They do indeed. I reject the claims that Iraq was attacked for political purposes back home, too. If it was, it sure blew up in their faces.

Of course the war was certainly launched partially for domestic political purposes. They shrieked that treasonous Saddamite BS out like banshees. They most certainly did use the war as a political tool. That is so obvious you'd have to be blind not to see it. It didn't quite blow up in their face either. SCOTUS picks, congress and the presidency as a payoff. The war and terror scared people to death. Mushroom cloud anyone?


If it wasn't for the cries of homo they'd have failed.


You give those jerks too much credit space.

"You don't rollout a new product in August." You remember that kind of sheit? I do. Seems like US citizens' memories are the shortest I've ever seen. My god, how many examples of that sheit do you need?



After 5 years of war mongering BS you think some people would figure the political angle out.

Users and manipulators. They use everything as a political weapon.

What a dumbass, that davis.

Shows you how pathetic the Dem party has been, then.





What a maLAkas that Repub Bub is . . .

What a maLAkas, that Repub Bub

Why would Iran be a threat to anyone? we all know that Iraq wasnt a threat. no threat whatsoever.

N
O
N
E
.

And Booooooosh lied and people died!

Iran ready for 'serious' nuke talks
Iran said yesterday that it was ready for "serious negotiations" over its disputed nuclear programs, but showed no sign it accepted the Bush administration's bottom-line demand to halt all uranium enrichment before any talks can begin.
The United States and its allies were still studying Tehran's long-awaited response to an incentives package designed to halt what many think is a drive by the Islamic republic to acquire nuclear weapons.
The Iranian reply, hand-delivered by top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Tehran yesterday, sets up a potential confrontation at the U.N. Security Council, where the United States is expected to press its reluctant partners for fresh sanctions against Tehran. Russia, China and European Union powers France, Germany and Britain are working with the United States on the Iran crisis.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined comment on the details of the Iranian response, which had not been released as of last night. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly has interrupted a vacation to monitor the negotiations.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the detailed Iranian note deserved "detailed and careful analysis," but European diplomats briefed on the reply and Iran's semi-official Fars news agency said Tehran had rejected an enrichment freeze as a precondition for starting the talks.
Despite Mr. Larijani's proposal for further talks, one top U.S. nuclear specialist said the Iranian offer was clearly a rejection of the U.S. stand.
"The bottom line is that the one thing we required Iran to do -- suspend uranium-enrichment programs now -- is the one thing the Iranians say they won't do," said Jon Wolfsthal, nonproliferation fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"Anything that wasn't an absolute 'yes' constitutes a 'no,' and the question now becomes: Where does the United States go from here and can it bring its partners along," he added.
Iran insists its nuclear programs are for peaceful civilian uses, but the United States and its European allies say it has run a secret military nuclear program for nearly two decades. With the Bush administration's acquiescence, the European Union in June offered Iran a package of trade, security and diplomatic concessions -- including direct U.S.-Iranian talks -- in exchange for a freeze on uranium enrichment.
The Security Council last month set a deadline of Aug. 31 for Iran to give a final response to the package. John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called the offer "very generous," and said Washington was prepared to press for new sanctions if Iran does not accept the enrichment freeze.
"I think we will be prepared to move to submit elements of a resolution to the [Security Council] very quickly," he told reporters in New York. "It really is a test for the council, and we'll see how it responds."
But Mr. Wolfsthal and others said the administration likely will face resistance from Russia and China for harsher penalties. Both have extensive energy and economic ties with Iran, and both could argue that Tehran's qualified response yesterday is enough to justify more talks.
In Beijing today, China's foreign ministry urged Iran to consider international concerns over its nuclear program and be constructive, but added all sides should remain calm.
The foreign ministry said it had received Iran's response to a package of proposals to resolve the nuclear standoff with the West and was "conscientiously" studying it.
"The Chinese side hopes Iran earnestly considers the concerns of the international community, and takes the necessary constructive steps," the ministry said in a faxed statement.
Top Iranian officials, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have sent signals in recent days that they would not accept as a pre-condition the uranium-enrichment suspension -- a critical step in producing fuel both for nuclear power and nuclear bombs. They also have questioned promises in the proposal of foreign offers to build nuclear power plants inside Iran.
Iranian officials once again mixed defiance with conciliation in trying to head off new U.N. sanctions, but they also appeared to think recent difficulties in Iraq and Lebanon for the United States and its allies have only strengthened Tehran's hand.
"We are not in an unfavorable position, since today everyone is aware of the ineffectiveness of the Security Council," Ali Akbar Velayati, Ayatollah Khamenei's top foreign policy adviser, said in a newspaper interview in Tehran.
Iranian officials offered no details of the response, but it appeared geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations by offering a broad set of proposals vague enough to hold out hope of progress in resolving the standoff.
If the Iranians leave the door open to halting enrichment as talks progress, that would drive a wedge in the Security Council between the Americans, British and French on one side and the Russians and Chinese on the other.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...22-115538-2012r



Okay. According to Iran, they haven't been serious about their insistence in continuing their development of nuclear weapons. I can only surmise that the incentives already proposed aren't sweet enough. One has to wonder if push will come to shove instead of carrot cake.

Bush has no carrots. He wants death. No doubt with the help of fine upstanding men of Christ like the Repugnants in the party he'll get as much blood and death as he wants. More than anyone wants.


I think the next nuke strike won't be from terrorists, it'll be a twisted, corrupted evangelical like shrub who'll be responsible.

They are ready to do some bombing.


Tuesday, August 22, 2006

POINT OF NO RETURN IN THE IRAN NUCLEAR CRISIS...? [Mario Loyola]
I am trying to track down more on this AP story by George Jahn, who is based in Vienna (where the IAEA is) and has written pretty extensively about Iran's nuclear program. The story in essence is that Iran appears to have blocked access by IAEA inspectors to an underground facility where it has been enriching uranium. So far as I know, both the U.S. government and the IAEA are refusing to comment on the story. But if true, this represents a point of no return, which Iran has staged deliberately to catch us off guard while everyone is studying its lengthy answer to the EU3+3 offer. In my piece in the current (August 28) print edition of National Review, I described precisely this eventuality as a point of no return, and argued that the United States should invoke preemption if this ever happened.

Iran is now moving fast to produce as much lightly enriched uranium as it can. According to Valerie Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, once Iran has a large-enough batch, it will be a short step to convert it to weapons grade. If Iran then expels the IAEA inspectors, no one knows how long it would take for them to produce enough for a nuclear device. We will from that point forward be living with an intolerable uncertainty. Under these circumstances, the U.S. should make clear that it will consider any further Iranian violation of the nonproliferation treaty an act of armed aggression within Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Iran's barring access to weapons inspectors is the same as expelling them for all practical purposes unless the inspectors are allowed to continue inspecting immediately. This is the warning flag. If this story is true, we should bomb the facilities right now. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter preserves the right of self-defense in cases of armed aggression. For Iran to hide a batch of LEU is not only a violation of the nonproliferation treaty, but also, strategically speaking, an act of armed aggression, because it is the last moment at which the scope of Iran's enrichment activities can be known with any certainty. Assuming the story is true, if we don't attack now, the optimal window for self-defense will close and any future military operation may have to be much more expansive in scope and would have a greatly diminished probability of success. At least now we know where this batch of LEU is. Within days the batch could be at another — totally clandestine — facility. And we will then find ourselves in a brave new world.
Posted at 5:22 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y...GIzMzViMjAyMjY=

Death to Iran...Death to Iran.

Maybe if we give them nukes they'll give up nuclear development. I think that was the Clinton plan for North Korea.

Depends on how we "deliver" them...

The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Randeep Ramesh

Friday May 9, 2003

The Guardian


Donald Rumsfeld confused Iraq with Afghanistan yesterday.

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration."


Rumsfeld "delivered" alright. The Russians want to build the Iranian facilities, maybe Rummie is just jealous. He and Halliburton's Cheney didn't get the contract fast enough.

I have a hard time believing you really believe what you write.
If you do, you are one SAD sick SACK.
Were you beaten with a stick as a child?
Is your fear and loathing of all authority based on some S/M manifistation?
Please, Get a grip on reality; look around, and see who is your own best enemy.

I really really really hope and pray no nuke 'strikes' are ever again launched; but when I see an arm with a hand holding a pistol being raised in my direction, given those observations, without much hesitation, I WILL shoot first at that gun and maybe whoever is behind it, and I really don't give a flip if the other's pistol is loaded with blanks, or not. Should the raised arm drop then there's no reason for any gentle squeeze. Any questions?
All pretty damned childish IMO. And pretty damned real, I'm sorry to say. See Burr v. Hamilton if you're into irony.

I wasn't talkin' bout power generation plant nukes....

Those reactors were to be provided under Clinton's deal with NK. They were of a type that is not useful for producing nuclear weapons, a fact the the RW invariably overlooks when criticising the Clinton deal.

I wasn't talkin' bout deliverin' enrichment nukes either...

Think we need a UN resolution authorizing the Ruskies to sell all the Ruskie nuke plants that Iran and NK can handle. They have been known to be a little unstable after all... the nuke plants that is...

... of course it's likely the Ruskies would just back out of the deal when the time came...

And don't forget the catalyst ..... James Earl Carter.

When Bush took office, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was that N. Korea did not possess nuclear weapons. Since taking office, Bush repudiated Clinton's deal and NK began reprocessing fuel rods from its own reactor. Now many intelligence analysts think NK may have a few nukes.

How has the Bush policy worked out?

Man, storm caught me right in mid-post. Had to shut down in seconds.

Bush's policy is just a continuation of the old policies. We offer the carrot, they lie and cheat, we threaten the stick, people complain, we back down, things cool off, then we offer another carrot.

If Bush had a new policy it would probably include a couple carrier groups.

(all) http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9562

I'd trust almost any stranger at your random cocktail party more than lil Kim.


I do enjoy the Anti-War.com view though. I'm sure they'd happily buy a used Volga sedan from Kim anytime.

So would I. Still, I expect Kim to act in a rational way, from his point of view.

Sure, he rattles the sabre, and gets a little something for his trouble now and then. I hope he maintains his rationality in his old age. It worries me more who he might sell to than what he might do himself.

Gordon Prather has a good deal more credibility as a nuclear physicist than David Horrowtiz and his ilk.

The point is that the Bush approach has left us with less international scrutiny on site in NK than before. However much one likes to criticise the Clinton approach, Bush results have certainly been no better.

Oh, I understand the leftist point well enough. Every problem is only a signature away from solution. In the case of some governments that's probably true, the hitch being that the most dangerous governments are where that approach doesn't work.

Once something has a momentum of it's own no US action is likely to affect it enough for a perfectly positive result. We can't MAKE NK comply regardless of we do.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

Nuclear Weapons Program

Current Status

In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea.

Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been running especially high since, in early October of 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware that North Korea had a program underway to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Initially North Korea denied this, but later confirmed the veracity of the US claim. In confirming that they had an active nuclear weapons program, they also declared the Agreed Framework nullified.

The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that:

* North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear program and agree to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards
* Both sides would cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors for related facilities with light-water (LWR) power plants.
* Both countries would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
* Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
* And that both sides would work to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Prior to the establishment of the Agreed Framework, intelligence sources believed that North Korea could have extracted plutonium from their reactors for use in nuclear weapons; perhaps enough for one or two nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, it has remained unclear whether North Korea had actually produced nuclear weapons due to difficulties in developing detonation devices.
History

North Korea maintains uranium mines with an estimated four million tons of exploitable high-quality uranium ore. Information on the state and quality of their mines is lacking, but it is estimated that the ore contains approximately 0.8% extractable uranium. In the mid-1960s, it established a large-scale atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon and trained specialists from students who had studied in the Soviet Union. Under the cooperation agreement concluded between the USSR and the DPRK, a nuclear research center was constructed near the small town of Yongbyon. In 1965 a Soviet IRT-2M research reactor was assembled for this center. From 1965 through 1973 fuel (fuel elements) enriched to 10 percent was supplied to the DPRK for this reactor.

In the 1970s it focused study on the nuclear fuel cycle including refining, conversion and fabrication. In 1974 Korean specialists independently modernized Soviet IRT-2M research reactor in the same way that other reactors operating in the USSR and other countries had been modernized, bringing its capacity up to 8 megawatts and switching to fuel enriched to 80 percent. Subsequently, the degree of fuel enrichment was reduced. In the same period the DPRK began to build a 5 MWe research reactor, what is called the "second reactor." In 1977 the DPRK concluded an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], allowing the latter to inspect a research reactor which was built with the assistance of the USSR.

The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In July 1990 The Washington Post reported that new satellite photographs showed the presence in Yongbyon of a structure which could possibly be used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel.

Good find. I'lll be the first to admit that the DPRK couldn't have produced nukes in the space of a year were their program not already well advanced.

(check this site for more readable charts)
http://isteve.blogspot.com/

And it takes the material, detonation and delivery system to make it really dangerous. As threats to the US go NK isn't likely to be a major one for a long time.

News story I saw a month or so ago had the Iranian military practicing to go immediately to insurgent mode if US invades. They have the land mass and terrain to make that work pretty well if occupation is our goal. Not so good if we go all Sherman March to the Sea on them.

A couple of small yeild large sized fission devices leaking radiation like crazy not very formidable. Might be able to sneak one in via shipping container so try not to live close to a major port. Still, radiation would be detectable and chances of it actually going off probably not 100%. When it is discovered intact or it does go off then NK having a few small fission devices will be of no consequence...

Pretty much same for Iran as NK.

Not likely at all. Their main objective seems to be regime survival and a little blackmail.

We can't assure no American ever dies from a nuclear device, but we can make sure whoever tries it pays a hundredfold what we do.

As discussed before, mood of the Country now pretty much means we will have to absorb the first blow...

And there's this dude, uhhh.. a real, real, real bad man.... and uhhhh he's like ... gonna like uhhhh bomb in a uh...a nucular bomb...(be afraid) in a suitcase... like Rush said... (fear floods the mind) uhhhh.. from the Iranians...or the Lebonese and uhhhh.... he's gonna...like uhhh... set it off in ...uhhh ...your town.. maybe?? (democrats are evil) and then, hey dude, what good is the law then? (you will obey) What good is the constitution then? (you must listen to Republicans) yo dude... you like...uuhhhh...



need to grow a spine.




See David Koresh or Jim Jones if you're into irony.

We wouldn't want a pre-emptive war now, would we?

Rosenose thought I was mentally disturbed for suggesting we would be responsible for the next nuke. This type of comments made here and even by US officials is hardly unique and shows I'm not that disturbed after all. The scary part is there are Republicans with great influence who both think Armageddon is imminent and we should take out Iran and even Syria now. They are crazy. They've already proven irrational and delusional to the point of megalomania. Nothing on the ground means a thing. Why not a nuke?

Still shopping religions to your liking , are you? Seems you've approached every sect from Agnosticism to Zoroastrianism and have not found one that'll admit you, yet. I hear they're looking for leadership types in both those camps.
As for spine; I'm happy with mine. You should never have bought into that tadpole experiment. But saying so is just rubbing it in; so I won't. Tsk.

I'm not sure where you live but, if you're not into Scientology, I'm sure if you look in the yellow pages you'll find numerous and assorted psychiatrists and psychoanalysts competent and otherwise. I suggest you avail yourself of their services.




Or you could just stay in your current guise and make no sense whatsoever.

From USA Today-


Report says U.S. intelligence lacking on Iran

Posted 8/23/2006 7:23 PM ET



By Katherine Hutt Scott, Gannett News Service


WASHINGTON — Iran bears significant responsibility for the recent violence in Israel and Lebanon and poses a serious security threat to the United States, according to a staff report released Wednesday by the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy.


The U.S. intelligence community must collect more and better intelligence on Iran, especially on its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, the 29-page bipartisan report says.


Iran expert Andrew Grotto with the Center for American Progress in Washington called the report a "sober assessment" and agreed that the United States lacks critical information about Iran.


ON THE WEB: Read the report

But Grotto said the report doesn't address another major issue — the widespread lack of confidence in the Bush administration's handling of intelligence.

"People feel stung by Iraq, Grotto said. "They want to know that when the administration says there is a nuclear threat, that what they're being told is accurate."


The report lists several threats posed by Tehran. It says:

• Iran provides funding, training, weapons and other support to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. The report says Iran provided Hezbollah with the thousands of rockets the group fired against Israel during the last two months.

• Some members of Iran's national security organization are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

• Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and has conducted a clandestine program of enriching uranium for nearly two decades, in violation of treaty agreements. The report says Iran won't be able to make a nuclear weapon until at least the start of the next decade.

• Iran has the Middle East's largest inventory of ballistic missiles, capable of striking U.S. allies from Italy to India or U.S. military bases in Iraq, Germany and Afghanistan.

"The theocratic, authoritarian regime in Tehran uses terrorist proxies to scare the international community into capitulating to their demands," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chairs the subcommittee that released the report.

The report was issued one day after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment by the end of the month, a deadline set by the United Nations Security Council, according to published reports.

The United States and its allies have accused Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has said it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy.



If we don't have intelligence on Iran, how do we know any of these things? Guessing??? Like we did with Iraq???? What if they are just bluffing, like Saddam????? Are we going to go to war with Iran without knowing the answers????


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08...htm?POE=NEWISVA

The Bush administration, in conjunction with Rupert enterprises, held tryouts and the new Fox reality show will be ... <drum roll>

Choose the Chalabi!

Yes, that's right! Thursday nights just got a whole lot bloodier!

There is a house on a hill, hidden inside are an assortment of weapons and cruel devices and five golden tickets. After sealing the doors each contestant will be given one clue to the whereabouts of the golden tickets so they can work together ...... or not.



The man who emerges victorious with said golden tickets will recieve a real genuine Presidential Medal of Freedom presented by GW himself and a contract good for 100s of billions of dollars and the opportunity to simultaneously be responsible for the death of tens of thousands and be set up financially for life.


Granted, it's not a new concept. You stick with what works.

pssst. d. Got the IPB Image text but thanks to Space did this copy/paste lookup and caught it. BTW, is that a prop in your belt or RU just plain ol' happy slappin''?

It's pretty bad when you can't recognize your own pic. Lay off the sauce, goose.

I'm confident our military has a good bead on North Korea if they wanted to do something totally insane; but, Iran could be the stickler...however, so far, all I see is Iran working in the background, although not silently. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I'm not at all sure they want to be in forefront of a blast. I would assume the Mullahs are very comfortable safely sitting on their tufts directing traffic. Of course, there's always the possibilty of a loose cannon contaminating their spoils. I think we're as ready as we can be for that scenario.

We are the most powerful nation in the world, and we do have the ability to completely destroy Iran, so will it ever come them asking themselves "Do I feel lucky?" and us asking them, "Well, do ya, punk?" Is that time nearing? I do think Iran had better start getting serious about negotiating and quit with the threats before they get in over their head. I really don't think they want to be on the losing end of that stick, which is where they would end up if they don't take advantage of the goodies being offered them. Of course, this is all just my humble opinion.