Why doesn't the media ever tell us how far Iran has gotten in enriching Uranium?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Most likely any figures would come from government sources, and it's been demonstrated we can't trust them.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I can't imagine they're so retarded that they would rather elect a military pushover (Obama) when the cost would be millions of American lives, literally.

Care to detail this scenario for us? You know, back up your hysterical claim?

 

[mxyzptlk]

wtf does the OP even mean.. 70% of what? This is the stupidest shit I've ever seen, and last Friday I watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If they're at 70% then that makes a huge difference in who America would elect President. 30% after all these years, not so much.

I find this particularly interesting if you take into account that the media companies (excluding fox) employ ~90% liberally minded people. On the other hand, I can't imagine they're so retarded that they would rather elect a military pushover (Obama) when the cost would be millions of American lives, literally.

More BS and FUD, literally.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If they're at 70% then that makes a huge difference in who America would elect President. 30% after all these years, not so much.

I find this particularly interesting if you take into account that the media companies (excluding fox) employ ~90% liberally minded people. On the other hand, I can't imagine they're so retarded that they would rather elect a military pushover (Obama) when the cost would be millions of American lives, literally.

More BS and FUD, literally.

Well to be fair Obama does continue to send the wrong message, he emboldens Iran which could have cascading affects like;

Iran procures nukes and tries to make good on promises to destroy Israel and the US, or Iran procures nukes and ignites a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that results in a nuclear holocaust.

I think Obama has set himself up to be seen by Iran as a big win for them if he gets elected and that is not a good thing!

Here is an example;

Iranian News Agency delighted that Obama says US should "ratchet down" rhetoric on Iran

 

[Lemon law]

As Socio says---The Dutch government has passed a new law under which Iranians will be banned from access to courses and facilities related to nuclear technology in the Netherlands.

Wow WoW and Triple Wow, and not only that, Oh piffle. Back in my out of my mind fantasy days, when I wanted to be the first kid on my block to have to have my very own Pet nuclear weapon, the Neatherlands topped my list on where to study up on how to do it.

But fortunately for me, as a US citizen, I can still go to the Neatherlands to study up on it.
But I was so looking forward to having my Iranian whipping boy along with me to explain it all to me.

Actually the recipie for making a nuclear weapons is already well known. All you really need is one critical mass of some fissional material. And thats the rub, I can buy a billion tons of yellowcake Uranium from Niger, refining out the 99.7% by weight worthless 238 is the very hard part.

But I have it all figured out now, I will take my magnifying glass and my trusty tweasers, yup that looks like a U235 atom me.

Then we come to step two, not wise to have one critical mass in one place, so I shall machine two subcritical masses that when put together equals a critcal mass, hold each in one hand and then join them. And like a light from the sun, it will dawn on everyone, I have acheived my life's ambition in winning the Darwin Award.

Please Socio, join me in solidarity, I will let you hold one subcritical mass and I can hold the other. As we join hands, we can both win the Darwin award.

Now we need just need to pick a place, the Neatherlands springs to mind.

 

[yllus]

When I watch Senator Obama speak and see him make his political maneuvers, "pushover" is not the word that comes to mind. He's been quite ruthless so far in his remarkable rise to power. I very much doubt he'd be in over his head on the international stage.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just where do you get the conclusive evidence of where they are at? The US Intelligence agencies? Will the intel on Iran be a "slam dunk" also?

They don't have the information to be able to tell us.
-snip-

Yes, we have a lot of information and it comes from the IAEA (AKA U.N.)

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
If you look and I have, the media is telling us exactly where Iran is in Uranium enrichment.

They sure are, but it's nothing, absolutley nothing as you describe.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
-snip-
so you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what's clearly going on around you?

[/quote]

That appears to be a fairly accurate description. However, NOT as you intended

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
-snip-
According to the IAEA, Iran isn't hiding their present activities, at all. There are some unanswered questions wrt past research- that's it. Iran has never had the materials to actually build weapons, and likely won't so long as the IAEA has a microscope up their ass, which is the present and near future scenario.

You continue to persist with this fabrication of "microscopes up their ass". I have previously shown you that you are wrong in your characterization of Iran's cooperation, the extent of the IAEA's ability to inspect and the IAEA's reported findings. So, I'll do it again here.

From a source beloved here by many - The New York Times:

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said last month that there was no danger that we would wake up one morning to find Iran the next nuclear power. He said that Iran would first have to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty, evict the IAEA's inspectors, "and then it would need at least ... six months to one year." That puts an Iranian nuclear capability well into the future, next year.
So, Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2009, according to El Baradi

(Iran) has 320 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas to feed its centrifuges, enough for almost 100 bombs, but not for even a fraction of one reactor refueling operation.

The IAEA has also recently reported that it has questions that Iran refuses to answer:
Co-operation huh?

Why is Iran using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal? The only known use for such tests is to perfect a lightweight nuclear bomb.

Why is Iran developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon?

Why is Iran designing, or redesigning, a ballistic missile warhead so that it can contain a nuclear weapon?
Nope, they're not working on a weapon. Nope [/sarcasm]

The size of its centrifuge program increases suspicion that Iran is not interested in producing enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power plants. The program is too small - even with the planned 50,000 improved centrifuges - to provide fuel for a nuclear power program of any consequence.

But the advanced centrifuges will enable the Iranians to build about twice as many nuclear weapons a year with the current infrastructure than they otherwise could have done. If they add 6,000 machines to today's 3,000, the bomb-building potential is more than doubled again, but the peaceful utility of the plant is zero.

And it is apparent that the real purpose of Iranian enrichment is to provide fuel for weapons, not reactors.

Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist, is emeritus professor of science and security at King's College London and the former chief scientist of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

LINK

AND

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran?s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained ?a matter of serious concern? and that Iran continued to owe the agency ?substantial explanations.?

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation,

The report also makes the allegation that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges that are operating faster and more efficiently, the product of robust research and development that have not been fully disclosed to the agency.

The report makes no effort to disguise the agency?s frustration with Iran?s lack of openness

The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.

The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,? said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. ?The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I?ve never seen it laid out quite like this.?

Link


That some people still contend that there is NO evidence of an Iranian nuke weapon program, that Iran is cooperating with IAEA, that the inspectors are "up their ass" is utterly incredulous.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Well Fern, your rebuttal is doing nothing to explain why the head of the IAEA, has point blank said to GWB&co, they are full of shit and he will withdraw any support of the US or Israel if either pre emptively attack Iran.

I think you are taking a bunch of stuff out of context and weaving possibility into certainty.

Where have we seen that before? Try the little boy who cried wolf and his merry minions.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well Fern, your rebuttal is doing nothing to explain why the head of the IAEA, has point blank said to GWB&co, they are full of shit and he will withdraw any support of the US or Israel if either pre emptively attack Iran.

I think you are taking a bunch of stuff out of context and weaving possibility into certainty.

Where have we seen that before? Try the little boy who cried wolf and his merry minions.

Well this could stem more from the fact that Mohamed ElBaradei has biases; he is a Muslim thus has obligations to the Nation of Islam which takes precedence over all else including the welfare of the ?infidel? West.

 

[Aimster]

EU warns Iran a month in advance they are going to target the banks.
Iran removes their money
EU sanctions the bank

FAIL

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Topic Title: Why doesn't the media ever tell us how far Iran has gotten in enriching Uranium?

What makes you think "the media" knows jack about it?

If they're at 70% then that makes a huge difference in who America would elect President. 30% after all these years, not so much.

Where do you get that 70% number? Are you making stuff up, or do you really have something to go on? Links, pls.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And just where do you get the conclusive evidence of where they are at? The US Intelligence agencies? Will the intel on Iran be a "slam dunk" also?

They don't have the information to be able to tell us.
-snip-

Yes, we have a lot of information and it comes from the IAEA (AKA U.N.)

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
If you look and I have, the media is telling us exactly where Iran is in Uranium enrichment.

They sure are, but it's nothing, absolutley nothing as you describe.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
-snip-
so you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what's clearly going on around you?

That appears to be a fairly accurate description. However, NOT as you intended

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
-snip-
According to the IAEA, Iran isn't hiding their present activities, at all. There are some unanswered questions wrt past research- that's it. Iran has never had the materials to actually build weapons, and likely won't so long as the IAEA has a microscope up their ass, which is the present and near future scenario.

You continue to persist with this fabrication of "microscopes up their ass". I have previously shown you that you are wrong in your characterization of Iran's cooperation, the extent of the IAEA's ability to inspect and the IAEA's reported findings. So, I'll do it again here.

From a source beloved here by many - The New York Times:

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said last month that there was no danger that we would wake up one morning to find Iran the next nuclear power. He said that Iran would first have to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty, evict the IAEA's inspectors, "and then it would need at least ... six months to one year." That puts an Iranian nuclear capability well into the future, next year.
So, Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2009, according to El Baradi

(Iran) has 320 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas to feed its centrifuges, enough for almost 100 bombs, but not for even a fraction of one reactor refueling operation.

The IAEA has also recently reported that it has questions that Iran refuses to answer:
Co-operation huh?

Why is Iran using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal? The only known use for such tests is to perfect a lightweight nuclear bomb.

Why is Iran developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon?

Why is Iran designing, or redesigning, a ballistic missile warhead so that it can contain a nuclear weapon?
Nope, they're not working on a weapon. Nope [/sarcasm]

The size of its centrifuge program increases suspicion that Iran is not interested in producing enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power plants. The program is too small - even with the planned 50,000 improved centrifuges - to provide fuel for a nuclear power program of any consequence.

But the advanced centrifuges will enable the Iranians to build about twice as many nuclear weapons a year with the current infrastructure than they otherwise could have done. If they add 6,000 machines to today's 3,000, the bomb-building potential is more than doubled again, but the peaceful utility of the plant is zero.

And it is apparent that the real purpose of Iranian enrichment is to provide fuel for weapons, not reactors.

Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist, is emeritus professor of science and security at King's College London and the former chief scientist of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

LINK

AND

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran?s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained ?a matter of serious concern? and that Iran continued to owe the agency ?substantial explanations.?

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation,

The report also makes the allegation that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges that are operating faster and more efficiently, the product of robust research and development that have not been fully disclosed to the agency.

The report makes no effort to disguise the agency?s frustration with Iran?s lack of openness

The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.

The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,? said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. ?The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I?ve never seen it laid out quite like this.?

Link


That some people still contend that there is NO evidence of an Iranian nuke weapon program, that Iran is cooperating with IAEA, that the inspectors are "up their ass" is utterly incredulous.

Fern[/quote]

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

 

[Aimster]

I can come up with that 70%

Pick a year: 2007 2008 2009 2010

I will post an article from U.S/Israeli intelligence that says "Iran to have bomb by *the year you picked*

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well Fern, your rebuttal is doing nothing to explain why the head of the IAEA, has point blank said to GWB&co, they are full of shit and he will withdraw any support of the US or Israel if either pre emptively attack Iran.

Whether or not El Baradi approves of a pre-emptive attack is a different issue as to whether Iran intends to pursue nukes.

El Baradi is already on record as approving of ME nations getting the bomb,

I think you are taking a bunch of stuff out of context and weaving possibility into certainty.

Why not just read the trwo NYT articles linked

Where have we seen that before? Try the little boy who cried wolf and his merry minions.
Silly.

See bolded

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

What level of proof do you require before you are pursuaded Iran is pursuing nukes?

(I hope it's not a mushroom cloud or a test.)

Fern

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

What level of proof do you require before you are pursuaded Iran is pursuing nukes?

(I hope it's not a mushroom cloud or a test.)

Fern

Concrete evidence, you seem eager to repeat the same mistakes that we made prior to the Iraq war.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If they're at 70% then that makes a huge difference in who America would elect President. 30% after all these years, not so much.

I find this particularly interesting if you take into account that the media companies (excluding fox) employ ~90% liberally minded people. On the other hand, I can't imagine they're so retarded that they would rather elect a military pushover (Obama) when the cost would be millions of American lives, literally.

Pst, grow up and come out from underneath your bed Nancy. Shame people like you are even allowed to vote IMO. FUD for the fucking loss. :roll:

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

What level of proof do you require before you are pursuaded Iran is pursuing nukes?

(I hope it's not a mushroom cloud or a test.)

Fern

I remain unconvinced that Iran pursuing nukes is something to be afraid of.. What are they going to do.. "Wipe Israel off the map"?? Israel has enough nuclear weapons for MAD so what's the problem?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
If they're at 70% then that makes a huge difference in who America would elect President. 30% after all these years, not so much.

I find this particularly interesting if you take into account that the media companies (excluding fox) employ ~90% liberally minded people. On the other hand, I can't imagine they're so retarded that they would rather elect a military pushover (Obama) when the cost would be millions of American lives, literally.

The US media have alkso stopped reporting success in Iraq. When the UK media is more positive than US media you know somthing is wrong

"American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda?s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant ?last stand? in the northern city of Mosul. '

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...raq/article4276486.ece

We have a MSM totally compromised and radically anti American. It betrays troops whenever it can. Its even more biased now because they are totally in the bag for BO and dont even try to hide it.

What is even more amazing is that we have an INTERNET full of such Pro War, Pro GWOT cheeleaders who still after all these years, haven't bothered to make it down to their local recruiter's office. They are chickshit cowards and don't even try to hide it.

Pfffft.

 

[soccerballtux]

I love how some people here are all like "wtf is 70%, 70% of what" and then proceed to talk about this matter like they have even the slightest idea of what's going on, when they've just made it darn clear they don't.

 

[mxyzptlk]

oops well that just shuts me up now don't it :laugh:

Seriously.. what is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon that the USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa or Israel won't do? Remember, I'm stupid, so explain it to me without big words like "insane" or "religious nut job"


edit: I'm a desk

 

[sandorski]

Something you won't hear from the Libral MSM: The African Monkeys Iran is attempting to acquire have been specially trained to accelerate Uranium Enrichment by 200%!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

What level of proof do you require before you are pursuaded Iran is pursuing nukes?

(I hope it's not a mushroom cloud or a test.)

Fern

I remain unconvinced that Iran pursuing nukes is something to be afraid of.. What are they going to do.. "Wipe Israel off the map"?? Israel has enough nuclear weapons for MAD so what's the problem?

For MAD to work you have to have rational leaders in charge on both sides.

Sadly some Muslims think that it will take some major earth shaking event, such as a nuclear war, to bring back the hidden Iman and bring about the end of the world. Or something along that lines.

Remember this is the same Iran that allowed a bunch of students to break into our embassy and hold Americans hostage for 400+ days. The fact that our military could have wiped their country off the map didn't stop them then what makes you think they have changed since?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
PJ, its quite obvious you have never really learned to play chess or to plan a few moves ahead. Any country that develops peaceful nuclear electrical generation capacity will then have the potential to go on and develop nuclear weapons.

-snip worthless drivel-

And it really pains me to say it, but I would not trust GWB&co with anything more dangerous than a squirt gun. GWB is a dangerous international idiot and a clear threat to every man woman and child on the planet. As for Ahmadinejad, he is a basically powerless motormouth, and he too will fall into the scrap bin of history come 8/2009.

Again, you are an idiot, and is so many ways.

1. Please address these points all raised by the IAEA
Why is Iran using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal? The only known use for such tests is to perfect a lightweight nuclear bomb.

Why is Iran developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon?

Why is Iran designing, or redesigning, a ballistic missile warhead so that it can contain a nuclear weapon?

2. It is the IAEA that is raising these question, NOT Bush!!!! And Europe is as committed to this problem as Bush.

The day will come when Iran either tests a bomb or declares to the world that it has one and when that happens you will be here making excuses as to why you weren't wrong.