http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17316638

Netanyahu has said that the time for action is "not days or weeks, but not years either". He also said that his timetable is not the same as Obama's.

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

I tend to agree.

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

For once, UG, I agree with you about Israel!

I'm quite sure Netanyahu doesn't want it to happen... but he may be forced into a position where he feels he has to strike first. He is making rather belligerent noises, though.

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

For once, UG, I agree with you about Israel!

I'm quite sure Netanyahu doesn't want it to happen... but he may be forced into a position where he feels he has to strike first. He is making rather belligerent noises, though.

Obama is frantically seeking reelection for the third year in a row. He is desperately appealing to all the players for diplomacy in order to prevent any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities from occurring prior to the second Tuesday in November. Election day.

Charles Krauthammer said it best with this weeks editorial...

"For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel’s desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the United States."

http://www.washingto...M1zR_story.html

On the other hand, however, one must consider that Iran have never stated any intention of making (or even purchasing) nuclear weapons.

Uranium has to be enriched to be used as a fuel, a well as to be used as an explosive. The difference is in the degree of enrichment. As little as 5% will do for some reactors and a maximum of 20% enrichment is still acceptable.

Weapons grade uranium has to be over 80% enriched. Therefore there is a wide band between the two.

Admittedly one can extract plutonium from a nuclear power plant, in small but usable quantities, but this has never been the topic of discussion of the US, only enrichment.

It is surely a simple thing to say 'Thus far and no further' in this context and have UAEA monitoring to ensure nations do not exceed the 20% mark? And that plutonium be registered and stored? It is a simple mathematical calculation to find out how much plutonium each nuclear plant produces.

All this scare-mongering by certain governments is political, not based on common sense or the laws of nature/science

On the other hand, however, one must consider that Iran have never stated any intention of making (or even purchasing) nuclear weapons.

Uranium has to be enriched to be used as a fuel, a well as to be used as an explosive. The difference is in the degree of enrichment. As little as 5% will do for some reactors and a maximum of 20% enrichment is still acceptable.

Weapons grade uranium has to be over 80% enriched. Therefore there is a wide band between the two.

Admittedly one can extract plutonium from a nuclear power plant, in small but usable quantities, but this has never been the topic of discussion of the US, only enrichment.

It is surely a simple thing to say 'Thus far and no further' in this context and have UAEA monitoring to ensure nations do not exceed the 20% mark? And that plutonium be registered and stored? It is a simple mathematical calculation to find out how much plutonium each nuclear plant produces.

All this scare-mongering by certain governments is political, not based on common sense or the laws of nature/science

What matters is not so much what is true as what Netanyahu and his cabinet believe is true. If they feel so threatened that they have to strike first, all hell will be let loose. And Ahmedinajab, on the farther side of eccentricity, might do anything anyway.

The pity of it all is that this or a similar scenario was implicit in the creation of the state of Israel; whether it happened fifty years ago, happens now, or will happen in fifty years time, it was bound to happen sooner or later. My opposition to the state of Israel, which is academic now anyway, is based as much on this as on any ideas that the Jews shouldn't have been given their own state in the first place.

It isn't likely any country would come out and admit they are seeking the bomb. Iran is certainly more secretive than most so it is unlikely we would have even heard if they tried to buy a weapon.

It isn't likely any country would come out and admit they are seeking the bomb. Iran is certainly more secretive than most so it is unlikely we would have even heard if they tried to buy a weapon.

Of course. Like Netanyahu said, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Does it matter

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

What is your definition of 'Nuts' OK we will throw in Islamic later?

Does it matter

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

What is your definition of 'Nuts'

A death-cult, religious sect that believes in bringing forth the 12th Mahdi - the Anti-Christ to Christians - by creating chaos in the world and are currently the government of Iran who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

No this is not a similar case.The Iranians have made it plain that they are enriching uranium. There is no correlation with the Iraq war at all.

Off-topic, baiting posts deleted.

No this is not a similar case.The Iranians have made it plain that they are enriching uranium. There is no correlation with the Iraq war at all.

According to Humphrey Bear's post #6, uranium has to be enriched to be used as a fuel in power stations. Enrichment per se is no argument that the Iranians are producing weapons. I suspect they would like to, but that's not quite the same thing.

But I agree with you, UG, that the Iranian government , at least if its public face is anything to go by, is nuts. And the Israelis are quite right to be scared, because Ahmedinajab has openly threatened them.

Since they are both sabre-rattling by unreasonable, hot-headed governments that believe God is on their side, I say they both are the real threat.

Since they are both sabre-rattling by unreasonable, hot-headed governments that believe God is on their side, I say they both are the real threat.

Since they are both sabre-rattling by unreasonable, hot-headed governments that believe God is on their side, I say they both are the real threat.

Yes I agree, except old Aj needs to be kept in power because he is a Dove in comparison to the alternative and is grand standing to keep him in power so that it doesn't escalate into a critical situation.

who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

I tend to agree with Humph, rather than your one directional diatribe.

The real threat is a bunch of radical Islamic nuts with the desire to be martyrs and a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu does not want to allow that to happen and who can blame him.

What is your definition of 'Nuts'

A death-cult, religious sect that believes in bringing forth the 12th Mahdi - the Anti-Christ to Christians - by creating chaos in the world and are currently the government of Iran who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

A little extreme, I must admit

It is all about interpretation:

Inspiring applause from the audience at the CNN/YouTube 2008 Republican Debate, Romney said, "The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely." When asked by the moderator, "Does that mean you believe every word?" Romney responded, "Yeah, I believe it's the Word of God. I might interpret the Word differently than you interpret the Word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try and live by it."

The Bible according to those that believe in it as the Word of God.

²¹And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy 21

This is in regard to an unruly Son.

Now I don't believe that to be a literal translation that has to be carried out in its literal sense, it probably means that if you have an unruly son then put into action a means to put him back on the right track and if you still have trouble, look to further teachings and help to guide you.

That's my take on it, but you can believe anything you read if you like, can I recommend UK publications the Sun and the Mail to you?

rather than your one directional diatribe.

My apologies, I really meant one directional opinion, of course

who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

I tend to agree with Humph, rather than your one directional diatribe.

That is nice to know. Your opinions are rather one directional as well, but if you want to believe that the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world who are ruling Iran are rational players and should have nucear weapons, that is your right. .

who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

I tend to agree with Humph, rather than your one directional diatribe.

That is nice to know. Your opinions are rather one directional as well, but if you want to believe that the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world

Evidence?

There is TONS of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

There is TONS of it.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8028064.stm

"a report by the US state department says"

The first three paras of that BBC report read as follows:-

"

Iran 'leading terrorism sponsor'

Iran has long been accused of supporting Shia militants in Iraq

Iran remains the "most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the world, a report by the US state department says.

It says Iran's role in the planning and financing of terror-related activities in the Middle East and Afghanistan threatens efforts to promote peace.

Al-Qaeda remains the biggest danger to the US and the West, the annual report states, noting that terror attacks are rising in Pakistan."

I think many people outside the States feel that US, and particularly the State Department, are paranoid about terrorism. It exists, and it's a threat, but there are not terrorists behind every bush.

I think Netanyahu is also paranoid about Iran... not surprisingly; the situation of Israel, surrounded by Islamists of various stripes, is conducive to paranoia.

unfortunately Tony Bootlicker (aka B.Liar) is not in charge anymore or we'd be able to listen on BBC "Iran can assemble and launch a nuclear warhead in 40-45 minutes."

The media appear to be cranking up an anti-Iran campaign in the hopes of priming the US and UK publics to buy the war their respective governments hope to start. What can be served by that kind of madness (other than more oil-fueled war profiteering by Halliburton and co.) I have little idea. Most of the Iranian citizens are lovely people, and I would hate to see a random few 100 thousand of them die to help those governments distract their citizens from their economic malaise, as happened each time in Iraq (also mostly for nought)- and then poison their land with our uranium shells, which ARE officially a weapon of mass destruction (by UN standards, which is where such terminology comes from). But people buy these things over and over and over.

PS Has anyone considered how small Israel is, how close it is to all the other angry nutter countries, and how important Jerusalem is also to Islam? Do you *really* think that the rest of the Middle East would let anyone among them get away with nuking the place- really?

who are working hard on creating a nuclear weapon despite agreeing not to.

I tend to agree with Humph, rather than your one directional diatribe.

That is nice to know. Your opinions are rather one directional as well, but if you want to believe that the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world who are ruling Iran are rational players and should have nucear weapons, that is your right. .

A little extreme, I must admit

Which part of this did you choose to miss then? If indeed it was interpreted correctly in the first place.

There is TONS of it.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8028064.stm

That article is 3 years old.