Iran Enriches Uranium- Now's the Time to Strike

[MadMike]

No surprises, but Iran just announced it has enriched it's first samples of uranium. :down:
For those who don't know, "enriched uranium" is the material that was used in the Little Boy atomic bomb. This simple gun type design was modified over the years into a smaller nuclear artillery shell (W33) and man portable nuclear device, the T-4 Atomic Demolition Munition (albeit by a two man team). The Soviets also had a similar ADM. :|\

Satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facilities can be viewed here-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/facility.htm

Yours, Mike

Bookmarks-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/index.html

[Skybird]

Oh my God, doomsday is just one day ahead, the sky is falling, we must strike immediately, or we all will be lost...!!! (compare to 2003: "The memo shows that Iraq now has the capability to equip a missile with biological or nuclear material and strike london with only 35 minutes prewarning")


Iran said it had operated 164 centrifuges, creating the cascade required to achieve "industrial output" of enriched uranium.

But the process would only create the low-level enrichment needed for nuclear fuel.

Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to create the highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons.

Experts say Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4902178.stm

So they have mastered one more step in a longer chain of technical developement, what a surprise. The material they can create by that (so far we only have their word for that, btw.) IS NOT sufficient to build nuclear bombs with it. It is the type of material needed in nuclear powerplants. If they currently can produce even the quantities needed for powerplants - this news does not say, it only says they now know how to do it, and that they have tested successfully their setup. doing something in an experiemntal lab, and doing it so that it produces industrial quantities is seme0thing different. Without doubt they will get there - and still would be years away from producing material that could be sued in weapons technology. An Uran-bomb or even a plutonium bomb needs further refinement of this material. There is no indication whatever that they still are not years away from acchieving that. Months before that would be the right time to give the military a prewarning. Today - probably would be years too early.

I still wait to learn how a military strike could be successful, btw. So far, noone has lined out a plan which chances for failure does not dominate it's chances for success. Players may be satisfied by that. Politicians and militaries should not.

What I say on this? Keep a sharp eye on them, but currently no need to become hysterical. The time to strike - is not now.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

yes... now's definitely the time to strike... by all means, lets unleash a unprecedented attack on Iran... kill off the entire Iranian nation...

what would you suggest we use MMike... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

i dunno... have ya stopped to think past the immediate consequences on this move Mike... i mean, once you irradiate all the oil over there, the cost of that new set of wheels you're gonna want to buy is gonna rocket sky high...

those radiation proof fuel tanks alone are gonna cost a fortune...



--Mike

[XabbaRus]

Not to mention the fact that if the US/UK hit Iran then with the current discontent that that region has towards us will just multiply even more.

So sure keep an eye on them but not take them out.

A strike will acheive nothing but more problems for the west.

[GunnersMate]

Mount an airstrike and blame on the Israelis. ;) :yep: :up:

[micky1up]

i dont fear iran but i do fear israels reaction remebers sadams reactor that they attacked israels reaction may start a bigger war!

[TLAM Strike]

what would you suggest we use ... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

The choice is obvious: Borg Nanoprobes! :up: :hmm:

[JSLTIGER]

what would you suggest we use ... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

The choice is obvious: Borg Nanoprobes! :up: :hmm:

Um...isn't assimilation kinda antithetical to the freedom which this country espouses?

At any rate: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Oberon]

what would you suggest we use ... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

The choice is obvious: Borg Nanoprobes! :up: :hmm:

Um...isn't assimilation kinda antithetical to the freedom which this country espouses?

At any rate: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Didn't you guys know? The Borg took over America years ago!!
;)
http://toastytech.com/evil/billborg_sm.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

what would you suggest we use ... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

The choice is obvious: Borg Nanoprobes! :up: :hmm:

Um...isn't assimilation kinda antithetical to the freedom which this country espouses?

At any rate: :rotfl: :rotfl: Actually according to the writers the Borg were meant to represent America, in how we "Assimilate" everyone in to our culture, and can’t be stopped by conventional means.


I wonder if Tribbles could be considered a Biological Weapon? :hmm: I say we drop thousands of them on Iran.

[August]

what would you suggest we use ... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

The choice is obvious: Borg Nanoprobes! :up: :hmm:

Um...isn't assimilation kinda antithetical to the freedom which this country espouses?

At any rate: :rotfl: :rotfl: Actually according to the writers the Borg were meant to represent America, in how we "Assimilate" everyone in to our culture, and can’t be stopped by conventional means.


I wonder if Tribbles could be considered a Biological Weapon? :hmm: I say we drop thousands of them on Iran.

Nah they'll just strap little belts filled with explosives to 'em and get the Chinese to sell them to our kids at Christmas.

[Etienne]

Not to mention the fact that if the US/UK hit Iran then with the current discontent that that region has towards us will just multiply even more.

So sure keep an eye on them but not take them out.

A strike will acheive nothing but more problems for the west.

Not to mention that the sudden collapse of security and governmental structures, as in Iraq, would only give terrorists more access to that nuclear material. If one of the engineers, technician or janitor is slightly terror-happy, or cash hungry, he might grab a suitcase and run when the bombs start falling...

[Torplexed]

Iranian uranium drives me insanium.

Everybody say that three times fast. :D

[Ducimus]

I found this article an intresting read:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139610/


Is President Bush or anyone else in a position of power truly, seriously thinking about dropping nuclear bombs on a country that poses no direct threat to the United States, possesses no nuclear weapons of its own, and isn't likely to for at least a few years? Pre-emptive war—attacking a country to keep it from attacking us or an ally—is sometimes justifiable. Preventive war—attacking a country to keep it from developing a capability to attack an ally sometime in the future—almost never is. And preventive war waged with nuclear weapons is (not to put too fine a spin on it) crazy.

The only time the United States ever used nuclear weapons, in 1945, was at the end of a world war that had been raging for years. And at the time, the bombing was seen as an alternative to an invasion of the Japanese mainland that might have killed hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. In the 60 years since, the world has declared and observed a clear threshold between the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons. To violate that threshold—for a purpose that falls far short of pre-empting an imminent threat or protecting our national survival—would not only be immoral; it would incite outrage across the Middle East and the Muslim world; it would inspire vast recruitment drives by anti-American terrorists (and any resulting sequels to 9/11 would be seen, even by our friends, as just deserts); and it would legitimize nuclear weapons as everyday tools of warfare and spur many nations into building their own arsenals, if just to anticipate and match their neighbors' impending arsenals.

In short, it would be a disaster of head-spinning proportions.

[martes86]

Iranian uranium drives me insanium.

Everybody say that three times fast. :D

Oh... complicated... :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

America would be alot better off in fact the world would be if it just butted out and kept its big ore out of forign climbs.

But they dont and i agree that iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors for power then maybe.

[Iceman]

America would be alot better off in fact the world would be if it just butted out and kept its big ore out of forign climbs.

But they dont and i agree that iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors for power then maybe.

Your statement says says in a nut shell to me... I am a big wimp and don't have the nut sac to step up to the pump and do what "I know is right" so I'll cower in the back of the crowd and throw stones at the ones who do have the ballz....your pathetic Kap.

[Kapitan]

America has poked its nose in many a time in forign affairs only to get it smacked out of joint.

I dont sit back im normaly up front, i have no issue with america going to war in iran as i do agree that they shouldnt have any nuclear material.

But america going to war in iraq was plain stupid popularity levels for both presidents have never stooped so low.

I wouldnt say sit back and throw stones i aint they kind of person i like to be the problem in your face up front nose to nose, not half a mile back going should we shouldnt we.

If you cant accept another persons views then dont come to the forum, we all have a right of free speech and also say roughly what we want, i can understand that your a patriot but so am i.

But tell me thiss was iraq realy worth the hundreds of deaths based wholey on a bunch of lies that a bunch of imcompetent wa*kers made up just so some little retard we call bush can go to war?

WAS IT WORTH IT ?

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

i think that the first war was entirely justified... the Iraqi armed move into the territories of Kuwait, constituted a strategic threat, a clearly identifiable and present one at that, not only to an ally of the US, but to the strategic interests of this nation, to the stability (?) of the region, and to the all precious supply of oil...

they wrote their own ticket to that movie... and all hell should've been unleashed upon the Iraqi military forces and the Iraqi regime at that time... this latest action is sheer folly though... and the public relations attempt to justify it is almost embarrassing...

the eventual outcome will surely be one of shock and awe...

read winning the peace by ret gen zinni... he has served... honorably...

his comments...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

view his his interview on the same page...

yeah, i stand up and applaud this guy...


(the borg... rotflmao :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: good one)

--Mike

[Konovalov]

read winning the peace by ret gen zinni... he has served... honorably...

his comments...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

view his his interview on the same page...

yeah, i stand up and applaud this guy...


(the borg... rotflmao :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: good one)

--Mike

I'm sure there will be many attempts to discredit the guy and not his arguments as is the way things seem to operate over there. there probably will be some kiddy porn allegations, or he is only out to sell a book, or he is a bitter old man ra ra ra. I agree with what you have to say on this one.

[The Avon Lady]

Mount an airstrike and blame on the Israelis. ;) :yep: :up:
Just for that, in protest, I have told my kids to put their long range jetpacks back in the storage room.

That'll teach yas.

[MadMike]

Hysterical Mike "Red October" Hense writes-

"yes... now's definitely the time to strike... by all means, lets unleash a unprecedented attack on Iran... kill off the entire Iranian nation...

what would you suggest we use MMike... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

i dunno... have ya stopped to think past the immediate consequences on this move Mike... i mean, once you irradiate all the oil over there, the cost of that new set of wheels you're gonna want to buy is gonna rocket sky high..."

You obviously didn't bother to fully read my post. Who said anything about using nukes?
The facts are obvious and clear. Iranian nuclear facilities must be put out of order, and the quicker the better (whether it's the Israeli Air Force or USN/USAF).

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

read winning the peace by ret gen zinni... he has served... honorably...

his comments...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

view his his interview on the same page...

yeah, i stand up and applaud this guy...


(the borg... rotflmao :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: good one)

--Mike

I'm sure there will be many attempts to discredit the guy and not his arguments as is the way things seem to operate over there. there probably will be some kiddy porn allegations, or he is only out to sell a book, or he is a bitter old man ra ra ra. I agree with what you have to say on this one.

Zinni, a book, and co-authored with Tom Clancy, well, the military books (not the novels) by Tom Clancy surely are not the kind of literature I would trust blindly, but the book Clancy co-authored with ret. gen. Fred Franks (Into The Storm) was spectacularly good - in those chapters that had been written by Franks himself, concerning the matter I see it as a mandatory reading. If Zinni also had written the deciding chapters himself, I might be willing to spend money for this book as well.

[Ducimus]

America has poked its nose in many a time in forign affairs only to get it smacked out of joint.


Im going to use this opportunity to be a little angry. Do we stick our noses in alot of things? Yup. I'd never deny or disagree with that. As a serviceman, ive been in far too many place, most of which id never care to see, nor see again. I do not see my country as being victimzed (IE, "Poor us! waaahh"), nor the great guardian of "freedom" (its become a meangless rhetorical buzzword now, and hearing it makes my gut wrench)... but.....

We are damned if we do, and w'ere damned if we don't. In so many facets of the world community, there is alot expected of us. Foreign aid, UN support, etc. Im not very well versed in the details, i only know that if we were to withdrawl all support, from the global community, there would be probably an almost equal outry as sending troops to some islamic rathole like iraq or afganistan.

The people ive met in this world, up front, they seem to like your money and what your presence can do for their economy, but the instant you turn your back their quick to sink a knife into it. "welcome" on one hand, and "F**k you GI" on the other. Yes i'm bitter. Korea's a great example of that. Personnaly i wish we'd withdraw ALL of our troops, my hope is those bastards resume their civil war and blow themselves to bits, and id laugh, without the slightest twinge of guilt over feeling the way i do. I think illl add Iraq to that list too. They can all go to hell.

To summerize my bitterness, if there were a president to have this as his campaing platorm,

http://bvml.org/webmaster/patton.html
i would vote for him and not bat an eyelash about it:







a*kers made up just so some little retard we call bush can go to war?

WAS IT WORTH IT ?

What do you think genius? Depends on who you ask. American opinion is divided on this issue. Personnaly im not into the blame game. Too late for that horse**** now. Was it worth it or who's responsible doesnt mean crap right now. The only thing that does matter is, What are we going to do about it. I have friends/comrades still in uniform over there, and if i was still in, id be over there too. Life sucks as a combat engineer.





as an aside, my apologies ahead of time for this tangent rant of a post. The simmering teapot boiled over so to speak.

[Kapitan]

The was it worth it question was directed soley at iceman, but thankyou for answering :D

[The Avon Lady]

Cox & Forkum hit the mark again:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7215/08eh.gif

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Hysterical Mike "Red October" Hense writes-

if anyone's hysterical, it's you... just look at the title of your topic...

STRIKE NOW!!!!

do you have any idea whatsoever how long it would take them to make enough enriched, weapons grade uranium, to be able to produce even a small nuclear bomb...

you don't know one single fact about what you are babbling about... yet you are ready to set defcon1 and flush the bombers...

... and yet you have the audacity to call someone else hysterical :doh:

educate yourself...

The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast?
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) March 27, 2006

..........
..........

Recent comments by US officials about Iran’s timeline to nuclear weapons differ from official, community-wide US intelligence assessments. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 2, 2006, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, stated that Iran is judged as probably having neither a nuclear weapon nor the necessary fissile material for a weapon. He added that if Iran continues on its current path, it “will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." The basis for this estimate remains classified, although press reports state that Iran’s lack of knowledge and experience in running large numbers of centrifuges is an important consideration. Most interpret Negroponte’s remark to mean that Iran will need 5-10 years before it possesses nuclear weapons. (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irancascade.pdf).

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 5, 2006

............
............
Estimates of just when Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon range from alarmist views of only a few months to roughly 15 years. American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb. Most forecasters acknowledge that secret Iranian advances or black market purchases could produce a technological surprise.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Iran and the Bomb, View From Moscow

March 23, 2006
RIA Novosti news agency.
United Press International

............
............

Q. Back to Iran. Can it ultimately create a nuclear weapon?

A. Of course, it can. Any highly developed country can do this, it's available on the Internet, if you like. The truth is that one needs much money and time. In the case of Iran, I think, they will do it in five to 10 years. I mean, they will be able to build a basic nuclear weapon. This weapon will not be as modern as Russian or American, but it does not matter --

these people, who, by the way, have a very good idea about what they are talking about, seem to think that STRIKING em NOW might be just a lil premature...

yup... you seem to be the hysterical one here...

ignorance... that is the only basis for you alarmist post... ignorance of any fact, extrapolation of fact, or anything resembling fact, from which to draw a rational opinion...

you can join the cartoon girl above, and open your eyes wide shut as well...

--Mike

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4908948.stm

[Abraham]

@ All:
Let's keep the discussions civil, let's not call names and let's not provoke other forum members.

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)

[The Avon Lady]

Snippets:
The Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Isfahan has continued to operate since its restart in August 2005, following the breakdown in the suspension. By late February 2006, Iran had produced about 85 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride, where the quantity refers to uranium mass. With roughly 5 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride needed to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, this stock represents enough natural uranium hexafluoride for over 15 nuclear weapons. Although this uranium hexafluoride contains impurities that can interfere with the operation of centrifuges and reduce their output, most IAEA experts believe that Iran can overcome this problem and believe this problem has been overblown in the media. Iran is known to be working to improve the purity of its uranium hexafluoride. If necessary, Iran could use its existing stock of impure material, if it had no other material. It could take additional steps to purify this uranium hexafluoride, or it could use the material in its own centrifuges and experience reduced output and a higher centrifuge failure rate.
Given another year to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, where some inefficiencies in the plant are expected, and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be small enough to be deliverable by a ballistic missile.
Conclusion

The international community needs to be committed to a diplomatic solution in an agreement whereby Iran voluntarily forswears having any deployed enrichment capability. Looking at a timeline of at least three years before Iran could have weapons capability means that there is still time to pursue aggressive diplomatic
and time for measures such as sanctions to have an effect, if they become necessary.

It is vital to understand what Iran has accomplished, what it still has to learn, will reach a point when a plan to pursue nuclear weapons covertly or openly succeed more quickly than the international community could react. Although estimates include significant uncertainties, they reinforce the view that Iran
foreswear any deployed enrichment capability and accept adequate inspections. Otherwise, we risk a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region.
- The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast? (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/clockticking.pdf), by David Albright (http://www.isis-online.org/about/staff/dalbright.html) and Corey Hinderstein (http://www.isis-online.org/about/staff/chinderstein.html), Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), March 27, 2006

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

from your own quotes...

Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009

you should be able to do the math avon, madmike... 2009-2006=how much longer than NOW that everyone has...

ample time in which to take whatever action... after rationally, taking all factors into account... they even say the same thing above...

Looking at a timeline of at least three years before Iran could have weapons capability means that there is still time to pursue aggressive diplomatic
and time for measures such as sanctions to have an effect, if they become necessary.

--Mike

[MadMike]

I have a little bit more insight into the subject matter than most people on this forum (I only worked on nuclear weapons for over a decade). Care to educate us?

I suppose in your eyes, the Israeli Osirak strike was unjustified. The question is not if or when the Iranians will have enrichment facilities on line, but how much weapons grade material they already possess.

Given the fact that Ahmadinijad once again threatened Isreal with annihilation, the facts speak for themselves.

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

I have a little bit more insight into the subject matter than most people on this forum (I only worked on nuclear weapons for over a decade). Care to educate us? that makes you an expert on what... the guidance contained in the targeting packages... the policy on first use... the physicist who knows the results of radiation contamination as a result of such use...

or maybe it was your expertise on the production of enriched uranium that made you jump up and shout STRIKE NOW... surely you inexhaustable expertise must've deduced that Iran as obtaining tons of the stuff overnight as to make them a credible and present threat...

aaahhhhhh :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: this is almost too comical... you must be stringing me along on one long joke line... surely noone could be as serious about this as you appear to be...

hey... i still have my gun card and training certifs (and a few other papers) which were required by me in my job, as we transported nukes and nuc materials throughout the european theatre during the 70s... yet you don't see me asserting myself as some nuclear expert, like you're trying to pass yourself off as... you have a bit more insight to nothing... with the possible exception of your own perceived self worth... and that is purely subjective...

i didn't see Rumsfeld or Bush calling for MadMike during any of the last couple of months... i guess they just forgot about your overwhelming expertise... right...

surely you can't expect me to take anything you say with more than a grain of salt... you are an authority on nothing except turning a few wrenches and some safety procedures...

hey, i wasn't at the SAC command post during the cold war, but i did sleep at a holiday inn the other night... that, and your grand expertise, plus 95 cents, still won't get either of us a seat on a nyc bus...

you're nobody... just like me... another nobody with an opinion...
just like me...

get used to it... there's a million of us walking around the place...

Given the fact that Ahmadinijad once again threatened Isreal with annihilation, you and him seem to be cut from pretty much the same mold... alarmist, over reactive, given to outburst of uncontrolled vociferous babbling... not much difference in his outburst, and yours STRIKE NOW!!!!, isn't that what you said...

do you seriously think that he is a representation of the entire geopolitical scene in Iran... or do you think that his is the ravings of a madman... eh, MADMike...

that was a rhetorical statement, and not a question... for why would i ask such a question of one so obviously incapable of answering it...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

from your own quotes...

Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009

you should be able to do the math avon, madmike... 2009-2006=how much longer than NOW that everyone has...
So? Do you want a gold star for you math abilities?

ample time in which to take whatever action... after rationally, taking all factors into account... they even say the same thing above...

Looking at a timeline of at least three years before Iran could have weapons capability means that there is still time to pursue aggressive diplomatic
and time for measures such as sanctions to have an effect, if they become necessary.

So? What do you think I quoted it for? There is indeed an opinion to keep trying diplomatic channels.

Personally, I put my money on that leading nowhere. Iran is laughing in everyone's faces.

MadMike claims to have works with/on nukes. Do you have any idea what exactly his job was before you belittle him because you were a glorified nuke delivery boy?

BTW, since no one is a greater expert than you and the article I linked to doesn't really talk about it, how long would it take Iran to produce dirty nuke bombs, not from "weapons grade" material the article is discussing. Anyone else know?

[MadMike]

Wow, you had a small arms certification card and were probably non-critical PRP certified... were you an SP or MP (or heaven forbid, an aircrew member?).
Nah, don't expect anyone in the Bush administration to consult me, why should they? My statements mirror my technical insight (of which you have absolutely none) into "special weapons".
However, I digress. I'm not the one writing incomplete sentences with innumerable exclamation points.
Neal Stevens has visited my website and can confirm what I did for a living. :|\ :know: ;)

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

then how in god's name would you jump to the wild claim that we should strike em now, merely because they've announce their intentions to go ahead with their enrichment program...

even i am aware that it would take many many months for them to aquire sufficient nuclear material to be able to make even one nuc... and that assumes them to be capable of even doing as much... and i don't have an atomic union card like you do...

then comes the development and testing of a credible mode of delivery...

naaahhhh madmike... from the statements you are making, you seem to be the last person i'd want to even be certified to get within 10 miles of any nuclear materials... much less have anything to do with the policies regarding their employment...

both of you ought to team up and write a doomsday novel... for children...

--Mike

[TteFAboB]

Credible mode of delivery. (http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/05_Nukes/05_Nuke_pics/050715.suitcase.nuke.jpg)

[MadMike]

If you have a munitions background fine, we can argue points. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss. So please feel free to list your former MOS or AFSC.

Avon Lady can verify what I did for a living (please check your PM).

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

arguement!!! why would i waste time arguing with you... you've already shown that you are prone to wild and irrational outbursts on this topic...

sorry, i've got no interest in going back and forth with someone who obviously has lil or no regard for the facts...

more rational and knowledeable people, who are a lot closer to the events than either you or i, have clearly stated their assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities... and their statements make your position on this topic, apparent for what it is... an unqualified, alarmist kneejerk reaction...

you and avon go on without me... please... go on without me...

--Mike

[Konovalov]

Oh my God, doomsday is just one day ahead, the sky is falling, we must strike immediately, or we all will be lost...!!! (compare to 2003: "The memo shows that Iraq now has the capability to equip a missile with biological or nuclear material and strike london with only 35 minutes prewarning")


Iran said it had operated 164 centrifuges, creating the cascade required to achieve "industrial output" of enriched uranium.

But the process would only create the low-level enrichment needed for nuclear fuel.

Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to create the highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons.

Experts say Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4902178.stm

So they have mastered one more step in a longer chain of technical developement, what a surprise. The material they can create by that (so far we only have their word for that, btw.) IS NOT sufficient to build nuclear bombs with it. It is the type of material needed in nuclear powerplants. If they currently can produce even the quantities needed for powerplants - this news does not say, it only says they now know how to do it, and that they have tested successfully their setup. doing something in an experiemntal lab, and doing it so that it produces industrial quantities is seme0thing different. Without doubt they will get there - and still would be years away from producing material that could be sued in weapons technology. An Uran-bomb or even a plutonium bomb needs further refinement of this material. There is no indication whatever that they still are not years away from acchieving that. Months before that would be the right time to give the military a prewarning. Today - probably would be years too early.

I still wait to learn how a military strike could be successful, btw. So far, noone has lined out a plan which chances for failure does not dominate it's chances for success. Players may be satisfied by that. Politicians and militaries should not.

What I say on this? Keep a sharp eye on them, but currently no need to become hysterical. The time to strike - is not now.

Words of sanity there Sky. The only slight quibble I have was the "35 minutes" thing. The claim in the September, 2002 dossier and to what PM Blair mentioned in his headline grabbing speech to the House of Commons was that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so. As it turned out, it was revealed later at the Hutton inquiry that the infamous "45 minute claim" wasn't as credible as had originally been thought. It was claimed to have come from a high ranking Iraqi officer within Saddams command structure. In fact internal Foreign Office documents released at the Hutton Inquiry showed that this was not the case and that the information was based on hearsay information and second hand in nature. Later Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, said of the claim: "That was said on the basis of security service information - a single source, it wasn't corroborated."

[Skybird]

35 minutes, 45 minutes - who cares. It was complete nonsens, written off from a student'S 10 years-old work, I vaguely remember. It surely was one of the biggest laughs in the attempts to justify the war.

BTW, the enrichment level they are said in the medias to have accieved is 3%. this is enough to fuel a nuclear popwer plant with it (if it is efficient operation is something different). But you need material with an enrichement level of almost 90% to build an uranium (not plutonium) bomb. For plutonium, the material needs to be additionally reprocessed - a step they have not conducted so far.

[The Avon Lady]

The UN starts to apply agressive diplomatic pressure to turn the thumbscrews on Iran:
Believe it or not: Iran becomes UN disarmament leader (http://www.eyeontheun.org/editor.asp?p=201)
Anne Bayefsky

On April 10th the UN Disarmament Commission elected Iran as one of its three Vice-Chairpersons.

Afterwards, the UN's Under Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, said the Commission "played a unique role" with "the advantage of being a fully universal deliberative body." This is the UN fiction which brings us closer to nuclear war with each passing day. The allusion is to universal democracy, though the majority of voters are non-democratic and include thugs, racists and war-mongers.

The Indonesian representative speaking for the so-called Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which holds the balance of power in all universal UN bodies, praised the Commission's importance and the UN framework. He then maintained non-proliferation should be chained to disarmament.

Bringing up the rear was the new Iranian Vice-Chairperson. Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi sought to reassure his UN comrades about Iran's disinterest in acquiring nuclear weapons by stating: "the national security of non-nuclear-weapon States was in deep jeopardy." A not-so-subtle indication of the rationale behind Iran's sprint to the nuclear arms finish-line.

Posted: Friday, April 14, 2006
That'll teach 'em!

[MadMike]

As expected, Hense. :roll: :zzz:

Reactor grade plutonium can be used in weapons, as verified in a 1960's U.S. nuclear test.

Uranium enriched above 20 percent is used in nuclear weapons.

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

As expected, Hense.
Reactor grade plutonium can be used in weapons,
what are you babbling about now mad... first of all, i didn't say anything at all about plutonium, why are you directing your post at me... you're so anxious to say something... anything... that you don't even know who you should be directing your comments to... go back and read the posts again s... l... o... w... l... y..... this time...

second... all plutonium is made in a reactor... a uranium reactor... wouldn't it seem sort of ass backwards to try and make a plutonium device that would be of significantly lower yield, and would reqire more expertise as far as handling, than to enrich uranium in facilities that they already have...

third... why go through all the trouble of producing and handling plutonium... why not just make a non nuclear 'dirty' explosive device from the spent uranium... or for that matter, from any of the radioative materials at various labs and hospitals all over the world could be used...

avon says...
That'll teach 'em!
teach em what!!! they ignore the UN imperitives at will... what's it gonna teach em :doh:

ya know... with every post you make, it becomes more clear that you know very little about what you assert to be your field of expertise... or maybe it's some irrational fear that's making you post such obvious drivel... or maybe it's something else... maybe like avon, you too are on some sort of religiously motivated crusade...

either way... the snooze alert is on... both of you are really starting get quite boring as far as this topic is concerned...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

sorry, i've got no interest in going back and forth with someone who obviously has lil or no regard for the facts...
Mike lied. People died. :zzz:
avon says...
That'll teach 'em!
teach em what!!! they ignore the UN imperitives at will... what's it gonna teach em
I was mocking the UN. Did you bother reading the 4 paragragh article I posted?

In any event, now that you say that UN "imperitives" won't teach Iran anything, what other suggestions, if any, do you have to deal with this situation? Or are you saying that the US should simply do nothing, other than perhaps aim a vast amount of their underground and sub-based nuclear tipped missiles at Iran and wait for the Iranians to shoot first? That's a possibile strategy, BTW, that no one's suggested here, if I haven't missed a post.
ya know... with every post you make, it becomes more clear that you know very little about what you assert to be your field of expertise... or maybe it's some irrational fear that's making you post such obvious drivel... or maybe it's something else... maybe like avon, you too are on some sort of religiously motivated crusade...
I never knew that trying to save one's life qualifies as a "religious crusade". Keep it up, Mike.
either way... the snooze alert is on... both of you are really starting get quite boring as far as this topic is concerned...
But you've said that already.

You just can't stay away, can you! :damn:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

I never knew that trying to save one's life qualifies as a "religious crusade". you aint tryin' to save anyone... you're incapable of even saving yourself from your own delusions, as evidenced by you viewing your position as an attempt to save anything... if anything, maybe you're trying to save own embarrassment...

You just can't stay away, can you! you'd like me to stay away, wouldn't you... that's the typical method of people like you... you say things that have no basis in fact over and over again, and it begins to be accepted as truth by the unsuspecting out there... naaahhhhhh, sorry... i'm here avon... if only to make sure that a bit or reality and factual reference is presented... the truth is here... facts are gonna show you up for the lil hateful thing that you are... deal with it...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

You just can't stay away, can you! you'd like me to stay away, wouldn't you...
On the contrary. Keep on posting here.

Go on. You know you want to.

Tell me more about my eyes. :roll:
you aint tryin' to save anyone...
So Iran isn't a dnager to anyone Mike? No humans will be harmed in giving Iran the nukes they're well on their way to developing?

You see, Mike? I want more replies from you.

Go on. You know you want to.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

So Iran isn't a dnager to anyone Mike?
now where did i say that...

go ahead... quote me... show me where i said that... anywhere, on any post in any thread...

fact... i never said that... but like i did say before, facts have no place in your dimension...

this is a perfect example of the tactics people like you use to twist the facts of a situation...
no where... no how... no way.... did i say or even imply anything remotely similar to what you just said...

it's your eyes again... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

or maybe it's your mind...

for some reason it seems that between the time that something you see enters your eyes, to the time it arrives at your 'brain'... it gets twisted around a lil... changed... morphed...

you surely are a shining result of a most effective brainwashing machine...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

So Iran isn't a dnager to anyone Mike?
now where did i say that... go ahead... quote me... show me where i said that...

this is a perfect example of the tactics people like you use to twist the facts of a situation...
no where... nohow... no way.... did i say or even imply anything remotely similar to what you just said...

it's your eyes again... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

or maybe it's your mind... for some reason it seems that between the time that something you see enters your eyes, to the time it gets mixed around in your 'brain'... it gets twisted around a lil... changed... morphed... you surely are the result of an effective brainwashing machine...

--Mike
You're a crackpot, Mike.

And yes, take that as an insult.

You first accuse me of promoting some "religious crusade". Please, quote my text here where I indicate that this has anything to uniquely do with my religion.

Then I reply that I've never known that saving one's life deafults to being a "religious crusade."

Then you come and tell me that I "aint tryin' to save anyone", in your exact words. And when I just asked you if that means you think no one's life is in danger, you retort "now where did i say that"?

I didn't claim you said it. I asked if that was your opinion.

So now it seems that you do admit that lives are in danger. Have we got that right, Mike?

Tell me Mike, is Iran possibly endangering my life?

Is Iran possibly endangering Euorpean's lives?

Is Iran possibly endagering US and maybe Canadian's lives?

Again, engage brain before typing, Mike.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

You're a crackpot, Mike.

And yes, take that as an insult.

i take it as the ravings of a sick lil mind... considering the source, it's not even worth replying to or getting upset about...

but the mods might take it a lil differently though... you've been warned once already, regarding your rabid dog outburst...

yes... you've shown that you are certainly no lady avon...

and concerning the above outburst... like i said,
show me where i said or implied anything even remotely close to what you state

you still have't done that...
you still are operating out there in the delusion dimension...



--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

and concerning the above outburst... like i said,
show me where i said or implied anything even remotely close to what you state

you still have't done that...
Once again, you don't read. I'll repeat:

I didn't claim you said it. I asked if that was your opinion.

Maybe you should stop popping those valiums, Mike.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

I didn't claim you said it. I asked if that was your opinion.


you didn't ask anything of the sort... you claimed that i already was of the opinion that Iran wasn't a threat...

your own words verify this
So Iran isn't a dnager to anyone Mike?

and you asked me to argue that position... a position which i never claimed to take, or even imply...

like i said above, your plumbing is defective... you have trouble understanding what is right in front of your eyes... your own statements verify this...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

I didn't claim you said it. I asked if that was your opinion.


you didn't ask anything of the sort... you claimed that i already was of the opinion that Iran wasn't a threat...

your own words verify this
So Iran isn't a dnager to anyone Mike?
Notice the question mark. You do know what a question mark is, don't you? There's another one!

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Notice the question mark.
do you notice i said
you asked me to argue that position... a position which i never claimed to take, or even imply...

the question mark has nothing to do with it... obviously it's a question... a question that is based on a totally false assertion by a person who cannot seem to comprehend what is right in front of them...

just like the wmds that you see in your mind... the assertion you also envision is totally without basis... another figment of your imagination...

show me where i said or implied this position before you ask me to defend it...

ahhhh, i'm wasting my time... i'm talking to a brick...
no, i'm wrong, even a brick would understand what i'm saying... obviouslyu, you can't...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Reading comprehension is a good thing, Mike. Go for it! We're all routing for ya! :rock:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

We're all routing for ya!
you should be rooting for yourself...

with this latest post, you even make it more obvious that you can't comprehend something even when it's plain and clearly laid out right before you...

i clearly explained to you, i took the time to quote and slowly explain to you, that your question was based on an incorrect assertion on your part... step by step... patiently... as one would with a child...
yet you still can't see it...

tsk... tsk... tsk... :zzz:

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

We're all routing for ya!
you should be rooting for yourself...

with this latest post, you even make it more obvious that you can't comprehend something even when it's plain and clearly laid out right before you...

i clearly explained to you, i took the time to quote and slowly explain to you, that your question was based on an incorrect assertion on your part... step by step... patiently... as one would with a child...
yet you still can't see it...

tsk... tsk... tsk... :zzz:

--Mike
Some day maybe you'll catch on. But not today.

[Takeda Shingen]

Come fa l'onda là sovra Cariddi,
che si frange con quella in cui s'intoppa,
così convien che qui la gente riddi.

Qui vid'i' gente più ch'altrove troppa,
e d'una parte e d'altra, con grand'urli,
voltando pesi per forza di poppa.

Percoteansi 'ncontro; e poscia pur lì
si rivolgea ciascun, voltando a retro,
gridando: «Perché tieni?» e «Perché burli?».

Così tornavan per lo cerchio tetro
da ogne mano a l'opposito punto,
gridandosi anche loro ontoso metro;

poi si volgea ciascun, quand'era giunto,
per lo suo mezzo cerchio a l'altra giostra.
E io, ch'avea lo cor quasi compunto,

dissi: «Maestro mio, or mi dimostra
che gente è questa, e se tutti fuor cherci
questi chercuti a la sinistra nostra».

Ed elli a me: «Tutti quanti fuor guerci
sì de la mente in la vita primaia,
che con misura nullo spendio ferci.

~Inferno, VII v. 25-42

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Some day maybe you'll catch on. But not today.


more mindless avon babbling... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

i think this thread has degenerated past any semblence of usefulness or relevancy... a long time ago...

someone please lock it up.

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

someone please lock it up.

That has been your suggestion to 2 threads you have mucked up so far.

Very open minded strategy. You can't put up so you shut 'em up.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

You can't put up so you shut 'em up.

me put up!!!!

1- show me one wmd as you claim is lying all over the place...

2- show me where i said that iran was no threat... that you assert that i proposed...

any one of em... show me any one...


you are the one in order for a lil putting up...
you're totally incoherent... yet you continue babbling... absolutely amazing

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

You can't put up so you shut 'em up.

me put up!!!!

1- show me one wmd

2- show me where i said that iran was no threat...


you are the one in order for a lil putting up...

you're totally incoherent... yet you continue babbling... amazing

--Mike
You're in a loop, Mike.

Each time you pass the starting point, take another valium.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

You're in a loop, Mike.

typical fools reply... i expected nothing more...

translated, your reply means... http://www.di.uniba.it/~malerba/activities/aivpr/hal1.jpg

i have no proof Mike... my mind is going... my mind is going Mike... i can feel... i can feel it ... i'm afraid Mike...



--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Come fa l'onda là sovra Cariddi,
che si frange con quella in cui s'intoppa,
così convien che qui la gente riddi.

Qui vid'i' gente più ch'altrove troppa,
e d'una parte e d'altra, con grand'urli,
voltando pesi per forza di poppa.

Percoteansi 'ncontro; e poscia pur lì
si rivolgea ciascun, voltando a retro,
gridando: «Perché tieni?» e «Perché burli?».

Così tornavan per lo cerchio tetro
da ogne mano a l'opposito punto,
gridandosi anche loro ontoso metro;

poi si volgea ciascun, quand'era giunto,
per lo suo mezzo cerchio a l'altra giostra.
E io, ch'avea lo cor quasi compunto,

dissi: «Maestro mio, or mi dimostra
che gente è questa, e se tutti fuor cherci
questi chercuti a la sinistra nostra».

Ed elli a me: «Tutti quanti fuor guerci
sì de la mente in la vita primaia,
che con misura nullo spendio ferci.

~Inferno, VII v. 25-42
I ran this through a web text translator. Good stuff! :up:

It's Saturday night and my daddy's up late
Pickin' with my Uncle Bill
The neighbors don't mind 'cause they have a good time
Sippin' on my pappy's still
Old brother Dan's got a fiddle in his hand
Momma's on the mandolin
When the music is right and the band gets tight
You ought-a see 'em pick and grin

[Chorus:]
And everybody starts movin'
To the sound of the guitar strums
And everybody starts groovin'
To the beat of the rhythm and drums
So come along and let yourself really go
???? while the feeling is good
Just sip that wine, have a really good time
And listen to a country song.

Old Sheriff Brown he never comes around
Knocking on the old back door.
As a matter of fact you can find him in the act
Pickin on the old banjo.
Second cousin Jack sneaks up from the back
Tries to get to sister Sue.
Well she throws him on the ground without turning around
'cause she knows a lotta jujitsu.

[Takeda Shingen]

Very well, I shall provide you with the John Ciardi translation. It preserves Dante's rhyme scheme:


Just as the surge Charybdis hurls to sea
crashes and breaks upon its countersurge,
so these shades dance and crash eternally.

Here, too, I saw a nation of lost souls,
far more than were above: they strained their chests
against enormous weights, and with mad howls

rolled them at one another. Then, in haste
they rolled them back, one party shouting out:
"Why do you hoard?" and the other: "Why do you waste?"

So back around that right they puff and blow,
each faction to its course, until they reach
opposite sides, and screaming as they go

the madmen turn and start their weights again
to crash against the maniacs. And I,
watching, felt my heart contract with pain.

"Master", I said, "what people can these be?
And all those tonsured ones there on our left--
it is possible that they were all of the clergy?"

And he: "In the first life beneath the sun
they were so skewed and squinteyed in their minds
their misering or extravagance mocked all reason.



So heavy, those boulders must be. Perhaps it is time that the two of you left them alone.

[The Avon Lady]

Very well, I shall provide you with the John Ciardi translation.
I had already read the actual translation of Canto VII.
So heavy, those boulders must be. Perhaps it is time that the two of you left them alone.
That's whay I thought a lil' country music might lighten things up.

[Takeda Shingen]

Very well, I shall provide you with the John Ciardi translation.
I had already read the actual translation of Canto VII.
So heavy, those boulders must be. Perhaps it is time that the two of you left them alone.
That's whay I thought a lil' country music might lighten things up.

My mistake on both counts. Apologies all around.

[MadMike]

My posting on U235 and Pu above was info for Skybird.
Still waiting for that MOS, AFSC, or Rating, Hense. ;)

Getting back onto the original subject, is there any reason the Israeli's shouldn't have taken out the Osirak reactor back in '81 (versus Iranian facilities today)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

Yours, Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Policy on Iran nukes seems to be off-target (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn16.html)
April 16, 2006
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you're like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the "Twelfth Imam," your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the "hidden Imam," held a press conference this week -- against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ''The 40-Year-Old Virgin,'' where they all pranced around to "This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius." As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell's 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. "Iran," he said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."

It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.

By comparison, the Tehran press has a clear-sightedness American readers can only envy. A couple of months back, the newspaper Kayhan, owned by Ayatollah Khamenei, ran an editorial called "Our Immortality And The West's Disability," with which it was hard to disagree: Even if one subscribes to the view that sanctions are a sufficient response to states that threaten to nuke their neighbors, Mohammad Jafar Behdad correctly pointed out that they would have no serious impact on Iran but would inflict greater damage on those Western economies that take them seriously (which France certainly won't).

Meanwhile, the Washington Post offers the likes of Ronald D. Asmus, former deputy assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, arguing "Contain Iran: Admit Israel to NATO." "Containment" is a word that should have died with the Cold War, and certainly after the oil-for-food revelations: Aside from the minimal bang for huge numbers of bucks, you can't "contain" a state. Under the illusion of "containment," events are always moving, and usually in favor of the fellow you're trying to contain. But the idea that the way to "contain" Iran is to admit Israel to NATO elevates "containment" from an obsolescent striped-pants reflex to the realm of insanity.

All the doom-mongers want to know why we went into Iraq "without a plan." Well, one reason is surely that, for a year before the invasion, the energy of the U.S. government was primarily devoted to the pointless tap-dance through the United Nations, culminating in the absurd situation of Western foreign ministers chasing each other through Africa to bend the ear of the president of Guinea, who happened to be on the Security Council that week but whose witch doctor had advised against supporting Washington. Allowing the Guinean tail to wag the French rectum of the British hindquarters of the American dog was a huge waste of resources. To go through it all again in order to prevent whichever global colossus chances to be on the Security Council this time (Haiti? The South Sandwich Islands?) from siding with the Russo-Chinese obstructionists would show that the United States had learned nothing.

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came -- from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African Embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

ohhh ooohhhh... here she goes again... quoting someone else, who is in turn quoting a lunatic... and then using that to ruin the HAPPY EASTER/HAPPY PASSOVER holidays by trying to instill her own insecurities and fears into everyone else...


@Mad Mike... why are you sitting there waiting for my AFSC... what significance is that gonna be... anyways, i was aircrew, loadmaster, then flight eng... what was that 654xx or 645xx... or something... it's been a while...i can go and pull the papers to check...

but why is it so important to you... and what bearing would it have on this discussion... (discussion... hah, that's a joke :dead: )

--Mike

[Skybird]

Is this thing still going on...??? :o

[Drebbel]

Better BUMP this thread, who needs a real war when we have this thread over at subsim.

:P

Any one need a THISTHISTHIS (http://webdisk.planet.nl/thijza/publiek/album/naf-fotogalerij/2002-ijsselmeerronde/2002-ijsselmeer-taart.jpg) to throw with ? That might get the smiles back in this thread.

:sunny:

[MadMike]

Latest in case anyone doesn't read the news-

Former Israeli General Warns of Pre-Emptive Strike on Iran
By Robert Berger, VOA, Jerusalem
Israel has a contingency plan for a crushing military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The revelation by a retired Israeli general has set off a political storm.

Former army Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon says Israel has the ability to launch a pre-emptive strike that could set back Iran's nuclear program for years. He said that a single attack would not be sufficient, and that Israel was not limited to air strikes, a possible reference to submarine-fired missiles. Ya'alon who ended his term as army chief last year, said Israel's anti-missile defenses would protect it from an Iranian counterattack.

His remarks set off a political storm, with government officials accusing him of giving away military secrets. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert played down the comments.

Olmert said Israel is part of an international coalition against a nuclear Iran, suggesting that the Jewish state would not act alone.

But Israel has grown increasingly alarmed about Iran's nuclear program since late October, when the Iranian president threatened to "wipe" the Jewish state "off the map." Israeli officials have said repeatedly that the U.S. and U.N. should play the lead role in confronting Iran, but Israel has expressed concern that the international community is moving too slowly.

There is a precedent for a pre-emptive strike, the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Whether or not the former army chief's comments were authorized, Israel has sent a tough message to Iran and the international community, that there is a military option.


Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Has anyone seriously expected that Israel is NOT planning for this eventual option?

[The Avon Lady]

Is this thing still going on...??? :o
Yep. Mike's got nothing better to do. If you don't agree with him, you're "going again", your sources are "lunatics" and your opinions are jokes.

Also, I don't agree with Mike that Mark Steyn, by quoting Bill Clinton, is quoting a lunatic. I don't personally care for Clinton at all but I see no need to resort to belittling the former president.

[The Avon Lady]

Has anyone seriously expected that Israel is NOT planning for this eventual option?
Ya'alon's comments are old news here. I don't remember exactly when he came out with them but it was about a week or 2 ago.

Nothing unanticipated.

[Kapitan]

Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.
And you base this on? What is it you don't agree with?

[Kapitan]

Well just by this stupid argument.

[The Avon Lady]

Well just by this stupid argument.
Then you should be addressing your complaints to Hense, as he has initiated the tones you are seeing on this threads and on others.

But if it makes you happier to blame me, I'm happy for you. :smug:

[The Avon Lady]

Back to the future.................

10 years till Iran has the bomb?

8 years till Iran has the bomb?

3 Years till Iran has the bomb?

16 days till Iran has the bomb (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany)?

And just like N. Korea pulled some fast ones on the rest of the world, seems possible that no lessons have been learned (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/17/africa/web..php).

[Abraham]

@ The Avon Lady:

I find the link you gave confusing.
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow...
I have always heard that Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb before 2010 - which is by the way just more than three years from now. Other sources say it will even take them five to ten years.
Producing the enriched uranium within sixteen days doesn't mean producing a workable nuclear device within a few weeks, does it?
I hope we have at least a year or so for debates (and to end this thread...). :D

[The Avon Lady]

@ The Avon Lady:

I find the link you gave confusing.
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow...
I have always heard that Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb before 2010 - which is by the way just more than three years from now. Other sources say it will even take them five to ten years.
Producing the enriched uranium within sixteen days doesn't mean producing a workable nuclear device within a few weeks, does it?
I hope we have at least a year or so for debates (and to end this thread...). :D
Would someone here care to go back a few years and list all of the in-the-future predictions on how long it was expected to take N. Korea to produce nuclear weapons?

There's a pattern here.

[The Avon Lady]

Or if 16 days is too short for some and 10 years too long for others, maybe 271 days (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1032/collected-thoughts-on-iranian-leu) will bring a smile to everyone's faces.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

@ Avon...
Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.

HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Neal says...
US, UK, France, Russia, China have them, why not everyone? it's not just those countires... you also gotta include India and Pakistan, and Irael...

plus, why is the North Korean situation much different from this one... we didn't flush the bombers on that one... why do it here... at least at such an early stage, and with such lil contingency planning...

why didn't anyone decide to take out the Indian or Pakistani nuclear enrichment facilities when they decided to go nuclear...

the genie is out of the bottle... this is the price we are paying for the global proliferation of the know how, and the cold war sabre rattling that has dominated the 50s, 60s, up to the current time...

lets hope that we don't have to pay a higher price because of either rash action, or lack of firm decisive justifiable action...


that guy at the head of the Iranian government likes to go into his lunatic tyrades... he likes to make speeches and threats... the Iranians are as stupid as this one person... there are others in power there that will control him when he goes too far... the factions that govern Iran do not appear to be suicidal...

remember... it was Kruschev that boasted on the floor of the UN thaat he would bury us... 40 years later, American and Russian astronauts share the orbiting space station, and send naval vessels in good will exchange tours to each others ports...

the alarmists who pushed for the quick preemptive strike on the Soviets didn't win out back then... and the clock took a step back from the brink...

lets give common sense and good judgement a chance... then, if that don't work, well...

--Mike

[tycho102]

There's a pattern here.

What the heck are you on about?


Clinton giving North Korea the light-water reactors to make the plutonium?

How long it took the DPRK to finish their reprocessing facilities and then announce they were removing the fuel rods for plutonium extraction?

Clinton handing Iran the blueprints to an implosion nuke, with all the numbers multiplied by 1.1, then telling the Russian courier that they had been multiplied by 1.1?


There's a lot of leeway with your "pattern".




@Mike

The Russians weren't suicidal, nor did they embrace a religion that supports suicide. There is a significant difference, and that difference is hope for life....not death.

[MadMike]

"Clinton handing Iran the blueprints to an implosion nuke, with all the numbers multiplied by 1.1, then telling the Russian courier that they had been multiplied by 1.1?"

Edited- I found the reference on the net to the story, sounds like pure hogwash due to several inconsistencies in the story.
First, the Iranians alrealy have design info for a weapon (compliments of A.Q. Khan). They don't need the CIA's or Clinton's help in building a bomb.
Info regarding that has been in the public domain for decades, not the least of which are several pictures readily available on the web-

Very first firing set for "The Gadget" (round tub on aft sphere)-

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/GadgetB339c10.jpg

Yours, Mike

[DeepSix]

...
Iran knows China, Russia, and much of Europe won't take action, and will actively criticize the US if we stop Iran. So, if we are not going to do anything (useless UN sactions and blah blah UN hot air aside) to stop Iran, are we prepared to let them possess nuclear weapons? Look what diplomacy and sanctions did to stop North Korea... nothing.
...

As much as I dislike the idea of the U.S. making pre-emptive strikes, this is precisely the bottom line that I believe we face.

[John Channing]

Here is a bottom line that I face (on a much smaller scale, mind you).

I have a great deal of regard and respect for all of the people involved in this thread.

HOWEVER...

A number of Neal's rules have been bent to the breaking point here. So, without taking sides, I would ask that everyone here do their best to take the temperature down just a bit. The topic at hand is complex enough that a general airing of divergent points of view can be very enlightening... but only if EVERYONE shows each other the mutual respect they deserve.

Lets see the level of debate that I know you are capable of, and not childish name calling and snide retorts.

Thanks as always,

JCC

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

@ John...

Edited: As John said, no name calling, Mike. Thanks, NS



@ Neal...
And since everyone sat on their hands from 1933 till 1939, Hitler built up his forces and the world paid dearlythis is true... but lets look at the differences between the world of 1933 and the world of today... as well as the differences in US polices of then and now...

it's a lot smaller world, and the US is not in the isolationist mood that marked that period... Iran is under constant surveillance, by all sorts... the same situation could not take place as it did back then...

@ Tycho...
@Mike

The Russians weren't suicidal, nor did they embrace a religion that supports suicide. There is a significant difference, and that difference is hope for life....not deaththe Iranian people are not suicidal either... nor does the religon they follow condone any of these suicidal acts, that are so commonly attributed to it... for you to make such far reaching blanket statements only shows that you neither know the Iranian people, nor do you know anything about their religion... and that is the danger here... reacting out of fear and suspicion...

the consequences of such action i doubt that you have even stopped to consider... even when/if justifiable miltary force is employed... the eventual outcome will surprise many of us...

when and if a credible threat presents itself, i believe that clear and decisive action should be taken... but surely not before then... and definitely not from unfounded fear and suspicion...

i've been to Iran...i've seen the place first hand... i've seen the people (well not all, but some of em)... who here has braved the bus ride from the airport to the International (hotel) in Tehran...

now, granted, this has been some time ago... but at least i have some first hand face to face with the people there... has anyone else who is so convinced that they are all terrorists?

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

I've read where some Arab leaders say they could survive a nuke exchange with the Jews, whereas the Jews, of course, could not.
Guess who that was?

January 2002 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502).

[The Avon Lady]

@ Tycho...
@Mike

The Russians weren't suicidal, nor did they embrace a religion that supports suicide. There is a significant difference, and that difference is hope for life....not deaththe Iranian people are not suicidal either...
Of course not:
Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136638.html)
Marie Colvin, Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter


IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

Dr Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified: “We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He added that some of them were “quite close” to the Iranian border in Iraq.

In a tape recording heard by The Sunday Times, Abbasi warned the would-be martyrs to “pay close attention to wily England” and vowed that “Britain’s demise is on our agenda”.

At a recruiting station in Tehran recently, volunteers for the force had to show their birth certificates, give proof of their address and tick a box stating whether they would prefer to attack American targets in Iraq or Israeli targets.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned last Friday that Israel was heading towards “annihilation”. He was speaking at a Tehran conference on Palestinian rights aimed at promoting Iran as a new Middle Eastern superpower.

According to western intelligence documents leaked to The Sunday Times, the Revolutionary Guards are in charge of a secret nuclear weapons programme designed to evade the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

One of the leaked reports, dating from February this year, confirms that President George W Bush is preparing to strike Iran. “If the problem is not resolved in some way, he intends to act before leaving office because it would be ‘unfair’ to leave the task of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to a new president,” the document says.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an opposition group, said a secret, parallel military programme was under way. According to sources inside Iran, the Revolutionary Guards were constructing underground sites that could be activated if Iran’s known nuclear facilities were destroyed.

The NCRI is the political wing of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, which is deemed a terrorist organisation in Britain and America. However, much of its information is considered to be “absolutely credible” by western intelligence sources after Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of the Natanz plant in 2002.

Within the past year, 14 large and several smaller projects have been created, according to Jafarzadeh. Several are designed to be nuclear factories; others are for the storage of weapons, he claimed.

Additional reporting: Safa Haeri

[The Avon Lady]

Neal says...
US, UK, France, Russia, China have them, why not everyone? it's not just those countires... you also gotta include India and Pakistan, and Irael...

plus, why is the North Korean situation much different from this one... we didn't flush the bombers on that one... why do it here... at least at such an early stage, and with such lil contingency planning...
This is why:
The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml)
By Amir Taheri
(Filed: 16/04/2006)

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

• Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe

[Abraham]

Bookmarked!

This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Edited: As John said, no name calling, Mike. Thanks, NS
ya know Neal... about an hour after i posted that, it dawned on me that i should've added a quotation and maybe even a happy face, so as to make it apparent that it was said in light just... and not an indictment of anyone...

@ Abraham...
This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...and what do you actually know about Iran... the people...

well, seeing as i've been there, even if it was in a military capacity... i, by default, know more about the place than someone who has never set foot on the ground there... i doubt if you've even been within a thousand miles of the place... all you know is what you read in the news and can scour up from google... your view of the world is all based on second, third, and fourth hand information...

so, my views aside, and going along with your predilection for beliveing what you read... here's just a little bit more from other more informed and qualified sources, that may open your eyes a bit...

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
The Iranian government has intensified its campaign of torture, arbitrary arrests, and detentions against political critics, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Iran’s outgoing reformist parliament in May passed legislation to prohibit torture, but without effective implementation, the law remains an empty gesture.these are Iranian dissedents they're talking about... not westerners...

In contrast to Iraq, a legitimate, popular and capable alternative that is committed to democracy exists. The Iranian Mojahedin are Muslims who have engaged in an open, courageous, and enlightened discourse within the Iranian Diaspora, and inside Iran. They adhere to a platform put forth by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which calls for free elections, democratic system of government, minority rights, respect for human rights, and a free market economy. Precisely because of their consistent opposition to the ruling regime, they sway the largest following not only among the Iranian Diaspora but also, contrary to the regime's propaganda, among the Iranian nation in Iran.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7525
[quote]
Faced with dangerous and unpredictable military options, the West would do itself and the Iranian people, and the wider Middle East, good by recognizing the Iranian people's right to resist, and by allying itself with the Iranian resistance movement. In that light, it should abandon the last vestiges of a policy of appeasement and conciliation with the Iranian clerical dictatorship and revoke the terrorist designation of the Iranian Mojahedin. The Mojahedin is not just "an enemy of my enemy," but an ally of all those who favor democracy for Iran and peace in the region. They are poised to be the most viable actor that could enable the Iranian people to realize their democratic ideals in Iran and peace in the wider Middle East.

to avoid cluttering the thread with quotes from reliable sources that can esily be found all over the web, i present just these two informed viewpoints...


they know Iran a lot better than i do... and 10 times better than you appear to...

you would group them all, Iraqis, Iranians, as a single homogenous group of crazies... just like some of them would group all Americans as being from one single group of crazies... both of you, on both sides, are actually quite ignorant of the true facts about the other... and both of you are wrong...

it is this ignorance, the resultant fear, and your own insecurities which drives your impulsive alarmist points of view...

your would kill off the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians who seek the same democratic goals as we in America have fought for, and are still struggling for today... merely because your poor eyesight views them all as muslims and therefore as terrorists...

... merely so that you could feel more secure at night, and during the day, so that you might be able drive your gas guzzling, enviroment polluting pre hybrid vehicles around cheaper.


you share the same mentality as those who would've indicted all Germans as naziis during WWII... you choose to remain uninformed, and stubbornly so... lemme just ask, how would you then explain the German resistance... how would you explain the people who hid Anne Frank and many like here... how would you explain the actions of Oscar Schindler...

in your simplistic view of the world, these people could not possibly exist... but in reality, they did...

can't you see that nothing in the real world is that cut and dry... nothing is that black and white...

the military option is undoubtedly a valid one... and is already being planned for... as far as i'm concerned, it is a good thing that more rational heads are in control of the 'button' than those i've heard here...

and as far as this nuclear option is concerned... once the dogs of nuclear war have been let loose, the end of civilazation as you know it has begun...

it has already happened... but the future is not a sinle timeline... you still have a chance to make sure that the timeline that you are on takes a different course...

(that last part is of my own... that should give you plenty of fodder for your inevitable close minded response)

--Mike

[Sixpack]

@Abraham:

Missed this one in the TV news recently ?

Dutch school kids visit Iran:

http://www.tiscali.nl/content/article/nopme/505710.htm
http://www.nioweb.nl/?waxtrapp=wktnwCsHnHQgbCtbCAqC
http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/uitleg/Superschoolreis/Superschoolreis.html

and:

http://www.reisburovangerwen.nl/reisverslagen/rviran.htm

[scandium]

Bookmarked!

This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...

Interesting you should say that. Here's some snippets from an article from him from June 18, 2003 (not even three years ago), titled "Iran is no Iraq and the US should leave it well alone":

"The words "regime change" are being uttered again. Washington hawks concerned about Iran's nuclear capacity are urging the overthrow of its Islamist Government. These hawks confuse Iran with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq was a mere torture chamber for a brutal dictator. Unlike in Iraq, there is no need for a military confrontation in Iran, a country with a well-developed opposition, which allows a lively debate between hardliners and moderates, and has a strong chance of democratisation without US intervention...

The American presence in countries neighbouring Iran, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, has put the fear of God in the Khomeinist Establishment. This does not mean, however, that there is any support for an aggressive posture by the US among the demonstrators. The threat of American military action could backfire by triggering an Iranian nationalistic reflex, giving succour to the hardliners.

As Iran enters a delicate phase in its internal political evolution, it is important that the US and the EU be on the same side in dealing with Tehran. Pressure on such issues as nuclear non-proliferation and Tehran's sponsorship of terrorism must be accompanied by support for the prodemocracy movement, and promises of aid and trade in exchange for reform.

Dealing with Iran requires tact and patience. Broadly speaking, Iran is on the right path, although zigzags and even temporary reversals cannot be ruled out. Less chatter about regime change by hot-heads in Washington circles would help Iran's moderates."

Full article: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/419

[Sixpack]

Better yet:

KIDS @ Iran

http://www.e-learningplaza.nl/vlc4/input/about/about.htm
http://www.e-learningplaza.nl/vlc4/flash/

[The Avon Lady]

Hense on the offensive again. Lord knows why!

Who's contradicting you? Where did Amir Taheri state otherwise about the Iranian populace and the Iranian resistance movement?

From the same author:

IRAN'S 'UNKNOWNS': FACE THE FACTS (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19391)

Similarly:

ESCAPING A MAZE OF HATRED (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6169)

There very same article I posted above is in fact posted on Iranian Voice (http://www.iranianvoice.org/article1707.html), one of many dissident Iranian websites that all promotionally quote Taheri.

Could it be that Taheri is truly concerned for the physical wellbeing of his countrymen and actually wants as few of them harmed before it's too late and many more Iranians get killed, along with Israelis, Europeans, North Americans and who knows who else?

[Sixpack]

About Kids at Iran

KIDS-AT-IRAN.NL is an exchange project among children from Tehran and from Amsterdam. By means of handicrafts and an interactive website, this project shows aspects from daily life of children from different cultural backgrounds.

Who?

For a period of two years, thirty children of primary schools De Kraal and ASVO (now in seventh grade) communicate with a similar age group in Tehran. The children in Tehran attend different schools, and have organised themselves especially for this project in the ‘Iran-Holland kids club’. This club is located in a cultural centre of the Kanoon foundation (the Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults).

[Happy Times]

Plus what i have gathered, many Israelis dont have any problems with non anti-semitic Persians, a historical thing.

[The Avon Lady]

you share the same mentality as those who would've indicted all Germans as naziis during WWII...
So in hindsite, you're saying the Germans shouldn't have been stopped and all Churchill wanted was to be able to "feel more secure at night"?

Ludicrous.
how would you explain the people who hid Anne Frank and many like here... how would you explain the actions of Oscar Schindler...
They could have been Germans, too, but for the record, the Frank's protectors were Dutch and Oscar Schindler was a Czechoslovakian who joined the Nazi Party.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

So in hindsite, you're saying the Germans shouldn't have been stopped and all Churchill wanted was to be able to "feel more secure at night"?


only you could take what i've said above, and twist it into the foolishness that you just posted... it's not even worth replying to...

They could have been Germans, too, but for the record, the Frank's protectors were Dutch and Oscar Schindler was a Czechoslovakian who joined the Nazi Party.an both were citizens under the Nazii rule, weren't they... sorta similar to the Kurds living under Iranian rule, within their borders today... ey... wouldn't ya say...

but if that aint enough, i could give you the name of an old lady, a member of the active German resistance back then... i heard her speak once... an inspiring figure... and i could give you many more names... places, and instances... but i'd surely be wasting my time...

like i said before... facts mean nothing to you... in your mind, 'they' are all bad...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Bookmarked!

This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...

Interesting you should say that. Here's some snippets from an article from him from June 18, 2003 (not even three years ago), titled "Iran is no Iraq and the US should leave it well alone"
Yes, his opinion is summed up there when he writes:

As Iran enters a delicate phase in its internal political evolution, it is important that the US and the EU be on the same side in dealing with Tehran. Pressure on such issues as nuclear non-proliferation and Tehran's sponsorship of terrorism must be accompanied by support for the prodemocracy movement, and promises of aid and trade in exchange for reform.

Since then, Iranian national elections have passed, their nuclear program has been accelerated beyond what Taheri might have assumed back in 2003 would never be reached and recent statements since his old article was published have got Taheri admitting that the regime there is highlt volatile and dangerous to everyone, including his own countrymen.

You may wish to argue whether the rest of the world dealt with Iran correctly or not over the last few years but we're not living in the past, as much as we may wish we could.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

if you both had proper clearances, you both could see daily photos and hear transcripts of radio traffic from selected key sites...

like you said, this aint the past... things arent being handled like they were then, for sure...

and while we're at it... you might also be interested to know that several key sites in the whole region have been under close 'survellience' for quite a while now... including some within Israel...

many 'planners' see Israel as a neding to be kept under close scrutiny as well... along with India and Pakistan...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

So in hindsite, you're saying the Germans shouldn't have been stopped and all Churchill wanted was to be able to "feel more secure at night"?

only you could take what i've said above, and twist it into the foolishness that you just posted... it's not even worth replying to...
Please, I ask that the modeartors forgoe their warnings and allow everyone else here to call me a fool for my posting, which Hense is referring to.
They could have been Germans, too, but for the record, the Frank's protectors were Dutch and Oscar Schindler was a Czechoslovakian who joined the Nazi Party.an both were citizens under the Nazii rule, weren't they... sorta similar to the Kurds living under Iranian rule, within their borders today... ey... wouldn't ya say...
No, they're not all the same, in a sense.

But you're missing the point. Where did anyone say that all the Germans were Nazis? Where did anyone say that all Muslims were terrorists?

Once again, you don't read what people are posting. You assume what you want to.
but if that aint enough, i could give you the name of an old lady, a member of the active German resistance back then... i heard her speak once... an inspiring figure... and i could give you many more names... places, and instances... but i'd surely be wasting my time...
You would be wasting your time, at least with me, because this is commonly known information. Even my children know that.

Yet my children know that such people were uncommon and, for all of their good deeds and self-sacrifice, could not stop the annihilation of millions more.
like i said before... facts mean nothing to you... in your mind, 'they' are all bad...
"For a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer

Keep punching, Mike.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

noones calling you a fool... don't even try and go this route...

don't whine to the mods, by trying to twist what is clearly evident from the text right in front of you... in a vain attempt to get me censored, similar to what others of the same or similar intolerant thinking would do...

you are acting now just like the regime in Iran... just like i told you many posts ago, there is very little that differentiates all who think like that... you are the same as those you denounce...

what in fact was said was, was that the statement you presented was foolishness...

just stop and look at the conclusion that you came up with, based on what i said... come on, surely now, noone in their right mind would draw such an obviously absurd and skewed conclusion, other than you...

Yet my children know that such people were uncommon
and lets not bring your children into this... they are children...

--Mike

[Happy Times]

if you both had proper clearances, you both could see daily photos and hear transcripts of radio traffic from selected key sites...

like you said, this aint the past... things arent being handled like they were then, for sure...

and while we're at it... you might also be interested to know that several key sites in the whole region have been under close 'survellience' for quite a while now... including some within Israel...

many 'planners' see Israel as a neding to be kept under close scrutiny as well... along with India and Pakistan...

--MikeI would think so, thats what intelligence agencys do. :doh: And plans are made at all central staffs for all kinds of scenarios. But putting Israel in the same list with Pakistan has to be a joke :lol:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

putting Israel in the same list with Pakistan has to be a joke tell that to the people who target the survellience satellites... they are in fact on the same list...

--Mike

[Abraham]

Bookmarked!

This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...

Interesting you should say that. Here's some snippets from an article from him from June 18, 2003 (not even three years ago), titled "Iran is no Iraq and the US should leave it well alone":

"The words "regime change" are being uttered again. Washington hawks concerned about Iran's nuclear capacity are urging the overthrow of its Islamist Government. These hawks confuse Iran with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq was a mere torture chamber for a brutal dictator. Unlike in Iraq, there is no need for a military confrontation in Iran, a country with a well-developed opposition, which allows a lively debate between hardliners and moderates, and has a strong chance of democratisation without US intervention...

The American presence in countries neighbouring Iran, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, has put the fear of God in the Khomeinist Establishment. This does not mean, however, that there is any support for an aggressive posture by the US among the demonstrators. The threat of American military action could backfire by triggering an Iranian nationalistic reflex, giving succour to the hardliners.

As Iran enters a delicate phase in its internal political evolution, it is important that the US and the EU be on the same side in dealing with Tehran. Pressure on such issues as nuclear non-proliferation and Tehran's sponsorship of terrorism must be accompanied by support for the prodemocracy movement, and promises of aid and trade in exchange for reform.

Dealing with Iran requires tact and patience. Broadly speaking, Iran is on the right path, although zigzags and even temporary reversals cannot be ruled out. Less chatter about regime change by hot-heads in Washington circles would help Iran's moderates."

Full article: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/419
I basically agree with this article - seen in the light of those days - and with his article that The Avon Lady linked.

A lot has happened in Iran, and not for the better.
Democracy is suppressed and a Hitler-type president Ahmadinejad, has come to power in a not all to democratic way.
The country has speeded up its nuclear weapons program and missile program.
Public executions of regime critics, homosexuals and converts that openly practise Christianity happen almost daily.
More than enough reason for a journalist to take a different view at a different situation...

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

well Abe... take this into consideration...

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Main article: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
At present, 189 states are party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These include all five declared Nuclear Weapons States (NWSs): the People's Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK, and the USA.

Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear weapons, while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged nuclear weapons state). North Korea was once a signatory but withdrew in January 2003.

The NPT's main objectives are to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

... and someone above suggest that grouping Israel into the same category as Pakistan was frivolous :roll:

hey... ya can't make this stuff up ya know... hahahahaaaaa... seems like i'm not the only one who sees this obvious linkage...

More than enough reason for a journalist to take a different view at a different situation...fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on where you stand or sit, journalists do not make, nor are they tasked with carrying out national policy...




--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

noones calling you a fool... don't even try and go this route...
Oh, excuse me. Only my posts are foolish.
don't whine to the mods, by trying to twist what is clearly evident from the text right in front of you... in a vain attempt to get me censored, similar to what others of the same or similar intolerant thinking would do...
On the contrary. You have made me paranoid that my logic in my argument above is really foolsih and is totally irrational and twisting your words. I just need to hear this from more members here, as I an paranoid about relying on your opinion, for some odd reason.
you are acting now just like the regime in Iran... just like i told you many posts ago, there is very little that differentiates all who think like that... you are the same as those you denounce...
Yes, you're right. You must be.
what in fact was said was, was that the statement you presented was foolishness...

just stop and look at the conclusion that you came up with, based on what i said... come on, surely now, noone in their right mind would draw such an obviously absurd and skewed conclusion, other than you...
You have yet to rationally explain why it is foolish. Funny, calling people's thoughts foolish to dismiss them was something that Stalinists used to do. But I digress..............................
Yet my children know that such people were uncommon
and lets not bring your children into this... they are children...

Our children are aged between 7 and their 20s. I'm only pointing out that much of what state is not news to me, my husband or the children we educate. Nor has anyone else contradicted you on these particular points. Yet you nevertheless go on the accusative, in this case against Abraham and myself.

[Happy Times]

putting Israel in the same list with Pakistan has to be a joke tell that to the people who target the survellience satellites... they are in fact on the same list...

--MikeCan you tell more? I have a high ranking agent in the US goverment who said that hell would freeze before US would do an pre-emptive strike to Israel. I could tell more, but then i would have to.. you know.. :rotfl:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

@avon...
Oh, excuse me. Only my posts are foolish.
yes... the content of them is obviously bordering on the absurd...
your twisting of what is said by others is what is at the core of this assessment...

You have made me paranoid that my logic in my argument above is really foolsih your admitted paranoia is of your own making... and probably existed long before i posted a single word... all i'm doing is presenting facts in the face of repugnent intolerance of agenda promoting...


@Happy Times...
Can you tell more? I have a high ranking agent in the US goverment who said that hell would freeze before US would do an pre-emptive strike to Israel.yes, i could tell you more... but then i'd have to kill after :cool:
actually, i doubt if you know anyone who has eyes on clearance for these photos... your 'source' is probably a secretary in the typing pool, or some otehr mid or low level asmin specialist, who, in fact, should not even be acknowledging to you or anyone, as to what has gone past his/her eyes as being fact, fiction, or even existing...

by the way, the former Soviets also have spy satelites up, and they have long been providing the US with these photos as well... tell me they aren't also looking down on Israeli facilities...

--Mike

[Happy Times]

es, i could tell you more... but then i'd have to kill after
actually, i doubt if you know anyone who has eyes on clearance for these photos... your 'source' is probably a secretary in the typing pool, and should not even be acknowledging to you what has gone past his/her eyes as being fact, fiction, or even existing... Only intelligence men i know work for the finnish military intelligence and they would never talk about anything work related with me. :lol: I might just post it here and harm my nations interests. :rotfl:

[Abraham]

@ Mike 'Red October' Hense:
@ Abraham...
This guy knows obviously more about Iran and the intentions of its leadership than all of us on this forum combined...and what do you actually know about Iran... the people...

well, seeing as i've been there, even if it was in a military capacity... i, by default, know more about the place than someone who has never set foot on the ground there... i doubt if you've even been within a thousand miles of the place... all you know is what you read in the news and can scour up from google... your view of the world is all based on second, third, and fourth hand information...

so, my views aside, and going along with your predilection for beliveing what you read... here's just a little bit more from other more informed and qualified sources, that may open your eyes a bit...

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7525...

you would group them all, Iraqis, Iranians, as a single homogenous group of crazies... just like some of them would group all Americans as being from one single group of crazies... both of you, on both sides, are actually quite ignorant of the true facts about the other... and both of you are wrong...

it is this ignorance, the resultant fear, and your own insecurities which drives your impulsive alarmist points of view...

your would kill off the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians who seek the same democratic goals as we in America have fought for, and are still struggling for today... merely because your poor eyesight views them all as muslims and therefore as terrorists...

... merely so that you could feel more secure at night, and during the day, so that you might be able drive your gas guzzling, enviroment polluting pre hybrid vehicles around cheaper.


you share the same mentality as those who would've indicted all Germans as naziis during WWII... you choose to remain uninformed, and stubbornly so... lemme just ask, how would you then explain the German resistance... how would you explain the people who hid Anne Frank and many like here... how would you explain the actions of Oscar Schindler...

in your simplistic view of the world, these people could not possibly exist... but in reality, they did...

can't you see that nothing in the real world is that cut and dry... nothing is that black and white...

the military option is undoubtedly a valid one... and is already being planned for... as far as i'm concerned, it is a good thing that more rational heads are in control of the 'button' than those i've heard here...

and as far as this nuclear option is concerned... once the dogs of nuclear war have been let loose, the end of civilazation as you know it has begun...

it has already happened... but the future is not a sinle timeline... you still have a chance to make sure that the timeline that you are on takes a different course...

(that last part is of my own... that should give you plenty of fodder for your inevitable close minded response)

--Mike
Here is my "inevitable close minded" response:

Do I get all this garbage thrown at me because I bookmarked a link presented by The Avon Lady or because I bookmarked a link from a journalist who is critical about a theocratic regime...?

Here is a more openminded response:
I would appreciate it if you let me state my own opinion instead of being confronted with this mockery of ityour would kill off the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians who seek the same democratic goals as we in America have fought for, and are still struggling for today... merely because your poor eyesight views them all as muslims and therefore as terrorists... etc., etc., etc., etc.

If you would have taken the - little - trouble to check my position on a possible attack on Iran you would realise how far off the mark you are (not within a thousand miles, I am tempted to say).

Simplifying and falsifying the opinion of another forum member may make it easy to ridiculise him, but at the same time serves to create a forum full of dangerous lunatics, at least in your mind.

I'm interested in serious discussions - or funny postings.
This thread is neither, so I'm out of here...
You can have the field.
Doei!

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

At Abe...
I would appreciate it if you let me state my own opinion instead of being confronted with this mockery if it
first of all... i am mocking nobody...
second... just look back on everything you've posted... everything... how much of it is based on factual information... now, ask yourself, how much of it is based on heresay, rumor, propaganda, he said she said sorta stuff...

now do the same for my postings and conclusions...

ya see... it's not about me... and it's not about you Abe...

it's about truth...

never once did i try to change your mind about anything... only to encourage you to seek out the actual facts... in order that it may help you arrive at a more informed conclusion or point of view... if you see this as mockery, then there is little i can do about it... but don't blame me for it...

my prime concern here is the community here... nothing else... your right, your courtesy to disagree with whatever point i or anyone else makes here should be gauranteed... and your right to do so, in civil, unpressured, unintimidated fashion is one that i don't think anyone would object to... especially not me...

what i do object to is the recent spate of postings against an entire relious and or ethnic group, based on not facts, but ignorance... many of these people share this community with us... as do they share many principles of freedom and tolerance...

for them to have to suffer these indifferences is in my view, intolerable, and against everything that this place stands for...

sorry... i feel strongly on this... if nothing else i do here, i am happy to do this...


@HappyTimes...
Only intelligence men i know work for the finnish military intelligence and they would never talk about anything work related with me. of that i was quite sure... now that we got that validated, here is a bit of public information that goes way back inthe spy sat days...

this may surprise you a bit, as you think that it would be a joke for the US group the Israelis and the Pakistanis...

http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2003/0603kh7.asp

Israel is another ally whose territory came under the watchful eye of the KH-7. Nearly 100 of the satellite images were of Israeli targets, undoubtedly including the Dimona nuclear reactor facility in the Negev desert and key air bases. These are the only images that have not been declassified.
from AirForce online... read the article... the facts there might surprise you... at the very least, they will shake you foundations as to what you believe to be frivilous, and what is taken very seriously by those who are tasked for defense...

and this was back in the 60s i believe... trust me, before the news of Sharon entering the hospital became public, people in certain places had pictures of it happening... that's how far the tech has gotten... that's how complete the 'coverage' is...

and that's only the tip of the iceberg...


--Mike

[MadMike]

Shouldn't that be Mike "Vizzini" Hense? :-j

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
LOL @ MM... ok, ya got me... :up:

watch your six :cool:

--Mike

[Happy Times]

No need to get Tom Clancy on me, i have some knowledge of US tecnical capabilities. Though they might be lacking in HUMINT. But i still think putting Israel and Pakistan in the same level in threat assessments isnt true, sure US gathers intelligence on everybody..

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

i have some knowledge of US tecnical capabilitiestrust me, you don't... and the people that do, well they arent about to start talking either... just like some of the guys here that are on active duty in senstive areas on subs, ships, aircraft, or who are currently serving in other sensitive need to know occupations aren't gonna...

from what lil i'm privy to, and it is precious little, multiply what you imagine you know by a factor of ten, and you'd still come up short...

No need to get Tom Clancy Tom Clancy?!! i sure hope you're not basing your 'knowledge' from reading Tom Clancy novels...

i still think putting Israel and Pakistan in the same level in threat assessments isnt true,well, obviously you are entitled to your own opinion... i've already shown you one instance that seems to indicate that your opinion is not shared by the US CIA... the people who tasks these survellience sats...

i can show you others...

--Mike

[Kapitan]

Isreal has a very modern millatery they have brand new scorpene class submarines for one hit, what do the pakistanis have nearing 40 year old relics of the french navy.

add to that i still think they have some of the british ships back beyond the falklands and even further like the leander's, to compair isreal to pakistan is well not realy a good idea i do not think they are en par.

[Onkel Neal]

it is this ignorance, the resultant fear, and your own insecurities which drives your impulsive alarmist points of view...

your would kill off the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians who seek the same democratic goals as we in America have fought for, and are still struggling for today... merely because your poor eyesight views them all as muslims and therefore as terrorists...

... merely so that you could feel more secure at night, and during the day, so that you might be able drive your gas guzzling, enviroment polluting pre hybrid vehicles around cheaper.

--Mike

Gee Mike, first you say we are stereotyping them and then you steroetype us. Shrewd! :lol:

PS: I tend to like feeling secure at night. Not inclined to change that. ;)

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

LOL... :lol: not all of 'us' Neal... Keeps Em Guessing :cool:

hey, can you pm me or email me some info about how the affiliates thing works... thx

--Mike

[Onkel Neal]

:ping: PM sent

[Abraham]

@ Neal Stevens:



it is this ignorance, the resultant fear, and your own insecurities which drives your impulsive alarmist points of view...

your would kill off the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Iranians who seek the same democratic goals as we in America have fought for, and are still struggling for today... merely because your poor eyesight views them all as muslims and therefore as terrorists...

... merely so that you could feel more secure at night, and during the day, so that you might be able drive your gas guzzling, enviroment polluting pre hybrid vehicles around cheaper.

--Mike

Gee Mike, first you say we are stereotyping them and then you steroetype us. Shrewd! :lol:

PS: I tend to like feeling secure at night. Not inclined to change that. ;)
The "your" (sic) was not plural but singular and not aimed at all of us but aimed at me.
I answered Mike:
Simplifying and falsifying the opinion of another forum member may make it easy to ridiculise him, but at the same time serves to create a forum full of dangerous lunatics, at least in your mind.

I'm interested in serious discussions - or funny postings.
This thread is neither, so I'm out of here...
You can have the field.
Doei!
I couldn't care less and don't lose any sleep when Mike "Red October" Hense calls me a killer "off (sic) ... hundreds of thousands, maybe millions." I don't feel myself in one league with Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot yet.
And after all, it's only Mike's opinion...

Furthermore he pretends to know my position better than I do and tenaciously keeps hitting hard at points I never made. Which is the natural end to any sensible discussion.

In a sense amusing, isn't it... ;)

But I have to leave again: Doei!