
My question to you: Who should be commanding the Situation Room when this goes down? Who has a history of being hard on security?
__________________
Click to expand...

There's only one man who can handle things when the **** hits the fan.

Arnold Schwarzenegger - Come with me if you want to live!
 
talloulou said:
Well you should at least have some mutual funds. There is nothing wrong with having your money make money for you and it won't do that under the mattress. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it makes this nice crunchy sound when I roll around on it. :lol:
 
WI Crippler said:
So you blame the gun manufacturer and the store, and not the person behind the trigger??



Whats to confirm?? Its not as if they are undecided on the issue. It has already been decided. I'd actually think us getting involved would hamper the Israeli's from what they would want to do. We may lollygag, and **** around with our PC bullshit, such a environment does not exist in Israel, else they would have been wiped off the map long ago......
Click to expand...

I cant imagine them screaming their rage at Lockheed Martin & Boeing can you?:lol:

So oldreliable says youll be blamed and you say your blamed already, and therefore can we say that you should now actually help commit the act that youre already marked down for?
 
How did we get onto this **** about the bloody stock market and where one should keep one's money??? Ridiculous tangent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom