I could support Dennis Kucinich if I thought he had a chance of winning. As the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, he was willing enough to fight corruption, that he was a target of an unsuccessful assassination plot by Cleveland?s Mafia leaders.
Are you supporting a human being for President, Pabster?
Or would you prefer a continuation of the Bushwhackos' march toward a Fourth Reich? :shocked:
There's your problem, Harvey. When you do have legitimate concerns about GWB or his administration, they get lost by your extreme, poisonous rhetoric and macros. Fourth Reich? Come on.
There's your problem, Pabster. You've got your sycophantic nose so far up the Bushwhackos' asses that you can't see a real threat when it exists. The Bushwhackos' entire political strategy has been a copy of Hitler's rise to power. They used the turmoil following 9-11 to scare monger support for their war of LIES in Iraq and to shred the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. They've spied on American citizens without warrrants. They've imprisoned American citizens without allowing them access to legal counsel or even filing charges against them. When asked about them, they cry "STATE SECRETS!"
Next, you'll probably post that this isn't true, despite the fact that I and others have posted plenty of documentation that it is. Then, if I repost any of my previous links, you'll whine that I'm posting "macros."
You can try to dismiss it all you want... until they come for YOU! :shocked:
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
You don't often, if every, see me here explaining for GWB for the sake of supporting him. I do often debate with the "anti-GWB" forces around because in their rush to discredit him (GWB) I think they often go overboard with exagerations.
I think so with this issue too.
I've heard it explained that in simple terms there are three components to a nuclear weapon program:
1. Enriched uranium.
2. Weaponizing that uranium so you end up something far more than just a dirty bomb.
3. Delivery system for the weapon.
Everyone knows that Iran is doing two out of the three now (#'s 1 & 3). The new NIE report says that they don't think anything is going on now with regard to #2.
For my tastes, that far too much to now proclaim that Iran is benign, and that "the wolves are laying down with the sheep" etc.
Further, for all we know #2 has already been acomplished. If I understand correctly the (copies) of plans the Iranians had already obtained dealt with #2. After Khan (sp?) of Pakistan, I doubt that #2 is all that hard to get. Moreover, the Koreans have it and have been working jointly with Syria - an ally of Iran.
The Israelis, whose intel agencies I have more repect for (particularly in dealing with that region) don't seem to feel the same way as many of you either.
Fern
You'll notice that I didn't get a single reply about the NIE stating that they only had a "moderate" degree of confidence. Sure doesn't sound too concrete to me.
eits
Lifer
? how so? i already knew the intelligence showed iran wasn't trying to make nukes... that's why i said "old news" earlier in this thread.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
If anything, what is missing is any evidence that the "left" is spinning the recent NIE. The notion that GWB has not known or been informed of many of the facts now in the official NIE as almost indisputably true is absurd. It would be gross incompetence for the CIA not to keep the Pres and VP informed of all incoming intel and current analysis of conventional wisdom and competing views within the CIA. Red Dawn has pointed out the President was informed two months ago that the CIA was reassessing its official views on Iran, but it becomes a HUGE political problem for the President when his own CIA informs the President that his position is and has been totally wrong when he choose to IGNORE other views that CIA had presented in years previous. Its another huge stretch of the imagination that the CIA was unaware of these alternate intel on Iran and just learned of it a little over two months ago!
Luckily this is a testable hypothesis and I hope congressional hearing are started ASAP to answer this question. Either our CIA was GROSSLY INCOMPETENT in with holding these alternate intelligence assessments on Iran from GWB&Cheney or OUR PRESIDENT&VP HAS BEEN CHERRY PICKING INTELLIGENCE AGAIN.
Which is it? Lets get the facts so no one has to spin this. Its rather easy to test with congressional hearings or from leaks within the CIA. Perhaps retired agents who can name days, dates, times, and places when GWB&Cheney were informed.
I don't think anyone will accept the the CIA director taking the rap to save the President's hide this time around. Not when the whole agency is still smarting over the outing of Plame and the pardon of Scooter Fibby.
Luckily this is a testable hypothesis and I hope congressional hearing are started ASAP to answer this question. Either our CIA was GROSSLY INCOMPETENT in with holding these alternate intelligence assessments on Iran from GWB&Cheney or OUR PRESIDENT&VP HAS BEEN CHERRY PICKING INTELLIGENCE AGAIN.
Which is it? Lets get the facts so no one has to spin this. Its rather easy to test with congressional hearings or from leaks within the CIA. Perhaps retired agents who can name days, dates, times, and places when GWB&Cheney were informed.
I don't think anyone will accept the the CIA director taking the rap to save the President's hide this time around. Not when the whole agency is still smarting over the outing of Plame and the pardon of Scooter Fibby.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
O'rly? You sure arn't looking very hard.
See below. This is exactly the spin we see now in news regarding this report.
So, there are claims that this report proved Iran wasn't trying to make nukes?
Here's what the report actually said:
How does "we do not know" morph into we know that they aren't?
Moreover, the report also says:
Fern
It doesn't because "currently intends" is not the same as doing it. If I say I currently intend on being a Billionaire that doesn't mean it will happen or even that I'm currently doing anything to reach that goal.
Again they fudge their words saying "would likely". You are the one spinning the report by reading into it what you want to see, not the left.
Of course people will buy into because we all know that everyone wants to rule the world and in order to do that it would help to be recoginized as a nuclear power.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
As usual, Fern has both nuclear physics and recent past history wrong. Its not what Iran is doing now, its what co-operation with Iran we could have had in 2003 which really is the bombshell in the the new NIE.
The point being, in tears prior to 2003, Iran had abandoned any existing programs to develop nuclear weapons. And moderate groups inside of Iran were trying to work with the US to both patch up differences and seek US support in developing the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation. And GWB was offered almost total supervision of these reactors so that Iran could not use nuclear materials to develop nuclear weapons. Instead GWB spurned these peace initiatives from Iranian moderates, those same pro US moderates inside Iran lost their credibility inside Iran, and now we are facing the more radical anti-US groups in Iran and the election of Ahmadinjad.
Iran does have the right to develop peace time uses of nuclear energy for power generation, a program they only resumed after GWB spurned their moderates, and a golden opportunity was lost in 2003. Because now Iran will develop nuclear capacities WITHOUT the US. And short of going to war, there is probably little anyone can do about it.
In terms of Fern's 3 item list, the #1 point of getting the fissionable U235 separated from the far more more abundant inert U238 is the most difficult nuclear problem. It will take Iran many years to do that. Once a country has sufficient almost pure U235, it can be used in a nuclear reactor to generate electrical power or directly diverted into making nuclear weapons. But if used in a reactor, that reactor can generate both electrical energy and be used to create highly fissionable Plutonium at the same time. And Plutonium is especially usable to create nuclear weapons with few other uses. Which is why GWB blowing the US chance to supervise the spent fuel rods was such a GIANT BLUNDER. And now if the Iranian nuclear program is not arrested in some way, very hard now that Putin has said nyet to the US on that one, Iran now has the capacity of getting enough U235 fuel to start their own reactors in the 2010-2015 time frame. With the first more likely only after 2013. It would be unlikely that Iran, even with a crash program, could develop much of any nuclear weapons capacity to even be a threat to Israel before 2020 or far beyond.
As for the Fern's #3 delivery system, Iran already has intermediate range missiles capable of hitting Israel with chemical and biological weapons they already have. And if Iran is rational enough to not to use its missiles against Israel, why should nukes be much more potent than the chemical and biological weapons it has now? There is zero evidence that Iran is working on any missiles that could be capable of hitting the US so they are zero threat to the USA. And it would take Iran centuries to develop enough nukes to even be comparable to what we have now and thats if we we stop development now.
But that is the new NIE, GWB bungling has made the world a more dangerous place. And sent a signal to every small resource rich nation on the planet, you better develop a defensive nuclear capacity or you are ripe for the pickings.
The point being, in tears prior to 2003, Iran had abandoned any existing programs to develop nuclear weapons. And moderate groups inside of Iran were trying to work with the US to both patch up differences and seek US support in developing the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation. And GWB was offered almost total supervision of these reactors so that Iran could not use nuclear materials to develop nuclear weapons. Instead GWB spurned these peace initiatives from Iranian moderates, those same pro US moderates inside Iran lost their credibility inside Iran, and now we are facing the more radical anti-US groups in Iran and the election of Ahmadinjad.
Iran does have the right to develop peace time uses of nuclear energy for power generation, a program they only resumed after GWB spurned their moderates, and a golden opportunity was lost in 2003. Because now Iran will develop nuclear capacities WITHOUT the US. And short of going to war, there is probably little anyone can do about it.
In terms of Fern's 3 item list, the #1 point of getting the fissionable U235 separated from the far more more abundant inert U238 is the most difficult nuclear problem. It will take Iran many years to do that. Once a country has sufficient almost pure U235, it can be used in a nuclear reactor to generate electrical power or directly diverted into making nuclear weapons. But if used in a reactor, that reactor can generate both electrical energy and be used to create highly fissionable Plutonium at the same time. And Plutonium is especially usable to create nuclear weapons with few other uses. Which is why GWB blowing the US chance to supervise the spent fuel rods was such a GIANT BLUNDER. And now if the Iranian nuclear program is not arrested in some way, very hard now that Putin has said nyet to the US on that one, Iran now has the capacity of getting enough U235 fuel to start their own reactors in the 2010-2015 time frame. With the first more likely only after 2013. It would be unlikely that Iran, even with a crash program, could develop much of any nuclear weapons capacity to even be a threat to Israel before 2020 or far beyond.
As for the Fern's #3 delivery system, Iran already has intermediate range missiles capable of hitting Israel with chemical and biological weapons they already have. And if Iran is rational enough to not to use its missiles against Israel, why should nukes be much more potent than the chemical and biological weapons it has now? There is zero evidence that Iran is working on any missiles that could be capable of hitting the US so they are zero threat to the USA. And it would take Iran centuries to develop enough nukes to even be comparable to what we have now and thats if we we stop development now.
But that is the new NIE, GWB bungling has made the world a more dangerous place. And sent a signal to every small resource rich nation on the planet, you better develop a defensive nuclear capacity or you are ripe for the pickings.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Sory, but I call complete and total BS on this claim. Link?
Besides that you really shouldn't tell someone else they have their nuclear technology facts wrong when you so obviously don't know what you're talking about yourself. The concentration of U-235 for use in a commercial production nuclear reactor doesn't have to be anywhere near "pure." Generally the concentration of U-235 for use in a nuclear reactor is @ 4% - 7%, depending on the reactor design. Only some research reactors require concentrations of U-235 anywhere close to pure.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
TLC makes a valid but none the less irrelevant point about enriching Uranium.
Given that natural Uranium ores once refined to pure Uranium has only 3 about U235 atoms in every thousand. And while a nuclear reactor only requires 4-7% pure U235, or a 13-23 X purification factor, a useful reactor able to generate significant power still requires far more U235 than a single critical mass of almost pure U235 that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
Either way, its a very slow process to get the required U235 even if one has an infinite supply of Uranium ores. And even if one can get a reactor online quicker, it then takes years to create the plutonium as a fraction inside of the the fuel rods. In the case of the US in WW2, we got two Uranium bombs and one plutonium bombs ready for use at the end of ww2.
Given that natural Uranium ores once refined to pure Uranium has only 3 about U235 atoms in every thousand. And while a nuclear reactor only requires 4-7% pure U235, or a 13-23 X purification factor, a useful reactor able to generate significant power still requires far more U235 than a single critical mass of almost pure U235 that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
Either way, its a very slow process to get the required U235 even if one has an infinite supply of Uranium ores. And even if one can get a reactor online quicker, it then takes years to create the plutonium as a fraction inside of the the fuel rods. In the case of the US in WW2, we got two Uranium bombs and one plutonium bombs ready for use at the end of ww2.
Fern's assertions wrt "enriched uranium" are erroneous- according to the IAEA, the Iranians are only producing LEU, which is not weaponizable, and are not currently producing HEU, which is...
Nor has any credible evidence been presented that the Iranians have ever produced HEU in weaponizable quantities.
With the IAEA monitoring the Iranians' every move, it seems highly unlikely that nuclear material could be created or diverted for weapons purposes.
Wrt claims that the Bush Admin has used anything other than threats and indirect promises to arrive at some resolution other than military, they're bullshit. Yeh, sure, they haven't used the military option, nor have they really offered any others...
Any deal between the Iranians and the EU can be denounced by the Bushistas at any time, because they weren't a party to it in the first place... It's a false bargain, and the Iranians recognize that.
What the new report does is to cut off the impetus to attack right at the knees. How the report came to be issued at all is an interesting question- perhaps it's the Admin's way of backing away w/o losing face- they can't do what they want because the rest of the weak sisters won't go along with 'em... they're right but nobody believes 'em... so they get to rave on w/o obligation to follow it up with action...
Nor has any credible evidence been presented that the Iranians have ever produced HEU in weaponizable quantities.
With the IAEA monitoring the Iranians' every move, it seems highly unlikely that nuclear material could be created or diverted for weapons purposes.
Wrt claims that the Bush Admin has used anything other than threats and indirect promises to arrive at some resolution other than military, they're bullshit. Yeh, sure, they haven't used the military option, nor have they really offered any others...
Any deal between the Iranians and the EU can be denounced by the Bushistas at any time, because they weren't a party to it in the first place... It's a false bargain, and the Iranians recognize that.
What the new report does is to cut off the impetus to attack right at the knees. How the report came to be issued at all is an interesting question- perhaps it's the Admin's way of backing away w/o losing face- they can't do what they want because the rest of the weak sisters won't go along with 'em... they're right but nobody believes 'em... so they get to rave on w/o obligation to follow it up with action...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.../2007/10/20071021.html
What a difference 6 weeks makes. Here's what Cheney was saying back then:
What a difference 6 weeks makes. Here's what Cheney was saying back then:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
What a difference 5 months makes. Here's what one of the primary authors of the NIE provided as testimony to the House Armed Services Committee a mere 5 months ago:
http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony.pdf
http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony.pdf
eits
Lifer
there was a cia report about a year ago that said the same thing as this new intelligence report... no evidence to support any nuclear weapons plans.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
My point wasn't about enriching uranium. My point was to correct your error. The NIE already details their opinion of how long it would take Iran to enrich enough uranium for a bomb.
It's no surprise to me, but y apparently you can't seperate the wheat from the chaffe. I'm determined to get into Jennifer Lopez's pants someday, so should she get a restraining order on me?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Oh, I see. In your world stalking a celebrity to satisfy your lust is identical to a country developing a nuclear weapon.
It's no wonder you have such a tenuous grasp on reality.
And in your world "wanting" something is a justifiable case for starting WW3.
Talk about not having a grasp on reality. Now go troll someone else dipshit.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter