Did the president abandon an American soldier?

[Conan71]

Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. []

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. []

I sent him an email and told him to take care of it. He apparently dropped the ball. [}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Of course, if we're worried about Iran having nukes, we shouldn't post documents on the Internet that help them.

[]

I knew I'd read this somewhere before, the "internet" thing has been around awhile, this is dated 1999:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja99stober

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. []

I sent him an email and told him to take care of it. He apparently dropped the ball. [}:)]

Dropped the ball in Iraq? Surely you jest! [}:)]

[papaspot]

Conan, rather than doing a point-by-point, I'll say a couple of things and then I'll address a couple of things that you said.

First off, I'm NOT saying that Iran ISN'T developing nuclear weapons. In fact, I think there's a pretty good chance that they are. But we've seen what kind of a mess you make when you go around invading other countries based on speculation.

And I forgot what the second thing I wanted to say was. The medication wears off this late in the day.

quote:It is my understanding that all countries with nuclear capabilities are subject to IAEA regulations and inspections. Refusing to allow inspections is akin to refusing a cop with a valid search warrant into your house. If you have nothing to hide, why would you refuse a legal search of your property?

I think that there's a cultural factor that comes in here. Whether Iran is subject to inspection by the IAEC, I don't know and I'll tell ya up front that I haven't looked at your links yet. But I will. Now, if they're NOT subject to it (by virtue of not being a signatory to a treaty or somehow otherwise agreeing to abide by it) then it would be the same as a cop coming to your front door without a warrant and demanding to come inside and look around. If they ARE subject to it, it may be a matter of exerting their sovereignty. I remember the same argument being used against Saddam. If he had nothing to hide, why did he resist the inspections? Well, who knows? What we DO know now is that he had nothing to hide. Yet he resisted the inspections. Go figure. My reckoning is that they see the inspections as being a U.S. thing and they're tired of being bullied by the U.S.

quote:
Continuing to enrich uranium beyond limits necessary for "peaceful" purposes which are set forth (3.5% is considered energy grade, 90% weapons grade. Iran is now at 5% and planning to add more centrifuges which would give them capability for even higher amounts) is akin to violating a court order- that's oversimplifying, but I don't know another way to put it.

But how do we know that since they won't allow inspections? I think 3.5% is an acceptable level for some types of nuclear reactors but not high enough for other types.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Dropped the ball in Iraq? Surely you jest! [}:)]

As ALWAYS. [}:)]