dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Gee. Then let me know when the Hindu’s drop a bomb on Israel. You can argue the Mullahs-will-be-responsible line all you want. Nobody is buying it. NOBODY.

When a Mad Buddist Monk drops a bomb on Israel let me know.

India is predominantly Hindu. Presently Hindus do not bomb Israel. If Israel at some point decides to occupy India, then Hindus will start bombing Israel. At that point, Hindus will become “terrorists”. Occupation breeds resistance.
The predominant religion in the LTTE is Hindu. The LTTE claims that Sri Lankans are occupying their land. As a result, the LTTE bombs Sri Lanka. Did you know that the LTTE has committed far more suicide bombings than Hamas ever has? You don’t hear about that much, because Israel does not have immediate plans to occupy India, so there is no present need to demonize them. So what is it about Hinduism that causes people to want to commit suicide bombings?

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM

When a Mad Buddist Monk drops a bomb on Israel let me know.

I’m not concerned with Iran’s ‘right’ to the nuclear fuel cycle.

Well, Iran is concerned about it.

Before the NPT existed, every country in the world had the legal right to manufacture nuclear weapons. Did you think that nearly every non-nuclear weapon state in the world signed the NPT and gave up their right to manufacture nuclear weapons just to be nice? Well, that’s not the reason. The reason they signed it relates to the “grand bargain” of the NPT. The non-nuclear states agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in return for certain things, including:
1) Guarantees not to be attacked by nuclear weapons states
2) Assistance be given to them in developing their nuclear power capability
3) Retaining the right to the full nuclear fuel cycle
4) The agreement that nuclear weapons states will disarm their nuclear weapons

Here is the result of the NPT from Iran’s point of view:
1) The US threatens to attack Iran using nuclear weapons
2) The US does everything possible to hinder Iran’s capability to develop nuclear power
3) The US wants Iran to give up it’s right to the full nuclear fuel cycle
4) The US does nothing for 30 years regarding disarming their nuclear weapons, and works in the opposite direction and develops new nuclear weapons (a clear violation of Article VI on the NPT. I am sure sanctions against the US will begin soon).

Iran doesn’t seem to be getting a whole lot out of signing the NPT. I think they should simply withdraw.
Do you know why India never joined the NPT? Because they knew the US and other Western nations had no intention of honoring it. As a result, their are two more nuclear weapons states in the world.

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I’m not concerned with Iran’s ‘right’ to the nuclear fuel cycle. I am concerned with Iran possession a nuclear weapon.

Your argument is ‘relativism’ writ large. No doubt you would argue that the mentally ill have the right to bear arms under the protections of the 2nd Amendment too.

Where does your argument end dave? Chavez? Mugabe?

Of course not. Why should they?

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM

LOL…thank you for pointing out why it is useless to talk to Iran.

You can try to sugarcoat Iran’s intentions with the ‘but everyone else does it’ school yard plea but that hardly removes the primary issue. Mad Mullahs with an atomic bomb.

When a Mad Rabbi is in control of Israeli nuclear weapons and claims that Iran will soon be cease to exist then let me know.

“BTW, you do realize that once you have the capability to reprocess you can at any time decide to weaponize it rather than put in a reactor right?”

If by “it,” you are referring to plutonium, then the Federation of American Scientists is wrong. Please E-mail them for me.

Limerick:

“This country has not budged one inch on the enrichment of uranium in the last seven years.”

Of course not. Why should they? According to the NPT, Iran has the inalienable right to enrich uranium. No country in the world with any shred of dignity would give up an inalienable right that has been agreed to by nearly every country in the world (except for a few, like Israel). The US knows that no country in the world would agree to such a demand, which is the precise reason why they constantly demand it. Then when Iran refuses the unreasonable demand, the US has their pretext to bomb.

“Declare facilities where the material is stored and processed”

According to INFCIRC/153 agreements, facilities must be declared 180 days before nuclear material is introduced. Natantz was not yet within that window, and not reporting it was not a violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement. As for the other violations, at least 15 other countries have committed similar violations. Are we going to bomb all of them as well?

The EU meeting came a few days after an IAEA report on Iran was leaked.

It says Tehran has failed to:

Account for nuclear material

Provide documentation for imports of nuclear material

Report its subsequent processing and use

Declare facilities where the material is stored and processed
Mr ElBaradei visited Iran in February, and toured a nuclear plant under construction at Natanz, 320 kilometres (200 miles) south of Tehran.
The site is crucial, because it is where Iran is developing a series of centrifuges, which could be used to produce enriched uranium – the material used for making a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA reports says that Iran’s failure to provide information in a timely manner has become “a matter for concern”.

Take a guess……2008? No! 2007? No! 2006? No! 2005? No!
2004? No! 2003? Bingo!

And this was BEFORE Dinnerjacket took office. This country has not budged one inch on the enrichment of uranium in the last seven years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2994674.stm

Iran is rejecting the proposal because the proposal bans uranium enrichment. Iran is not saying “NO” to IAEA inspections, which will very easily (as the above link says)detect any attempt at plutonium production for nuclear weapons. Your posts become more idiotic as you get angrier.

BTW, you do realize that once you have the capability to reprocess you can at any time decide to weaponize it rather than put in a reactor right? Simply watching it is pretty feckless.

Iran is not saying “NO” to IAEA inspections,
dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Source?

Didn’t think so.

All countries have the equivalent of the US’s “Classified Information Procedures Act” to deal with these types of cases. Besides, why are we worried about dissemination if Iran already has the information?

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Um, because Iran is not our only concern?

TheBigOldDog:

How can it hurt the case unless they have to be disclosed further during the legal proceedings thereby increasing the risk of dissemination?

All countries have the equivalent of the US’s “Classified Information Procedures Act” to deal with these types of cases. Besides, why are we worried about dissemination if Iran already has the information?

Please try to grow up.

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Yes. Please do. This is exactly the proposal that the EU is offering Iran and that Iran REJECTS.

The EU is offering light water (low plutonium end product) with controls on the spent fuel rods to prevent enrichment.

Iran says NO. Now please tell me, how the hell do you control the production of plutonium without controls on the primary ingredient?

“To achieve the high percentages of Pu-239 required for weapon grade plutonium, it must be produced specifically for this purpose. The uranium must spend only several weeks in the reactor core and then be removed. For this to be carried out in a LWR – the prevalent reactor design for electricity generation – the reactor would have to be shut down completely for such an operation; this is easily detectable.”

Obama made a mistake and left out two words. He does not want to stop nuclear power production. He wants to stop the production of new fissile material that is usable for nuclear weapons in order to help stop the possiblity of nuclear terrorism. Please try to grow up.

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM

What Barry said is that he is an idiot. He is a daydreaming lefty hak. His flavor is “If you can’t dazzle them with brillance then baffle them with bull****”.

An assine statement like his, ‘ban fissile material’, shows the leaders of the world that he is a know-nothing hak. They’ll love to get this fella at the negotiating table.

That’s strange. It’s especially strange seeing that the Tinner case is in progress, and “Swiss legal experts have argued that the destruction of the files could harm the prosecution case against the Tinners.”
So it’s best to destroy these documents because the Swiss government doesn’t trust themselves not to turn them over to terrorists, even though they already have them, and even though it will hurt their case against members of the Khan network. Luckily, now that they are destroyed, we are free to say whatever we want about them.

It is amazing what you people will believe.

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I think you answered your own question. Let me help you: “it will hurt their case against members of the Khan network.”

How can it hurt the case unless they have to be disclosed further during the legal proceedings thereby increasing the risk of dissemination? It’s the same issue we have with prosecuting terrorists in open court. To do so requires classified information, sources and methods to be disclosed which is more harmful in some cases than the particular terrorist.

dave742 on June 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Wrong. EVERY reactor produces plutonium. The type of reactor only determines the quantity and quality. One the spent uranium rods/pellets are removed from a reactor the material then goes to the centrifuge process for enrichment.

Centrifuge facilities can be ANYWHERE. You can put them in a bunker or you can put them in grandma’s garage.

You CANNOT ban the production of plutonium without banning nuclear energy.

What Barry said is what Barry said. You said you ‘believe’ he meant something different. There is no ‘different’. NO FISSIL material means NO NUCLEAR POWER.

You are free to look this stuff up on your own if you like.

what is it about this story you believe is not true?

Use your keen analytical skills and try and figure out for yourself what is wrong with this story.

Limerick:

Obama: “I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material”

I believe what he wanted to say was “seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons,” which is what he has said previously.
This aim of Obama was included on a bill that was introduced by Obama and Hagel which was designed to prevent nuclear terrorism, and which the Senate passed.

You are free to look this stuff up on your own if you like.

The NIE that said Iran had stopped researching plans for a bomb were correct… why research what you already have?

Remember the laptop that the NIE found in Iran awhile back?… IF it had Docs from the same souce… its trouble…

A ban on the production of fissile material? So he is going to shut down every reactor on the planet? Even the most mamby-pamby light water reactor converts uranium into plutonium (3%). That nuclear fuel can be enriched further thru the centrifuge process.

So Barry, how the hell are you going to elimiate the production of fissile material without shutting down every reactor on the planet (which would include are entire nuclear Navy)?

I don’t think he’s said it but I believe Obama is in, or at least courting, that camp that believes we shouldn’t be using nuclear technology at all, including nuclear for power generation. Solar and wind power baby!