"Yes, this is a dielemma!"
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran's nuclear facility operational |
| 2005-08-10 |
| IRAN'S uranium conversion facility in Isfahan was fully operational overnight after all the seals placed by international inspectors were removed, an Iranian nuclear official said. "We have removed the seals, the Isfahan conversion facility is fully operational," the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy agency Mohammad Saidi said. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 The only way to resolve this matter is through regime change. The Iranians have the intellectual capital to build and rebuild nuclear weaponry. This doesn't go away with bombing raids, although strategic attacks may slow things down for a short while. Bombing could be pretty entertaining as well. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-10 18:20 |
| #9 One of the reasons for leaving Iran alone so far is that they have 3 times the population of Iraq and far more resources. I've read articles on how invulnerable Iran's nuclear facilities are to aerial attack, indicating an invasion would be necessary to prevent an Iranian bomb. No one has written about the need for electrical power to support nuclear weapons development. In the US, nuclear weapons production sites are always associated with substantial electrical power supplies, see Oak Ridge and the other site in Washington. If the nuclear sites are buried far underground, the electrical supplies are not likely to be, the wasted electrical energy has to be vented to the surface of the earth somehow, unless the Iranians have figured out how to do this underground. I wouldn't be surprised if a sustained aerial attack to eliminate all Iranian power grids and electrical production would be the penultimate sanction against the mullahs's grasp at the ultimate weapon. The ultimate sanction would probably be nuclear bunker-busters. |
| Posted by: Crairong Omomotch6492 2005-08-10 17:28 |
| #8 Valentine: The problem is that France and Germany were stating that Iraq was developing weapons in 1998-99. But, once it turned out we might do something about it, they changed their minds. Why wouldn't they weasel out this time, too? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-10 15:46 |
| #7 Methinks the |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-10 15:06 |
| #6 If anyones been paying attention they'd note that now even Germany and Russia are pretty much admitting that Iran is planning on developing nuclear weapons. That might mean that the big Euro 3 finally just give up trying to appease and let the US take out the facilities. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-08-10 14:50 |
| #5 YS I think that you haven't been paying attention. The short form is that we invaded Iraq first for the same reason that we invaded North Africa first in WWII. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-08-10 13:34 |
| #4 Because we went into Iraq our hands our tied when we need them free. Honestly, I have never understood or bought into the reasons given for invading Iraq first knowing that Iran was the major terrorist supporter in the world. I'm just an IT guy in Colorado - but it always seemed to me that if we really wanted to take on terrorism we should have taken on Iran first. Iran supports Syria, Hezbollah, was supporting Arafat, Islamic Jihad, etc. They were and are allot closer the getting the bomb then Saddam ever was. What is all of your takes on my idea? |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-08-10 12:55 |
| #3 "Yes, this is a dielemma!" |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-10 12:41 |
| #2 Shoot some hoops? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-10 12:34 |
| #1 Balls in our court, what do we do? |
| Posted by: Clolutle Sniger6060 2005-08-10 12:11 |