This was posted today (04/14/06) on yahoo news. Only a matter of time before this fuckhead gets his country to be converted into a parking lot. Israel alone could demolish him, just imagine if U.S.A. decides to get involved as well..
This guy fuckin scares me.
It may be time to do something about this...
Oh, wait, all our troops are in FUCKING IRAQ. Thanks Dubya, you stupid fuck...
little irish wrote:
"This guy fuckin scares me.
It may be time to do something about this..."
Just last week you vacillated on this issue.
Do you now support military action against Iran?
One must be clear.
And I told you last fucking week that I wasn't sure. That hasn't changed.
I'll wait for someone who isn't a troll to comment on this, because I don't care what you're saying at all.
It will take a punk like this to re-unite the USA, and the world for that matter, through his stupid actions and comments. He is off to a great start at doing this.
"It will take a punk like this to re-unite the USA, and the world for that matter, through his stupid actions and comments. He is off to a great start at doing this."
The iranian leader has taken it to a new level. Even the french have to understand that threatening nuclear destruction of a soverign state as part of state policy cannot be tolerated.
I have no idea whether the Abbers like little irish WILL actually publically support that effort. It's sad. However, I guarantee if billy boy was in charge, they would be trying to berate us for our "lack of vision." I think it runs that deep.
Here we go again...
Iran is years (15 or so) away from being able to produce a nuclear device.
They have so far enriched uranium to 3.5%. A bomb requires uranium enrichment of 85-90%.
Once more, we are being lied to by those fucking psychopaths in the White House, who haven't even tried to talk to Iran.
Let's not make the same mistake twice, huh?
How do you completely ignore the hate and threats spewing from Ahmadinejad's mouth?
You know those estimates are just guesses, right? How close would you be willing to let Iran get to a bomb? 5 years? 2 years?
What if the analysts are wrong and they are now only 8 years away?
To give people some sort of perspective on this:
"Iran Could Make Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S.'s Rademaker Says
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, which is defying United Nations Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges producing enriched uranium at its Natanz plant, a U.S. State Department official said.
Natanz was constructed to house 50,000 centrifuges,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.''
In fact, Iran will move forward to
industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.
The U.S. and other countries fear Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy.
It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.
Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride?gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges?that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.
Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.
We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.
While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said
there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.
Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year."
I've been reviewing various intelligence estimates. It seems the iranian's ability to develop a nuclear weapon is between 16 days and 3 years. It depends upon the 54,000 centrifuges that the iranian president has pledged to make.
Scary. Very scary.
You do realize that they are saying that in the future, if certain things occur, then they could produce enough material to produce a bomb in that period of time.
They are not saying there is any such danger at this time.
Hell, I'm not for Iran in any sense, but let's at least be honest about the information we present and the claims associated with it.
So just how long should we wait until we act? Should we wait until we get hit by a nuke from Iran and say; "yup, duhh, looks like they are further along in nukes than we thought! Hey Jeathrow, why does your piss glow in the dark like that?"
This is like deja vu all over again.
The same bullshit rhetoric from the adminstration being re-spewed by the same assholes on talk radio and Faux News and the same dickheads on the internet.
This time the "mushroom cloud" is over Tel Aviv instead of New York.
I agree this asswipe in Iran needs to go away, but I also think that he wouldn't have even been elected in the first place if it wasn't for the "axis of evil" statement from our douchebag-in-chief.
So to sum up for those that are counting, that's:
douchebag-in-chief, just in this post. More later.
They're just words. I don't care what the fuck he says about Israel or America or chicken pot pie.
And I would trust those estimates a lot more than the further lies of the Bush administration.
Ahmadinejad has the title of President, but he isn't the leader of Iran, and furthermore, expressly does not have control over nuclear and military decisions. He enjoys a little more power than Matt McClellan does in the White House.
Iran is currently working on getting the 54,000 centrifuges. This must be prevented as then they could quickly develop a weapon.
The 15 year scenario clamimed by Harris is assuming they do not aquire any more equipment. This is unlikely.
The 16 day scenario is only if the get the full complement of centrifuges. Hopefully this can be stopped.
To the idiots that are claiming this is all Bush administration propaganda, you guys really are completely clueless. Keep posting your drivel, ot exposes who you really are.
However, headlines claiming 16 days are wildly provacative and irresponsible. The centrifuges would have to be acquired, installed and tested.
How long it will take to acquire a serious array of centrifuges and then how long it will take to process the resulting output must be added to the estimate.
All I'm asking for is a bit of honesty in the claims.
I seem to recall hearing the exact same thing just a little over three years ago. Anyone who dared question the adminstration's assertions regarding Iraq back then was either an idiot or just plain Antimerican.
Last time it was mostly just France and Germany calling bullshit, this time the rest of the world will join in. The words of the jerk-off president of Iran and reality have little in common, and do not form the basis for pre-emptive attack.
Have to agree with Vroom here. The rhetoric on this issue is way out-pacing the reality. Instead of responsible debate about how to deal with Iran long-term, and a recognition that they're certainly not on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon (read ANYTHING written by someone responsible on this), we get the typical "bomb them back to the Stone Age" BS. First off, bombing, at best, prolongs the inevitable. James Fallows, who's been right a lot more than he's been wrong, says "Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.":
Then look at the consequences: terrorism, huge economic consequences, further loss of global influence (maybe Iraq has made people realize we do need allies, not militarily, but in every other way), and, most importantly, the likelihood of disaster in Iraq (is rushing a decision on Iran worth creating another Saigon moment, just with helicopters lifting off from the Green Zone instead?).
Most importantly, we should be looking at Iran as a potential ally in the region. Every Bushie worth his salt is making stupid historical analogies to Hitler's Germany in the late 30s, but the better one is probably to the Soviet Union in the 80s, a decaying regime that has lost popular support, filled with young people (due to the demographic changes caused by the Iran-Iraq War) who look to the West. Why would we drive them into the arms of the mullahs by bombing them?
Nevermind the fact that bombing could well not significantly retard the Iranian nuke program (this isn't Osirak in 1981 - there are dozens of underground sites scattered throughout the country).
Being realistic and looking at military action as a distant last resort does not mean appeasing Amhedinejad.
Just as the 15 year claims are inaccurate and irresponsible.
I hate headlines in general because they are normally deceptive.
In this case it s the rest of the world that is providing info that Iran is intent on nukes. The UN has determined it. France has determined it.
Russia and China buy lots of oil from Iran so they are going to under cut any efforts to stop Iran but the rest of the world knows what is goung on.