Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista posturilor afişate
Nu eşti autorizat sã scrii pe acest panou.Pentru a putea adãuga mesaje trebuie sã ai nivelul de (0)
Surely with the technology today regarding satellites, drones and other forms of spying and other 'intelligence' (I'm talking about actual intelligence, not the 'WMD' fiasco type) .....
... Those who can tell, can tell the difference between a nuclear power plant radiation signature and that of a weapon.
I'd hate to see (now that Syria is no longer really a threat) Iran being bombed and that radiation being released into the environment, causing disease, mutation and death (to men, women and children {including unborn.. which I thought were sacred to conservatives}) for years after.
... I don't think Iran has the ability quite frankly to clean up such a mess. We've seen during the later part of the 20th century thousands of children getting leukaemia through 'kids' playing with nuclear 'toys'. That's why we have an agreement not to test nukes above ground.
anyway.. with precision tech the ability to target and kill any launch system is much cleaner. Iran isn't exactly abundant with long range missiles.
Subiectul: Re:You are over simplifying how it's done
Iamon lyme: I said.. and I quote...
"Surely with the technology today regarding satellites, drones and other forms of spying and other 'intelligence' (I'm talking about actual intelligence, not the 'WMD' fiasco type) .....
... Those who can tell, can tell the difference between a nuclear power plant radiation signature and that of a weapon."
It is you who is over simplifying my statement, and not me over "how it's done".
Subiectul: Re:You are over simplifying how it's done
(V): Yes, but you concluded with "radiation signiture" as though that was the only relevant tool.
You also said "I'm talking about actual intelligence, not the 'WMD' fiasco type".
You mean the "intelligence" that concluded because something wasn't there it was never there? There was plenty of evidence that those weapons had been there, and been there recently. That fact was conveniently ignored. The only mistake Bush made was to telegraph our intentions of taking looking around well in advance. Plenty of time for moving those weapons elsewhere. We actually caught up to a ship containing those weapons. It was reported but apparently underplayed, because no one seemed to think it was important. Maybe it's because by that time it was old news, and the main stream press felt the public was ready for the next new and exciting news story...
Subiectul: Re: There was plenty of evidence that those weapons had been there...
Iamon lyme: "had been there"..... Yes of course there was, The supply of the materials by the USA to Iraq for the purposes of using WMD's on Iranian troops is well documented. So is the reports from the weapons inspectors who said Saddam had gotten rid of them.