Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuke Weapons  
User currently offlineRsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday it would take many years for Iran to achieve the capability to produce highly enriched uranium needed for an atomic bomb. Blix also dismissed worries about a new nuclear reactor being built in Iran, saying it was not suitable to produce weapons-grade material.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_re_eu/sweden_blix_iran


Blix was right about WMDS in Iraq and Bush and team refused to listen to him or Scott Ritter I wonder if they will listen to Blix now or is the Bush administration deadset on an invasion of Iran. The Bush administration has said already several times that Iran has NUKE-U-LAR wepeons It appears again that Blix disagrees.

Stay tuned for an upcoming FoxNews Alert......


Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1310 times:

I wonder if they will listen to Blix now or is the Bush administration deadset on an invasion of Iran

You will be hard pressed to find serious talk of an invasion of Iran. I do believe that the Bush administration or the Sharon government would attack Iran's facilities to prevent them from going nuclear, but definitly not an invasion. The fact that there hasn't been any attack, or even a move to pass sanctions at the UN, probably means they are further away from nuclear weapons than everyone thinks.

An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be a disaster. If it stopped Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a blessing. Despite many claims in the press, the United States and Israel are militarily capable of launching an attack.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting Rsmith6621a (Thread starter):
Blix was right about WMDS in Iraq

Only after the US made that determination. Something at was possible after the war because before Iraq wouldn't allow the UN to perform it's madated inspections.

Or did you forget that point.

Blix is a UN putz and has lost all creditbility with the fair minded people in this world. Only left wingers who want the UN to be a world goverment prop him up as something he isn't.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26620 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1264 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 1):
If it stopped Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a blessing.

As opposed to the US, Israel, France, China, Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others that already have them? Or perhaps it would keep the status quo and move away from the peaceful solution that Iran proposed and allow the US government to keep name calling to consolidate power?

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 1):
An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be a disaster.

Well, considering your stance on things, I guess the thousands that would end up dead from the ensuing war would not be a disaster

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 1):
Despite many claims in the press, the United States and Israel are militarily capable of launching an attack.

Of course they are. Only this time the country would have the ability to fight back

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Something at was possible after the war because before Iraq wouldn't allow the UN to perform it's madated inspections.

Um, no. Blix was able to perform inspections, hence he was able to say Iraq had no WMDs

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Only after the US made that determination.

You mean after being "sure he has them"?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Or did you forget that point.

No, it is you who has selective memory

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Blix is a UN putz and has lost all creditbility with the fair minded people in this world.

Ok, so now we are talking in opposite talk.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 1):
I do believe that the Bush administration or the Sharon government would attack Iran's facilities to prevent them from going nuclear, but definitly not an invasion.

Wouldn't doing so provoke an attack, i.e. self defense, on their part?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
As opposed to the US, Israel, France, China, Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others that already have them?

I think the point is that leaders that tolerate inhumanity and are not economically capable of providing a service to others should not have nuclear weapons at hand.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Only after the US made that determination. Something at was possible after the war because before Iraq wouldn't allow the UN to perform it's madated inspections.

So despite our most sophisticated sat imagery and intel, we must attack Iran's ability to even make anything nuclear to confirm that can't do anything ever again? It doesn't matter if they are planning anything, we will keep them from planning? Is that our right to interfere with another countries abilities? Let it be Israel's problem if they are so concerned. If they go ahead and we are stll supporting them, we will get a backlash.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21694 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 4):
Wouldn't doing so provoke an attack, i.e. self defense, on their part?

Not against the US (even if we did it), but they'd certainly try to go after Israel. Where they'd be defeated in a war that could get very nasty.

The question arises: Is it better to set off that scenario, or to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons? I think all the talk of "Iran is going to nuke Israel the moment they get a bomb" is overrated - they know that they'll be nuked in return, and one doesn't get to run a government by being an idiot. On the other hand, the consequences of them actually doing it would be very grave. So, do you accept a bloody war that will kill people and prevent a bigger attack that might not even happen, or do you not start that war, and take the risk that there could be a nuclear attack, and thus far more death? Both of those options are equally undesirable, but if diplomacy fails, it's going to have to be one of them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 14079 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

The problem is that with the Iraq invasion, which didn't have nukes, and at the same time not going after North Korea, which has nukes, the US showed that a country is safe from invasion as long as it has nukes and can bite. Now every tinpot dictator is trying to get his hand on a few nukes to prevent an invasion to topple him.

Jan


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

I´ve seen Mr Blix on several TV shows here and what he thinks about US top brass and GWB, he is very diplomatic!

He´s not one of GWB fans, lets put it that way...

Micke//SE  Wink



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlinePIA777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1738 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1170 times:

Iran will never Nuke anyone, not even Isreal. Shias are not terrorist.
Its all in the American media's head that just because a muslim country has
nukes, that they will use it against the American's or Isreal. America is still one of the only countries to ever use Nukes in war.

Abbas



GO CUBS!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Running Away From Home posted Thu Dec 7 2006 18:10:43 by 9V
Step Away From That Cheeseburger And Buy An SUV! posted Thu Nov 30 2006 15:45:59 by Dougloid
World Cup 2006 - How Will You Get Away From It? posted Fri Jun 9 2006 14:05:32 by Noelg
Could Iran Be Barred From The World Cup? posted Sat May 27 2006 00:38:04 by Jetjack74
Who Is Away From Home This Weekend? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 08:44:49 by UTA_flyinghigh
My Mother Has Passed Away From Lymphoma posted Sat Oct 22 2005 04:25:17 by CcrlR
How Far Away From Home Do You Live? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 06:51:36 by Dtwclipper
Israeli FM: Iran Able To Have Nuke In 6 Months posted Wed Feb 16 2005 18:50:41 by RJpieces
Does Iran Deserve Nuclear Power And Weapons? posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:08:15 by Greaser
Iran Close To Having Nuke posted Mon Aug 4 2003 03:51:23 by N79969