Comments on: Iran May Be Closer To Nukes Than Thought

U.S. Intelligence Moves Up Worst-Case Scenario Date To 2010, But Says Iran Will Likely Take Longer

[notblue]

jihad6395, America hasn't pledged to wipe a country off the face of the earth. That's because we use them a deterrent not a club used for destruction of our enemies. You need to step back and make some comparisons. If we had the ideology of the radicals in the middle east, who could care less about innocent civilian lives that region of the world would be an ashtray by now. That's the difference between the U.S. and a radical regime. Your nonsensical ignorant comparison speaks volumes.

[infidel_us]

We in America need to STOP being the world's police. It is not our right nor job. Get over it!
Posted by jh6379 at 09:08 AM : Apr 27, 2007

So, I take it that you do not support sending our troops in to Darfur? By the way, your school yard view, "Johnny has one so why can't I" of rogue terror supporting countries is overly simplistic.

[infidel_us]

Nahhhh....can't be. They told us they only want nukes for power production. Watch my hands, carefully......what shell is the pea under now?

[harp1963]

The Bush Administration probably got there information from playing James Bond movies backwards. There must be hidden messages that disclose Irans plans of invading the United States and developing nukes. The tapes were given to them from the same homeless Iraqi guy who said Iraq had nukes. We must invade says our mental institution President.

[bluestardad]

kevboom; GREAT POST AND TRUE! POST AGAIN!

[jjp735i]

One has to truely wonder is the intelligence correct or more B&C fluff to find a reason to bomb yet another country?

The years to when Iran will have a weapon keeps changing. Sorry, it's just to hard to belive something since the intelligence has been wrong so many times during this White House.

[kevboom]

Why is the U.S. the only country worried about Iranian nukes? Do they hate just the U.S.? Why? Is it because we throw blind support to bully Israel? Is it because of our pre-emptive strike against Iraq (still unfounded), or maybe our pressure to sanction Iran for weapons we already have (hypocrites). Why don't other western nations mess with the middle east's business so deeply? Does the U.S. need its oil? We have new fuel technologies, and the billions wasted in Iraq could have furthered that in allowing us to disengage from the region and hurt their oil-based economies that fund terror. It's time the U.S. took real steps to protect itself from the hostile middle east by cutting off funding to Israel and leaving the muslims to stew in their own violence. The region is quicksand, and we're only fooling ourselves to think we have a solution to "help" any of its people. Get out, lay low, and let them destroy each other before they bring us down with them. Why was this ever any of our business? You don't see Australia or Canada blowing their national economies on lost causes, nor do you see muslims blowing up the Sydney bridge or CN Tower. What are the REAL "between-the-line" reasons our government feels the need to meddle in the middle east and put us all at risk? Rove could tell you. Profits for military contractors? Israeli and Saudi special interests? Turmoil and increased profits for the big oil lobby? Not good enough reasons. Disengage; stop poking the hornet's nest.

[kevboom]

See, the Democrats were right after all. We should pull out of Iraq in the next year, and that will give the military time to reload before President Giuliani rushes in to blow another $900 billion saving us from the evil muslims in Iran. ha ha Good thing the United States has no domestic education, hunger, medical, pollution, transportation, immigration, or poverty problems to spend all that military money on. With these Republican spending tactics, maybe they are right after all, no terrorist will ever harm the U.S. because we'll be a third world country ourselves like North Korea with a powerful military and 99% of the citizenry living in scathing poverty. Why would anyone want to destroy us, when we're doing a fine job of it ourselves?! Brilliant tactics from the GOP, or is it those "evil" muslims who are laughing as the dollar shrinks further into oblivion?

[kaliveotin]

P.S. If you believe that Iran isn't a danger to the U.S. you haven't been paying attention. Remember just because some of us are paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get us. In this age of quickly changing dynamics, and a strong crop of fundementalist engineers, chemists, and biotechnoligists, (mostly trained in the U.S. or other advanced wesern nations) don't be too suprised when the big nasty deadly surprise occurs. Pay attention. Here it comes.

[radiob-2009]

From Debkafile


Even with sufficient bomb-grade uranium, Iran must still master the technology for building a bomb or a warhead which can be delivered by air or missile. All the timelines released thus far, including the CBS disclosure of Fri. April 27, are no more than estimates. None of the intelligence agencies, American, Israeli, or even Iranian, can precisely date the moment of breakthrough, or predict when Tehran will acquire the technology it lacks on the black market.

Olmert%u2019s estimate that Iran%u2019s nuclear program is far off and can be halted by diplomacy and sanctions was offered in a speech this week to American Jewish leaders. Wide of the mark, it was produced as anodyne for an audience nervous of a US-Israeli war against Iran. The CBS reference to a possible Israeli pre-emptive strike involving the US was a roundabout way of intimating that American military action against Iran involving Israel has moved closer to reality. The Olmert government would not dream of going it alone against Iran, as did Menahem Begin in 2001, when he ordered the bombing of Saddam Hussein%u2019s nuclear reactor.