U.S Army Chief: “Iran attack option on the table”

[PAFAce]

Sometimes deals are non-negotiable, especially when they involves mankind's most destructive weapon yet.

Hence, instead of looking for military confrontation, you must accommodate. Nothing gives you the right to hold on to your "destructive weapons" and deny Iran even the right to enrich Uranium. Also, Iran agreed to the crux of the deal, that it will send its Uranium outside the country (something I thought they would never agree to). All they want is to ensure they won't get shafted in return. What's so unfair about that? Also, what are you planning to do about the power imbalance in the Middle East that is the cause of our worries today?

Kim Junk Ill was 're-elected'. So was Castro. So was Stalin. So was Mao. It really is insulting to those of us who are living in functional democracies to have this charade of democratic principles thrown in front of us.

So your democracy is more important than theirs? Is 63% not greater than 53%? Also, Hamid Karzai was re-elected as well, and his was a widely fraudulent election, but that doesn't stop you from working with him.

You mean one US ally that is willing to PUBLICLY acknowledge their support for a US military option against Iran.

I can't speak for all your allies. I can certainly say, though, that the people of Ontario, Canada are quite sick of fighting wars they shouldn't be involved in. Ontario, incidentally, is the most populous province of Canada. Also, from what I read and hear, the Brits aren't too pleased about their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan either. How many countries would be willing to go to war to stop Iran from developing weapons is questionable. Whether the Unites States has the stomach for it is also a valid question.

David Albright is worth reading in detail unless you've already made up your mind.

Thanks.

I've read his views before, but I couldn't remember his name. I will do more reading, but you should also read-up on Mordechai Vanunu.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Sometimes deals are non-negotiable, especially when they involves mankind's most destructive weapon yet.


Kim Junk Ill was 're-elected'. So was Castro. So was Stalin. So was Mao. It really is insulting to those of us who are living in functional democracies to have this charade of democratic principles thrown in front of us.


You mean one US ally that is willing to PUBLICLY acknowledge their support for a US military option against Iran.

Americans are not qualified to comment on Mao, for China.

 

[gambit]

Hence, instead of looking for military confrontation, you must accommodate.

We are not privy to the details of these negotiations. So for now we have no choice but to be content with what our journalists and analysts managed to deduce.

Nothing gives you the right to hold on to your "destructive weapons"...

Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, both sides have been working to reduce the number of nuclear warhead stockpiles. There are plenty of NPT signatories that have not violated the agreement and they survive just fine.

...and deny Iran even the right to enrich Uranium.

You are misleading the readership. I will set the record straight. The issue is neither about nuclear technology nor enrichment but about ENRICHMENT LEVEL.

Iran Begins Enriching Uranium to a Higher Level - NYTimes.com

The Western concern is that enrichment to 20 percent would enable Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium...

That %20 is where we can produce a nuclear chain reaction that we can control. Above that is when this process CAN BECOME uncontrollable, in other words, a nuclear detonation. Below %20 is when it is commercially viable for power generation. The greater the concentration of U-235 the smaller the overall size of the uranium block and still can produce a chain reaction.

Iran boosts nuclear enrichment, drawing warnings - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Iran's current stockpile has been spun to a level of 3.5 percent, suitable for use in fueling power plants, which is Iran's primary stated aim for its enrichment program.

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for Iran.

Above %20 enrichment does not guarantee an uncontrolled chain reaction, aka ka-blooey. What it mean is that there is an increased odds of a chunk of %20+ enriched uranium to go ka-blooey. That is why nuclear WEAPONS warheads are %90+ enriched. These blocks of uranium are smaller and virtually guaranteed to produce an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. For power generation, we want to maintain control so less than %20 is preferred. The only time we want %90 enriched uranium for power generation is...

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth US naval vessel to bear the name.

Nuclear powered ships and submarines uses %90 enriched uranium because of space limitations. Does Iran have a real estate shortage for nuclear power stations?

This is why no one in the nuclear business take seriously Iranian claims of peaceful power generation at %20+ enrichment. People like this man...

Mark Hibbs, leading journalist on nuclear energy, joins Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

January 27, 2010

WASHINGTON, Jan 27—Mark Hibbs, one of the world’s most acclaimed investigative reporters on nuclear energy and proliferation, will join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. For over two decades Hibbs has covered proliferation networks, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and nuclear trade for leading publications, including Nucleonics Week and Nuclear Fuel.

“Mark Hibbs is a legend in the nuclear world. Governments, industry, NGOs, the media—they all know Mark as a fount of hard-to-get information and analysis on a wide range of nuclear topics.

Other experts are the three IAEA inspection teams for Iraq headed by Rolf Ekeus, Hans Blix and Richard Butler. All non-Americans. These people are not fools, including Mark Hibbs who is a reporter by profession. The current IAEA inspectors for Iran are not idiots either. They know that Iran has no good cause for greater than %20 enrichment.

Also, Iran agreed to the crux of the deal, that it will send its Uranium outside the country (something I thought they would never agree to). All they want is to ensure they won't get shafted in return. What's so unfair about that? Also, what are you planning to do about the power imbalance in the Middle East that is the cause of our worries today?

Israel have never acknowledge to being a nuclear weapons state. If that is such a concern, there would have been a hue and cry about it a very long time ago. Instead, all the muslim countries in the ME worries more about each other than about Israel. There is no 'power imbalance' and you know it.

So your democracy is more important than theirs?

Yes...Ours and Europe's, despite our flaws, are more legitimate in the people's eyes than the farce of elections in Cuba, the former Soviet Union, China and yes...Iran.

Is 63% not greater than 53%?

Not when it is a farce. See above.

Also, Hamid Karzai was re-elected as well, and his was a widely fraudulent election, but that doesn't stop you from working with him.

Do we have a choice? No more than our diplomats have to deal with China's leadership and their supposedly 'elected' leaders.

I can't speak for all your allies. I can certainly say, though, that the people of Ontario, Canada are quite sick of fighting wars they shouldn't be involved in. Ontario, incidentally, is the most populous province of Canada. Also, from what I read and hear, the Brits aren't too pleased about their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan either. How many countries would be willing to go to war to stop Iran from developing weapons is questionable. Whether the Unites States has the stomach for it is also a valid question.

They are more than welcome to pressure their elected leaders to opt out of any US adventures. If their leaders does not heed their protests, that is not our problem. We work with leaders, not those who elected them. That is not a disdain for Canadians but the truth.

 

[gambit]

Americans are not qualified to comment on Mao, for China.

Yes we are...He was a thug and a child molester. Howzat?

The Sex Life of Chairman Mao: How and Why He Slept with So Many Virgin Girls

Throughout the period of his ascendancy, as reports of his personal life have made clear, young and virgin girls were brought to his bed on a regular basis. Agents, they might equally be termed pimps, roamed the Chinese countryside searching for suitable girls and explained the situation to their parents. They were sold the idea that a great honour was being provided for them and their daughter. Perhaps financial or material inducements were also provided at need. Presumably, there are a number of these women living still in China with Mao’s children, although this is not a subject which is discussed very much in the public sphere.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Yes we are...He was a thug and a child molester. Howzat?

The Sex Life of Chairman Mao: How and Why He Slept with So Many Virgin Girls

Do you want to say? Mao's three wives? so what?

To remind you, Mao's first wife because of the love of loyalty have been killed by KMT

 

[huzihaidao12]

Some rumors without any basis in the other put on the table.so what?

 

[huzihaidao12]

Some ridiculous slander, even in China, Mao's opponents, to Mao's criticism focused on the political top. Private life? Mao's private life should be better than the vast majority of the U.S. presidential much (if not all).

 

[gambit]

Do you want to say? Mao's three wives? so what?

To remind you, MAO's first wife, because the love of loyalty has been KMT killed.

By what do you mean 'qualified'?

Americans are not qualified to comment on Mao, for China.

You need to stop your idol worship ways. I do not need to be a Chinese nor French nor Russian nor even Martian to criticize any leader of any country. I can say things like: Obama is an idiot. Bush is a moron. Reagan was a fool. Carter was an imbecile. I am not a subject but a citizen...You must research the differences between the two on your own. No one can help you lest he be accused of being deceptive as to their context. Anyway...It is better to be a citizen than a subject and as a citizen, regardless of my allegiance, I am eminently qualified to criticize any political leader, be he king or president or any other label of potentate, of any country.

 

[huzihaidao12]

By what do you mean 'qualified'?


You need to stop your idol worship ways. I do not need to be a Chinese nor French nor Russian nor even Martian to criticize any leader of any country. I can say things like: Obama is an idiot. Bush is a moron. Reagan was a fool. Carter was an imbecile. I am not a subject but a citizen...You must research the differences between the two on your own. No one can help you lest he be accused of being deceptive as to their context. Anyway...It is better to be a citizen than a subject and as a citizen, regardless of my allegiance, I am eminently qualified to criticize any political leader, be he king or president or any other label of potentate, of any country.

Mao's comments about the Chinese people have always existed, the debate is intense and rational, and reject any unfounded slander. We have the right to comment and has been in progress. But this has nothing to do with the Americans. You are not entitled to comment on Mao's if you know the history. Mao's greatest contribution to China is out of the colonial oppression of imperialism on China, especially in the United States and its agents KMT, this point is not controversial.
It is ridiculous that Americans comment on MAO, This is "idol worship" What is the relationship? Stop your fantasies.

 

[adrenalin]

By what do you mean 'qualified'?


You need to stop your idol worship ways. I do not need to be a Chinese nor French nor Russian nor even Martian to criticize any leader of any country. I can say things like: Obama is an idiot. Bush is a moron. Reagan was a fool. Carter was an imbecile. I am not a subject but a citizen...You must research the differences between the two on your own. No one can help you lest he be accused of being deceptive as to their context. Anyway...It is better to be a citizen than a subject and as a citizen, regardless of my allegiance, I am eminently qualified to criticize any political leader, be he king or president or any other label of potentate, of any country.

No wonder, when ordinary chinese do not have freedom in their kingdom, they give speeches like these in forums and try to become a PLA warrior.

 

[huzihaidao12]

By what do you mean 'qualified'?

Means that a young Chinese professor's daughter, just because she is Mao's wife,was arrested. Only because she refused to make a public statement of love interrupted was killed by KMT . This is a real event than any unfounded slander.

 

[huzihaidao12]

No wonder, when ordinary chinese do not have freedom in their kingdom, they give speeches like these in forums and try to become a PLA warrior.

Stop your fantasies, to interrupt your dream, I feel sorry

 

[adrenalin]

Stop your fantasies, to interrupt your dream, I feel sorry

I am a citizen not a subject, try ordering somewhere in Harbin

Thanks Gambit, I now know Mao's hidden fantasies

 

[gambit]

Mao's comments about the Chinese people have always existed, the debate is intense and rational, and reject any unfounded slander. We have the right to comment and has been in progress. But this has nothing to do with the Americans. You are not entitled to comment on Mao's if you know the history. Mao's greatest contribution to China is out of the colonial oppression of imperialism on China, especially in the United States and its agents KMT, this point is not controversial.
It is ridiculous that Americans comment on MAO, This is "idol worship" What is the relationship? Stop your fantasies.

Wrong...The US never had any colonialist outpost in China like the European powers did. You need to do your own research on this, again, this is so you cannot accuse me or anyone else of misleading you. But as far as the KMT goes, any reign they had on mainland China with US support was short lived. Care to research on when they had to withdraw to Taiwan? Colonialism in China died at the end of WW II, no thanks to Mao but to the US, like it or not. Here is what the US said about Indochina, which composed of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia...

Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Summary and Chapter I

I saw Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country-thirty million inhabitants for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.

As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China.

Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of IndoChina is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.

In short, the US opposed colonialism in Asia by any US allies, from the greater China to the smaller Indochina. So where do you get your 'facts' that Mao liberated China from Western colonialism? From the Party, of course. That is your idol worshiping.

 

[huzihaidao12]

I am a citizen not a subject, try ordering somewhere in Harbin

Where you from hearing what is news? Is not based on rumors? I do not know what it is, but one thing go one thing clear here is that discussions of China's MAO unlimited, as long as you are, not based on unfounded rumors.