What would be worse? Iran or Iraq with nuclear weapons???

[healthmyths]

"Saddam, who by 2002 was flouting sanctions and had already organized a robust international coalition for their removal, would have long been free of these constraints. Consistent with the Kay report which indicated that, while Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2003, he intended to continue their pursuit when conditions allowed, Saddam would have used the high oil revenues of 2000s to seek such weapons.

It is at least conceivable that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon today. At a minimum, Iraq under Saddam and Iran under the Islamic Republic would be locked in an intense race to acquire nuclear weapons, making the region the most dangerous place in the world today.

Ten Years After the Iraq War: Believe It or Not, We're Safer Now - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

 

[healthmyths]

So where are all you naysayers about Iran as you were about Saddam and his WMDs?
Where are these people and their response to Iran's WMDs???
32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.



"Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.

A sweeping attack, conducted in January of 1999, rained down 25 missiles on Iraqi soil, killing civilians. Clinton said the attack was in response to four planes violating the no-fly zones.

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Husseins refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

AND..
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

 

[waltky]

Granny says Ammerjabberjob gonna blow up the Jews `fore he leaves office...

Iran expanding nuclear weapon program: IAEA
Fri, May 24, 2013 - Iran is making significant progress in expanding its nuclear program, including in opening up a potential second route to developing the bomb, a new UN atomic agency report showed on Wednesday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest quarterly update said Tehran had accelerated the installation of advanced uranium enrichment equipment at its central Natanz plant. It also outlined further progress at a reactor under construction at Arak, also in central Iran, which Western countries fear could provide Iran with plutonium if the fuel is reprocessed. The US Department of State said the report was an “unfortunate milestone” marking a decade of Iran expanding its nuclear activities “in blatant violation of its international obligations.” A US congressional panel backed tougher sanctions against Iran.

Highly enriched uranium and plutonium can both be used in a nuclear weapon. North Korea used plutonium in two tests in 2006 and 2009, while uranium was used in the “Little Boy” atomic bomb dropped by the US on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. The new IAEA report, seen by Agence France-Presse, said Iran has installed at Natanz almost 700 IR-2m centrifuges and/or empty centrifuge casings, compared with just 180 in February. However, none was operating.

Iran has said it intends to install about 3,000 of the new centrifuges at Natanz — where about 13,500 of the older models are in place — enabling it to speed up the enrichment of uranium. The UN Security Council has passed numerous resolutions calling on Iran to suspend all enrichment and heavy water activities of the kind under development at Arak. It has imposed four rounds of sanctions.

Last year, additional unilateral US and EU sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports and its financial system began to cause real problems for the Persian Gulf country’s economy. Israel, the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state, has refused to rule out military action against Iran, as has US President Barack Obama. Iran says that its atomic activities are peaceful. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the impasse, most recently in six-power talks with Iran in Kazakhstan last month, have failed to make concrete progress.

Iran expanding nuclear weapon program: IAEA - Taipei Times

 

[Kondor3]

As things stand now, Iraq, because they have not yet re-stabilized; but Iran runs a close second because of its theocratic nature married to a belief-system that actively encourages warrior-martyrdom, and, if Iraq re-stabilizes as a secular power with any logic and sanity attributable to it, then Iran gets bumped back up to first place again.

 

[skye]

Iraq or Iran?
Nuclear?
Worse? LOL


LOL Iran me thinks

 

[Saigon]

As things stand now, Iraq, because they have not yet re-stabilized; but Iran runs a close second because of its theocratic nature married to a belief-system that actively encourages warrior-martyrdom, and, if Iraq re-stabilizes as a secular power with any logic and sanity attributable to it, then Iran gets bumped back up to first place again.

That sounds about right to me.

Iran is a bit like North Korea in that the threat mainly occurs when they feel pressured by external forces. Hence, I think in both cases the west needs to undermine the regimes without direct confrontation.

The US does not want to fight a land war in Iran, because it would cost FAR more lives than Iraq, and be as unwinable as Afghanistan.

 

[theliq]

"Saddam, who by 2002 was flouting sanctions and had already organized a robust international coalition for their removal, would have long been free of these constraints. Consistent with the Kay report which indicated that, while Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2003, he intended to continue their pursuit when conditions allowed, Saddam would have used the high oil revenues of 2000s to seek such weapons.

It is at least conceivable that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon today. At a minimum, Iraq under Saddam and Iran under the Islamic Republic would be locked in an intense race to acquire nuclear weapons, making the region the most dangerous place in the world today.

Ten Years After the Iraq War: Believe It or Not, We're Safer Now - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Still Spinning the BULLSHIT LINE.......You went to WAR ON BULLSHIT,BULLSHIT AND MORE BULLSHIT............

 

[theliq]

Iraq or Iran?
Nuclear?
Worse? LOL


LOL Iran me thinks

LOL Israel,Iran most likely methinks

 

[theliq]

As things stand now, Iraq, because they have not yet re-stabilized; but Iran runs a close second because of its theocratic nature married to a belief-system that actively encourages warrior-martyrdom, and, if Iraq re-stabilizes as a secular power with any logic and sanity attributable to it, then Iran gets bumped back up to first place again.

Thanks to the USA it will take Iraq generations to stabilize,I must say another Bullshit Task,America never completed........fimiliar story.

 

[Steelplate]

I wouldn't worry about either of them getting A Nuke. I wouldn't Even worry about North Korea with a couple dozen....

Those countries are RELATIVELY harmless(in the case of Iran and Iraq) and China has control of North Korea....very little saber rattling lately from them...did China put the smack down on them in private?

Pakistan is the one to worry about. They have over 100 nukes, hates India with a passion, and are becoming more and more radicalized.

 

[Kondor3]

As things stand now, Iraq, because they have not yet re-stabilized; but Iran runs a close second because of its theocratic nature married to a belief-system that actively encourages warrior-martyrdom, and, if Iraq re-stabilizes as a secular power with any logic and sanity attributable to it, then Iran gets bumped back up to first place again.

Thanks to the USA it will take Iraq generations to stabilize,I must say another Bullshit Task,America never completed........fimiliar story.

It took us 40-50 years to put Europe and Japan back on their feet sufficiently so that they could tend to their own defenses again, and that process came close to bankrupting us.

We didn't have that kind of time nor money when it came to Iraq.

We should never have taken our eye off the ball (al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts) in Afghanistan in order to clobber an already-weakened Iraq.

But if we were going to stomp on Iraq we should probably have walked away within six months whether they were ready for us to leave or not, and damn the consequences.

Afghanistan should also have been over six months after we went in there.

As cold as this is going to sound...

In situations where we find it necessary to go to war (and those should be rare)...

There are countries where it makes sense for us to help with the rebuilding, and there are countries where it makes more sense just to walk away, once we've killed the bad guys.

 

[Saigon]

China has control of North Korea....very little saber rattling lately from them.

Um.....what?

It seemed to me that it was around three weeks back that we had the most tense standoff in Korea since the end of the war itself.

I agree with you about Pakistan though - should radicals ever seize power, it could be catastrophic for India.

 

[Steelplate]

China has control of North Korea....very little saber rattling lately from them.

Um.....what?

It seemed to me that it was around three weeks back that we had the most tense standoff in Korea since the end of the war itself.

I agree with you about Pakistan though - should radicals ever seize power, it could be catastrophic for India.

I think it was longer than that...but I should have threw the word lately in that sentence....it was tense for a while....but it's been real quite all of a sudden. I'm thinking China said "enough is enough"

 

[skye]

Iran will never get nuclear weapons.

Wanna bet?


Never!

 

[skye]

It will get bad...really bad before Iran

gets

nuclear weapons

BAD!

 

[skye]

Mark my words.



if you all care or not...doesn't mean a thing....


just mark my words that Iran will be stopped....

 

[Mac1958]

.

They're still trying to justify that horrific war.

.

 

[skye]

Islamic terrorists won't win this fight.........

Death on both sides.... but they will not win.

 

[skye]

I am already sad ...for the handsome Israeli pilots that will be going down... its sad very sad....


Bless them... and may all Islamic fanatics go to hell!

 

[theliq]

It will get bad...really bad before Iran

gets

nuclear weapons

BAD!

Skye they will do everything in their power to do so...........Israel in the end will prevent them.