Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

[quote]All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact.[/quote] I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing. [quote]"If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."[/quote] This is a different source. [quote]My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters.[/quote] It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) [quote]I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year)[/quote] In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything. And still, radiation does not affect buildings. Also, there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem ;) [quote]'"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.'[/quote] Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the corner and shut his mouth. ***Actions speak louder than words.*** Also, the writer of this article is clearly biased [quote]2. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims. 2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants. 3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance. 4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat. 5. some evidence of my own to the contrary:[/quote] 1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months. (http://blog.wired.com...) EU: http://www.upi.com... USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. (http://www.time.com...) 2. And I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e. 3. "...The Iranian president gained a powerful *ALLY*." [quote](1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence.[/quote] Look at the three links I provided. (http://blog.wired.com...) (http://www.upi.com...) (http://www.time.com...) [quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again][/quote] If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote](3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased.[/quote] FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal, actually. And still, they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran. [quote]We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.[/quote] It's kind of the same as: Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God." Quoted: "We will nuke country X." It's the SAME meaning. Okay, fine. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote]Does not make sense.[/quote] Okay. Number 1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased). Number 2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased). Number 3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president. Number 4 is claimed by the Iranian president. Number 5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions. Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled. So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.*** when Iran gets done with its nukes, they can simply give one of them to a terrorist group and have them detonate it in the middle of a large town. How? They could rent a truck and position the nuclear weapon inside it. It can never be traced back to Iran. Why? Well, if an object has been detonated to a trillion pieces, I imagine it may be a little tricky to find out who made it. Vote for either one of us, although I wish I could get your vote ;)