Welcome to PatsFans.com

IAEA Chief: Iran Could Make Nuke In 6 Months

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by otis p. driftwood, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    http://wcbstv.com/national/israel.iran.attack.2.755478.html


    Wasn't someone here just a few days ago talking about "decades" before Iran was nuked up?
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    He aslo says that BOMBING Iran will make him step down, and is not the answer.


    SO.....

    If you believe him that Iran can get a nuke in 6 months....ALSO believe him when he says that bombing will F-up the region even more.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369861,00.html

    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire" and lead the country to a more aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program.

    The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came in an interview with an Arab television station aired a day after U.S. officials said they believed recent large Israeli military exercises may have been meant to show Israel's ability to hit Iran's nuclear sites.

    • U.N. Nuke Chief Urges Syria to Cooperate With Inspectors

    "In my opinion, a military strike will be the worst ... it will turn the Middle East to a ball of fire," ElBaradei said on Al-Arabiya television. It also could prompt Iran to press even harder to seek a nuclear program, and force him to resign, he said.

    Iran on Saturday also criticized the Israeli exercises. The official IRNA news agency quoted a government spokesman as saying that the exercises demonstrate Israel "jeopardizes global peace and security."
     
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I see what you're doing here. Unbelievable.

    The man is saying that if Iran truly wanted a nuclear weapon, it could produce one, from start to finish, but that it would have to toss out the IAEA inspectors. Not that it will have one in 6 months.

    "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least, considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...It would need at least six months to one year," ElBaradei said.

    "Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon," he said.

    His interviewer then asked "If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

    Again, the moment Iran actually throws out the IAEA, then the west can begin being truly concerned.
     
  5. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    What's unbelievable? If they throw them out (or are just doing the weapons enrichment someplace the IAEA doesn't know about?), then they can have it ready in 6 months. I was told by someone...I think Wildo--just last week that it would take Iran about 15-20 years to develop a nuclear weapon.

    And that, Mr. PC, sir, is my only point here.
     
  6. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    wooohoooo nuclear arms!
     
  7. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Common 15-20 years? I said earliest estimates were between the years 2012 and 2015.

    The "if" is a pretty huge "if" seeing as though inspectors aren't going anywhere anytime soon unless Israel attacks. And the IAEA knows their capabilities and factors in the "secret places" you are referring to but have no solid evidence for.

    So let's recap: There is no evidence that Iran has begun constructing a nuclear weapon. If they were, then at the earliest they could possibly have one by 2012, though again, there is no evidence they are doing so. If they were to kick out weapons inspectors, which they won't, they could theoretically have one in 6 months.

    Good reasons for war these do not make.
     
  8. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Never claimed they were good reasons for war. Don't put words in my mouth (so to speak).

    6 months. 2012. Hmm...there's a big difference there.

    Besides, didn't you see, Reign already took credit for the 25 year thing.
     
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Yeah, the big difference is the presence of IAEA weapons inspectors.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  10. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Are you really that impressed and comfy with the inspectors? You think they know everything that's going on?

    I mean--it's fine if you really are, and aren't just trying to argue. I'm not, but then again we can't know so there's no point arguing about it.
     
  11. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    More comfy than who? The Bush administration? Ummmmm yes.
     
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Don't you guys think the stupidest thing we or Israel could do would be to lather ourselves into a frenzy over speculation and just start bombing?

    I'll be the first to say it then...that my friends, would REALLY be stupid.:cool:
     
  13. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I set no parameters--I just asked if you were comfy with the IAEA, because I think it's a borderline corrupt organization and I think they can be bought off or misdirected. But like I said, that's my opinion, you have yours, no point in arguing it.

    But why bring Bush into it? No one mentioned Bush. Do you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome? I've got some zanny bars if you think they might help...:D
     
  14. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Reign, do you have any sense of history at all? Are you familiar with the fact that Israeli fighter/bombers attacked Iraq several years ago and destroyed Saddam's fledgling nuke program...they penetrated some of the heaviest protected airspace on the planet and they all got in and all got out and Saddam's nuke program went blooey.

    It's part of why he was taken seriously when he said he had all those WMD's, because of history.

    Now--fact: we know Iran is developing nuclear tech.
    Fact: the nutty muppet has (depending on which translation you believe) suggested that soon the rotting stinking corpse of Zionism (Israel, duh) will be removed from the planet.
    Fact: Israel takes that kind of chatter pretty seriously. It's only through US pressure (I believe) that they haven't done anything yet, there, in Syria, or Hamas....
     
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    There isn't a leader on this planet I hate more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (followed closely by Kim Jong-il & Chavez). The man is not sane enought to be president of anything.

    That being said, I still think we need to refrain from that lathering and wait for definitive evidence. Maybe Israel already has it, who knows.

    Nuclear sucks...in my opinion. I wish humanity's common sense had advanced as far as our technology.

    P.S. you like The Road Not Taken (Frost)?

    "I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference."
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  16. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I brought Bush into it because you basically asked me if the IAEA was credible enough to make me feel comfortable. Since there seem to be two minds on Iran getting the bomb, the IAEA v. the Bush administration, if I have to rely on one of those two parties for info on Iran and the bomb, I'd choose the IAEA. I don't know if anyone would make me feel 100% comfortable on the subject but the IAEA is the most credible of all of them.
     
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,812
    Likes Received:
    182
    Ratings:
    +371 / 11 / -28

    Lets connect some dots here..

    Previously said that if Obama is elected that there is a good chance that Bush will attack Iran..

    Now we are hearing that Iran could make a nuke in 6 months..

    Sounds a lot like the idle rhetoric and hysteria leading to Iraq...

    Give me that old time Mossad or CIA..
     
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Fact: We've been here before. This has nothing to do with "Saddam". We're talking about Iran. Not much of a comparison unless you use geography. Unfortunately for you and your neocon zionist friends, not enough time has passed for people to forget how the government lied and fu(ked over the People in their chirade to justify invading Iraq. No one's going to buy it this soon. You spinners will need more time to sucker us in again. Maybe five or six years from now the public will have forgotten and be ready to be led over the cliff again, but not yet.

    Keep beating those war drums, though. Someone might listen to you and your friends in Israel and go along with that rhetorical bullsh!t. And if Israel bombs Iran you can always say how right you were. It won't be the US but it will be seen the same by every Muslim country (except for the medieval pig Saudis).

    It's always the loudmout chickenhawks - with their repetition of marginal evidence and complete detachment from the effects of war - who are cheering on the bombers and missile launchers for some action because they get some kind of sick chubby when they watch stuff getting blown up on CNN - completely ignoring the dead and emaciated bodies on the ground and the resulting retaliation coming down the road in the form of blown up busses and other terrorist actions.

    Keep it up, suckahs! Half a dozen years from now, we'll have forgotten the lies and deceipt of our government and we'll be ready to go along with whatever our shepherds tell us...again.
     
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I have heard that there are people who actually get excited about going to war. I've always told myself that has to be impossible because no sane person wants to hear about people being blown up, shot or burned.

    I mean even the guys who invent the weapons can't get psyched about war or attacking countries, it just goes against anything sane & rational we know to be uniquely human.

    Now some might say "hey, men have proudly gone to battle since the beginning of time"...to that I say...

    "Yes, and we can only pray that we have evolved beyond that ancient & barbaric ritual!":cool:

    I am not saying there is never a need for war or even offensive strategy. Just that no one should ever get excited about it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2008
  20. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Umm--wistah? I wasn't beating any war drums. I was just pointing out to Reign that, not so long ago Iraq had a reactor almost complete, Israel took it as a threat and destroyed it. This was in reaction to his post about Israel getting all worked up blah blah.

    Just a history lesson. No war drums, no chubby, no neocon zionist anything.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

    That's why Saddam was even mentioned--since Israel has a bit of a history here.

    I wish you'd stop flying off the handle everytime you see "saddam" or "israel" and carrying on so.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>