Yew dum dums.
India uses a heavy Water reactor

IRANS is a lite water reactor

I dont expect you to know the difference.
Consider that INDIA does use a Heavy Water Reactor
and that IS not UNDER amy Inspection agreements
as well. Sheet.
Yew will get nuked if you keep this line up.
Rummy and his cronies started the IRAN nuke programs 30 years ago.
The Nuclear troijan horse.
Now Bush wants India to have that as well.
Rummy helped to GIVE IRAN nuclear materials 30 years back (google that)
If I WERE YOU I WOULD study the FAS site papers
on nuclear energy and India. Thorium reactors and green Sats, heavy waterl,. MOX and other things before you start spreading your fear factor WITHOUT researching those subjects above.

Your Blame and your Right Wing Fear is unfounded
and only creates more fear, and more Wars like the
one for WMD that WASNT.
Now Look who helped IRAN attain Nuclear technology. RESEARCH THAT!
Sheesh you guys sound like Oprah Winfrey

U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry
Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz behind Iran Nuclear Program initiated during Ford Administration

by Ed Haas

March 6, 2006
Muckraker Report.

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration's Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, "Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium - the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders."[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs - regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran. The NEO-CON war drumbeaters have already devised their plans for the liberation of the people again, this time Iranian people, and making things all better, just like they have done in Iraq. Scary stuff, but it is true. In preparation, the Bush Administration has primed the mainstream media so effectively that 8 out of 10 Americans believe Iran poises an immediate nuclear threat to the United States. The President's recent and risky travel to regional nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, no doubt also served as a strategic warning to those countries to prepare for the certain public backlash to be expected once the U.S. or Israel begins to drop bombs on Iran.

HOw many years were russian Nukes used to Scare the hell outta people? I can remember as a Child doing Drills.Hiding Under desks. The RUSSIANS Have Missiles!!
Guess what nothing ever Happened.

And Guess what Israel has nukes as well and they are not under IAEA or NPT.
India refused sites to be inspected as well.
Nukes have been mounted on the backs of JEEPS for decades!!
See Nucear Museum in New Mexico.
Nuclear Powered Planes
Nuclear shells that can be fired from a Cannon!

None I SAY NONE of this IS NEW.
Quit LISTENING to that MEDIA BS HYPE!
NUCLEAR weapons are NOT the mot powerful Weapon!

WTFU you stoopid non technical, non reading,RIght Wing Oprah Winfrey
SKY IS FALLING Sissies!

U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry
Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz behind Iran Nuclear Program initiated during Ford Administration

by Ed Haas

March 6, 2006
Muckraker Report.

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration's Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.
----------------------------------------------
CANT you IDIOTS see what they ARE DOING?
The Right WING WACKOS created this DEBACLE 30 years AGO!!

WTFU YOU STOOOPID FOX News PARROTS!!

Well now. mr ho and buck rear their stupid little heads again. if i'm not mistaken, in 1975, we "WERE" allies with the Shah, before he went into exile in 1979.

In the heroic words of our hero, George C. Looney, "you guys are dumber than a bag of hammers."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

It appears from here that mr ho and buck may be the same troll.

A manure pile, by any other name, is still nothing but dung.

Iran has serious reality-deficit issues. They want a nuclear weapon to face off against the U.S., but all they'll have is a Moped in a game of chicken with our eighteen-wheeler.

The Soviets and the Israeli's don't believe that they'll get to paradise by using their nukes and provoking a world war. That's the difference. Iran must be stopped at all costs!

The Soviets had an air force and a large army before WWII. They didn't use it to attack anyone. The world (including the U.S.) turned a blind eye to Nazi Germany's military build up and look what happened. If Iran gets a nuke, they will use it for war or blackmail.

I think that "mr ho" is really "billy" using a different screen name. His reply to this will tell the story.

I'm running a survey as to why Bush is still playing games on the diplomatic front and not moving to use military force against Iran and would welcome your input and suggestions. Here's the poll.

Rick, that is a good point, but at the same time, Iran will never have sufficient uranium to match a tenth of the U.S. arsenal, probably not even 1%.

They could hurt us. Once. I'd prefer to stop them before that point, but our reaction to 9/11 would look like Gandhi should they be foolish enough. Nuclear blackmail wouldn't work against us, it is longstanding U.S. policy that the threat of a nuclear detonation is fundamentally equivalent to the use of one.

I think there's more than a few of the mullahs over there willing to let followers get to Paradise long before they do.

Buck and mr ho are posting from the same AOL IP, within minutes. I wouldn't say it's conclusive, but it's damn convincing to me...

J.

Is the "billy" screen name from that same IP as well?

From the "Air America Isn't Doing So Well" post's.

Hmmm.

I'm running a survey as to why Bush is still playing games on the diplomatic front and not moving to use military force against Iran and would welcome your input and suggestions.

Because any serious military action against Iran is going to probably end up spiraling out of control.

Sanctions are a necessary first step in the dance of world diplomacy.

Sorry folks, I believe that Iran is just like a rabid dog. Sooner or later it has to be shot! If your goal is to destroy another people, then there really is no negotiating with them. Sooner or later, they will try. We either have to work behind the scenes to over throw their government or we have to pull the trigger. Sanctions and negotiations work with reasonable people.

At least with North Korea, we know the game. "Give us food and fuel and let us act like we're big shots and we'll back down a bit". Then the whole thing starts all over again when they want some new stuff. With Iran, they have food, fuel and so on. Their leaders seem to want only the destruction of Israel and Islamic fundamentalist domination of the entire Middle East. They aren't going to settle for anything short of that.

Ed: while military action isn't perfect as it may spiral off, doing anything else - playing with the UN, pretending sanctions and international condemnation will do anything, trying to get the people of Iran to rise up - is a waste of time as NONE of it will deter the Mad Mullahs from getting themselves a bomb. And while some ostriches might think that we could live with that, my prediction is that we can't... and won't.

And this would be a bad thing how? Do 'splain why eliminating a loon and his fanatical religious handlers would be a 'bad' descision in light of the fact that they are more than willing to threaten the use of WMD's.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots from threat to actual one time use. After that first Iranian blast there would be several more from multiple countries targeting Iran., collateral damage be damned.

Gmac:

What makes you so sure that there would be any retaliation against Iran? You think France or England, in fear of the Muslims as they are, are going to launch nukes against Tehran if Iran goes after Israel? Nor would they respond if Iran went after the US. They'd figure we were big boys and could handle things ourselves. There'd be huge demonstrations against their getting involved - and a foreign leader using nukes would doom his or her career.

And even here at home there would be substantial cry from many - on both the right and the left - to not make matters worse by escalating. There would be cries that we were responsible for what happened, that we had it coming. There would be marches and candlelight processions with people singing 'give peace a chance'.

There would be people claiming that we couldn't be sure it was the Iranians who did it, that Bush was lying, that the tell-tale signatures were forged. We'd have Mother Cindy chaining herself to the White House fence. We'd have human shields heading off to Iran. We'd have Democrats arguing that Bush arranged this in order to salvage his shaky polls. We'd have Buchanan claiming that we had it coming because of our support for Israel. We'd have people claiming that, were we to retaliate, then things would really get crazy, that it was best to lick our wounds and let things simmer down.

The 'international community' would scream for the matter to be referred to the UN for deliberation. Our 'allies', such as Russia and Germany, would strongly advise us against making things worse (just as our government tells Israel to not make things worse by retaliating against Palestinian terror attacks). The Arab/Muslim members of OPEC would rally round their comrades and threaten to cut off oil to the United States were we to respond with nukes of our own.

And the Iranians know this. They know that Bush is full of bluster. They know that it took him years to work up the guts to go after Hussein. They know he is dying (somewhat intentional choice of word) for a way out of having to use our military against Iran.

The Iranians would offer up apologies and claim it was the result of some madmen that seized control of the facilities and who were caught and executed by Iranian security forces. They would promise to discuss making amends and taking action to make sure nothing like this happened again (which, if you think about, had the Taliban done the same thing about Bin Laden post 9/11, would probably have been sufficient to keep Bush from invading... although we'd still be waiting for the Taliban to complete their investigation). The Pope would rise up and declare that retaliating against someone who has said he were sorry is a sin against all of humanity.

Yeah, I'd count on the threat of retaliation being sufficient to deter Iran...

And this all presumes they would even care if we retaliated...

Actually, steve, the detonation of a nuclear weapon against the U.S. pretty much ends the debate. Any nation attempting to stand between us and the enemy becomes the enemy.

I am sure the Iranians would not care if we retaliated. Death ends all cares.

Mr. Ho/ One Eye, Greetings! and don't be (a)stranger(s)! GREAT point about the light- vs heavy-water reactors. One is never too old to learn. I didn't read a rebuttal in subsequent comments but I could have missed it (the eyes glaze over sometimes!) BUT ONE THING: The regs here, be they Bush partisans or bush-bots are NOT right- wingers!(whatever that's supposed to mean in a nation-state) They're adherents of some wierd personality cult that follows no set of principles. They are as Bush is. And what is Bush? Open-borders. Corporate socialist. Global-statist. And for the benefit of "the folks" it's served up wrapped in quasi-Christian heresies and political zionism, all the while hiding behind Judah and Benjamin (as usual). P.S. Heard the Prez on the radio and he was delivering a speech and speaking R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-O-O-O-O-O-W!(strangely, I took no pleasure in this. Even a little. OK, a teensy bit. Are the Red Chinese watching?) p.p.s. Leave Iran alone. If Israel wants them nuked let 'em!

steve sturm,

I doubt Iran will have nuclear weapons soon enough to face off with Bush. Even if some country offered Iran fully functional nuclear tipped ICBMs they likely wouldn't want them until Bush is out of office. You see we view the leaders of Iran as a bunch of crazies, but they view Bush as some macho cowboy from Texas and fear that more than if he were just crazy. They figure Bush is just waiting for a chance to pave Iran in green glass and then show up in a Hummer to take a tour of the place.

Mac Lorry: why wouldn't the Iranians conclude that Bush NOT having already moved against them is prima facie evidence that he is not a cowboy and that they have nothing to fear from him? Would John Wayne have gone to the UN? Would Clint Eastwood have stood around hoping someone issued sanctions?

John Irving: you think a nuke attack against the UN would be akin to Pearl Harbor... 95%+ public approval of going to war, lines at the military enlistment office, Senators taking to the floor to demand the immediate nuclear retaliation against Iran and all who don't support us? Unfortunately, it wouldn't be, as there is a solid mass of Americans who, for one reason or another, would object to our striking back - don't forget the number of people who argued against going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda after 9/11. The Greatest Generation, we are no longer.

steve sturm,

Because the governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq were taken down after Bush went to the U.N., not before. Iran knows the U.N. is a first step, but regardless of the outcome, Bush has acted. A nuclear Iran would risk Bush using the Trinitite solution.

Hmmm.

Ed: while military action isn't perfect as it may spiral off, doing anything else

I'm not saying that a military action might not be the way to go. What I am saying is that any military action must be done with the possibility that it'll cause a major West vs Islam war to break out.

So we might trade Iran not having nukes to a general conflagration where we have tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of wannabe militants rushing into Iraq to kill American soldiers. In which case the whole issue of Iraq can turn into a nightmare Firebase Gloria scenario. It would cost a lot of lives to overrun American military bases, but it's possible if you're willing to take those losses. It all depends on what military actions are taken and what are the collateral issues.

What I'm pointing out is that military action against Iran cannot be considered in isolation without considering the potential impact on Iraq, Afghanistan and our other positions in the ME.