Report: Iran Now Enriching Uranium on Larger Scale Than Before

**alphaman** · 05-14-2007, 06:33 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272292,00.html

**Logan13** · 05-14-2007, 08:44 PM

seems everyone is OK with this Alpha............

**gigem** · 05-14-2007, 08:55 PM

yeah them poor terrorist overthere lets just leave them alone and let them build nukes there not hurting anyone

**BgMc31** · 05-14-2007, 10:23 PM

I'm all for military action against Iran, problem is we don't have the military resources to do anything. We are overly stressed in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't think the UN will do anything. And surely Isreal won't do anything without our backing.

**mcpeepants** · 05-14-2007, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I'm all for military action against Iran, problem is we don't have the military resources to do anything. We are overly stressed in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't think the UN will do anything. And surely Isreal won't do anything without our backing.

Why would you support military action on Iran after what happened in Iraq. This would be Iraq 2 only much worse because Iran is over 3 times larger, nearly 3 times the population, a stronger army, and can retaliate. Not to mention the fact, enrichment is not illegal under the NPT.

**mcpeepants** · 05-14-2007, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

seems everyone is OK with this Alpha............

doesn't bother me

**mcpeepants** · 05-14-2007, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by gigem

yeah them poor terrorist overthere lets just leave them alone and let them build nukes there not hurting anyone

iran needs nuclear power. first there oil refinery capabilities are not good because of sanctions. second, there oil will not last forever, so Iran needs to develop alternative energy sources (it can take 10 or more years to build power plants) for the day there oil and natural gas dry up. third, it will reduce pollution. fourth Iran wants to be energy in***endent. this is the same thing american politicians and citizens are clamoring about when they want to reduce there ***endence on middle east oil.

**RamyGras** · 05-14-2007, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by gigem

yeah them poor terrorist overthere lets just leave them alone and let them build nukes there not hurting anyone

I hate to call you out. However, you post so darn much, and none of it ever makes any sense. I can get past the horrible grammatical errors. However, such arguments as "heck your probably one of those people that would walk by the salvation army to the give it to the rebuild afganistan foundation" (from the Obama thread). While the statement in itself makes very little sense, your logic (I think) sounds very childish. I am very glad our political views are extremely different, because I would be embarassed to have you as a representative of what I believe in. I sympathize with your intense emotions concerning terrorists and those who are at war with our country, however I do believe you need to put just a little bit of thought before you start typing. Because it's very insulting to those who challenge our leaders to be labeled as "terrorist lovers" just because they don't agree with you. And, I don't know what Iranians you are referring to as terrorists?

I hope you receive this well.

**singern** · 05-15-2007, 12:31 PM

The Iranians are comfortably hiding behind a curtain of semantics. They may not themselves be terrorists, but they arm, finance and train many of the world most dangerous terrorist organizations. Of this fact they do not deny, and most adamantly refuse to stop. So in this respect they are as guilty as the Taliban. No one would allow the Taliban, or Sadam to produce Nuke weapons, and so I would hope the Iranian goal will also be halted with extreme prejudice. Before its too late.....

**BgMc31** · 05-15-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

Why would you support military action on Iran after what happened in Iraq. This would be Iraq 2 only much worse because Iran is over 3 times larger, nearly 3 times the population, a stronger army, and can retaliate. Not to mention the fact, enrichment is not illegal under the NPT.

I realize that it would be a much tougher road in Iran. But Iran is a 'real' threat, not like Iraq (Saddam). And I'm sure we would fight Iran like a real war, not like we are doing in Iraq. I realize that Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, as is everyone, but the rhetoric they spout leads all to believe that they could (not necessarily would) use this technology to leverage power in the region. This needs to be overted with serious military force. Now if Iran wasn't arming terrorists and threatening countries in the region (as well as us) then I would have no problem with them. But make no mistake about it, Iran, along with N. Korea and Sudan (the Darfur region), are the real threats in the world and it's time something was done about it.

But like I said before, we don't have the capability to attack Iran. We will be in Afganistan and Iran for at least the next 10yrs. And with our current troops levels we won't be able to sustain another war front.

**alphaman** · 05-15-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

doesn't bother me

Of course not -- you're Anti-American -- yet you are an immigrant here in the US. And living a lifestyle you wouldn't be if you never came.

**alphaman** · 05-15-2007, 04:53 PM

woops

**crow13** · 05-15-2007, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I realize that it would be a much tougher road in Iran. But Iran is a 'real' threat, not like Iraq (Saddam). And I'm sure we would fight Iran like a real war, not like we are doing in Iraq. I realize that Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, as is everyone, but the rhetoric they spout leads all to believe that they could (not necessarily would) use this technology to leverage power in the region. This needs to be overted with serious military force. Now if Iran wasn't arming terrorists and threatening countries in the region (as well as us) then I would have no problem with them. But make no mistake about it, Iran, along with N. Korea and Sudan (the Darfur region), are the real threats in the world and it's time something was done about it.

But like I said before, we don't have the capability to attack Iran. We will be in Afganistan and Iran for at least the next 10yrs. And with our current troops levels we won't be able to sustain another war front.

Very well put.

**mcpeepants** · 05-15-2007, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by alphaman

Of course not -- you're Anti-American -- yet you are an immigrant here in the US. And living a lifestyle you wouldn't be if you never came.

You seems to think criticizing government policy is anti-american. did you call yourself an anti-american when you were probably criticizing the policies of the Clinton administrations or are you a hypocrite?

**crow13** · 05-15-2007, 07:15 PM

I thought everyone bad mouthed the Clinton admin.

**mcpeepants** · 05-15-2007, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I realize that it would be a much tougher road in Iran. But Iran is a 'real' threat, not like Iraq (Saddam). And I'm sure we would fight Iran like a real war, not like we are doing in Iraq. I realize that Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, as is everyone, but the rhetoric they spout leads all to believe that they could (not necessarily would) use this technology to leverage power in the region. This needs to be overted with serious military force. Now if Iran wasn't arming terrorists and threatening countries in the region (as well as us) then I would have no problem with them. But make no mistake about it, Iran, along with N. Korea and Sudan (the Darfur region), are the real threats in the world and it's time something was done about it.

But like I said before, we don't have the capability to attack Iran. We will be in Afganistan and Iran for at least the next 10yrs. And with our current troops levels we won't be able to sustain another war front.

How is Iran a threat to the US? If they even try to do something against the US, there countries history. Even if they develop a nuke, that doesn't make them a threat. None of there missiles could hit the US and within seconds of launching a missiles, there country will be flattened. If some how an Iranian nuke denotated in the US, it could probably be traced back to Iran and they would be immediately nuked (probably before we had proof). If they get nukes, there will a be detente between the US and Iran. I can't recall any nuclear power getting into a direct war with with another nuclear and Iran having nukes would probably decrease the chance of war.

Well if your critical of Iran arming and funding Hezbollah, what do you think of the protecting kurdish iranian terrorists? There using them for convert action in Iran. Recall that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in Iran during the past couple months.

How is North Korea a world threat? North Korea has bigger concerns like feeding its people and fuel. Darfur, are you serious? The crisis is just a fight over water and land between cattlekeepers and farmers. Why consider war when we won't even enterntain the idea of direct negotiations with no preconditions.

**mcpeepants** · 05-15-2007, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by crow13

I thought everyone bad mouthed the Clinton admin.

by his alphaman's reasoning, everyone who did that is anti-american

**crow13** · 05-15-2007, 07:32 PM

I feel like the govt. has a great more idea of whats going on things that we will never hear of so i put my faith in the great GEORGE W.BUSH to sort it all out!

**mcpeepants** · 05-15-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by crow13

I feel like the govt. has a great more idea of whats going on things that we will never hear of so i put my faith in the great GEORGE W.BUSH to sort it all out!

so do you believe everything the government say? Bush has had a good track record of getting things right, why would you give him the benefit of the doubt without evidence?

**crow13** · 05-15-2007, 08:14 PM

We all know politicians stretch the truth,but i truly feel Bush wants whats best for this country.I just hope that whoever gets elected next term can keep our people and country safe from future acts. Im not big into political disscussions but all we can do as a nation is vote for who can best lead this country regardless of party. I have vote mostly republican but i dont vote straight ticket just whos best suited in my opinion. I can say i wont vote for any dems running for president this election.

**BgMc31** · 05-15-2007, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by crow13

I thought everyone bad mouthed the Clinton admin.

Only republicans!!!!

**crow13** · 05-16-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Only republicans!!!!

i know some dems thar did as well

RA · 05-16-2007, 11:01 AM

If a Republican president went into Iran they would demonize the decision just like Iraq. Maybe you dont remember, the dems were for going into Iraq. Its when the going gets tough that you see a persons/a parties resolve.

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I realize that it would be a much tougher road in Iran. But Iran is a 'real' threat, not like Iraq (Saddam). And I'm sure we would fight Iran like a real war, not like we are doing in Iraq. I realize that Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, as is everyone, but the rhetoric they spout leads all to believe that they could (not necessarily would) use this technology to leverage power in the region. This needs to be overted with serious military force. Now if Iran wasn't arming terrorists and threatening countries in the region (as well as us) then I would have no problem with them. But make no mistake about it, Iran, along with N. Korea and Sudan (the Darfur region), are the real threats in the world and it's time something was done about it.

But like I said before, we don't have the capability to attack Iran. We will be in Afganistan and Iran for at least the next 10yrs. And with our current troops levels we won't be able to sustain another war front.

**crow13** · 05-16-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

If a Republican president went into Iran they would demonize the decision just like Iraq. Maybe you dont remember, the dems were for going into Iraq. Its when the going gets tough that you see a persons/a parties resolve.

exactly well put bro

**BgMc31** · 05-16-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

If a Republican president went into Iran they would demonize the decision just like Iraq. Maybe you dont remember, the dems were for going into Iraq. Its when the going gets tough that you see a persons/a parties resolve.

If you call what's going on in Iraq the going get rough, then you have no idea about how to win a war. Even Colin Powell stated that if you go to war you have to go with enough troops to begin with to execute the plan, and have an exit plan. Neither of which was done. Plus, everyone was all for going to Iraq, republicans, democrats, in***endants, etc. But that was on faulty intelligence. Hell after 9/11, if they would have told us Sweden had ties to Al Quaida we would have supported going to war with them. But all that stuff wasn't true. Don't try to put this on Dems, roidattack!!!

RA · 05-16-2007, 12:49 PM

Im not blaming them for the war...Im blaming them for having spaghetti spines.

Dems were screaming not enough troops, so Bush sends more troops. NOW thats "escalating" the war. IMO, they are playing too many games and when it comes to this conflict that shouldnt be happening.

Originally Posted by BgMc31

If you call what's going on in Iraq the going get rough, then you have no idea about how to win a war. Even Colin Powell stated that if you go to war you have to go with enough troops to begin with to execute the plan, and have an exit plan. Neither of which was done. Plus, everyone was all for going to Iraq, republicans, democrats, in***endants, etc. But that was on faulty intelligence. Hell after 9/11, if they would have told us Sweden had ties to Al Quaida we would have supported going to war with them. But all that stuff wasn't true. Don't try to put this on Dems, roidattack!!!

**Logan13** · 05-16-2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

You seems to think criticizing government policy is anti-american. did you call yourself an anti-american when you were probably criticizing the policies of the Clinton administrations or are you a hypocrite?

I am an equal opportunity criticizer. I voted for Clinton both times(I mean seriously Bob Dole

), I did not think that he should have been impeached, but I do believe that he disgraced the Office.

**Logan13** · 05-16-2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

If you call what's going on in Iraq the going get rough, then you have no idea about how to win a war. Even Colin Powell stated that if you go to war you have to go with enough troops to begin with to execute the plan, and have an exit plan. Neither of which was done. Plus, everyone was all for going to Iraq, republicans, democrats, in***endants, etc. But that was on faulty intelligence. Hell after 9/11, if they would have told us Sweden had ties to Al Quaida we would have supported going to war with them. But all that stuff wasn't true. Don't try to put this on Dems, roidattack!!!

Well put Bg, but it is predominately the Democrats who are crying about this war, and acting like they never voted for the authorization of force in the first place.

**Hoggage_54** · 05-16-2007, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am an equal opportunity criticizer. I voted for Clinton both times(I mean seriously Bob Dole

), I did not think that he should have been impeached, but I do believe that he disgraced the Office.

He stained the office!!

**mcpeepants** · 05-16-2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am an equal opportunity criticizer. I voted for Clinton both times(I mean seriously Bob Dole

), I did not think that he should have been impeached, but I do believe that he disgraced the Office.

I was just responding to alphaman calling anti-american for criticizing government policy.

**BgMc31** · 05-16-2007, 08:18 PM

I understand what you all are saying Alpha and Logan, but time and time again, republicans on this forum always claim the dems are cowards and scared to fight a war and are actually supporting terrorism with their stance on the war. The facts are that this isn't true. Just because their methods are different from republicans doesn't make them terrorists sympathizers. Plus Dems have never been afraid to go to war, did we forget that Dems took us into Vietnam and the Republicans took us out. Did we forget that a democrat took us to the Korean war. It seems that republicans have a short term memory. This isn't about who the toughest party is, it about which party is going to listen to the American public. And at this time, when it comes to Iraq, the republicans are out of step with the majority of the American public.

**BgMc31** · 05-16-2007, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am an equal opportunity criticizer. I voted for Clinton both times(I mean seriously Bob Dole

), I did not think that he should have been impeached, but I do believe that he disgraced the Office.

Are you serious Logan? No denying he was a womanizer who lied about getting a blow job. But he was a good president. Many, many presidents had extramarital affairs. How is that a stain on the office when other presidents have done much worse and are now considered heroes (IE Ronald Regan)?

**Lexed** · 05-16-2007, 08:25 PM

y dont we just give them the detonator

**Logan13** · 05-16-2007, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I understand what you all are saying Alpha and Logan, but time and time again, republicans on this forum always claim the dems are cowards and scared to fight a war and are actually supporting terrorism with their stance on the war. The facts are that this isn't true. Just because their methods are different from republicans doesn't make them terrorists sympathizers. Plus Dems have never been afraid to go to war, did we forget that Dems took us into Vietnam and the Republicans took us out. Did we forget that a democrat took us to the Korean war. It seems that republicans have a short term memory. This isn't about who the toughest party is, it about which party is going to listen to the American public. And at this time, when it comes to Iraq, the republicans are out of step with the majority of the American public.

Since we are bringing up history, don't forget that the Republicans were responsible for Reconstruction and the end of slavery as well.....

**Logan13** · 05-16-2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Are you serious Logan? No denying he was a womanizer who lied about getting a blow job. But he was a good president. Many, many presidents had extramarital affairs. How is that a stain on the office when other presidents have done much worse and are now considered heroes (IE Ronald Regan)?

He was a good president that made a very bad choice. Please do not compare Clinton to Ronald Reagan.

**RamyGras** · 05-16-2007, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by crow13

i know some dems thar did as well

Owned? Seriously?

**singern** · 05-17-2007, 07:48 AM

Wow this thread really went south fast.... we went from Iran's Nuke program to Clintons blow jobs.......

**BgMc31** · 05-17-2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Since we are bringing up history, don't forget that the Republicans were responsible for Reconstruction and the end of slavery as well.....

Are you seriously saying that the Republican Party of that era is the same as it is today. If that were the case, why were most racists southeners during that time were Democrats and now they are Republicans. C'mon Logan, remember you aren't debating some idiot off the street. I respect our heated debates and I also respect your intelligence, please show the same courtesy.

**BgMc31** · 05-17-2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

He was a good president that made a very bad choice. Please do not compare Clinton to Ronald Reagan.

Why? Does that hurt your feelings? You've got to understand, to Democrats and minorities (especially Blacks). Clinton was the best President since JFK.

RA · 05-17-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Why? Does that hurt your feelings? You've got to understand, to Democrats and minorities (especially Blacks). Clinton was the best President since JFK.

Ronald Reagan was a great man who did great things with the office of President. Clinton was a silly, irresponsbile, frat boy who ignored the serious problems of our country. I really cant believe you think he was a great president.