Political Crossfire Forums

[learn to swim]

MORE NUKE PROOF!

[learn to swim]

(AFP)12 April 2005

JERUSALEM - Ariel Sharon’s military attache presented aerial photos of Iranian nuclear installations during the Israeli prime minister’s summit with US President George W. Bush, Israeli public radio reported on Tuesday.

General Yoav Gallan, who accompanied Sharon to Monday’s talks at Bush’s Texas ranch, presented the photos as well as information gathered by the Israeli intelligence services on Teheran’s nuclear programme.

The radio, which did not give details on how the photos were taken, said the images proved that the Iranian nuclear programme was at a “very advanced” stage.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed the two leaders had “talked about their shared concern about Iran’s intentions with their nuclear programme” but denied they had discussed the possibility of a preemptive military strike by Israel, aimed at ensuring Iran does not acquire atomic weapons.

The United States and Israel have both accused Iran of using its atomic energy programme as cover for a plan to develop nuclear arms, a charge denied by Teheran, which says it needs nuclear power as an alternative energy source.

Israel itself has never publicly acknowledged that it maintains a nuclear arsenal but foreign experts say it has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads.



Story Link

[psholtz]

and your point would be................... what exactly?? :?

[Locke25]

his point would be..
we're gonna be in deep sh*t if we don't do something about Iranians and their nukes.

[Alexander The Great]

Stop Iran before it's too late!

[Nico]

'Proof' of anything from an intelligence community, makes me more than a little dubious these days. Sure we know they have designs on Nuclear power, but weapons? How is this any different to a recent scenario involving another well known country? I thought that maybe the photo-evidence route had been sorely tested and found wanting. Too much room for seeing things that aren't there. And to use it as a reason to attack an entire country?
Get someone on the ground to find it first. Real, actual weapons.

[Das Uberdog]

We have nukes,
They have nukes,
Why can't we all just get along?

[Nelson]

Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel. If it were to get nukes, we wouldn't have an opportunity to wait for it to strike us in order to decide if attacking them were ever necessary. Nuclear weapons change the entire situation - you have to strike preemptively before a country gets them, or they can never be stopped again.

[Nico]

Nelson wrote: Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel. If it were to get nukes, we wouldn't have an opportunity to wait for it to strike us in order to decide if attacking them were ever necessary. Nuclear weapons change the entire situation - you have to strike preemptively before a country gets them, or they can never be stopped again.

Bashing a hornet's nest with a baseball bat?

Honestly, both the President of Israel and Iran are Iranian by birth. Weren't they even from the same town? Can't Israel get around a table with these guys and say; " We got nukes, you probably have or will have, let's admit that if a bomb goes off here, it goes off there as well" ? It worked for The US and the USSR, why not the M.E.?

[Nelson]

Anaximander wrote:
Bashing a hornet's nest with a baseball bat?

Honestly, both the President of Israel and Iran are Iranian by birth. Weren't they even from the same town? Can't Israel get around a table with these guys and say; " We got nukes, you probably have or will have, let's admit that if a bomb goes off here, it goes off there as well" ? It worked for The US and the USSR, why not the M.E.?

That sort of chat would only work with reasonable people who care about dying. Unfortunately for Israel, the campaign of suicide bombings makes it clear that these people will kill Jews at any cost. Israel would love to make a peaceful agreement and end up with two states, but the 'facts on the ground' prove how difficult that would really be. The world shouldn't have to deal with terror-funding countries with nuclear weapons. Better to stop them before they get these weapons, rather than risk complete destruction at the hands of these lunatics.

[Das Uberdog]

It doesn't prove that the government of Iran would act recklessly enough to nuke Israel.

We can't tell others not to develop nukes when we are currently developing them ourselves.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Anaximander wrote: Nelson wrote: Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel. If it were to get nukes, we wouldn't have an opportunity to wait for it to strike us in order to decide if attacking them were ever necessary. Nuclear weapons change the entire situation - you have to strike preemptively before a country gets them, or they can never be stopped again.

Bashing a hornet's nest with a baseball bat?

Honestly, both the President of Israel and Iran are Iranian by birth. Weren't they even from the same town? Can't Israel get around a table with these guys and say; " We got nukes, you probably have or will have, let's admit that if a bomb goes off here, it goes off there as well" ? It worked for The US and the USSR, why not the M.E.?

That would assume some sort of sanity among the Iranian leadership :lol:

[angusrae]

If any Muslim country was going to provide nuclear arms to the Arab world Pakistan could without any real danger of discovery supply both Syria and Iran with a Missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead into Israel. from both those nations. And also the material to fashion a nuclear device

[S.A.S]

every country has a right to develop nuclear power because it provides a very realistic alternative to todays **** thats destroying the atmosphere.

as for weapons thats a matter of opinion-

lets ask mr bush why he goes to war
http://www.heyheyhost.com/out.php/i9499

[learn to swim]

psholtz wrote: and your point would be................... what exactly?? :?

It is a news report - if you need explanation of "the point" then feel free to contact the person who wrote the article.


I take it to mean that Israel is warning the US that something needs to be done or they will do it - like they did to Iraq.

Israel inteligence has a good track record of intelligence on Nuke weapons so I would say this is kicking it up another level.


You can take it any way you want or just post one line "what is your point" comments to a person who just copied a story to the FRONT PAGE NEWS section.

[Warmonger]

I take it to mean that we will be invading Syria or Iran within the next 2 years.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Warmonger wrote: I take it to mean that we will be invading Syria or Iran within the next 2 years.

Great! Then a million people will probably die for nothing!

[DavidXV]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Warmonger wrote: I take it to mean that we will be invading Syria or Iran within the next 2 years.

Great! Then a million people will probably die for nothing! Does taking out someones nuclear capability necessarily equate to a million people dying? ...or does it possibly equate to multi-millions of people not dying?

[psholtz]

Alexander The Great wrote: Stop Iran before it's too late!
Stop Iran before it's too late for ............... what, exactly?

[psholtz]

Das Uberdog wrote: It doesn't prove that the government of Iran would act recklessly enough to nuke Israel.
Gee, I guess that would be Israel's responsible to look after now wouldn't it... :think:

I guess I'm still trying to figure why I, as an American, should care about this at all. I certainly don't think Iran would be silly enough to nuke the U.S. now would they? No, of course they wouldn't.. and since when was it my responsibility to die for Israel (or any foreign government?)