Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 01, 2004, 05:21:16 PM
-
Nuclear report casts doubt on Iran's centrifuges (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/nuclear.iran/index.html)
-
No way!
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. No way they can sneak it by those guys.
Even if they tried, the entire UN and the UN SC is there to back up the IAEA.
So, it's really no problem.
-
With super powers throwing proliferation treaties out the window left and right who cares if the little guys arm up?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No way!
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. No way they can sneak it by those guys.
Even if they tried, the entire UN and the UN SC is there to back up the IAEA.
So, it's really no problem.
Whew! Thanks.
Feeling way better now.
-
Well, yah! Duh!
EVARREEBODEEE knows the world will be a better, safer place if folks like NK and Iran have a bunch of nukes. No chance of those guys spreading it around to potential nutcases.
Like, no way would NK sell uranium to Libya or anything like that.
-
Breaking treaties and agreements is strictly verboten. Don't even think about it.
Les
-
Originally posted by Toad
No way!
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. No way they can sneak it by those guys.
Even if they tried, the entire UN and the UN SC is there to back up the IAEA.
So, it's really no problem.
I take it hans blix is in charge.....
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, yah! Duh!
EVARREEBODEEE knows the world will be a better, safer place if folks like NK and Iran have a bunch of nukes. No chance of those guys spreading it around to potential nutcases.
Like, no way would NK sell uranium to Libya or anything like that.
Nut cases allready have nukes. Their just your nut cases.
-
I agree with Toad *gargl.... ;)*
Nukes anywhere near Iran = bad.
-
Well, on 9/11 we had the "Twin Towers." Here's betting on the "Twin Cities" in the near future with two suitcase nukes.
curly
-
One thought leads to another. Let's suppose that a well-funded group of fanatics secure enough fissionable material to make a small fission bomb. Or hey, let's go for a small thermonuclear device, say on the order of 400-500k ton.
Now, let's assume they ignite in the country of their choice, perhaps
1. in front of the US whitehouse.
2. near the Eiffel tower
3. near windsor castle
4. the Kremlin
5. near Nielsen's hairdress
6. where ever, you get the idea.
Now, let's assume we have tracked the responsible group down to the mountains of Afghanistan near the Pakistan border.
In response, what would the
1. US
2. French
3. Great Britain
4. Russia
5. Norway
do?
Would the immediate reaction be the use of tactical nukes?
curly
-
Isnt it amazing how all the power in the world doesnt make you people feel safe?
Why is that?
-
It's because we all have small johnsons.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Would the immediate reaction be the use of tactical nukes?
I hope not. Why use a nuke for a cruise missle mission. Or better yet, capture them, try them, and execute them.
-
SOB, could the public be so reasonable? I'd certainly hope so.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Isnt it amazing how all the power in the world doesnt make you people feel safe?
Why is that?
We protect Canada. You feel safe, right? :D
-
But the only reason we know about this is because of the IAEA. I mean would you guys rather not know about it. :confused:
-
At about the time of the Iraq supergun debacle, a programme on BBC observed that Saddam had ordered nuclear centrifuges for the production of enriched nuclear fuel. (Plutonium, Uranium - can't remember which) The centrifuges could enhance the purity of the nuclear fuel to about 70%. Saddam claimed that his nuclear fuel was for power generation. This is, of course, bollocks. For power generation, the fuel needs to be only 3% pure.
So if Iran or anyone else has nuclear centrifuges, it's for weaponry, not power generation.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I hope not. Why use a nuke for a cruise missle mission. Or better yet, capture them, try them, and execute them.
Me too, SOB, but at some point, I would expect rage & revenge to take over. Eradicating a circle out of Paris/NYC/Moscow/wherever aproximately 10 miles in diameter would make a lot of folks angry.
curly
-
Originally posted by SOB
I hope not. Why use a nuke for a cruise missle mission. Or better yet, capture them, try them, and execute them.
LOL clinton proved how well the cruise missle option worked in the 90's
I say find em, the hell wth trying them. just execute them.
In the most inhumane way possible
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Me too, SOB, but at some point, I would expect rage & revenge to take over. Eradicating a circle out of Paris/NYC/Moscow/wherever aproximately 10 miles in diameter would make a lot of folks angry.
curly
Wouldnt work on the Eiffle Tower.
The French would just surrender LMAO
-
Pongo, go ahead and post the list of "our nutcases that already have nukes".
I'd like to see that one.
Thrawn, the IAEA is the only reason it's public knowledge. The idea that they're the only way to get this sort of info is funny.
Chalabi tipped off Iran that U.S. had broken code (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/8813289.htm?1c)
Ahmad Chalabi revealed to an Iranian official that the United States had broken the secret communications code of Iran's intelligence service, U.S. intelligence officials say.
-
ur avatar confuses me, does not go along with most of your viewpoints
pls change to this one I kindly provided:
(http://www.gothamist.com/images/2003%20oscar%20michael%20moore.jpg)
ty
-
The only way to be safe is move to an area so horrid that not even the most whacked out terrorist would consider bombing- Texas. :aok
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ur avatar confuses me, does not go along with most of your viewpoints
pls change to this one I kindly provided:
(http://www.gothamist.com/images/2003%20oscar%20michael%20moore.jpg)
ty
It is so easy and comforting to put simple and reductive labels on people, isn't it Eagler?
Time to upgrade your 2-bit view of the world in a 256 shades of gray (at the very least) representation...
-
Makes me wonder what Tillman would have thought, though. Or maybe what his brother would think if he read this board.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
It is so easy and comforting to put simple and reductive labels on people, isn't it Eagler?
Time to upgrade your 2-bit view of the world in a 256 shades of gray (at the very least) representation...
who's talking to you spidy? :)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Time to upgrade your 2-bit view of the world in a 256 shades of gray (at the very least) representation...
LOL - I can think of a few people to whom that remark would be appropriate! :lol
-
near Nielsen's hairdress
Cod forbid!!!!! We would have to go thru the hat thing again!
-
President Bush came to mind Toad.
Nut case...check
Has nukes...check.
-
Which shows you are either a very poor troll or a nutcase yourself.
IMO, of course.
-
pongo
do you need me to resize the picture to fit ur avatar?
be happy to do it for ya
either u do not realize that your views are 180 from his view of the world or you are slammin tillman by using his pix. I am afraid it is probably the latter ...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thrawn, the IAEA is the only reason it's public knowledge. The idea that they're the only way to get this sort of info is funny.
Thanks Toad.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
pongo
do you need me to resize the picture to fit ur avatar?
be happy to do it for ya
either u do not realize that your views are 180 from his view of the world or you are slammin tillman by using his pix. I am afraid it is probably the latter ...
Why is that? I respect the man that served his country at greater personal sacrifice than most any other that serves. What does that have to do with disliking Bush who uses the courage and ethics of men kike Tillman for his own purposes?
Tillmans death makes me hate Bush more.
IMHO. Hes a nut Toad. Asked and answered. What answer did you expect? He is ripping up proliferation treaties all over the place and you are here complaining about countries ignoring them?
What is with that..who is the nut? George who will have Nukes in space ASAP or the countries that want to find some leaverage against a super power that has declared and demonstrated its willingness to brutaly and cynically invade other countries?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I thought you didn't like Bush Toad?
What made you think that? I see you've mentioned it in another thread as well.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
IMHO. Hes a nut Toad.
So you're making the case that Bush at the head of the US military creates a greater risk of a deliberate nuclear detonation than say Kim in NK, Khamenei in Iran, Ghaddaffi in Libya after he bought uranium from NK while seeking rapproachment (and nukes) with the West and even a greater threat than the unaccounted for nukes of the former Soviet Union?
You really want to say that?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who's talking to you spidy? :)
You weren't...but I was just making a preemptive strike against a demonstration of poor common sense ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you're making the case that Bush at the head of the US military creates a greater risk of a deliberate nuclear detonation than say Kim in NK, Khamenei in Iran, Ghaddaffi in Libya after he bought uranium from NK while seeking rapproachment (and nukes) with the West and even a greater threat than the unaccounted for nukes of the former Soviet Union?
You really want to say that?
I think that all his nukes won't deter a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb or even worse a real A-bomb, and that his invasion of Iraq is just giving motives to some people to make this kind of attack.
Now before you even start: S.H. was a dictator and a possible menace (not as great and imminent as the current administration sold you), but the way he chosed to solve the Iraq problew was IMO
- most inappropriate
- a poor planification with the job not done yet in Afghanistan and with NK being a much greater danger
-
Originally posted by Toad
No way!
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. No way they can sneak it by those guys.
Even if they tried, the entire UN and the UN SC is there to back up the IAEA.
So, it's really no problem.
Tell me your not a fan of the same IAEA and UN that have screwed things up so bad in the past. :rofl
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Tell me your not a fan of the same IAEA and UN that have screwed things up so bad in the past. :rofl
LOL it's time to buy new batteries for your sarcasm detector RedTop ;) :lol
-
hehehehe.......I think so De....whewwwwww:lol
-
I look at it this way Toad - imagine North Korea invaded Canada and the US hadn't got nukes yet but the Koreans did - whadya think the US would do - even under the table :eek:
The US is now their neighbour and I gues they are a bit "nervous"
-
Well, while I'm sure you disagree, I've not yet decided on the WMD issue.
As I've posted before, I've had someone I really respect tell me he believes they are in Syria. And, unlike those here who have diligently read CNN's reports and may even have slept in a Holiday Inn last night, that person is in a position to know far, far more than I. I suspect he knows far, far more than anyone posting here.
I won't be voting for Bush, but for me at least the jury is still out on the WMD issue. I base that solely on what this person told me.
Sorry to disappoint.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
I think that all his nukes won't
Not the question at all.
The question is does Pongo think GWB is more likely to use a nuke than the aforementioned folks.
-
Not sure I catch which way your batting there Toad didn't think I was disagreeing :confused: .
Basically what I'm saying is that it wouldn't surprise me for one moment that the capability to develop nukes was being actively sought by Iran. I would assume the same for Syria. There was a program on here in the UK exposing the exploitation of loopholes in export restrictions allowing potential sensitive eqipment to go to Iran.
My point is that perhaps the invasion of Iraq and 130,000 US troops on the doorstep has accelerated the process and driven it more underground.
I think a more interesting question is - if they did have it what would we all do about it??
-
Convenient or not, there it is.
Basically, I trust the man. He's in a position to know far, far more than anyone else I know.
It's easy to tear down and deny, but one has to base it on something. I'll take this fellow over CNN any time.
-
Wasn't disagreeing with you Sparks. That was in response to someone else.
As for what "we all" would do, I'd guess "we all" will do nothing. That is, after all, the norm isn't it?
However, if these developments are viewed as a direct threat to the US AND if the Congress concurs I'm sure there would be an immediate reaction.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, while I'm sure you disagree, I've not yet decided on the WMD issue.
As I've posted before, I've had someone I really respect tell me he believes they are in Syria. And, unlike those here who have diligently read CNN's reports and may even have slept in a Holiday Inn last night, that person is in a position to know far, far more than I. I suspect he knows far, far more than anyone posting here.
I won't be voting for Bush, but for me at least the jury is still out on the WMD issue. I base that solely on what this person told me.
Sorry to disappoint.
Toad this may be a little off the subject, but I have often wondered why people have to see proof of WMD found in Iraq as the litmus test for the war being required. I have the very straight forward view that , as long as Saddam was keeping us guessing and not cooperating, we would never be assured he was complying. This alone justifies the war to me.
Saddam was screwing around for 12 years and had all the chances to comply, yet he never did. What we did was eliminate even the possibility that he would ever hide of re-constitute his WMD. The whole world pretty much agreed Iraq had WMD......we went in and made Iraq compliant.
That's really the main point.......to make damn sure Iraq would be eliminated as a threat and to remove Saddam from power.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you're making the case that Bush at the head of the US military creates a greater risk of a deliberate nuclear detonation than say Kim in NK, Khamenei in Iran, Ghaddaffi in Libya after he bought uranium from NK while seeking rapproachment (and nukes) with the West and even a greater threat than the unaccounted for nukes of the former Soviet Union?
You really want to say that?
He has proven his instability and lack of concern for peoples lives in actions that are there for all of us to judge. I see him as a nut. Is he more of a nut then Iranian nuts?
I didnt say that. Your getting in the neato habit of trying to get people to defend things they didnt say. Your really getting desperate toady.
This thing has turned out alot different then you thought it would. And you just cant find the moral courage to put the blame for that where it belongs.
Sad.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
He has proven his instability and lack of concern for peoples lives in actions that are there for all of us to judge. I see him as a nut. Is he more of a nut then Iranian nuts?
I didnt say that. Your getting in the neato habit of trying to get people to defend things they didnt say. Your really getting desperate toady.
This thing has turned out alot different then you thought it would. And you just cant find the moral courage to put the blame for that where it belongs.
Sad.
Actually Bush has proven to be very stable...he does what he says he's going to do. And as far as the war going different than we though? Bush never said anything would be easy. He warned us all consistantly that it was going to be difficult.
I see Bush as very rational and stable and the war is another victory so far. What parts of the war do you feel are bad Pongo?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No way!
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. No way they can sneak it by those guys.
After that little "axis of evil" speech, what did you expect from Iran? In recent years, a healthy nuclear weapons program has proven to be a good deterrant to U.S. aggression.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Isnt it amazing how all the power in the world doesnt make you people feel safe?
Why is that?
Cause we have open borders to let nitwits like you in?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Actually Bush has proven to be very stable...he does what he says he's going to do. And as far as the war going different than we though? Bush never said anything would be easy. He warned us all consistantly that it was going to be difficult.
I see Bush as very rational and stable and the war is another victory so far. What parts of the war do you feel are bad Pongo?
I never said it has gone any different then bush will admit to or his followers will recognise. I said it has gone alot different then Toad thought it would pre invasion. Ill let you look at the history to work it out.
Your last question is so silly as to deserve no comment.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Cause we have open borders to let nitwits like you in?
Ya I come and go to the states as I please. Be very very affraid rino. lol
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Your getting in the neato habit of trying to get people to defend things they didnt say.
No, I'm just still in the habit of trying to get people to explain their throw away lines that seem to say something but really don't.
However, I'm not suprised when folks don't want to explain their quips.
With super powers throwing proliferation treaties out the window left and right who cares if the little guys arm up?
You posts made it seem you're not too concerned with Iran having an ongoing nuke program. Is that how you actually feel?
As for how this turned out, the only thing that really surprised me was that we did not find the WMD in Iraq in significant quantities. Yep, that concerns me. As I said, lately I've been swayed to the viewpoint that they may well have been moved. I accept that as a possibility. Unlike others, I don't think I'm privy to enough information to discount that totally, CNN notwithstanding.
Well, I was also suprised at the speed of the Coalition's victory. I did think the Iraqis would put up a longer organized fight.
As for the rest of it, most objective overviews show that the majority of Iraqis are going about their normal daily lives and the infrastructure is being rebuilt better than it was.
It's a relatively small element that's causing the trouble. I also think that the election process will proceed and they will have their own government in a reasonable amount of time.
So I think your assessment of what I think is way off the mark.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As for how this turned out, the only thing that really surprised me was that we did not find the WMD in Iraq in significant quantities. Yep, that concerns me. As I said, lately I've been swayed to the viewpoint that they may well have been moved. I accept that as a possibility. Unlike others, I don't think I'm privy to enough information to discount that totally, CNN notwithstanding.
It just doesn't make sense. Why go to all of the trouble of collecting and then hiding the stuff only to get rid of it when it would have made the most sense to use it?
-
If you figure out what made sense to SH, let me know.
What would REALLY have made sense would have been to comply with the UNSC resolutions and bend over backwards to make the inspectors happy.
He'd still be running the place.
See, that makes sense to me. Obviously, it'd didn't to him.
-
You're still assuming he had the material.
-
Well, it's that "SH makes sense thing" then isn't it?
If he DIDN'T have the material it would have made even more sense to accomodate the UNSC resolutions and UN inspectors, wouldn't it?
But...... his actions never did make much sense. IMO.
-
If your army had suffered a rout and you looked around at your borders would it make sense to exaggerate a WMD capability?
-
Not with the US Army massing on the borders and Bush making it clear that it was comply or lose your country.
Either way, if he had them or didn't, it doesn't make sense to oppose the UNSC resolutions and give the inspectors a hard time.
Well, it doesn't make sense to anyone able to realistically assess the outcome of non-compliance.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Not with the US Army massing on the borders and Bush making it clear that it was comply or lose your country.
You're jumping way ahead... 10+ years.
By then, he's trapped in the lie. He can't prove he destroyed it because it never existed and he can't use it to stop the advance of the U.S.
-
It doesn't matter what time frame you use. His decision making doesn't make sense.
He goes into Kuwait thinking it won't be opposed. (Glaspie notwithstanding.) The whole world agrees that he should get out. The UNSC agrees to take military action... he still doesn't get out. Jebus Cripes.. the UNSC never agrees on ANYTHING! He still misread that. His decision to stay makes no sense.
Then after getting severely slapped around, he still continues to play games. How EASY it would have been to comply. No sanctions, no "oil for food" games. He could have ruled Iraq forever.
But nooooooooooooooooooo. He decides to bait the UN. 12 years of it. Finally the ultimatum comes yet again. Did he learn anything the first time? Nooooooooooooooooooooo.
His decisions don't make sense in light of what kept happening to him.
If you wish to believe they do, fine by me. I simply can't see it.
-
Toad. What the US had shown is that it would not accept any version of compliance. Sorry you dont see that. He had been trying to prove to the US for years he had no WMD and the US had been threatening veto on any resolution to show that he had dissarmed so the sanctions could be removed.
Its only confusing cause your tying to make it work with your goverments version of reality. What really happend is pretty strait forward.
Saying that the majority of Iraqis are getting on with thier lives is like saying that the majority of americans are getting on with thier lives so Iraqis have won. Its only the people that are fighting that matter. And its lots of Iraqis that are fighting. If you dont accept that, over a year after the end of hostilities...then your being pretty silly.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Toad. What the US had shown is that it would not accept any version of compliance. Sorry you dont see that. He had been trying to prove to the US for years he had no WMD and the US had been threatening veto on any resolution to show that he had dissarmed so the sanctions could be removed.
Its only confusing cause your tying to make it work with your goverments version of reality. What really happend is pretty strait forward.
Saying that the majority of Iraqis are getting on with thier lives is like saying that the majority of americans are getting on with thier lives so Iraqis have won. Its only the people that are fighting that matter. And its lots of Iraqis that are fighting. If you dont accept that, over a year after the end of hostilities...then your being pretty silly.
You really should just be honest....you hate Bush and disagree with his policies....nothing good coming from this Admins actions or policies would ever warrant a good word from your lips.
Your hard hearted and small in character....to hate a man you've never even met doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Logically Toad, you are absolutely correct. He likely could have stopped the invasion by completely buckling under. Resistance linked to a WMD program would be a logical conclusion to draw. Now, the US was in no mood to take yes for an answer, but had he started the ball rolling at the earliest stages Bush might not have had much of a choice.
I suppose though, just to speculate, that a scenario involving not having WMD but still resisting inspections could be seen as an internal or regional power/weakness issue. Perhaps it was better to risk the resolve of the US rather than risk appearing weak to a potential rival or to the people, who had been suffering but somewhat united in an “us against them” kinda way (remember, Iraq didn’t lose the 1st war according to SH). He also wanted to be a regional leader of the Arab world at some point (apparently), and weakness does not play into that very well. I’m sure there is some degree of ego involved too. Perhaps, he’s just a lot better at understanding how to rule Iraq than how to operate in the international realm, made some very poor assumptions and gross miscalculation on the US and the UN and had no one around to disagree with him.
It’s also hard to imagine him giving up WMD for those very reasons. But, it’s also similarly hard to imagine him developing nukes then giving them to some Islamic fundamentalist group, instead of using them as regional leverage in his future goals. I suppose at some point down the road we will know what happened.
Charon
-
There just aren't that many Iraqis actively fighting. If you dont accept that, over a year after the end of hostilities...then your being pretty silly.
As for "compliance", it wasn't only the US that felt there was a definite lack of "compliance". There was a unanimous resolution on it as you will recall.
Sorry it all doesn't fit your version of what happened but it's a matter of record.
Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.
-
Good thing we invaded iraq!!!!