Iran working on nuclear bomb, says Rumsfeld

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Jonathan Steele
Thursday June 12, 2003
The Guardian

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, yesterday tapped into deepening international concern about a clandestine nuclear programme in Iran, warning that Tehran was actively working to develop a bomb.

Here is the rest of the story:
www.guardian.co.uk...

"deepening international concern"????

I've not noticed it.

Are we going to ask for proof this time before our soldiers and innocent civilians are killed?

Are we going to ask for proof this time before our soldiers and innocent civilians are killed?

After Iraq that doesn't seem likely. I think its gonna be more "shoot first, ask questions later".

Don't these guys understand they now have some serious credibility issues?

Are they even away of the negative press, coming from major sources in their own country?


sheeesh

I think Rumsfeld is living in a different world, of their own boogeymen.... Unfortunately, it's us who'll have to foot the bill for these delusions. Seems we're laying the groundwork here... At least nothing will happen until after the next elections (unless they totally lose their minds, in which case the drums of war will sound).

You can almost imagine the conversation between Downing Street and The White House.

"You say Eye-Ran,We say Eee-Ran,Let's call the whole thing off!

One thing is that WAR IS HELL! Civilians have been getting killed ever sence warfare has been around. There is no avoiding it. Luckly with our technology we can limit the amount of civilan casulties there are. We're not carpet bombing there cities like we did in WWII are we? NO! there is no avoiding civilian casulties in war. Unless you want to set aside a huge ass pice of land just for fighting wars. i dont think so. these a-rab countries fight like cowards. they put their important # in highly populated areas. theres not a rule book or any guidlines to fighting a war. theres nothing we can do about it execpt develop technology to minimize non combatant casulties

i like the "shoot first ask questions later" approach. it means we dont dick around when it comes to this #. we dick around and it might cost more lives. say a radilogical or nuclear device being detonated in the US. I live about 5 miles from Offutt AFB which is home to SAC and which is probally a pretty juicy target. if they plan to give them to terrorist i say take em out before they take us out. i dont want to have to explain to my children one day why terrorist leveled a major US city. its bad enough that im gonna have to explain why terrorist turned commercial airliners into guided missles.

Just that, we should try to solve problems such as Iran developing the bomb, diplomatically, rather than go storming in there as well. We've done enough damage to our international relations for now....

Look to the thread about the Japanese and the horrors they inflicted upon china during WW2.\

Diplomacy is fine, but there is a time and place for action. Does anyone want a dirty bomb, or bio/chem weapon set off in there neck of the woods?? Iraq had/has them, Iran now has them and is developing nukes. I only hope the reform movement in Iran has some impact and makes fundamental changes in the govt. If not we need to stop them before they do something-which is to say not in my back yard.

As to the whether or not they had (Iraq that is) THEN the UN is lying, Iran is lying, Clinton was/is lying!!!

The question should be not -- where there weapons, BUT where in the heck are they

maybe the old boys just want to sell some more duct tape.
i'm beginning to think the dead are the lucky ones.
war is hell. so is being immersed in a media fiction.

Buy stock in 3M (makers of Duct Tape)

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
i like the "shoot first ask questions later" approach. i say take em out before they take us out. i dont want to have to explain to my children one day why terrorist leveled a major US city. its bad enough that im gonna have to explain why terrorist turned commercial airliners into guided missles.

I agree with KrazyIvan all the way.....

Okay and how many nucs do we have>? Are we saying it okay for us to have nucs and no one else?
This is gov...weapons army, navy belong to nations and governments to abuse, of course they have weapons..nucs i do not know it is not impossible but it is that a good enough to blow some country up where only innocents would die?? Or should we overthrow all governments and rule them all....more like there should be no gov at all because humans can never NOt abuse the power...if we had none maybe one can act according to ones own reasoN>?

Orion

i also think its b.s. that the US can have all these nucs and try to pass legislature to test new kinds of nuclear bombs, in spite of the fact that we are going around the world mopping these countries because the govt. says they have them too.

KrazyIvan I don't think this whole pre emptive strike thing is a good idea. It's like how Sharon is using helicopters and missiles on passenger cars but then they call it terrorism when Hamas strikes back. I mean if you want to go around the world blowing up everyone youre scared of, you can expect to tell your kid about the next terrorist retaliation attack in the us.

the Peace has to start somewhere.