Is Israel right in thinking a nuclear Iran

[Benee Wafers]

Is Israel right in thinking a nuclear Iran will nuke them?
Benee Wafers

[GuitarsCanada]

Hard to imagine that any country would use nuclear weapons at this point in history. Insane terrorists maybe but not a country itself. But who knows anymore. That part of the world is so volatile right now anything could happen.

[Accept2]

The Russians were crazier and never nuked anybody. I think they just want a monopoly in the area. What we should be doing is spreading nuclear power techology around the world, starting with our own country, but too many people are scared of nuclear power. They also think nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand. Nuclear power rules. Good for the Iranians.........

[rippinglickfest]

I'm not a big fan of nuclear energy and dont condone the use of it (Chernobyl or 3 mile Island ring a bell)..........we should be developing solar and wind energy.................that way we dont have to worry about nuclear waste. As far as Iran goes...............you have to remember it was only recently that this country became a modern nation in terms of technology, their ideology however is lagging far, far behind..............and with some Muslims bent on "the destruction of Israel".............I'm not surprised by Israels stance. The thing that bothers me is that Iraelis have a valid land claim that many dont acknowledge.........they were displaced in biblical times by you know who and then again by the Turks circa 500 years ago.................that land is theirs. Its unfortunate but the next big war, and there will be one, is in the middle east.

Ray

[PaulS]

...we should be developing solar and wind energy.................that way we dont have to worry about nuclear waste.
Ray

I agree ..... +1

[Wild Bill]

The problem with both solar and wind is that they are inconstant generators. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

The way you get around this problem is to have a big stack of rechargable batteries. Unfortunately, such batteries are still very expensive. Car batteries are a very poor choice. They are designed to always hold most of a charge, only draining a bit once in a while to start your car. There are deep-discharge types such as those used with electric trolling motors but the price of those is outrageous, especially when you'd need about 25 or 30 of them to power the average home. The solar cells and/or the wind generator keep the battery bank charged and the batteries supply the house.

To you and me with the present price of such a system and the difference between "free" power and the price from the grid it would be at least 15 years and maybe more before you paid off your investment and started to have power for free.

There are nuclear reactors and there are nuclear reactors. Comparing Chernobyl's design with that from any other country is like comparing the quality of a Toyota with a Lada! The Russian design was a dangerous kludge and the accident was caused by some political type overruling all the technicians and engineers.

Justly, he died for his idiocy. He just took a lot of innocent people with him.

Other reactors CAN'T go like Chernobyl! They are designed like a wooden pail of water heated over an open fire. If the pail burns through then the water falls out and puts out the fire.

As for Three Mile Island, it's interesting that no one ever tells us of how all the safety devices worked perfectly and only a harmless trace of radioactive vapour was released. The scary meltdown scenario was an impossibility.

The death and injury count from Three Mile Island was ZERO! Google it up, if you like.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to get off the oil jones. Iran would have no money for nuclear bombs if no one bought their oil. It's just that we are not going to have a cheap and practical solution by the end of this September! The wind turbines up near Shelbourne are a good start but we need about a hundred times that many to make a dent in our need!

Besides, the natives have just put in a land claim against the wind farm. Of course, even though the land was open country before they say that we have to leave the expensive wind farm behind and give it to them, thank you!

Ever watch that commercial for the outdoors solar pack from Crappy Tire? The only where the guy says "You can stick this solar panel on your back pack and recharge things while you hike!"

The other guy says "Wow! How much power can you get out of one of those things!"

The first guy never gives a figure! He just says "You'd be surprised!"

You'd be surprised, all right! You get less than 2 watts of electricity per hour of sunlight. So after all of a sunny day you could run one of those compact flourescent bulbs for less than one hour!

The solar pack costs $100. How much to take your home off-grid?

We just aren't there yet, I'm afraid.

[Xanadu]

^^ I'm with you on this one Bill. I'm all for Nuclear energy.






My friend was born in Ukraine. He has 3 nipples.:eek:

[sneakypete]

OK...what about hamsters?

[rippinglickfest]

Im sorry Wild Bill & Xanadu...................Youre still failing to deal with the nuclear waste issue? If Solar and wind are developed...........there is zero impact on the environment. Is there anybody out there who is thinking about the future? This is the problem with the world, we're all engrossed with the now and nuclear is just a quick fix.......... it still is however an extremely negative form of energy because of the radioactive leftovers, there two kinds of waste from reactors......low level which dies off after 15 years or so and then high level which can last more than 100,000 years.(Google it up if you like) Where do we store this stuff? You're exchanging 20 to 30 years of energy for 100,000 years of worry. If you fail to see that the negatives outweigh the positives.........than you are indeed naive. FYI, there around 20 reactors in the states that are coming to the end of their lifetime.....also there is tons of this radioactive stuff leftover from decommissioned U.S and Soviet ICBM's now that the Cold War is over.........I guess you wouldnt mind them storing this shit in your backyard.


Ray

[Wild Bill]

Im sorry Wild Bill & Xanadu...................Youre still failing to deal with the nuclear waste issue? If Solar and wind are developed...........there is zero impact on the environment. Is there anybody out there who is thinking about the future? This is the problem with the world, we're all engrossed with the now and nuclear is just a quick fix.......... it still is however a negative form of energy because of the radioactive leftovers, there two kinds of waste from reactors......low level which dies off after 15 years or so and then high level which can last more than 100,000 years.(Google it up if you like) Where do we store this stuff? You're exchanging 20 to 30 years of energy for 100,000 years of worry. If you fail to see that the negatives outweigh the positives.........than you are indeed naive. FYI, there around 20 reactors in the states that are coming to the end of their lifetime.....also there is tons of this radioactive stuff leftover from decommissioned U.S and Soviet ICBM's now that the Cold War is over.........I guess you wouldnt mind them storing this shit in your backyard.


Ray

Who says the waste problem is as big as you describe?

The entire year's waste from the typical western reactor could be compressed into a glass cube that would fit in your hand. Nuclear wastes could be buried in mile-deep bore holes or even rocketed into the sun, where they wouldn't even amount to a drop of piss in the ocean.

There are other alternatives as well, but NONE of them have been implemented. Not because they don't have a strong technical argument to back them up but rather that politics has trumped science! When you don't understand a "scary" thing we humans tend to say no to EVERY possible approach.

A prime example would be how Toronto turned down sending its waste to an open mine pit in Kirkland Lake supposedly for environmental reasons in favour of a system that costs a fortune to send hundreds of trucks full of waste every day on the 401 hwy to landfill sites in Michigan.

Near my home is a small rural town called Hagersville, Ontario. Some years ago they had a huge fire at a used tire dump that became a national environmental story. About a month later I ran into my old boss from a civil engineering lab where I had worked and we had lunch. He told me how his lab had a mobile lab trailer at the site and how the government had been spending over $10 million dollars to track all the benzene, toluene and other "ene"-enes that were released from the burning tires. People were fearful that they would get into the water table, poison their rural water supply and turn their babies into mutants, or whatever.

Then he gave a snort and a shake of his head. "What a colossal waste of tax money!" he said. "Still, we might as well take the contract as anybody else. The money's going to be spent, regardless."

When I asked what did he mean he gave me a look and said: "You don't remember your high school chemistry? All these substances have a specific gravity of less than one. They CAN'T mix with the water table! They float!"

So I asked him why the government was spendng so much money and he explained to me the politics of the situation. Most citizens have next to no understanding of science but they have been conditioned to be afraid of smelly things like old tire smoke and fancy names for chemical substances. If a real scientist stands up and tells them they have no reason to fear they simply won't believe him.

Now, have a politician stand in front of the media cameras and bray that they are spending $10 MILLION DOLLARS on the problem and folks are sufficiently impressed to feel safe again! $10 million of their own tax money, by the way.

In fact, if the politician chose instead to back the real scientist he would likely just lose his seat for his inaction next election.

ALL of the problems of nuclear waste disposal have been solved by real scientists years ago! As long as politicians cater to an environmental movement that is more political and ideological than scientific nuclear power is frozen out as an option. It has nothing to do with science, just media manipulation. I lost respect for Greenpeace as being based in science when they told us that seals off Newfoundland don't eat many cod...

Meanwhile, we could have had cheap, non-polluting power decades ago by implementing solar-power generating satellites. Politicians chose not to back the idea. I lived during those years and vividly remember how virtually ALL the green movements refused to give their support!

I still don't understand why...

Anyhow, I won't be so arrogant, patronizing or insulting to state that if you disagree with my points then you must be naive. I make no claims to have a monopoly on the truth.

[rippinglickfest]

Open your eyes Wild Bill
In the last 50 years, the U.S alone has accumulated 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods from reactors and another 400,00 cubic metres of high level radioactive waste, a by product of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. None of these
materials have found anything more than an interim storage situation. Google it up if you like.............try and store that in a glass tube............bury it in the earth....rocket it to the sun....c'mon thats just asinine........not to mention an enormous expenditure. How about not using it.
Yes they are working on methods to dispose of this stuff........... but contrary to what you say.............there is NO safe method.( Google it up if you like) And I'd like to reiterate........."100,000 years". I'm thinking about future generations of the human species that have to deal with this stuff.
Arrogant, Insulting..............excuse me.................the facts speak for themselves......
The only positive nuclear energy is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth
Ray

[Wild Bill]

Open your eyes Wild Bill
In the last 50 years, the U.S alone has accumulated 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods from reactors and another 400,00 cubic metres of high level radioactive waste, a by product of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. None of these
materials have found anything more than an interim storage situation. Google it up if you like.............try and store that in a glass tube............bury it in the earth....rocket it to the sun....c'mon thats just asinine........not to mention an enormous expenditure. How about not using it.
Yes they are working on methods to dispose of this stuff........... but contrary to what you say.............there is NO safe method.( Google it up if you like) And I'd like to reiterate........."100,000 years". I'm thinking about future generations of the human species that have to deal with this stuff.
Arrogant, Insulting..............excuse me.................the facts speak for themselves......
The only positive nuclear energy is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth
Ray

Rocketing to the sun is just asinine and too expensive? Well, even if I grant solely for the purpose of argument your figures on the amount of nuclear waste would the cost of sending such tonnage into the sun by means of low expense Holmann orbits not be much cheaper than the storage costs you imply?

Forgive me, but your reaction reminds me more of the last time I argued with a Witness at my door one Sunday morning than the last friendly scientific argument I had with some friends. You have absolute faith and no patience for heretics.

This is hardly a scientific approach.

Early on in the history of nuclear power one expected method was to burn much nuclear waste in other reactors that could still generate profitably energy from the "scrap" of reactors employing higher level atomic reactions. After this secondary processing (often of waste from producing that weapons-grade plutonium you mentioned) the resultant waste was much easier to handle.

Of course, this never happened. We've not built a new reactor in North America in 30 years. The "green" movement was politically successful in stopping all such new development. Now we had built the reactors and then stopped at the main method to get rid of much waste.

Does this mean such green movements were right? Not at all. It only proves they were politically successful. The science is something altogether different.

You might find it interesting to read up on guys like G. Harry Stine, Kary Mullis, Richard Feynman and such. Stine was one of the greatest space engineers, Mullis is a Noble Prize winner for discovering how to decode the DNA molecule and Feynman an amazingly intelligent physicist who cut through all the crap around the O-rings that caused the Challenger disaster by freezing some "donuts" made from the same material in the icewater on the conference desk and after all the so-called experts had made all their cover-their-ass non-explanations tossed a cold donut onto the table where it shattered into a zillion pieces, after having turned brittle from the cold.

These and other guys like them KNOW their science! Somehow, a botanist like Suzuki or an actress like Pamela Anderson just don't make as much sense to me about problems with physics or the seal population off Newfoundland. Yet they get all the press and after a while the sheer volume of such reports (made by poli-sci grads from Ryerson and such, who are not known for their technical knowhow) make the average citizen believe that they must be right!

In the court of public opinion, the I Ching will trump Einstein or Hawking any day of the week...

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you send me an immediate reply all revv'd up over using nuclear power and never wrote word one to defend solar and wind as practical solutions or the viability of those solar power satellites.

Either of us can champion anything we want but if our solution won't actually work in the real world then it's really only so much hot air.

I've posted what I think would actually work. I'm prepared to debate in scientific and practical terms what can or can't supply cleaner power and what is or isn't cost-effective.

How about you?

[rippinglickfest]

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink........I think we are both a bit stubborn.

.......Einstein played a small part in the nuclear family tree but he was also wise to realise the NEGATIVE aspects of nuclear tecnology. You keep talking in scientific terms...........but all the scientists in the world dont have the collective grey matter to make the nuclear option SAFE......not yet anyway, and probably not in our lifetime. Rather than travelling down that road........we should be investing in what we already know are long term clean and environment friendly options and they are Wind and Solar......Coldfusion?? I am a voracious reader by the way........and my opinon is that science is not the be all, end all.
You are obviously a scientific thinker.........and although science has brought us many great advancements....in medicine and other areas...nuclear technology is not of them........because of the leftovers. I respect your opinion and you are obviously just as passionate (not hot under the collar) as am I............ but I just disagree with you........thats democracy. And I'm sorry............facts are facts there are tons of this nasty stuff laying around and until they find a viable solution for its re-use or disposal.........I dont condone its use or its further development. And because the world has been reduced to "everything for a buck"...things dont look good for costlier or alternate forms of energy..........at least until the oil runs out.
Lastly, I see by your profile that we are not all the far apart in age........as I get older and as a parent, I grow more and more concerned about the legacy we are leaving our children. Science doesnt care about that
Ray

[Wild Bill]

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink........I think we are both a bit stubborn.

.......Einstein played a small part in the nuclear family tree but he was also wise to realise the NEGATIVE aspects of nuclear tecnology. You keep talking in scientific terms...........but all the scientists in the world dont have the collective grey matter to make the nuclear option SAFE......not yet anyway, and probably not in our lifetime. Rather than travelling down that road........we should be investing in what we already know are long term clean and environment friendly options and they are Wind and Solar......Coldfusion?? I am a voracious reader by the way........and my opinon is that science is not the be all, end all.
You are obviously a scientific thinker.........and although science has brought us many great advancements....in medicine and other areas...nuclear technology is not of them........because of the leftovers. I respect your opinion and you are obviously just as passionate (not hot under the collar) as am I............ but I just disagree with you........thats democracy. And I'm sorry............facts are facts there are tons of this nasty stuff laying around and until they find a viable solution for its re-use or disposal.........I dont condone its use or its further development. And because the world has been reduced to "everything for a buck"...things dont look good for costlier or alternate forms of energy..........at least until the oil runs out.
Lastly, I see by your profile that we are not all the far apart in age........as I get older and as a parent, I grow more and more concerned about the legacy we are leaving our children. Science doesnt care about that
Ray

Yeah, we may be similar in some aspects Ray. Obviously we both care! We just differ in what would work as a solution.

We seem to have a different idea of what is science anyway. To me science is a tool to acquire knowledge about the universe and how it works. Things either work or they don't, for good and repeatable reasons. The scientific method is a way of thinking clearly to understand what's going on.

How can you say that science has no solution to a problem if you've not listened to every scientist? What's more, just because someone wears a white coat doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Who is paying him?

How can you say that wind and solar are good solutions without science to prove if they will work or if they are not too expensive to afford?

Scientists are human too, after all. They can be wrong, stubborn and/or opinionated. Many are just false to practicing good scientific method. They think that because they run a department then they don't have to answer any questions that contradict their assumptions. Good science ALWAYS questions assumptions!

One of my main points in these posts has been that particularly in the environmental movement there's often a lack of good science. The movement has often become more of a religion or faith than a science, believing absolutely that nuclear power cannot possibly be any good no matter what design of reactor you use.

I see this kind of thinking all the time, every day and almost every where. I'm reminded of the days of Bob Rae's NDP government. Ruth Grier was his enviromental minister and she came out with policy that absolutely branded incineration as a non-option for city garbage. She stated that it was impossible to burn garbage cleanly and safely and that more recycling was the only answer. She had a whole troop of "scientists" in white coats to back her up.

Now Toronto even then had a helluva lot of garbage to get rid of and an absolute ban on incineration limited their options. For a while it looked like filling up an old pit mine in Kirkland Lake was the solution but the environmentalists managed to squash that idea too, despite a lot of good science behind it about how it could be done safely. Kirkland Lake desperately needed the money, as well. Environmentalists never seem to offer solutions that actually work in the real world. They just say no to everything that someone else tried to think up.

Eventually they opted to use hundreds of trucks every day down the 401 to Michigan, paying a fortune to another country and choosing to just be blissfully ignorant of the environmental effects after the garbage left their site. What hypocracy for those so-called "environmentalists"!

What I really want to tell you with all this is that at the same time there was an American company in Florida that was lobbying Toronto through Ms. Grier's ministry to consider their incineration technology. They had a plant in Florida that was covered by beautiful grass and trees that burned tons of garbage and released a negligible amount of pollutants! It reduced landfill volumes to a tiny fraction and what's more, it produced whopping amounts of electricity that it sold for a healthy profit!

They kept trying and actually offered to fly Ms. Grier down with her own entourage of experts to audit their facility for herself to prove their claims that they had a "clean" and cost-effective incineration solution.

The woman totally refused to go and look, even on a free plane ticket!

That's what I mean by faith over science, Ray.

I agree that science doesn't care about a legacy for our children. It's just that such a statement doesn't make sense in the first place! Science is not a committee or a group of global businessmen who secretly run the planet. It's simply the quest for knowledge, as I said before. You might as well say that psychology doesn't care about a legacy.

I would say that ONLY science can accurately figure out HOW to ensure a legacy for our children! For only science can figure out what's happening and what to do about it!

Now men can misuse or ignore science and some scientists can be wrong. They can also be used by politicians and corporate interests to mislead or to get away with dirty tricks and polluting factories. That's not any fault with science, just with Man.

I just believe that NOT using science when dealing with a real-world problem is just fumbling in the dark. You may think you've got a solution that makes you feel good but Mother Nature doesn't care. Things will work or they won't, sometimes very painfully so.

The Universe is built on rules and it doesn't care if we understand them or not! It's up to us to learn them and work with them properly.

Still, it's nice that we share a concern for these problems. The first step is recognizing the problem but the second is not whether or not we use science or something else to guide us in our approach. The important second step is actually caring enough to do something in the first place!

There are too many people content to just be blissfully ignorant, while watching "Fear Factor" or "Canadian Idol".

---Sorry about that last bit! :-) I'm a "SuperNova" fan myself and I just couldn't resist!

[rippinglickfest]

I totally agree with you about not enough people caring...................although we dont see eye to eye at least we are discussing it. I often ask my friends of these issues and some of them ponder them deeply...........most are too engrossed in their upcoming vacation in Cancun..........or what kind of sports car they want to own. Anyway in case you didnt know there are wind turbines in northern regions of Canada......just laying on the ground doing jack....another product of our governments enviroment friendly policy. This is what I mean .... its all about money......we shouldnt be going apeshit on a form of energy because it s here, now and cheap and havent the means to to process the waste..........................thats beyond comprehension. But thats how humans are..............we are always doing things that arent good for us.

Tell me more about these amps you build.

Ray

[Benee Wafers]

So then the Israelis are right in thinking that Iran will nuke them?

[Wild Bill]

I totally agree with you about not enough people caring...................although we dont see eye to eye at least we are discussing it. I often ask my friends of these issues and some of them ponder them deeply...........most are too engrossed in their upcoming vacation in Cancun..........or what kind of sports car they want to own. Anyway in case you didnt know there are wind turbines in northern regions of Canada......just laying on the ground doing jack....another product of our governments enviroment friendly policy. This is what I mean .... its all about money......we shouldnt be going apeshit on a form of energy because it s here, now and cheap and havent the means to to process the waste..........................thats beyond comprehension. But thats how humans are..............we are always doing things that arent good for us.

Tell me more about these amps you build.

Ray

Oh, be still my beating heart! You asked the magic question! I LOVE building amps!

The service jobs have built up so much that I don't get as much time for new builds as I used to, Ray. I find that a shame as that's the creative and fun part. Oh well, all us poor Canadians have to make a living as best we can.

I don't make a standard amp of any kind. Frankly, I think that it's more and more a tough go to try to compete with a fixed product line. Sure folks understand and expect a handwired custom tweaked amp to cost more than a store-bought "cookie-cutter" unit but even so, there's just so much Chinese cheap stuff coming into the market that I can't see trying to compete that way. And at my age I wouldn't want to start building up a factory anyway. I'd likely die before I could start to enjoy the fruits of it!

So what I do is take on the odd custom job for a specific player or take an old PA amp made by someone like Bogen, use the transformers and tube sockets and gut out and replace all the old resistors and caps with a classic Marshall or Fender style circuit. With a little work with paint on the cabinet and a new faceplate for the controls printed off my computer onto card stock that Staples can laminate for me and the project can look surprisingly professional!

I'm building a Dumble style amp for a local bluesman and I've "Marshallized" more old Traynors than I can remember. I'm not a fan of the later amps like Boogies, mostly 'cuz they're a real pain in the ass to work on and my formative years were more Frank Marino/Mahogany Rush than Yngwie. That 80's preamp/master volume fizzy style "crunch" is not my style. I love the thick distortion that comes from the power tubes being fed by ONE volume control on at least "8"! If that's too loud then use a smaller amp but DON'T give me a loud amp turned down instead of a small amp going full tilt boogie!

I've gotten good at tweaking an amp for the taste of a specific player but with projects for myself I like the old Plexi 50 watter tone through either some vintage celestions or those new Eminence Red Coats. Jack in some humbuckers - no pedals, just wail the thing! Think Pat Travers doing "Boom Boom, Out Go the Lights!" and not Lenny Kravitz covering "American Woman."

Like many techs I do a lot of SF Fender conversions to the preferred blackface tone and so many different mods to JCM800's that I could never count them all!

I also get the odd harp player who is surprised to learn that the best harp amps are tweaked specifically for harp and not just a particular guitar amp that happens to sound ok when you blow through it. I've learned some tricks from some of the gurus down south on how to get that down home, greasy James Cotton/Richard "Biscuit Boy" Newel harp tone. Usually the amp will then sound like crap for guitar but when a good harp player starts to blow through one of my harp projects I think I'm actually more pleased than he is!

I did this sort of stuff as a kid and never truly appreciated it. I left being a tech and a roadie for the straight life as a salesmen selling computer chips and digital IC's. I still built the odd amp and once in a while some player friend or relative would bang on my door crying for me to fix his amp but it wasn't until after 9/11 when my industry collapsed and thousands of jobs were lost that I found myself forced to consider making a business at my first (and deepest!) love. It's still not really a living but it just keeps growing and growing... :-)

Since I'm not much of a player myself (too much sniffin' solder over the years and not enough practicing) I often take one of my new projects to a local jam and put it on the list instead of me! That way I get to hear other guys wail it and get ideas on how it sounds and if I want to tweak it some more. Once in a while the amp winds up bought by one of the players! I like the money but often miss losing the amp like it was my child... :-( Silly, I know but that's the way I am. I have to be practical but in my heart I do this for the love. One great perq is that I get a LOT of free beer!

I build some different things like Leslies for guitar and stand-alone tube reverb units, like the old Fender model from the 60's.

I don't bother building or fixing pedals. If you put more than an hour or two of time into them the bill becomes more than the worth of the pedal, in most cases. I do scrounge thrift shops for old equipment that might contain the vintage IC for Ibanez tube screamers. It's a simple mod to replace the modern "too hifi" IC with a vintage "great tone!" salvaged unit. That's the only difference between an old and a new 'screamer but if you follow the Ebay pricing you'll agree it's a big one!

I'd better stop, Ray! I'll end up writing a book! Besides, my passion as a tubehead is way off the topic here. Others may find it boring to hear about what I do and maybe also it's too much "product placement." We can swap some private emails about how Plexis rule and Boogies suck, if you like! :)

[rippinglickfest]

Sorry to get a little off the beaten path Benee Wafers............. nuclear capabilities in the hands of a country like Iran is bad news in my book..
Especially with the extremists who reside there..........they look to Israel and to the west....Canadians included thanks to Stephen Harper with fierce hatred. What happens if one of these extremist groups should come to govern in Iran.......its a possibility............small wonder Israel is nervous.

Ray

[Accept2]

Iran probobly already has nuclear weapons purchased from either the former Soviet republics, or even China. Thats the much cheaper way. There have always been radicals in possession of these things and they never get used. They are fairly useless. Why should they fear it, the Muslims view the land on which Isreal sits as holy land. And what happens when the sand gets kicked back in their face. They dont want Iran to glow either. If there is any place safe from one of those bad boys going off, its in Israel. Far more radical people have possessed these things in the past, and no kabloey. Imagine that.................

[rippinglickfest]

I've never heard of any extremist group with nuclear weapons..........its just speculation. But if they did have them.....they wouldnt care and they would use them..We've seen what they are capable of with just planes on 9/11.......these are the same people who think that they are going to recieve X number of virgins in the afterlife. These extremist muslims also have as part of their master plan..........."the destruction of Israel". And coincidentally, if you are into prophecy...............Armageddon is supposed to take place in Israel, a hill called
Megiddo, about 15 miles from Haifa.

Ray

[Accept2]

Back in the 80s, a "nation of evil" who we should all be scared of had sanctions put on them from the UN, and everybody around the world speculated that if they had nukes, we would all be dead. When they became a democracy and were no longer labelled evil, it came out that they had 6 nuclear bombs the whole time. The nuclear thing is funny, because its used to scare you. The bombs they can purchase from the Russians or from China are small yield nuclear weapons. They have restrictions on purchasing them because they are nuclear devices, but bombs that are way more powerful, yet conventional are not restricted, so they can buy those freely, and they have. The end of the world isnt coming. Iranians are not cave dwellers. They are very educated, and alot of them were educated in North America. Their youth all dream of buying a sports car and they love the US. The media want you to believe that Iraq is what represents all Arab nations, and it just isnt the case. Im sure on their tv, they do the same, and all Western nations are the US, and we all thirst for blood, and invade any nation at will. You have to look beyond the bullshit that the media want to scare into you. Its funny how Iran was a civilized great nation when they were buddy buddy with the US, but now they are all crazy extremists bent on destroying the world..........

[Accept2]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3340629351038859696&q=penn+teller

[Wild Bill]

Back in the 80s, a "nation of evil" who we should all be scared of had sanctions put on them from the UN, and everybody around the world speculated that if they had nukes, we would all be dead. When they became a democracy and were no longer labelled evil, it came out that they had 6 nuclear bombs the whole time. The nuclear thing is funny, because its used to scare you. The bombs they can purchase from the Russians or from China are small yield nuclear weapons. They have restrictions on purchasing them because they are nuclear devices, but bombs that are way more powerful, yet conventional are not restricted, so they can buy those freely, and they have. The end of the world isnt coming. Iranians are not cave dwellers. They are very educated, and alot of them were educated in North America. Their youth all dream of buying a sports car and they love the US. The media want you to believe that Iraq is what represents all Arab nations, and it just isnt the case. Im sure on their tv, they do the same, and all Western nations are the US, and we all thirst for blood, and invade any nation at will. You have to look beyond the bullshit that the media want to scare into you. Its funny how Iran was a civilized great nation when they were buddy buddy with the US, but now they are all crazy extremists bent on destroying the world..........

You're likely quite right about the character of the typical Iranian. However, Iran isn't run by the typical Iranian!

Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled by religious fanatics. The "man in the street" Iranian's opinions are irrelevant. They do what they're told.

You don't have to have an entire country's population to be made up of crazy extremists! Just those who have the guns or the nuclear bombs. They're the ones who can and might hurt you...

What do you think goes on over there, anyway? Every 4 years the world gets to watch an Iranian election on Al-jazeera tv?

[Milkman]

You're likely quite right about the character of the typical Iranian. However, Iran isn't run by the typical Iranian!

Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled by religious fanatics. The "man in the street" Iranian's opinions are irrelevant. They do what they're told.

You don't have to have an entire country's population to be made up of crazy extremists! Just those who have the guns or the nuclear bombs. They're the ones who can and might hurt you...

What do you think goes on over there, anyway? Every 4 years the world gets to watch an Iranian election on Al-jazeera tv?

I hate to be the one to point this out, but the guys with their fingers on the triggers just south of us are every bit as scary to many people, myself included as the whackos in Iran and North Korea.

In fact, even more so because historically they're the only ones to really use WOMDs on human beings, women, children, old folks.....

Iran rattles their sabres, other nations use them. Hmmm, who has invaded other countries recently.....

[Accept2]

Iran and North Korea are rattling their sabres for a reason, and it has nothing to do with wanting to destroy the world, or even invading another country. They do it because they aint stoopid................

[Milkman]

Iran and North Korea are rattling their sabres for a reason, and it has nothing to do with wanting to destroy the world, or even invading another country. They do it because they aint stoopid................


I can see the logic in that thought.


If I thought I was on the US shopping list of countries to invade and WOMDs might act as a deterrant......


If the U.S. is afriad of them, imagin how afraid THEY must be of the U.S.!!

[Accept2]

Actually they are doing it for the monetary reasons. As long as they can be perceived as a threat, cash will flow to them from every which way. China, and the US will secretly fall over themselves to get them on board. Add the Europeans, and Russians, and its like winning the lottery........