DebateGate

Quote from: The_Professor on May 01, 2007, 09:16:45 AM

I have yet to fully comprehend why all the hooplah over this Wolfowitz "thing". Okay, he helped his girlfiriend get a job. Like this doesn't happen anywhere! (sarcastic). Wrong thing to do, but not Earth-shattering. Big whoop...

As far as the reason why Nixon resigned, I would hope he did it to save the nation even more grief.

I wonder, Knute, if Nixon were a Democrat, would you be so punishing as to his motives?

I am just as hard on evil & stupid  Dems than similar Repubs. I hated Johnson then almost as much as Bushidiot now and I was equally thrilled when he decided not to run. His motives sucked as well.

I am glad to hear it, Knute.

Well, if you check back, I advocated bombing the heck out of their nuke facilities. No, some folks here were so worried about the fallout, physical and political. Do I think you can stop nuclear proliferation? Nope, BUT you can slow it down some.

"What makes Iran less worthy of having nuclear weapons than other nuclear armed nations, including Israel, Pakistan, and India?"

Probably, because they are scumbags as is evidenced by their rhetoric(wiping Israel off the face of the Earth), as well as their action (visible and tangible support for terrorism throughout the world).

I have also listened to many in Europe recently advocate a softer approach to Iran and I see no reason why it should succeed. This is yet another evidence of their decadent outlook.

Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb in Three Years, Report Says
Julie Stahl

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Iran could obtain nuclear weapons in less than three years - sooner than previously anticipated -- according to a new U.S. Intelligence assessment, CBS News reported late Thursday.

Previous assessments suggested Iran would not be able to obtain atomic weapons for about eight years, but the new report says Iran has overcome technical difficulties in enriching uranium that could speed up the process.

Iran has defied a United Nations Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment, a key step in producing either nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs. Although Iran denies it, the West believes that nuclear bomb-making is Iran's ultimate goal.

The CBS report quoted former CIA officer Bruce Riedel as saying that the three-year time frame puts pressure on Israel to make a preemptive strike sooner rather than later.

Israel was the first to warn that Iran was planning to build a nuclear bomb under cover of its civilian nuclear program. The U.S. and Europe eventually adopted Israel's viewpoint, but it took more than a year for the U.S. to persuade U.N. Security Council members to impose sanctions on Iran.

Although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, Israel has not taken the lead in trying to stop Iran. Israeli officials argue that a nuclear Iran (which has many terrorist groups at its disposal) not only threatens Israel but the entire region and the world.

All along, Israel has believed that Iran was much closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon than the U.S. did, said Dr. Zvi Stauber, director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

"The implication is that everything is more pressing," said Stauber in a telephone interview on Friday.

If they are saying that Iran could have a bomb in three years, that means that the Iranians would master the technology much earlier and that is the big threshold for Iran to cross, said Stauber.

Stauber cautioned that no one really knows when Iran will master the technology that would enable it to obtain nuclear weapons. Western intelligence agencies are trying all the time to disrupt Iran's progress by clandestine means, he added.

Washington has said that it prefers to resolve the standoff with Tehran diplomatically, but it has not ruled out a military strike. Many Westerners have looked to Israel to take action like it did in 1981, when it bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor shortly before it became operational.

Analysts say that an operation in Iran would be much more complicated since Iranian nuclear facilities are located in fortified, underground bunkers and dispersed throughout the country.

Stauber said there are still many options in terms of sanctions that could be applied to Iran before a military option is considered.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been campaigning in the U.S. and Europe for economic sanctions - having companies, pension funds and countries to voluntarily withdraw their investments in Iranian interests. Such a scheme, he said, could greatly - and quickly -- impact the Iranian economy.

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has previously said that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, said that he is "hopeful" that the threat of a nuclear Iran could be resolved "without a military operation."

Nevertheless, Stauber said, the Iranians are determined to continue with their nuclear policy.

Several weeks ago, Iran announced that it had already started enriching uranium on an industrial scale -- a boast that many analysts said was intended to force the West to accept the idea of a nuclear Iran.

Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials repeatedly have said that the country will not abandon its nuclear program. Iran's deputy Interior Minister Muhammad Baqer Zolqadr warned on Thursday that Iran would attack American interests and Israel if its nuclear sites were targeted.

Stauber said that sanctions are not likely to be very effective, and sooner or later a military option will have to be considered. "It's a momentous decision," said Stauber. "Everybody is trying to avoid arriving at the junction [of making] that decision."

Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11539332/

"Hillary Rodham Clinton" became the standard in 1993 as the Clintons moved into the White House. She continued to use that when she ran for Senate from New York in 2000."

Why? Why use this name? I guess it is because I am a guy over ffity but I have never understood this fascination for keeping an old name unless it is for, well, I really can't think of any reasons over the long haul. Will someone please enlighten this poor soul?

Quote from: Amianthus on April 30, 2007, 03:24:56 PM

Quote from: The_Professor on April 30, 2007, 02:58:58 PM

Really too bad. I liked Serenity/Firefly almost as much as Babylon 5. I liked B5 better in that it was a five-year story arc and so the characters became deeper and the plots more complex. But, as you say, it probably will not happen.

Firefly had a 5 year arc as well. But it fell victim to the mentality among network heads that "science fiction won't make money" and they dorked around with it just like they have every other reasonable sci-fi show, changing dates and timeslots on a nearly weekly basis.

Strangely, I never had the chance to see Firefly until it came out on DVD, and only after I had seen the movie Serenity.  I made such a mention of how much I liked the moviem that my wife bought me that 1st and only series for my Birthday, and I went thru it within 2 weeks, it was that good.  I told her she needed to see it, and now she's severely bummed that no other season/show will be made.  Yep, major depression for us Sci Fi fans

I agree, sirs, wholeheaertedly. But then again I remember all the cool scifi shows over the years that also have not made it like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Crusade, The Original Battlestar Galactica, The Time Tunnel (dating myself here!), Land of the Giants, etc. At least we have The Dresden Files, Stargate and Stargate: Atlantis. And, probably, the only reason these survive is that it is not network TV, its the Scifi Channel.

Too bad. We are much better at the latter than the former.

"I'm afraid that won't happen.  The director and writer of the series would have, had the movie Serenity made some reasonable return in the Theaters.  And despite my contribution in going to see it, it apparently bombed in the boxoffice, and he made it known that Firefly is no more"

Really too bad. I liked Serenity/Firefly almost as much as Babylon 5. I liked B5 better in that it was a five-year story arc and so the characters became deeper and the plots more complex. But, as you say, it probably will not happen. The same thing happened to B5's "Legend of the Rangers" on TV. It was our hope for a follow-on series once the network screwed up Crusade.

My current favorite TV series, Jericho, apparently is "on the bubble" and so might not make it. Dangit!