Well, an interesting way to handle terrorism

[Guest MikeSC]

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.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5570503/site/newsweek/

This is from an interview with James Rubin, Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor. So, to handle a state that Kerry himself identifies as a sponsor of terrorism, they're going to GIVE THEM NUCLEAR FUEL. Yeah, THAT is one solid idea. No chance of THAT idea POSSIBLY backfiring. Hell, let's send the PLO some explosives while we're at it.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Iran, despite having long range missiles, have always been adamant that their nuclear facilities are for creating nuclear power. As in, nuclear energy to power electrics. Now, if we regulate their nuclear facilities and provide them with nuclear energy to use we can a) keep a record of their nuclear materials and b) ensure that they aren't up to no good.

 

I'd rather go via that route than the predictable Bush admin route of:

 

Bush: "Iran have nuclear power!"

Iran: "Yeah, we are using it to power our country.."

Bush: "They've got the capability to make nukes, they may already have them"

Iran: "Well, yes, we have got the capability but we are using the nuclear energy for the good of our country. We've got independent inspectors monitoring our progress."

Bush: "Iran can launch an attack! Those lying Iranies! INVADE!!!!"

[Guest MikeSC]

Iran, despite having long range missiles, have always been adamant that their nuclear facilities are for creating nuclear power. As in, nuclear energy to power electrics. Now, if we regulate their nuclear facilities and provide them with nuclear energy to use we can a) keep a record of their nuclear materials and b) ensure that they aren't up to no good.

 

I'd rather go via that route than the predictable Bush admin route of:

 

Bush: "Iran have nuclear power!"

Iran: "Yeah, we are using it to power our country.."

Bush: "They've got the capability to make nukes, they may already have them"

Iran: "Well, yes, we have got the capability but we are using the nuclear energy for the good of our country. We've got independent inspectors monitoring our progress."

Bush: "Iran can launch an attack! Those lying Iranies! INVADE!!!!"

Yeah, NO chance that GIVING them nuclear fuel could POSSIBLY backfire. No chance of that AT ALL.

 

Thank God you have no power.

-=Mike

...And, no, Iran has NO ties to terrorists. No sir...

[NoCalMike 0]

Iran, despite having long range missiles, have always been adamant that their nuclear facilities are for creating nuclear power. As in, nuclear energy to power electrics. Now, if we regulate their nuclear facilities and provide them with nuclear energy to use we can a) keep a record of their nuclear materials and b) ensure that they aren't up to no good.

 

I'd rather go via that route than the predictable Bush admin route of:

 

Bush: "Iran have nuclear power!"

Iran: "Yeah, we are using it to power our country.."

Bush: "They've got the capability to make nukes, they may already have them"

Iran: "Well, yes, we have got the capability but we are using the nuclear energy for the good of our country. We've got independent inspectors monitoring our progress."

Bush: "Iran can launch an attack! Those lying Iranies! INVADE!!!!"

Yeah, NO chance that GIVING them nuclear fuel could POSSIBLY backfire. No chance of that AT ALL.

 

Thank God you have no power.

-=Mike

...And, no, Iran has NO ties to terrorists. No sir...

You're right it could backfire, but our foreign policy doesn't really show a general concern in matters that could backfire down the road. At least historically, maybe it is different now.

[Guest MikeSC]

You're right it could backfire, but our foreign policy doesn't really show a general concern in matters that could backfire down the road. At least historically, maybe it is different now.

"Should we do something fucking stupid?"

"Well, we have in the past."

"That's good enough for me. Let's do something stupid!"

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

You're right it could backfire, but our foreign policy doesn't really show a general concern in matters that could backfire down the road. At least historically, maybe it is different now.

"Should we do something fucking stupid?"

"Well, we have in the past."

"That's good enough for me. Let's do something stupid!"

-=Mike

Well that is the formula that has been seemingly used time and time again.....

[Guest MikeSC]

You're right it could backfire, but our foreign policy doesn't really show a general concern in matters that could backfire down the road. At least historically, maybe it is different now.

"Should we do something fucking stupid?"

"Well, we have in the past."

"That's good enough for me. Let's do something stupid!"

-=Mike

Well that is the formula that has been seemingly used time and time again.....

"Should we consider doing something not fucking stupid?"

"Well, we've done stupid fucking things repeatedly in the past."

"Well, toss that revolutionary idea out the window."

-=Mike

..."A terrorist regime. Questionable usage of nuclear energy. Nuclear fuel. Gee, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?"

[Guest INXS]

What do you suggest Mike? Another war? Let them use nuclear materials any way they want without record and regulation? This was isn't a bad idea - Iran get their nuclear power and we get peace of mind that they aren't up to no good.

 

By the way, Iran are NOT a "terrorist" regime. I know those ragheads all speak funny and look the same, but really...

[Guest MikeSC]

What do you suggest Mike? Another war? Let them use nuclear materials any way they want without record and regulation?

Yeah, that would work. Brilliant move. What can POSSIBLY go wrong with giving a regime that has pursued nuclear weaponry? Yeah, NO chance of that. No sir. "Calling their bluff" ALWAYS works wonders.

This was isn't a bad idea - Iran get their nuclear power and we get peace of mind that they aren't up to no good.

Because lying? No, that could NEVER happen. No chance of that AT ALL.

By the way, Iran are NOT a "terrorist" regime. I know those ragheads all speak funny and look the same, but really...

Isn't it ironic that the only people on this board who unleash racial slurs are --- well, the libs? Just noticed that.

 

As for not being pro-terrorist:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html#iran

http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=3674

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02052505.html

http://specials.ft.com/attackonterrorism/FT3YKC0TDXC.html

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Mike is beginning to show the terrible signs of a meth habit...

[Vyce 0]

By the way, Iran are NOT a "terrorist" regime. I know those ragheads all speak funny and look the same, but really...

You really don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike is beginning to show the terrible signs of a meth habit...

Displacing one's issues upon others is a little sad.

-=Mike

...Even worse, I'm 100% right about Iran...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Where did Kerry say in that piece that he's providing them with NUCLEAR fuel?

[Guest MikeSC]

Where did Kerry say in that piece that he's providing them with NUCLEAR fuel?

His senior foreign policy advisor, James Rubin, said PRECISELY that.

 

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.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5570503/site/newsweek/

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Could he... possibly...

 

...just maybe...

 

...at all...?

 

...be referring to fossil fuels?

 

 

Does he say the word "nuclear" at all?

 

Are there other forms of power other than nuclear?

 

No?

 

Oh, okay, you're right, then.

[snuffbox 0]

Mike - I agree (and I certainly hope anyone else does as well) that we shouldnt be providing nuclear fuel to Iran...

 

However, it doesnt specify nuclear fuel, it could easilly mean 'call their bluff and give them (a different) fuel'..

 

And youre acting like a completely deluded nutcase.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus Christ, can none of you READ?

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.

What the hell do you THINK this is saying? Tyler and snuffy, you sound like delusional geezers.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Jesus Christ, can none of you READ?

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.

What the hell do you THINK this is saying? Tyler and snuffy, you sound like delusional geezers.

-=Mike

Iran : We need nuclear power... for energy

US : No...terrorist states shouldnt possess nuclear power

Iran : But...we need energy!

US : We will supply you energy....alternatives to nuclear forms, of course

Iran : Uh...shit.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"fuel you need"

 

 

...

 

 

Where does it say they're giving them nuclear fuel? It sounds like a badly worded answer, but if you truly think Kerry is going to solve the nuclear crises by providing them nuclear materials, you're a bumbling fool who is far too partisan for any rational thought.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus Christ, can none of you READ?

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.

What the hell do you THINK this is saying? Tyler and snuffy, you sound like delusional geezers.

-=Mike

Iran : We need nuclear power... for energy

US : No...terrorist states shouldnt possess nuclear power

Iran : But...we need energy!

US : We will supply you energy....alternatives to nuclear forms, of course

Iran : Uh...shit.

When the DISCUSSION IS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY --- you are simply reading things into the discussion that ISN'T THERE.

 

Rubin was DIRECTLY referring to nuclear fuel. That you can't see it is just sad.

Where does it say they're giving them nuclear fuel? It sounds like a badly worded answer, but if you truly think Kerry is going to solve the nuclear crises by providing them nuclear materials, you're a bumbling fool who is far too partisan for any rational thought.

Quick question --- if Bush said the EXACT SAME THING --- what would you say?

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

What happened to all that oil they've got? Burn that instead.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I certainly wouldn't think he meant that he's gonna give Iran nukes!

 

I'd think he's a moron and I'd make fun of his crappily worded answer. I have no love for Kerry or many of his advisors, so I do the same here.

 

But you're being an idiot by making a huge fucking stink out of something you know isn't going to happen. You know what the man meant, so stop being a vulva about it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I certainly wouldn't think he meant that he's gonna give Iran nukes!

And I'm not saying Kerry wants to give them nukes. He wants to give them NUCLEAR FUEL --- which they can use for other means. I'm not calling Kerry bad or evil --- just painfully naive.

I'd think he's a moron and I'd make fun of his crappily worded answer. I have no love for Kerry or many of his advisors, so I do the same here.

 

But you're being an idiot by making a huge fucking stink out of something you know isn't going to happen. You know what the man meant, so stop being a vulva about it.

You're the one with sand in your vagina --- but that's just because you're upset that the guy you're voting for has a fucking moronic idea.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Wha?

 

When did I say I was voting for Kerry?

 

I'm simply saying you're a partisan fool.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wha?

 

When did I say I was voting for Kerry?

 

I'm simply saying you're a partisan fool.

Yeah, you're not voting for him. Of course. Sure. I'll buy that.

 

You're a blinded moron.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, I'm probably not going to. Unless Virginia is actually going to be a battleground state (which it probably won't be), I'll be casting my vote for David Cobb (Green Party Candidate). Not because I agree more with him (I truthfully haven't even bothered looking up his positions) but because I can't stand voting for Kerry.

[snuffbox 0]

Tyler - Why not vote for Michael Bednarik?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Mike, I have to think Tyler is right here. I didn't read that as Kerry giving nuclear fuel to terrorists. I think the point of it is their need for energy, which they claim to get from their reactors, would be provided thru other means.

[Guest fk teale]

Unfortunately, it looks like Mike is correct. From Kerry's own website (about 2/3 of the way down the page):

 

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.

 

Utter lunacy.

[Justice 0]

Unfortunately, it looks like Mike is correct. From Kerry's own website (about 2/3 of the way down the page):

 

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.

 

Utter lunacy.

0.o

 

Talk about a fucking curveball in this debate...