usatoday.com — The United Nations says Iran is preparing to start up a uranium-enrichment site that was revealed only recently and which scientists suggest is too small for nuclear power purposes but suitable for making nuclear bombs. At its planned capacity the site could be used to make 1 bomb each year.
Nov 17, 2009 View in Crawl 4
leepiiNov 17, 2009
The so called "logic" in this report is laughable. FACT: You need more centrifuges to create weapons grade uranium than you need to create fuel grade centrifuges.ERGO: Less centrifuges = fuel production.
Closed AccountNov 18, 2009
Alright, let's look at this again, since you seem too dense to understand what you posted.1. "intended to create fear (terror)"Destroying a couple cities doesn't touch their deployed military assets, so of course the goal is to incite fear and hopelessness. What is terror except a combination of those things?2. "are perpetrated for an ideological goal"With no threat to American soil at that point, this was done for political and therefore ideological reasons - they wanted to force a quick surrender by the Japanese leadership. The US found it more palatable to incinerate two cities of civilians than to fight their way out of the war. Classy."and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."Well duh. Cities have by definition the highest concentration of non-combatants, and these were deliberately targeted. Why? To incite terror.So yes, I think it's fair to say you contradicted yourself pretty well. You claim it wasn't an act of terrorism but then do us the favor of providing criteria that show it was.
Closed AccountNov 18, 2009
Too long, but I did read it. I'm not bothering to go point for point anymore. You're clearly so smug and arrogant about your position that debate is pointless. One thing I'll correct you on."so of course the goal is to incite fear and hopelessness." -- By this definition, any violent act meets this criterion for defining terrorism.No. But any significant (define that as you will) violent act against civilians to achieve a purpose against a government certainly is terrorism. The basis of terrorism, your list of criteria notwithstanding, is the use of force against civilians in furtherance of a political or religious agenda. Instead of attacking a military, you attack a people, because if you scare the common people enough they will become your agent against their own government. That is exactly what was done here.I never did say that the US was a "terrorist nation" (whatever that is), but this particular act was definitely one of terrorism, by design."I wasn't going to call you names, but you are an idiot. You are an idiot because you think it would have been preferable to sacrifice the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and at least that many (if not more) Japanese during an invasion of Japan because it would have been more "classy.""Ad hominems aside, a military is built to fight, those soldiers know the risks for the most part. You're really sitting here saying that incinerating civilians and causing further generations to have deformities, cancers, and other diseases is a more righteous solution than fighting military force with military force? You're a sick bastard.
xman8Nov 18, 2009
Don't worry people, stay calm, Obama will talk them out of it./s
stanleyfordNov 18, 2009
"You're clearly so smug and arrogant about your position that debate is pointless." -- You must be joking. Did you or did you not call me "dense"? You're the one who took the low road, my friend. If you can't take as well as you can dish out, then you shouldn't have started with the name-calling in the first place."a military is built to fight, those soldiers know the risks for the most part." -- That's pretty cold. Just because a soldier knows he might die doesn't give you the right to throw away his life when you could have preserved it."You're really sitting here saying that incinerating civilians and causing further generations to have deformities, cancers, and other diseases is a more righteous solution than fighting military force with military force? You're a sick bastard." -- War is terrible and tragic. Do I want civilians to die? No. Would I prefer the loss of roughly one hundred thousand civilians of an aggressor nation to the loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and the corresponding loss of hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians? Yes. It was the least terrible solution. If you would have preferred sending those soldiers to their deaths, knowing there was an alternative whereby they could have lived, then you're the sick bastard, not me.
Closed AccountNov 18, 2009
stanleyford - Why is it that you think those servicemen's lives are worth so much more than the Japanese women and children your country burned to death with the nukes?A country creates a military to protect its land, its people. A civilized country understands that all other countries will be doing something similar. A civilized country also agrees to certain rules, even in war, and doesn't go about deliberately burning masses of civilian non-combatants to death. Really, it should have been considered a war crime, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to justify it.Meh, I'm not going to convince you of anything. You apparently have decided long ago that murder of civilians is fine, as long as it's to protect your country's soldiers. That speaks volumes about you, stanleyford.
rilusNov 19, 2009
Nah. Instead of talking with should go int guns blazing, kill thousands of civilians, sacrifice thousands of our own soldiers, spend trillions of dollars, spread our forces even more, find no evidence of nuclear weapons, have the old corrupt tyrants be replaced by new corrupt tyrants, incite more hatred from the Muslim and Arab world, and have absolutely no positive impact in the area in the end.That worked out great in Iraq, right?
xman8Nov 19, 2009
I don't remember another attack from the muslim extremest since we went in to Iraq.Oh wait, since Obama, has taken office and he thinks he can mesmerize these extremest, like he has mesmerized you, into putting down their beliefs and anger towards Americans. He has obviously failed already with 13 Americans loosing their lives. But since you prefer to side with extremist my comments don't mean much anyway, hugh!