Discussion:
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
(too old to reply)
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-20 16:08:22 UTC
Permalink
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books

[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.

Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.

"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals, even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.

In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.

China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief - and
damn them in the morning papers.

Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about, oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.

Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the Left
will say that we can live with it.

[continue at the url...]

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
Amanda Williams
2006-04-20 16:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[... narcoleptic drool zapped ...]
Post by Martin McPhillips
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
*YAWN*

This dribbling idiot knows even less about foreign policy that georgie
does...

But hey marty, if you had an article on how to "eliminate" georgie that
WOULD be interesting since him and the GOP are a MUCH bigger threat to the
US than Iran...

--
AW

<small but dangerous>
Amadeus Unterhosen
2006-04-20 19:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda Williams
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[... narcoleptic drool zapped ...]
Post by Martin McPhillips
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
*YAWN*
This dribbling idiot knows even less about foreign policy that georgie
does...
But hey marty, if you had an article on how to "eliminate" georgie that
WOULD be interesting since him and the GOP are a MUCH bigger threat to the
US than Iran...
A few well placed nukes would cause a few hundred million Moslems to
change their religion just as a few well placed ones turned the
Japanese warmongering Fascists into peace loving capitalists.
Amanda Williams
2006-04-20 23:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amadeus Unterhosen
Post by Amanda Williams
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[... narcoleptic drool zapped ...]
Post by Martin McPhillips
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
*YAWN*
This dribbling idiot knows even less about foreign policy that georgie
does...
But hey marty, if you had an article on how to "eliminate" georgie
that WOULD be interesting since him and the GOP are a MUCH bigger
threat to the US than Iran...
A few well placed nukes would cause a few hundred million Moslems to
change their religion just as a few well placed ones turned the
Japanese warmongering Fascists into peace loving capitalists.
Good plan.... rotflmao...

There you have it folks ... rightard "foreign policy" in a NUTshell.

I am amazed that you are not working for the Whitehouse, I mean they
could probably use a fine "intellect" like yours.

rotfl...

--
AW

<small but dangerous>
Amadeus Unterhosen
2006-04-21 16:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda Williams
Post by Amadeus Unterhosen
Post by Amanda Williams
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[... narcoleptic drool zapped ...]
Post by Martin McPhillips
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
*YAWN*
This dribbling idiot knows even less about foreign policy that georgie
does...
But hey marty, if you had an article on how to "eliminate" georgie
that WOULD be interesting since him and the GOP are a MUCH bigger
threat to the US than Iran...
A few well placed nukes would cause a few hundred million Moslems to
change their religion just as a few well placed ones turned the
Japanese warmongering Fascists into peace loving capitalists.
Good plan.... rotflmao...
There you have it folks ... rightard "foreign policy" in a NUTshell.
I am amazed that you are not working for the Whitehouse, I mean they
could probably use a fine "intellect" like yours.
rotfl...
Where is Harry Truman when we need him.
Kyle Rodgers
2006-04-20 17:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Iran doesn't and will not soon have nuclear weapons, shit for brains
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.
Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.
"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals, even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.
In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.
China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief - and
damn them in the morning papers.
Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about, oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.
Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the Left
will say that we can live with it.
[continue at the url...]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-20 17:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyle Rodgers
Iran doesn't and will not soon have nuclear weapons, shit
for brains
Iran is actively pursuing and will have nuclear
weapons in a historical blink of the eye.
Post by Kyle Rodgers
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding
our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told
that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi
Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days
of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.
Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the
region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up
its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.
"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a
nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals,
even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for
destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices
in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been
one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of
petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.
In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in
the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United
Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The
Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.
China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in
the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point
its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief -
and
damn them in the morning papers.
Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course
they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN
got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about,
oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.
Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not
to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and
North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition
programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling
for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the
Left
will say that we can live with it.
[continue at the url...]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
Kevin Cunningham
2006-04-20 21:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Kyle Rodgers
Iran doesn't and will not soon have nuclear weapons, shit for brains
Iran is actively pursuing and will have nuclear
weapons in a historical blink of the eye.
Just like Iran.
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-20 22:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Kyle Rodgers
Iran doesn't and will not soon have nuclear weapons,
shit for brains
Iran is actively pursuing and will have nuclear
weapons in a historical blink of the eye.
Just like Iran.
That's very clever. Iran is just like
Iran. I think you've discovered the
law of identity.
John D.
2006-04-20 17:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse"
The Best opportunity to put a stop to Iran's nuclear ambitions is this very
second.

The second before that one was an even better opportunity.
J***@Hotmail.com
2006-04-20 23:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.
Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.
"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals, even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.
In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.
China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief - and
damn them in the morning papers.
Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about, oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.
Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the Left
will say that we can live with it.
[continue at the url...]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
.
Ever been in a multi-hour meeting where ideas are bandied
about and then some guy pipes up, "Hey! I have the
solution!", and everyone in the room goes silent in
heightened expectation - only to hear the guy present an
idea that is as stale and wornout as coffee-breath?
.
I opened this thread "How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons"
expecting a solution...you know...something fresh and deeply
thought through. Nope, his "solution" is to add some more scare
to the spin.

"So for now, American policy seems to have established a window of
restraint for about a year or so, until intelligence confirms that the
Iranians are months away from arming their warheads."

Hello. -"months away from arming their warheads"- ??
.
And the original creator of this thread knew that was bullsht
as evidenced by the fact that he cut short his posting of the
article (see the url provided) IMMEDIATELY before the above
and beyond bullsht sentence.
.
Jag Pop

We'd rather trash the entire Mideast then get Israel to
get rid of their WMD.
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 14:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@Hotmail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding
our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told
that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi
Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days
of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.
Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the
region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up
its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.
"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a
nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals,
even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for
destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices
in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been
one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of
petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.
In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in
the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United
Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The
Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.
China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in
the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point
its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief -
and
damn them in the morning papers.
Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course
they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN
got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about,
oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.
Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not
to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and
North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition
programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling
for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the
Left
will say that we can live with it.
[continue at the url...]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
.
Ever been in a multi-hour meeting where ideas are bandied
about and then some guy pipes up, "Hey! I have the
solution!", and everyone in the room goes silent in
heightened expectation - only to hear the guy present an
idea that is as stale and wornout as coffee-breath?
.
I opened this thread "How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear
Weapons"
expecting a solution...you know...something fresh and
deeply
thought through. Nope, his "solution" is to add some more
scare
to the spin.
Actually, his recommendation is the "bad" choice, as
opposed to the "worse" choice.

There are no "fresh" choices. We're dealing with
a medieval ideology that wants nuclear weapons
so that it can impose its will.

Letting them get there is the "worse" choice.

The "bad" choice is to take out their nuclear
facilities sooner than the "worse" choice
becomes reality.

And...
Post by J***@Hotmail.com
"So for now, American policy seems to have established a
window of
restraint for about a year or so, until intelligence
confirms that the
Iranians are months away from arming their warheads."
Hello. -"months away from arming their warheads"- ??
.
And the original creator of this thread knew that was
bullsht
as evidenced by the fact that he cut short his posting of
the
article (see the url provided) IMMEDIATELY before the
above
and beyond bullsht sentence.
.
Jag Pop
We'd rather trash the entire Mideast then get Israel to
get rid of their WMD.
Nothing that Israel does will affect what Iran
does.

Just why do you think it is that Israel has nuclear
weapons in the first place? Or, rather, do you really
believe that Vermont-sized Israel with six million or
so Jews is laying siege to Islamic civilization
with 1.5 billion Muslims?
J***@Hotmail.com
2006-04-22 08:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by J***@Hotmail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
by Victor Davis Hanson
Claremont Review of Books
[This piece appeared in the Spring 2006 issue of the
Claremont Review of Books.]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
"Bad and worse" is now the conventional wisdom regarding
our
choices in dealing with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain the bomb. We are told
that
Western air strikes will lead to violent reactions in the
Islamic world; increase terrorism; empower the Iraqi
Shiite
obstructionists; destroy the much ballyhooed but little
heard from Iranian opposition; and that even after days
of
bombing, we will be unable to level all Iran's nuclear
facilities. That's the "bad" option we face.
Apparently no one believes that stopping the Iranian bomb
would humiliate the mullahs and teach others in the
region
not to try something similar - even though Libya gave up
its
WMD arsenal, by its own admission, only because Muammar
al-Qadhafi feared the fate of Saddam Hussein.
"Worse" means they get the bomb - which results in a
nuclear
Iran threatening Israel, U.S. troops in the Middle East,
neighboring Arab oil exporters, and European capitals,
even
as Western liberals bicker over whether Ahmadinejad seeks
merely status, high oil prices, greater power over a
restless populace - or paradise as his reward for
destroying
the Jewish state. This is a leader who listens to voices
in
a well, dreams about the missing 12th imam, claims his
audiences can't blink while he talks, and may have been
one
of the terrorists who stormed the U.S. embassy in 1979 -
adding messianic nihilism to the tinderbox of
petrodollars,
nukes, and terrorism.
In response, Zen-like, the United States keeps silent in
the
background. The Europeans' vaunted multicultural dialogue
goes nowhere, earning them Iranian contempt rather than
gratitude. The United Nations is, well, the United
Nations,
and more likely to obsess over Israel's half-century-old
arsenal than worry about a new nuclear theocracy. The
Arab
autocracies, meanwhile, don't seem too worried about a
Persian-Israeli conflagration that might cripple both
traditional enemies, if it transpired without raining too
much fallout on the West Bank.
China and Russia want either Iranian oil or petrodollars,
and seem to enjoy the West's anxiety, confident that in
the
worst-case scenario a nuclear Iran would probably point
its
missiles and terrorists at someone else. Russia promises
oversight of Iranian enrichment, a fox-in-the-henhouse
scenario since it sold the mullahs most of the requisite
nuclear technology in the first place. The Israelis are
stymied, at least temporarily. The fear of a second
Holocaust will make them act at the eleventh hour, though
they know that most of the world would sigh in relief -
and
damn them in the morning papers.
Stung over the perception that senior Democrats can't be
trusted with national security, Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton deplore the "outsourcing" of American
responsibility in dealing with Iran - though of course
they
would be the first to condemn Bush cowboyism, once CNN
got
going with its live feed of collateral damage on about,
oh,
day 3 of any air campaign.
Former President Bill Clinton last year apologized to the
Iranian mullocracy for American support for the Shah 30
years ago and CIA espionage a half century past, but not
to
the American people for allowing Pakistan, Iran, and
North
Korea to begin in earnest their nuclear acquisition
programs
on his watch. Jimmy Carter should turn up soon, calling
for
sensitive understanding of Iran's unique security needs;
indeed, the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the
Left
will say that we can live with it.
[continue at the url...]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
====
.
Ever been in a multi-hour meeting where ideas are bandied
about and then some guy pipes up, "Hey! I have the
solution!", and everyone in the room goes silent in
heightened expectation - only to hear the guy present an
idea that is as stale and wornout as coffee-breath?
.
I opened this thread "How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear
Weapons"
expecting a solution...you know...something fresh and
deeply
thought through. Nope, his "solution" is to add some more
scare
to the spin.
Actually, his recommendation is the "bad" choice, as
opposed to the "worse" choice.
There are no "fresh" choices. We're dealing with
a medieval ideology that wants nuclear weapons
so that it can impose its will.
Letting them get there is the "worse" choice.
The "bad" choice is to take out their nuclear
facilities sooner than the "worse" choice
becomes reality.
And...
Post by J***@Hotmail.com
"So for now, American policy seems to have established a
window of
restraint for about a year or so, until intelligence
confirms that the
Iranians are months away from arming their warheads."
Hello. -"months away from arming their warheads"- ??
.
And the original creator of this thread knew that was
bullsht
as evidenced by the fact that he cut short his posting of
the
article (see the url provided) IMMEDIATELY before the
above
and beyond bullsht sentence.
.
Jag Pop
We'd rather trash the entire Mideast then get Israel to
get rid of their WMD.
Nothing that Israel does will affect what Iran
does.
Just why do you think it is that Israel has nuclear
weapons in the first place? Or, rather, do you really
believe that Vermont-sized Israel with six million or
so Jews is laying siege to Islamic civilization
with 1.5 billion Muslims?
.
The full paragraph from the article that is the
subject of this thread was:
.
"So for now, American policy seems to have established
a window of restraint for about a year or so, until
intelligence confirms that the Iranians are months away
from arming their warheads."
.
Complete bullsht and a scare tactic (like the pre-war
"mushroom cloud" intelligence leading to the invasion
of Iraq). It was such bullsht that you didn't want to
post it and stopped short IMMEDIATELY before
that line when you posted the article.

When challenged over the bullsht line you ignored
the challenge and talked around it.

It is bullsht, but you posted the article.

Well....?

Jag Pop
"...just a goddamn piece of paper:
Bush, November 2005
Matt
2006-04-21 14:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.

Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 14:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Matt
2006-04-21 15:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.

George W Bush claims they want nuclear weapons. We may therefore
safely assume they do not.

If George W Bush says something, we know it is a lie.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 15:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.

Iran will have nuclear weapons very soon.
Post by Matt
George W Bush claims they want nuclear weapons. We may
therefore
safely assume they do not.
Oh, I didn't realize that you were stupid
as well as ignorant. Sorry.
Post by Matt
If George W Bush says something, we know it is a lie.
Matt
Matt
2006-04-21 17:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline claims that they do?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Iran will have nuclear weapons very soon.
Prove it. Right here, right now, with photographic and nuclear
detection
evidence. Otherwise, drop dead war monger.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
George W Bush claims they want nuclear weapons. We may
therefore
safely assume they do not.
Oh, I didn't realize that you were stupid
as well as ignorant. Sorry.
Oh, hey, anyone that doesn't agree with someone that is as insane as
you
would HAVE to be stupid, wouldn't they Marty?

ROFLMAO.

Buh-bye kid
Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
If George W Bush says something, we know it is a lie.
Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 17:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.

The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Iran will have nuclear weapons very soon.
Prove it. Right here, right now, with photographic and
nuclear
detection
evidence. Otherwise, drop dead war monger.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
George W Bush claims they want nuclear weapons. We may
therefore
safely assume they do not.
Oh, I didn't realize that you were stupid
as well as ignorant. Sorry.
Oh, hey, anyone that doesn't agree with someone that is as
insane as
you
would HAVE to be stupid, wouldn't they Marty?
ROFLMAO.
Buh-bye kid
Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
If George W Bush says something, we know it is a lie.
Matt
Matt
2006-04-21 17:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ... AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 17:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.

But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
Matt
2006-04-21 17:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side. Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 17:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?

Well, if I destroyed your Clarabell cup, I've
destroyed the possibility that you'll drink
again from that cup.
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side. Sorry,
son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm not lying about anything.

Perhaps you believe that the Iranians really are
enriching uranium for nuclear power plants and
celebrating that capacity for enrichment in
the same week it announces that it will annihilate
Israel with "one storm".

So, who exactly do you think is fooling
whom?
Matt
2006-04-21 18:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread ...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Well, if I destroyed your Clarabell cup, I've
destroyed the possibility that you'll drink
again from that cup.
And if I remove your brain, there will be little change.
What's your point, Marty?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side. Sorry,
son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm not lying about anything.
Of COURSE you aren't. You just said they have nuclear
weapons. They don't.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Perhaps you believe that the Iranians really are
enriching uranium for nuclear power plants and
celebrating that capacity for enrichment in
the same week it announces that it will annihilate
Israel with "one storm".
So, who exactly do you think is fooling
whom?
Prove it. Its really simple.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread
...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a
historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Oh, so you want proof that Iran *will* produce
nuclear weapons! Let's see, that's sort of like
asking for proof someone will drink coffee at
Starbucks tomorrow. I don't think that even
Tehran Erb is denying that Iran plans on
building nuclear weapons.

Since you probably trust him more than you
trust me, why don't you ask him for
"proof" that Iran, having boldly announced
that it is enriching its own Uranium, will
indeed be building its own nuclear weapons?
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Well, if I destroyed your Clarabell cup, I've
destroyed the possibility that you'll drink
again from that cup.
And if I remove your brain, there will be little change.
What's your point, Marty?
I feel safe that you understand that the
destruction of your Clarabell cup means
that you won't be drinking from it again,
just as the destruction of Iranian nuclear
facilities means that Iran will *not* be
producing nuclear weapons in those facilities.
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry,
son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I'm not lying about anything.
Of COURSE you aren't. You just said they have nuclear
weapons. They don't.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Perhaps you believe that the Iranians really are
enriching uranium for nuclear power plants and
celebrating that capacity for enrichment in
the same week it announces that it will annihilate
Israel with "one storm".
So, who exactly do you think is fooling
whom?
Prove it. Its really simple.
Matt
Matt
2006-04-21 18:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can spread
...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a
historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Oh, so you want proof that Iran *will* produce
nuclear weapons! Let's see, that's sort of like
asking for proof someone will drink coffee at
Starbucks tomorrow. I don't think that even
Tehran Erb is denying that Iran plans on
building nuclear weapons.
Then certainly, you will have no problems getting the
proof, will you?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Since you probably trust him more than you
trust me, why don't you ask him for
"proof" that Iran, having boldly announced
that it is enriching its own Uranium, will
indeed be building its own nuclear weapons?
Me? Why should I ask him anything? You've made
the claim, you back it up. Otherwise, just admit you
lied, apologize, and move on. Its not a big deal.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can
spread
...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a
historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose
headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons
and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Oh, so you want proof that Iran *will* produce
nuclear weapons! Let's see, that's sort of like
asking for proof someone will drink coffee at
Starbucks tomorrow. I don't think that even
Tehran Erb is denying that Iran plans on
building nuclear weapons.
Then certainly, you will have no problems getting the
proof, will you?
Ask Tehran Erb. And then argue with him
about it if you don't like his answer.

As far as I know, he actually favors Iran
getting nuclear weapons and I don't recall
him ever denying that that is exactly what
they are doing.
Matt
2006-04-21 18:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can
spread
...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a
historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose
headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that eliminating
the development program now is the "bad" choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear weapons
and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Oh, so you want proof that Iran *will* produce
nuclear weapons! Let's see, that's sort of like
asking for proof someone will drink coffee at
Starbucks tomorrow. I don't think that even
Tehran Erb is denying that Iran plans on
building nuclear weapons.
Then certainly, you will have no problems getting the
proof, will you?
Ask Tehran Erb. And then argue with him
about it if you don't like his answer.
As far as I know, he actually favors Iran
getting nuclear weapons and I don't recall
him ever denying that that is exactly what
they are doing.
Careful parsing of answer says.... No answer.

You lose, Marty.

matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 19:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
in
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
April 20, 2006
How to Eliminate Iran's Nuclear
Weapons
Quit reading here. Iran has no
nuclear
weapons.
Stop the lies NOW, before they can
spread
...
AGAIN.
Iran will have nuclear weapons in a
historical
blink of an eye.
Iran has no nuclear weapons.
As of this minute, fortunately no.
Then why did you post an article whose
headline
claims
that they do?
I'll just assume that your strict literalism
prevents you from understanding that
eliminating
a program to develop nuclear weapons is
equivalent to eliminating the nuclear weapons
that the program would develop.
The point of the article being that
eliminating
the development program now is the "bad"
choice
as opposed to dealing with an Iran with
nuclear
weapons in hand being the "worse" choice.
Lack of proof noted. Iran has no nuclear
weapons
and
you are lying again.
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Prove that destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
is the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce?
Proof that it will produce nuclear weapons will do
JUST fine. Right here, right now. C'mon Marty! You
have PROOF, right?
Oh, so you want proof that Iran *will* produce
nuclear weapons! Let's see, that's sort of like
asking for proof someone will drink coffee at
Starbucks tomorrow. I don't think that even
Tehran Erb is denying that Iran plans on
building nuclear weapons.
Then certainly, you will have no problems getting the
proof, will you?
Ask Tehran Erb. And then argue with him
about it if you don't like his answer.
As far as I know, he actually favors Iran
getting nuclear weapons and I don't recall
him ever denying that that is exactly what
they are doing.
Careful parsing of answer says.... No answer.
You lose, Marty.
So, Matty, you won't be discussing this
with Tehran Erb?

You'd rather believe that Iran is not
moving as rapidly as it can to build
nuclear weapons than ask an informed
representative (unofficially so) of
Iran itself?
Scott Erb
2006-04-21 18:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side. Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the reality of the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing them gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).

Fact: Iran's President does not control any future nuclear weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian Council and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious foreign policy with
the goal of being a regional power.

Fact: Iran's leadership knows Israel has large numbers of nuclear
weapons and could wipe Iran out in retaliation for a strike.

Fact: Iran is likely 5 to 10 years from having a nuclear weapon if they
are truly pursuing that, and even then they'll not have very many, and
their delivery systems will be short range. They could hit Europe or
Israel, but France and Israel have already signalled a certainty they'd
respond in force if that happened.

Fact: Iran is part of a strategic triad in the region, including Russia
and China.

Fact: Iran's people want reform, but they will rally behind their
government if the US launches an attack. It would be the "Pearl
Harbor" for the Muslim world, and assure retaliation that could create
havoc in the world economy and indeed the entire region for quite
sometime. The result would be devastating.

Fact: Iran's leaders love the chest thumping by some Americans, because
they are appealling to the nationalist fervor and anti-Americanism that
swept them into power. They know they are unlikely to have a hardline
Majles and President re-elected if the US somehow becomes seen as less
of a threat. Ultimately, if the US leaves Iraq and has a
non-belligerent policy to Iran, the hardliners will lose support, and
there could be an internal uprising or a return to slow reform. If the
US attacks, the hardliners will gain full long term power, and be more
of a long term threat.

Fact: Quite simply, attacking Iran would be insane. It would ignite a
war we would be destined if not to lose, not to win either. It would
severely weaken the US, and destroy the kind of lifestyle we've built
since the end of WWII. We would have gone from a nation bent on
protecting global stability to revolutionary power destabilizing the
system by trying to shape politics in a part of the world we seem not
to understand at all.

Somehow I suspect Bush is bluffing. I think the Generals at the
Pentagon know the reality of the situation, and know that such an
attack would make Americans in Iraq severely at risk. They know how
over-stretched the military is. Also they've gamed this out, and know
that the results would be disastrous. But due to the weakening of the
US by the fiasco in Iraq, Iran simply doesn't take the bluff seriously.
And as a result, the US looks even weaker.
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the reality of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign policy"
by sending out their president to announce the impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.

Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.

But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Matt
2006-04-21 18:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the reality of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign policy"
by sending out their president to announce the impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet, Marty? Or that
they have any intention of having them? or that they are any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy on you here.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on
me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the reality
of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future
nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian
Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious
foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign
policy"
by sending out their president to announce the impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet, Marty? Or
that
they have any intention of having them? or that they are
any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy on you
here.
Well, Matty, I've already answered your repetitive
question. Iran just announced that it is enriching
Uranium, the most difficult step in the process
of making nuclear weapons. Iran is still saying
that it only plans to use said enriched Uranium
for domestic power production, as if it hadn't
previously lied about whether it was enriching
Uranium or not.

Now, I take it that your conclusion is that the
Mullahs have no desire to have nuclear weapons,
and that Iran never ever got the goods from
A.Q. Khan on nuclear weapons development.

So, do you feel lucky, Matty?
Matt
2006-04-21 18:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you. War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on
me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the reality
of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future
nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian
Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious
foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign
policy"
by sending out their president to announce the impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet, Marty? Or
that
they have any intention of having them? or that they are
any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy on you
here.
Well, Matty, I've already answered your repetitive
question. Iran just announced that it is enriching
Uranium, the most difficult step in the process
of making nuclear weapons. Iran is still saying
that it only plans to use said enriched Uranium
for domestic power production, as if it hadn't
previously lied about whether it was enriching
Uranium or not.
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants. The WAY you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class, Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.

Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Now, I take it that your conclusion is that the
Mullahs have no desire to have nuclear weapons,
and that Iran never ever got the goods from
A.Q. Khan on nuclear weapons development.
So, do you feel lucky, Matty?
Marty, I feel a WHOLE lot safer with Iran with nuclear weapons
than with Bush and you having them.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you.
War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on
me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the
reality
of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing
them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future
nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian
Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious
foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign
policy"
by sending out their president to announce the
impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet, Marty?
Or
that
they have any intention of having them? or that they
are
any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy on
you
here.
Well, Matty, I've already answered your repetitive
question. Iran just announced that it is enriching
Uranium, the most difficult step in the process
of making nuclear weapons. Iran is still saying
that it only plans to use said enriched Uranium
for domestic power production, as if it hadn't
previously lied about whether it was enriching
Uranium or not.
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants. The WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us. "But
once you master it, then you just replicate it elsewhere."

Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale nuclear
base than generally assumed.

Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans and the
United Nations.
====
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Now, I take it that your conclusion is that the
Mullahs have no desire to have nuclear weapons,
and that Iran never ever got the goods from
A.Q. Khan on nuclear weapons development.
So, do you feel lucky, Matty?
Marty, I feel a WHOLE lot safer with Iran with nuclear
weapons
than with Bush and you having them.
Oh do you.
Matt
2006-04-21 18:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now. You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you.
War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on
me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the
reality
of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing
them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any future
nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian
Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious
foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious foreign
policy"
by sending out their president to announce the
impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very week
that they annouce they've mastered the most difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet, Marty?
Or
that
they have any intention of having them? or that they
are
any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy on
you
here.
Well, Matty, I've already answered your repetitive
question. Iran just announced that it is enriching
Uranium, the most difficult step in the process
of making nuclear weapons. Iran is still saying
that it only plans to use said enriched Uranium
for domestic power production, as if it hadn't
previously lied about whether it was enriching
Uranium or not.
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants. The WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us. "But
once you master it, then you just replicate it elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans and the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an opinion piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question. Waiting, patiently.
Post by Martin McPhillips
====
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Now, I take it that your conclusion is that the
Mullahs have no desire to have nuclear weapons,
and that Iran never ever got the goods from
A.Q. Khan on nuclear weapons development.
So, do you feel lucky, Matty?
Marty, I feel a WHOLE lot safer with Iran with nuclear
weapons
than with Bush and you having them.
Oh do you.
Yes, I do. Especially you.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 18:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
I think I've said a few times now that Iran
*will* have nuclear weapons in a historical
blink of the eye. And now I've said that
destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is
the equivalent of destroying the nuclear
weapons that it will produce.
And I've asked you to prove it. Twice now.
You've
failed
both
times. No proof, more lies.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But carry on, Matt, to wherever you think
you're going.
I'm not the one lying, Marty. That would be you.
War
mongers
always have to lie to get the people on their
side.
Sorry, son,
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on
me.
Note the fear and 'culture of death' inherent in
the
warmongers
discourse. They point to the most extreme bits
of
rhetoric and say
"this proves they'll destroy us" and ignore the
reality
of
the
situation (or how our extreme rhetoric demonizing
them
gives them
incentive to produce nuclear weapons).
Scott sounds like he's applying for a job at the
Iranian embassy. Best of luck, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Fact: Iran's President does not control any
future
nuclear
weapons Iran
might produce. The power rests with the Guardian
Council
and the
Generals, who have shown a conservative, cautious
foreign
policy with
the goal of being a regional power.
Yes, they've shown a "conservative, cautious
foreign
policy"
by sending out their president to announce the
impending
"annihilation" of Israel in "one storm" the very
week
that they annouce they've mastered the most
difficult
stage of nuclear weapons development.
Or is Erb trying to say that the president only
speaks for himself? Who knows.
But with a spokesman like Tehran Erb, who could
doubt their sincere intentions?
Have you proved they have nuclear weapons yet,
Marty?
Or
that
they have any intention of having them? or that they
are
any sort
of a threat to us? Hey, I'm trying to make it easy
on
you
here.
Well, Matty, I've already answered your repetitive
question. Iran just announced that it is enriching
Uranium, the most difficult step in the process
of making nuclear weapons. Iran is still saying
that it only plans to use said enriched Uranium
for domestic power production, as if it hadn't
previously lied about whether it was enriching
Uranium or not.
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants. The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question. Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
====
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Now, I take it that your conclusion is that the
Mullahs have no desire to have nuclear weapons,
and that Iran never ever got the goods from
A.Q. Khan on nuclear weapons development.
So, do you feel lucky, Matty?
Marty, I feel a WHOLE lot safer with Iran with nuclear
weapons
than with Bush and you having them.
Oh do you.
Yes, I do. Especially you.
Oh, *especially* me. There's a certain charm
in stating your preference for the Iranians
over me, as a way of hiding your preference
for them over the United States.

I think you're ready to study with Tehran Erb.
Matt
2006-04-21 18:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants. The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question. Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing about nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also proves you can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.

Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 19:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You
see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants.
The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it
has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once
again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert
nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is
much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind
of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans
and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an
opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question. Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also proves you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.

The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us. "But
once you master it, then you just replicate it elsewhere."
=====

Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
Matt
2006-04-21 19:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You
see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants.
The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which it
has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once
again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert
nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is
much
closer to its goal of developing an industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the kind
of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the Europeans
and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an
opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question. Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also proves you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.
The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us. "But
once you master it, then you just replicate it elsewhere."
=====
Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.

Let's see what I did ask:

The WAY you enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the class,
Marty, you go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.

You lie way too much, Marty. Your mommy is going to wash your mouth
out with soap.

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 19:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at
proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You
see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do
with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for
a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants.
The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the
class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and
there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns
the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it,
converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving
from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot
of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told
us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which
it
has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once
again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert
nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is
much
closer to its goal of developing an
industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade
away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The
Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not
the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the
kind
of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the
Europeans
and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an
opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question.
Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also proves
you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.
The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
=====
Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
The WAY you enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the
class,
Marty, you go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Now, did I not just say that I never claimed to know
anything about nuclear fuel enrichment?

And did I not just invite you, welcome you in fact,
to express any special expertise you might have
on the subject contra the conclusions of the
Wall Street Journal's take on it?
Post by Matt
You lie way too much, Marty. Your mommy is going to wash
your mouth
out with soap.
I have a very strong feeling that your "too
many years at an energy college," whatever you
consider an "energy college" might be, amounts
to something like a BOCES course on fixing household
appliances. But you're more than welcome
to set me straight.
Matt
2006-04-21 20:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at
proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem. You
see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do
with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used for
a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power plants.
The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the
class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and
there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns
the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it,
converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving
from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot
of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told
us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and which
it
has
previously denied using. This means Iran has once
again
admitted lying to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert
nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it is
much
closer to its goal of developing an
industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade
away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The
Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration, not
the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer the
kind
of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the
Europeans
and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an
opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question.
Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also proves
you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.
The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
=====
Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
The WAY you enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the
class,
Marty, you go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Now, did I not just say that I never claimed to know
anything about nuclear fuel enrichment?
And did I not just invite you, welcome you in fact,
to express any special expertise you might have
on the subject contra the conclusions of the
Wall Street Journal's take on it?
Post by Matt
You lie way too much, Marty. Your mommy is going to wash
your mouth
out with soap.
I have a very strong feeling that your "too
many years at an energy college," whatever you
consider an "energy college" might be, amounts
to something like a BOCES course on fixing household
appliances. But you're more than welcome
to set me straight.
Marty, it would take a very VERY powerful electro-magnet to set
you straight.

Fine, a capsule version of enrichment. Nuclear waste contains a
certain amount of fissionable material. This isotope of Uranium
(U-235) is used to form a plutonium isotope (Pu-239). The result
of your 'enrichment' process is a material that contains some
percentage
of U-235. If this percentage is low (call it 5% or less) what you get
is
something that is only good for powering nuclear power plants. Weapons
grade material must be MUCH higher in percentage (call it 90% or
higher,
although in theory a lower number would work, say 50%).

Ok, got that part? You start out with junk that has a small amount of
fissionable uranium, you put it through a process, and you end up with
a
product that has a higher percentage. And a bunch of by-product that
is worthless, but still radioactive.

The process, of course, is what is interesting. There are quite a few
ways
to do this. It really depend on how much material you want to produce.
If
you are talking about a single bomb, a centrifuge COULD be used.
Nobody
cares if you do it this way, it takes forever and you get a very very
small
amount of fissionable material. The preferred approach is through
something
called gas diffusion. I'm not going to try to explain this one to you,
there are
lots of good sources on the net. Basically, think of this as pushing
stuff through
a sieve, bigger (in this case heavier) material gets caught, littler
(in this case
lighter) stuff goes through.

Now, you see, here's the problem. The exact same process is used to
make
low-grade fuel that is REQUIRED to run reactors as is used to produce
nuclear
bombs. What we have claimed (we being the US) is that Iran is using the
process
to produce weapons grade fissionable material. What Iran has claimed is
that
the process produces nuclear fuel. NOBODY has proven the US claims,
whereas
Iran does allow the IAEA (the nuclear watchdogs of the UN) to inspect
their
process.

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041100605.html

So, Marty, its quite simple. All you have to do is prove Bush's case,
and disprove
the inspectors, the facts, and everyone else in the world. Do so, and
we will be happy
to believe you when you say that they will have nuclear weapons "soon".

Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 20:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Really. Marty, you've finally made a STAB at
proving
your point. There's only one LITTLE problem.
You
see,
Marty, enriching uranium has very little to do
with
making
nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium can be used
for
a
number
of things, such as starting nuclear power
plants.
The
WAY
you
enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for the
class,
Marty, you
go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they
are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Take your time. Extra credit for diagrams.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has
enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and
there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now
owns
the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium
ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it,
converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving
from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a
lot
of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently
told
us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
claims
Iran
is "conducting research" on an advanced
centrifuge
obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and
which
it
has
previously denied using. This means Iran has
once
again
admitted lying to the International Atomic
Energy
Agency.
It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive covert
nuclear
program than previously recognized, and that it
is
much
closer to its goal of developing an
industrial-scale
nuclear
base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a decade
away
from a
bomb--as was suggested by last year's National
Intelligence
Estimate--now looks like wishful thinking. The
Iranian
bomb
will thus be a crisis for this Administration,
not
the
next,
and Mr. Bush will have no choice but to offer
the
kind
of
leadership he has so far outsourced to the
Europeans
and
the
United Nations.
I asked a simple question, Marty. You gave me an
opinion
piece
with no facts, and no answer to my question.
Waiting,
patiently.
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing
about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also
proves
you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.
The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
=====
Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way
too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
The WAY you enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for
the
class,
Marty, you go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they
are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Now, did I not just say that I never claimed to know
anything about nuclear fuel enrichment?
And did I not just invite you, welcome you in fact,
to express any special expertise you might have
on the subject contra the conclusions of the
Wall Street Journal's take on it?
Post by Matt
You lie way too much, Marty. Your mommy is going to
wash
your mouth
out with soap.
I have a very strong feeling that your "too
many years at an energy college," whatever you
consider an "energy college" might be, amounts
to something like a BOCES course on fixing household
appliances. But you're more than welcome
to set me straight.
Marty, it would take a very VERY powerful electro-magnet
to set
you straight.
Fine, a capsule version of enrichment. Nuclear waste
contains a
certain amount of fissionable material. This isotope of
Uranium
(U-235) is used to form a plutonium isotope (Pu-239). The
result
of your 'enrichment' process is a material that contains
some
percentage
of U-235. If this percentage is low (call it 5% or less)
what you get
is
something that is only good for powering nuclear power
plants. Weapons
grade material must be MUCH higher in percentage (call it
90% or
higher,
although in theory a lower number would work, say 50%).
Ok, got that part? You start out with junk that has a
small amount of
fissionable uranium, you put it through a process, and you
end up with
a
product that has a higher percentage. And a bunch of
by-product that
is worthless, but still radioactive.
The process, of course, is what is interesting. There are
quite a few
ways
to do this. It really depend on how much material you want
to produce.
If
you are talking about a single bomb, a centrifuge COULD be
used.
Nobody
cares if you do it this way, it takes forever and you get
a very very
small
amount of fissionable material. The preferred approach is
through
something
called gas diffusion. I'm not going to try to explain this
one to you,
there are
lots of good sources on the net. Basically, think of this
as pushing
stuff through
a sieve, bigger (in this case heavier) material gets
caught, littler
(in this case
lighter) stuff goes through.
Now, you see, here's the problem. The exact same process
is used to
make
low-grade fuel that is REQUIRED to run reactors as is used
to produce
nuclear
bombs. What we have claimed (we being the US) is that Iran
is using the
process
to produce weapons grade fissionable material. What Iran
has claimed is
that
the process produces nuclear fuel. NOBODY has proven the
US claims,
whereas
Iran does allow the IAEA (the nuclear watchdogs of the UN)
to inspect
their
process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041100605.html
So, Marty, its quite simple. All you have to do is prove
Bush's case,
and disprove
the inspectors, the facts, and everyone else in the world.
Do so, and
we will be happy
to believe you when you say that they will have nuclear
weapons "soon".
That's all very sincere Matt, I'm sure.

Now, about the inspectors and their efficacy,
from the WaPo story you've cited:

"Ahmadinejad's announcement came midway through a 30-day
period that the U.N. Security Council gave Iran to cease all
work toward enrichment, though the council threatened no
specific punishment if Iran continued. In Washington, White
House press secretary Scott McClellan said the announcement
signaled Iran's continued defiance of the international
effort to freeze the country's nuclear program."

and

"The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said the
breakthrough came Monday at the pilot enrichment plant in
Natanz, where Iran removed U.N. inspection seals earlier
this year. Gholamreza Aghazadeh said enrichment was to 3.5
percent, an amount consistent with a fuel cycle and far
below the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon.
"'This achievement has paved the way for Iran to start its
industrial-scale production and, to enter this stage, we are
trying to put in operation a complex of 3,000 centrifuges'
by mid-March of next year, Aghazadeh said."

and

"'They know they cannot do a damned thing,' Ahmadinejad was
quoted by Iran's state broadcaster as saying, referring to
the Security Council, where permanent members Russia and
China have proved reluctant to back U.S. efforts to move
toward imposing sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad that night also called the IAEA 'liars in their
claim that we have breached' its rules, 'since we conduct
our activities openly.'"

So, let's run that down, shall we?

The UNSC told Iran to stop the enrichment, but
Iran continued to do it.

Iran previously removed the inspectors seals
at the enrichment plant.

Iran will be jumping from its 160 centrifuge
experiment to a 3,000 centrifuge operation
a year from now.

The IAEA, about the most pusillanimous operation
in the world are "liars," according to the
Iranian president.

And "they," inclusive, I assume, of the IAEA
and the UNSC "know they cannot do a damned
thing."

And you've decided that this is all above-board
and that *Iran* gets the benefit of the doubt?

Perhaps if Iran had not been outsourcing terrorism
for a quarter century and wasn't threatening
the "annihilation" of other countries I'd be
a little more sympathetic to your sympathies.

So, Matty, it is quite simple. You're gullible
and you've been gulled, by yourself, apparently
because you hate Bush more than you fear real
threats.
Matt
2006-04-22 02:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Matt
Post by Martin McPhillips
Good opinion pieces, like the one above from
today's Wall Street Journal, are argued with
facts. See the first quoted paragraph.
Marty, all you've proved is that you know nothing
about
nuclear
fuel enrichment, which I already knew. It also
proves
you
can't
prove your point. You lose, Marty.
Buh-bye now, kid, buh-bye.
That's pretty funny, Matty, because I never claimed
to know anything about nuclear fuel enrichment.
The singular fact on the table is that Iran
has announced that it can now enrich Uranium, and
when you asked what that meant, I offered you this
from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008266
====
Iran's announcement this month that it has enriched
uranium
to reactor-grade levels marks a watershed, and there
is
no
point putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns the
entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium ore
from
its
own deposits, to milling it, crushing it, converting
it
to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in homemade
centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to reactor-grade
constitutes
the most difficult phase of the process; moving from
there
to bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a lot of
problems with the first [centrifuge cascade]," a
knowledgeable U.S. government source recently told us.
"But
once you master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
=====
Now, if you have some special expertise on the
subject that you would like to offer, be my
guest.
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way
too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
The WAY you enrich nuclear material matters. Now, for
the
class,
Marty, you go right ahead and explain exactly HOW they
are
enriching
uranium and what they will end up with.
Now, did I not just say that I never claimed to know
anything about nuclear fuel enrichment?
And did I not just invite you, welcome you in fact,
to express any special expertise you might have
on the subject contra the conclusions of the
Wall Street Journal's take on it?
Post by Matt
You lie way too much, Marty. Your mommy is going to
wash
your mouth
out with soap.
I have a very strong feeling that your "too
many years at an energy college," whatever you
consider an "energy college" might be, amounts
to something like a BOCES course on fixing household
appliances. But you're more than welcome
to set me straight.
Marty, it would take a very VERY powerful electro-magnet
to set
you straight.
Fine, a capsule version of enrichment. Nuclear waste
contains a
certain amount of fissionable material. This isotope of
Uranium
(U-235) is used to form a plutonium isotope (Pu-239). The
result
of your 'enrichment' process is a material that contains
some
percentage
of U-235. If this percentage is low (call it 5% or less)
what you get
is
something that is only good for powering nuclear power
plants. Weapons
grade material must be MUCH higher in percentage (call it
90% or
higher,
although in theory a lower number would work, say 50%).
Ok, got that part? You start out with junk that has a
small amount of
fissionable uranium, you put it through a process, and you
end up with
a
product that has a higher percentage. And a bunch of
by-product that
is worthless, but still radioactive.
The process, of course, is what is interesting. There are
quite a few
ways
to do this. It really depend on how much material you want
to produce.
If
you are talking about a single bomb, a centrifuge COULD be
used.
Nobody
cares if you do it this way, it takes forever and you get
a very very
small
amount of fissionable material. The preferred approach is
through
something
called gas diffusion. I'm not going to try to explain this
one to you,
there are
lots of good sources on the net. Basically, think of this
as pushing
stuff through
a sieve, bigger (in this case heavier) material gets
caught, littler
(in this case
lighter) stuff goes through.
Now, you see, here's the problem. The exact same process
is used to
make
low-grade fuel that is REQUIRED to run reactors as is used
to produce
nuclear
bombs. What we have claimed (we being the US) is that Iran
is using the
process
to produce weapons grade fissionable material. What Iran
has claimed is
that
the process produces nuclear fuel. NOBODY has proven the
US claims,
whereas
Iran does allow the IAEA (the nuclear watchdogs of the UN)
to inspect
their
process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041100605.html
So, Marty, its quite simple. All you have to do is prove
Bush's case,
and disprove
the inspectors, the facts, and everyone else in the world.
Do so, and
we will be happy
to believe you when you say that they will have nuclear
weapons "soon".
That's all very sincere Matt, I'm sure.
Now, about the inspectors and their efficacy,
"Ahmadinejad's announcement came midway through a 30-day
period that the U.N. Security Council gave Iran to cease all
work toward enrichment, though the council threatened no
specific punishment if Iran continued. In Washington, White
House press secretary Scott McClellan said the announcement
signaled Iran's continued defiance of the international
effort to freeze the country's nuclear program."
That's nice. I'm sure Scottie knows as much about enrichment
as you and Bush do.
Post by Martin McPhillips
and
"The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said the
breakthrough came Monday at the pilot enrichment plant in
Natanz, where Iran removed U.N. inspection seals earlier
this year. Gholamreza Aghazadeh said enrichment was to 3.5
percent, an amount consistent with a fuel cycle and far
below the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon.
"'This achievement has paved the way for Iran to start its
industrial-scale production and, to enter this stage, we are
trying to put in operation a complex of 3,000 centrifuges'
by mid-March of next year, Aghazadeh said."
3.5%, as i said, is FAR FAR FAR short of the level needed to
produce bomb material. What you are not understanding is that
you can multiply the number of centrifuges by a BILLION and
not change the percentage.
Post by Martin McPhillips
and
"'They know they cannot do a damned thing,' Ahmadinejad was
quoted by Iran's state broadcaster as saying, referring to
the Security Council, where permanent members Russia and
China have proved reluctant to back U.S. efforts to move
toward imposing sanctions on Iran.
Given our capability for translation, doing things like calling
China, Taiwan, I wouldn't put much store in that.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Ahmadinejad that night also called the IAEA 'liars in their
claim that we have breached' its rules, 'since we conduct
our activities openly.'"
So, let's run that down, shall we?
The UNSC told Iran to stop the enrichment, but
Iran continued to do it.
Um, no, they didn't. They said it would be in violation of the
Non-proliferation act. Whether it is or not is up to the full
UN council to decide. The US cannot, and will not, be allowed
to unilaterally decide who may have nuclear power. The Indian
treaty proved they have no expertise in the matter.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Iran previously removed the inspectors seals
at the enrichment plant.
Yes. As the United States removed the inspection seals in Iraq.
Should we nuke Washington?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Iran will be jumping from its 160 centrifuge
experiment to a 3,000 centrifuge operation
a year from now.
That's nice.
Post by Martin McPhillips
The IAEA, about the most pusillanimous operation
in the world are "liars," according to the
Iranian president.
If you say so.
Post by Martin McPhillips
And "they," inclusive, I assume, of the IAEA
and the UNSC "know they cannot do a damned
thing."
If you say so.
Post by Martin McPhillips
And you've decided that this is all above-board
and that *Iran* gets the benefit of the doubt?
Absolutely. Unless, of course, you wish to follow YOUR directives
and immediately execute Bush and nuke the United States.
I've always suspected you were a terrorist, Marty.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Perhaps if Iran had not been outsourcing terrorism
for a quarter century and wasn't threatening
the "annihilation" of other countries I'd be
a little more sympathetic to your sympathies.
No doubt. Completely ignored, since it has no proof.
Post by Martin McPhillips
So, Matty, it is quite simple. You're gullible
and you've been gulled, by yourself, apparently
because you hate Bush more than you fear real
threats.
Marty, you were asked for proof, you failed to deliver. You
were told how things work, you ignored it. You are an idiot.
Please go away.

Matt
John D.
2006-04-21 20:07:53 UTC
Permalink
"Matt" <***@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?

WTF is that?
Post by Matt
Matt
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-21 20:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.

Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?

Maybe it's a European thing.

But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
John D.
2006-04-21 21:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree of
technical training to understand a very pertinent parallel:

"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable perhaps
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose that
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is probably
already choking in their throats.

Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of
the Jewish race in Europe."

Adolph Hitler

January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech
Matt
2006-04-22 02:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree of
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable perhaps
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose that
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is probably
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of
the Jewish race in Europe."
Er, this is comparable to... WHAT?

Matt
John D.
2006-04-22 02:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree of
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable perhaps
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose that
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is probably
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of
the Jewish race in Europe."
Er, this is comparable to... WHAT?
I expected as much. I find it interesting that you snipped the credit to
Hitler for his January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech. Since you went that far,
why didn't you just substitute Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or maybe,
Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

Or don't they teach that at the east bumfuck mining school for the gifted
and talented?

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Post by Matt
Matt
Matt
2006-04-22 05:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable
perhaps
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose
that
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is
probably
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry
within
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into
a
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the
world
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
the Jewish race in Europe."
Er, this is comparable to... WHAT?
I expected as much. I find it interesting that you snipped the credit to
Hitler for his January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech. Since you went that far,
why didn't you just substitute Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or maybe,
Hashemi-Rafsanjani.
Does it matter? Obviously, to you, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.
Post by John D.
Or don't they teach that at the east bumfuck mining school for the gifted
and talented?
ROFLMAO.

Buh-bye, little one.
Matt
John D.
2006-04-22 12:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable
perhaps
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose
that
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is
probably
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry
within
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into
a
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the
world
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
the Jewish race in Europe."
Er, this is comparable to... WHAT?
I expected as much. I find it interesting that you snipped the credit to
Hitler for his January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech. Since you went that far,
why didn't you just substitute Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or maybe,
Hashemi-Rafsanjani.
Does it matter? Obviously, to you, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.
Obviously, you just can't think. I normally don't do this but since this is
special ed. I'll explain it to you. I was comparing the Iranian leadership
to Hitler because they're saying the same thing. Hitler was serious and went
for it; I think these guys are just, if not more serious than Hitler.

Now, of course, if you agree with the Iranian leadership then that's a whole
different situation. So, what is it Matt, do you agree with these guys,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hashemi-Rafsanjani?

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Scott Erb
2006-04-22 12:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Does it matter? Obviously, to you, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.
Obviously, you just can't think. I normally don't do this but since this is
special ed. I'll explain it to you. I was comparing the Iranian leadership
to Hitler because they're saying the same thing. Hitler was serious and went
for it; I think these guys are just, if not more serious than Hitler.
Now, of course, if you agree with the Iranian leadership then that's a whole
different situation. So, what is it Matt, do you agree with these guys,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hashemi-Rafsanjani?
Anyone who tries comparing Iran to Hitler shows himself to be an idiot
with no understanding of history or politics.

Hitler in the thirties pretended to be the essence of statesmanship.
He insisted he had no designs to expand, and only wanted to right the
wrongs of the Versailles treaty. He said he was like Bismarck,
challenging the system only to get Germany it's proper place.

The British conservatives' policy of appeasement was meant to appease
legitimate German grievances against the Versailles treaty, but not to
give Hitler everything he wanted. Many believed he was like a
Bismarck, and others saw fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Chamberlain expected war and was preparing for it, but his military
hoped it could be held off until 1943.

Germany was a major European military power. Iran is a regional power
of limited capacity, even if they got a small nuclear arsenol. They
could easily be wiped out and defeated if they tried to use it.

Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany in the thirties earns a grade of F.
Apparently the reference to special ed referred to the program John D.
is studying.
John D.
2006-04-22 13:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Does it matter? Obviously, to you, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.
Obviously, you just can't think. I normally don't do this but since this is
special ed. I'll explain it to you. I was comparing the Iranian leadership
to Hitler because they're saying the same thing. Hitler was serious and went
for it; I think these guys are just, if not more serious than Hitler.
Now, of course, if you agree with the Iranian leadership then that's a whole
different situation. So, what is it Matt, do you agree with these guys,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hashemi-Rafsanjani?
Anyone who tries comparing Iran to Hitler shows himself to be an idiot
with no understanding of history or politics.
Hitler in the thirties pretended to be the essence of statesmanship.
He insisted he had no designs to expand, and only wanted to right the
wrongs of the Versailles treaty. He said he was like Bismarck,
challenging the system only to get Germany it's proper place.
The British conservatives' policy of appeasement was meant to appease
legitimate German grievances against the Versailles treaty, but not to
give Hitler everything he wanted. Many believed he was like a
Bismarck, and others saw fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Chamberlain expected war and was preparing for it, but his military
hoped it could be held off until 1943.
Germany was a major European military power. Iran is a regional power
of limited capacity, even if they got a small nuclear arsenol. They
could easily be wiped out and defeated if they tried to use it.
Nice try, F-boy. Hitler and the Iranian leadership have the exact same view
of the Jews, just as I pointed out. You, as usual, just tried to change the
subject and then toss insults.

You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?
Scott Erb
2006-04-22 13:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Nice try, F-boy. Hitler and the Iranian leadership have the exact same view
of the Jews, just as I pointed out. You, as usual, just tried to change the
subject and then toss insults.
God, you are dumb. No, Hitler had a very different view of Jews than
the Iranians. In fact, there are Christians, Jews and Zorastrians
living in Iran. They oppose the existence of Israel, claiming that the
Jews there are really European colonizers who stole the land from the
Arabs. They of course can't do anything about it. They know Israel
could wipe them off the map. Your error is that, scared chicken little
you are, you take the most bombastic rhetoric and think that's all you
need to know to make policy. Anwar Sadat once said Israel shouldn't
exist either.

But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear. You
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
John D.
2006-04-22 16:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Nice try, F-boy. Hitler and the Iranian leadership have the exact same view
of the Jews, just as I pointed out. You, as usual, just tried to change the
subject and then toss insults.
God, you are dumb. No, Hitler had a very different view of Jews than
the Iranians. In fact, there are Christians, Jews and Zorastrians
living in Iran. They oppose the existence of Israel, claiming that the
Jews there are really European colonizers who stole the land from the
Arabs. They of course can't do anything about it. They know Israel
could wipe them off the map. Your error is that, scared chicken little
you are, you take the most bombastic rhetoric and think that's all you
need to know to make policy. Anwar Sadat once said Israel shouldn't
exist either.
But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear. You
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
You snipped this:

You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?

And tried to change the subject again. Answer the questions, Erb.
chris.holt
2006-04-22 19:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear. You
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?
And tried to change the subject again. Answer the questions, Erb.
Questions like that are so trivial and tedious that it's
obvious you only ask them to spread noise, like spam.
Why do you want to reduce the signal to noise ratio?
Answer the question, as you've asked Scott to do.
--
***@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
Scott Erb
2006-04-22 22:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris.holt
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear. You
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?
And tried to change the subject again. Answer the questions, Erb.
Questions like that are so trivial and tedious that it's
obvious you only ask them to spread noise, like spam.
Why do you want to reduce the signal to noise ratio?
Answer the question, as you've asked Scott to do.
I guess since he can't defend his position with reason and evidence, he
figures if he can try to hint someone is anti-semitic that will be a
winner. The trouble is, when such accusations are thrown around so
loosely it only helps the real anti-semites, by weakening the nature of
such attacks. But, I think that's all he has.
Scott Erb
2006-04-22 22:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Nice try, F-boy. Hitler and the Iranian leadership have the exact same
view
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
of the Jews, just as I pointed out. You, as usual, just tried to change
the
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
subject and then toss insults.
God, you are dumb. No, Hitler had a very different view of Jews than
the Iranians. In fact, there are Christians, Jews and Zorastrians
living in Iran. They oppose the existence of Israel, claiming that the
Jews there are really European colonizers who stole the land from the
Arabs. They of course can't do anything about it. They know Israel
could wipe them off the map. Your error is that, scared chicken little
you are, you take the most bombastic rhetoric and think that's all you
need to know to make policy. Anwar Sadat once said Israel shouldn't
exist either.
But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear. You
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?
And tried to change the subject again. Answer the questions, Erb.
Note: I've proven you wrong about your comparison with Hitler, I've
explained why you're wrong about bombing Iran being a good idea, or
Iran being a threat.

You've not been able to answer those points, you've avoided them. All
you can do is post some silly claim about the destruction of Israel.
The Iranians can't destroy Israel without destroying themselves, and
they know it. Moreover, it's not the job of American foreign policy to
defend Israel. Israel can handle that job just fine.

Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
John D.
2006-04-22 23:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Nice try, F-boy. Hitler and the Iranian leadership have the exact same
view
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
of the Jews, just as I pointed out. You, as usual, just tried to change
the
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
subject and then toss insults.
God, you are dumb. No, Hitler had a very different view of Jews than
the Iranians. In fact, there are Christians, Jews and Zorastrians
living in Iran. They oppose the existence of Israel, claiming that the
Jews there are really European colonizers who stole the land from the
Arabs. They of course can't do anything about it. They know Israel
could wipe them off the map. Your error is that, scared chicken little
you are, you take the most bombastic rhetoric and think that's all you
need to know to make policy. Anwar Sadat once said Israel shouldn't
exist either.
But if you want to give them their Pearl Harbor through an act of
blatant aggression, then you'll create the kind of thing you fear.
You
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
are driven by fear to seek your own destruction. I pity you.
You get an F for comprehension, only because it's the lowest marking
available. I do have a question for you though, why do you want to see the
Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it or what?
And tried to change the subject again. Answer the questions, Erb.
Note: I've proven you wrong about your comparison with Hitler, I've
explained why you're wrong about bombing Iran being a good idea, or
Iran being a threat.
You haven't proved anything except that you won't answer a direct question.
Post by Scott Erb
You've not been able to answer those points, you've avoided them. All
you can do is post some silly claim about the destruction of Israel.
It is not *my* claim, Erb. It is Irans claim and you refuse to deal with it
by changing the subject.
Post by Scott Erb
The Iranians can't destroy Israel without destroying themselves, and
they know it. Moreover, it's not the job of American foreign policy to
defend Israel. Israel can handle that job just fine.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran states
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never right.

Now Erb, answer the questions:

Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it
or what?
Scott Erb
2006-04-23 00:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran states
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel. Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.

Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense, where are you
getting this stuff?

In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You lack reason. That
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never right.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the one I just posed
to you.
John D.
2006-04-23 02:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran states
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel. Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense, where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.

"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if
necessary to defend Israel."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You lack reason. That
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never right.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on it
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any problem in saying I don't
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you say that? Well....
2381 Dead
2006-04-23 15:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel. Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense, where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
And you think a religious moron in the White House has the power to
unilaterally and capriciously make treaties?
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You lack reason. That
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any problem in saying I don't
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you say that? Well....
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Scott Erb
2006-04-23 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel. Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense, where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
The US has no guarantee to defend Israel. Bush is stating his personal
policy in this particular instance.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You lack reason. That
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any problem in saying I don't
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you say that? Well....
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on
her? I have no problem saying that I don't want to see you beat your
wife. Why can't you say that? Well...

Nobody wants to see any country destroyed. Your claim I do is part of
your inherent dishonesty.

But it looks like the rhetoric about war against Iran has cooled. The
US has focused on stressing diplomacy, the Chinese and Russians have
given very explicit warnings to the US, and top military thinkers have
also noted that an attack, especially nuclear, would be folly. So your
fear driven desire to have us attack doesn't look likely to happen.

Go hide under your bed and quiver in fear.
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-23 16:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have
posted where Iran
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear
war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical
cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel.
Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a
quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth,
no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense,
where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the
nuclear dispute
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use
military might" if
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
The US has no guarantee to defend Israel. Bush is stating
his personal
policy in this particular instance.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You
lack reason. That
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't
you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear
that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel?
Do you have money on
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large
insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the
one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any
problem in saying I don't
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you
say that? Well....
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance
policy on
her? I have no problem saying that I don't want to see
you beat your
wife. Why can't you say that? Well...
Nobody wants to see any country destroyed. Your claim I
do is part of
your inherent dishonesty.
But it looks like the rhetoric about war against Iran has
cooled. The
US has focused on stressing diplomacy, the Chinese and
Russians have
given very explicit warnings to the US, and top military
thinkers have
also noted that an attack, especially nuclear, would be
folly. So your
fear driven desire to have us attack doesn't look likely
to happen.
Go hide under your bed and quiver in fear.
You want him to adopt your policy toward your
car bombing pals in Iraq, Scott?

Iran will either stop its nuclear weapons
development (i.e., its uranium enrichment
program) or the U.S. will stop it for
Iran.

And the Russians and the Chinese will lodge
a protest with the U.S. embassy when its
over.
John D.
2006-04-23 16:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have posted where Iran
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out nuclear war with Israel.
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel. Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense, where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
The US has no guarantee to defend Israel. Bush is stating his personal
policy in this particular instance.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You lack reason.
That
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything, aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel? Do you have money on
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on her
or something? Your question is just as valid as the one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any problem in saying I don't
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you say that? Well....
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance policy on
her? I have no problem saying that I don't want to see you beat your
wife. Why can't you say that? Well...
Nobody wants to see any country destroyed. Your claim I do is part of
your inherent dishonesty.
But it looks like the rhetoric about war against Iran has cooled. The
US has focused on stressing diplomacy, the Chinese and Russians have
given very explicit warnings to the US, and top military thinkers have
also noted that an attack, especially nuclear, would be folly. So your
fear driven desire to have us attack doesn't look likely to happen.
Go hide under your bed and quiver in fear.
Typical goosestepper.
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-23 16:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have
posted where
Iran
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out
nuclear war with
Israel.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some
radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel.
Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a
quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no
wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense,
where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve
the nuclear
dispute
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would
"use military
might" if
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
The US has no guarantee to defend Israel. Bush is
stating his personal
policy in this particular instance.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You
lack reason.
That
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything,
aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear
that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel?
Do you have
money on
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large
insurance policy on
her
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
or something? Your question is just as valid as the
one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any
problem in saying I
don't
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you
say that?
Well....
Post by Scott Erb
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance
policy on
her? I have no problem saying that I don't want to see
you beat your
wife. Why can't you say that? Well...
Nobody wants to see any country destroyed. Your claim I
do is part of
your inherent dishonesty.
But it looks like the rhetoric about war against Iran has
cooled. The
US has focused on stressing diplomacy, the Chinese and
Russians have
given very explicit warnings to the US, and top military
thinkers have
also noted that an attack, especially nuclear, would be
folly. So your
fear driven desire to have us attack doesn't look likely
to happen.
Go hide under your bed and quiver in fear.
Typical goosestepper.
Scott's a spokesman for Tehran now. It's not
fair to bring up his German roots.
John D.
2006-04-23 18:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
America has granted Israel their defense and I have
posted where
Iran
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
states
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
clearly they feel they can survive an all out
nuclear war with
Israel.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Bullshit. I think you posted one quote by some
radical cleric. They
know they can't survive a nuclear attack from Israel.
Their generals
are not idiots. They know their country would be a
quivering mass of
radioactive crap, and they'd have no power, no
wealth, no place in the
regional power structure.
Also, the US has not guaranted Israel their defense,
where are you
getting this stuff?
You're just an idiot, Erb...totally.
"US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve
the nuclear
dispute
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would
"use military
might" if
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
necessary to defend Israel."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
The US has no guarantee to defend Israel. Bush is
stating his personal
policy in this particular instance.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, all you have is fear and emotion. You
lack reason.
That
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
is why you are so confused and impotent.
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Gee, you're wrong on just about everything,
aren't you?
You're wrong about that but it is abundantly clear
that you're never
right.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Why do you want to see the Iranians destroy Israel?
Do you have
money on
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
it
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
or what?
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large
insurance policy on
her
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
or something? Your question is just as valid as the
one I just posed
to you.
Not the same, no, not at all Erb. I don't have any
problem in saying I
don't
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
want to see the Iranians destroy Israel. why can't you
say that?
Well....
Post by Scott Erb
Why do you beat your wife? Do you have a large insurance
policy on
her? I have no problem saying that I don't want to see
you beat your
wife. Why can't you say that? Well...
Nobody wants to see any country destroyed. Your claim I
do is part of
your inherent dishonesty.
But it looks like the rhetoric about war against Iran has
cooled. The
US has focused on stressing diplomacy, the Chinese and
Russians have
given very explicit warnings to the US, and top military
thinkers have
also noted that an attack, especially nuclear, would be
folly. So your
fear driven desire to have us attack doesn't look likely
to happen.
Go hide under your bed and quiver in fear.
Typical goosestepper.
Scott's a spokesman for Tehran now. It's not
fair to bring up his German roots.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching? They're reminiscent
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the Feldherrnhalle. A loyalty
thing you know.

These videos obviously have Erb both excited and confused. I'm thinking of
sending some of these up to Maine:
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152

If, his urges become clinical.
Scott Erb
2006-04-23 18:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching? They're reminiscent
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the Feldherrnhalle. A loyalty
thing you know.
These videos obviously have Erb both excited and confused. I'm thinking of
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152
If, his urges become clinical.
Poor scared little boy, you had your butt whomped in the argument, and
so you end up with such impotent little attacks.

You can't respond to the arguments that not only I, but many military
experts and policy analysts make about Iran so you just fall into the
"he supports the enemy" empty and impotent propaganda. Oh well, you're
harmless.
John D.
2006-04-23 19:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching? They're reminiscent
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the Feldherrnhalle. A loyalty
thing you know.
These videos obviously have Erb both excited and confused. I'm thinking of
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152
If, his urges become clinical.
Poor scared little boy, you had your butt whomped in the argument, and
so you end up with such impotent little attacks.
Must be clinical already as not one of your non-points or non-answers was
even valid to the topic.

Do you need a uniform too?
Scott Erb
2006-04-23 21:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching? They're
reminiscent
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the Feldherrnhalle. A
loyalty
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
thing you know.
These videos obviously have Erb both excited and confused. I'm thinking
of
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152
If, his urges become clinical.
Poor scared little boy, you had your butt whomped in the argument, and
so you end up with such impotent little attacks.
Must be clinical already as not one of your non-points or non-answers was
even valid to the topic.
Do you need a uniform too?
You describe yourself, you poor paranoid fool. You ignored the list of
arguments concerning why Iran is not as dangerous as you think, why the
policy of attacking would be counter productive, what policies could
work, and why your delusion about some kind of war with Islam (a
delusion you share with your soul mate, Osama bin Laden) is incorrect.
You ignore all of that, and then just call names and sound full of
fear. I feel sorry for you.

Happy (Orthodox) Easter!
Martin McPhillips
2006-04-23 19:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching?
They're reminiscent
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the
Feldherrnhalle. A loyalty
thing you know.
These videos obviously have Erb both excited and
confused. I'm thinking of
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152
If, his urges become clinical.
Poor scared little boy, you had your butt whomped in the
argument,
I didn't follow the exchange very closely,
Scott, but from what I could tell nothing
of the kind happened.

You appeared to be arguing that nuclear
deterrence would prevent Iran from using
nuclear weapons that you appear, again,
to be conceding to them. Your argument
seems to be that deterrence has worked
with states A and B, so it would certainly
work with state C (Iran), but that
hardly takes into account Iran's status
as a terror state that has successfully
outsourced terror for a quarter century
without paying any price for it.

And it also doesn't take into account
what Iran might try to get away with
by virtue of having nuclear weapons.

Nor does it take into account that
the Iranians are, for lack of a better
word, international rubes as well as
rogues, who are additionally fanatics.

So, in your new job as a spokesman
for Tehran (I guess it will be onward
to Poyngyang for you after this gig)
you've really done only the job of the
very lowest level PR guy, telling us
all how sensible your wonderful new
client is, even as your client is
out there threatening the "annihilation"
of another country.

"Oh, silly boy, don't you understand
that our friends in Tehran understand
that we understand that they understand
that no one ever actually uses nuclear
weapons because it will lead to
destruction."

If they understand that little game
so well then they should understand
that one doesn't go around using the
terms "annihilation" and "in a single
storm" the same week one boasts of
entering the nuclear club. It reflects
badly on the little game.

So, no, you didn't "whomp" anyone in
any argument.

And...

and
Post by Scott Erb
so you end up with such impotent little attacks.
You can't respond to the arguments that not only I, but
many military
experts and policy analysts make about Iran so you just
fall into the
"he supports the enemy" empty and impotent propaganda. Oh
well, you're
harmless.
...Scott, you really do come off as
an irritable hairdresser more often than
you should feel comfortable with.
nevermore
2006-04-23 21:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by John D.
Have you seen the videos of the Iranian troops marching? They're reminiscent
of the parades at the Odeonsplatz in front of the Feldherrnhalle. A loyalty
thing you know.
These videos obviously have Erb both excited and confused. I'm thinking of
http://www.colbubbie.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=152
If, his urges become clinical.
Poor scared little boy, you had your butt whomped in the argument, and
so you end up with such impotent little attacks.
<LOL> Erb subscribes to the "I'll declare myself the winner"
philosophy.
Post by Scott Erb
You can't respond to the arguments that not only I, but many military
experts and policy analysts make about Iran so you just fall into the
"he supports the enemy" empty and impotent propaganda. Oh well, you're
harmless.
irony anyone?
Matt
2006-04-22 13:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great
degree
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable
perhaps
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and
was
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews
primarily
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then,
among
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I
suppose
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
that
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is
probably
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry
within
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples
into
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
a
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of
the
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
world
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the
destruction
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
of
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
the Jewish race in Europe."
Er, this is comparable to... WHAT?
I expected as much. I find it interesting that you snipped the credit to
Hitler for his January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech. Since you went that
far,
Post by Matt
Post by John D.
why didn't you just substitute Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or maybe,
Hashemi-Rafsanjani.
Does it matter? Obviously, to you, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.
Obviously, you just can't think. I normally don't do this but since this is
special ed. I'll explain it to you. I was comparing the Iranian leadership
to Hitler because they're saying the same thing. Hitler was serious and went
for it; I think these guys are just, if not more serious than Hitler.
They are saying the same thing? Hitler wanted to take over the world,
needed
a scapegoat, and blamed the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and political
enemies he wanted to get rid of. When, pray tell, do you think that the
Iranians
have tried to do this?

You make little or no sense, you know.
Post by John D.
Now, of course, if you agree with the Iranian leadership then that's a whole
different situation. So, what is it Matt, do you agree with these guys,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hashemi-Rafsanjani?
Ah, yes, the typical strawman argument. You don't agree with ME, thus
you
MUST agree with them, since there cannot be any other alternatives.
Welcome
to the real world, sonny.

Matt
Post by John D.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Jeffrey Turner
2006-04-23 23:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too
many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
That was a new one on me, too.
Is that "like" MIT or RPI, only different?
Maybe it's a European thing.
But whatever it is, it gave him more "expertise" than he
can even express.
Hmm, yes, I noticed. Here's something that doesn't take a great degree of
"And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable perhaps
not only for us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was
generally laughed at. During my struggle for power, the Jews primarily
received with laughter my prophecies that I would someday assume the
leadership of the state and thereby of the entire nation and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose that
meanwhile the laughter of Jewry in Germany that resounded then is probably
already choking in their throats.
Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within
Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a
world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world
and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of
the Jewish race in Europe."
Adolph Hitler
January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech
Why are Republicans quoting Hitler? Could it be their desire
for world conquest? Today Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow Iran?

Or is it the demonization of a Semitic religious group they
find themselves drawn to?

--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Scott Erb
2006-04-24 00:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Turner
Post by John D.
January 30, 1939, Reichstag speech
Why are Republicans quoting Hitler? Could it be their desire
for world conquest? Today Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow Iran?
Or is it the demonization of a Semitic religious group they
find themselves drawn to?
Good point -- the way some speak of Muslims is reminiscient of the way
Jews were demonized by Hitler. Treat them as a collective and use
that as a rationalization to kill mass numbers and launch aggressive
attacks.

Also, the US clearly has undertaken the role of an aggressive,
militarist state trying to radically alter the system. In the past,
the US has tried to pursue a realist line to guarantee systemic
stability. They want to lead us down a dangerous path, one that
ultimately is contrary to our core values as a nation.

Matt
2006-04-22 02:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D.
(snip)
Post by Matt
In fact, I have lots of expertise on the subject. Way too many years
at an energy college. But, I wasn't asked, you were.
An "energy college" ?
WTF is that?
My history is available on the Internet, feel free to look it up.

I went to the Colorado School of Mines, the foremost school of
mineral engineering and energy in the country.

Any OTHER stupid questions?

Matt
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...