Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/30/2004 7:22:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:22:23 PM EST by WI_Rifleman]
Kerry is done for, Bush won the debate.

Kerry might have been prim and proper, Bush may have bumbled.

But whatever Bush did bad at least he didnt say that ....

HE WOULD GIVE THE IRANIANS NUCLEAR FUEL
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:23:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:25:00 PM EST
I must have missed that. Can you please post the transcript or link a source?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:26:34 PM EST
... post a link of tonights debate text
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:28:35 PM EST
8/2/2004: Kerry's Foreign Policy Adviser: Send Nuclear Fuel to Iran

John F. Kerry’s senior foreign policy adviser, James P. Rubin, says that Kerry has a brilliant plan to deal with Iran’s mad dash to obtain nuclear weapons.

First, Kerry will defer to the judgment of the United Nations.

Second, he will somehow magically secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.

And third ... Kerry’s going to give Iran nuclear fuel.

Yes, really.

One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?

John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration’s. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.” Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

UPDATE at 8/2/04 8:54:53 am:

Yes, Kerry really does mean he’ll send nuclear fuel to Iran, not “conventional fuel.” At his site, under “National Security,” this deranged plan is spelled out in detail: New Strategies To Defeat New Threats.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

Because, you know, their true motivations aren’t really clear yet.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:29:15 PM EST

I don't think too many caught that either. I didn't catch it and they didn't say anything about it on any of the news (lies) channels.

Did they say anything about it on the networks or cable news shows?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:32:49 PM EST
But couldn't you take the nucular fuel that kerry says is for energy and turn it into nucular fuel for weapons?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:33:17 PM EST
link to transcript

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:34:23 PM EST
I'm thinkin' Kerry's biggest mistake is that he keeps telling the American public he'll "check to see if it's 'OK' with the rest of the world if HE does something as President"...

Americans don't want a President who doesn't have the BALLS to do what is right for AMERICA, whether it's 'OK' with anybody else or not --- in other words, 'fuck 'em, I'll do what I gotta do'.
BUSH will do whatever it takes to protect America FIRST.

Kerry? He'll 'see if it's OK'. No balls.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:34:33 PM EST
Several of our people caught it in the "official thread" here (the 20+ page one)
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:34:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:35:56 PM EST by Dave_A]
Numbnutz doesn't realize that THE IRANIANS HAVE ALL THE 'NUCLEAR FUEL' THEY NEED WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS...

Iran has naturally occurring Uranium, and plenty of it, why would they take fuel from us?

Just like the BULLSHIT about securing Russian nuclear material...

North Korea and Iran aren't stealing bits from old Soviet nukes...

They have made their own programs, from the ground up....
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:35:57 PM EST
But somebody answer my question. Is nuclear fuel for energy the same as nuclear fuel for weapons?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:37:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
But somebody answer my question. Is nuclear fuel for energy the same as nuclear fuel for weapons?



yes, once the fuel is spent for energy it can be processed into weapons grade
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:39:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:40:13 PM EST by DigDug]
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:39:13 PM EST
so then Kerry is essentially wanting to make us the ones to arm them with nuclear capabilities? That is like me saying to a burglar ... Let me give you a gun, and if you shoot me it means you werent here on a social call.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:40:23 PM EST
As I understand it to produce fuel for nuclear weapons the plant must be run differently than it would for just producing power. Then the the spent fuel rods need to be further refined to make weapons grade material.

Brian
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:42:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
so then Kerry is essentially wanting to make us the ones to arm them with nuclear capabilities? That is like me saying to a burglar ... Let me give you a gun, and if you shoot me it means you werent here on a social call.




Yep, that's pretty much what I got from it also.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:44:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:49:20 PM EST by K2QB3]
No, you can make weapons grade from fuel grade but the attempt would be obvious if we were monitoring the spent fuel. No need to give them enough to make a weapon at any one time.

And the russians are planning on providing the fuel at present, fuel we'd have no control over whatsoever.

Actually not such a bad idea IMO, crazy as it sounds.

Non-proliferation is a joke actually, long term it isn't going to work.

The only strategy that'll work is to bring the hostile regimes into the 21st century,let the regimes know if they screw with us we'll destroy them, find a way to make peace with the people, and find a way to give the people the power.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:44:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:46:35 PM EST by Thor21]

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
But somebody answer my question. Is nuclear fuel for energy the same as nuclear fuel for weapons?



yes, once the fuel is spent for energy it can be processed into weapons grade




Which is exactly how North Korea got their Weapons Grade nuclear fuel and why we are in the predicament we are in now.

edited for spelling mistake
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:45:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:49:57 PM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
I must have missed that. Can you please post the transcript or link a source?



www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11966

Kerry's brilliant plan is this:

Iranians say their nuclear program is for energy, not bombs. Kerry says "OK, if that's true, here's all the nuclear fuel you want for electricity."

Then if they make bombs, the US can stand back and say "You Iranians are a bunch of liars! You said your nuclear program was for power, not bombs! Shame on you!"

Again, this is absolutely brilliant. But what does the US do now that a terrorist state possesses nuclear weapons after they promised they weren't making them?

And why does Kerry criticize Bush for trying to stop them with sanctions or denying the US a military solution/stick by criticizing bunker busting nukes?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:45:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:50:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:54:38 PM EST by K2QB3]
Yeah plutonium and enriched uranium are the same thing aren't they?

N. Korea didn't give us a legal justification to bomb their facilities.

Iran would have to to hold back the spent fuel.

Big difference.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:51:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Yeah plutonium and enriched uranium are the same thing aren't they?



You can power a reactor or make a bomb from either.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:52:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Yeah plutonium and enriched uranium are the same thing aren't they?



hmm i wonder what the nuke that was dropped on hiroshima was made out of.... Uranium

hmm i wonder what the nuke that was dropped on nagasaki was made out of... Plutonium
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:53:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 7:57:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 7:57:37 PM EST by K2QB3]
Parallel programs is what N. Korea did, was my point.

You're right, it's stupid. But it's going to happen either way.

Better to be a party to it so we have the legal standing to kick the sand out of 'em when they renege.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 8:42:54 PM EST
Are you a DU plant? That is insane. Your justification is like, "let the kids have sex in our house. They will just do it elsewhere, unregulated."
Top Top