Powell: Iran far from Nuclear Weapons

Are you under the misgiuded impression that the President is the only one who supports these sanctions?

To single the president out so that you can call him a name (bully) lacks credibility.

There can be different levels of threats it isn't an either or situation. Especially based on speculation by Powell.

 

Now that we see no one said that there is an iminent threat from iran with nukes nor did anyone imply it ever we can move on.

 

Oh, we all forgot, Bush is a credible conservative.

 

I'll pit my English skills against yours any day Carpro. By the way, how old are you?

 

I wouldn't be willing to bet the farm on Powells statement. The price for being wrong is far too high. GWB knows accountability is necessary.

The sanctions on Iran serve many useful purposes, one being, that it shows them we aren't going to stand for stonewalling on the state of their nuclear capability.

I'm sure (relatively) that Iran won't get into a nuclear exchange with Israel anytime soon. They know they couldn't possibly win that one. But rational thought is iffy with them sometimes.

 

Lots disagree, but those weapons still exist, and are somewhere.

 

I feel the same way as I attempted in vain to get you to drop your semantics.

Iran is a threat. Just not an imminent threat. I don't believe so and neither does Bush.

Sanctions is the tool being used in an effort to keep Iran from becoming an "imminent" threat, one that we have to deal with militarily.

 

You're the one that used the word and is still trying vainly to make it stand up.

As soon as you stop playing semantic games, we can move on.:BangHead:

 

Actually Carpo is right. Iran "is" a threat. The process of developing nukes is the current threat. this semantical argument over "is" "is" not helpful.

 

That's just the problem

You were, I believe intentionally, mischaracterizing the position of the Administration on this issue, not echoeing their sentiments.

I appreciate 2nd Timothy's remarks. It is to be expected that you don't.

 

No one agrees with me, but still believe that Iran was a much bigger threat to the United States in March 2003, and still is today. One day we are going to wish we had all the resources we need to deal with Iran that were wasted in Iraq.

 

I'll agree that they were at least as dangerous.

The cold hard truth is that Iraq was "doable" at the time. Iran wasn't.

Just an observation...

How comfortable do you think Iran is with having a substantial American military presence on their opposite borders?

 

No doubt they feel quite uncomfortable. They also know the Army and Marines are stretched to the limit. Anything against Iran would be Naval/Air Force operations.

What do you think would happen to Iraq and Afghanastan if we had to use the troops there to cross the border into Iran?

 

I don't believe boots on the ground are seriously being considered as an option for Iran at the present. As the Iraqis continue to take over their own security, that could change.

I agree with you that we have air and naval access galore and that's what would be used if the need arises.