Iran...somehow not North Korea

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Towards the end, the conservatives were having convulsions. Something learned over & over & over during the Cold War, was once again conveniently forgotten for the hope & promise of a communist & a liar.

Kim Jung Il said somethin gto the effect of "give us nuke rods for electricity & we'll not make weapons". Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright & Slick Willie, looking to shore up his foreign policy failures with Arafat, thought about it. Talked about it. Pondered it.

Did it.

Foolishly.

Earlier this month, Madame Albright in her fine "I wish I was Coffee Annan" glory, admitted on Meet the Press what should have been clear from the start:
"No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating. The worst part that has happened under the Agreed Framework," Albright said, was that "there [were] these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen."

But because of North Korea's cheating, she explained, "those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons, up to six to eight now, we're not really clear."

Albright's comments came less than 24 hours after reports surfaced that Pyongyang detonated what some said was its first above-ground nuclear test – though experts later said the mushroom-cloud explosion witnessed by tens of thousands was a non-nuclear event.
Click to expand...

I almost brought it up then but I'd like to see Bill & Co slide into oblivion. 2008 must come first I suppose but, hey...I'm an optimist.

During the first Presidential debate Sen Kerry let slip the dogs of appeasement
"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," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."
Click to expand...

First off, sanctions have been in place regarding Iran since the hostage crisis. Secondly, he wants to give the anti-western Mullahs of Iran, one of our fiercest enemies, the keys to a new bomb? Not only is John Kerry a fool & a political hack he is incredibly dangerous.

He went to 'Nam & came home a traitor. He spent 20 years undermining & naysaying almost every single weapon system, new weapon & intelligence bill to pass through his hands. He seems to be part of a conspiracy to arm our enemies. First the Clinton administration did it with North Korea & now John Kerry wishes to arm Iran.

Maybe this is his idea of a world test for self-protection.
 
Their best missile (Shahab-6) goes 6,200kms only. This'll get it into Europe, but not across the deep blue sea.

I wouldn't invest in a bunker jsut yet. :D
 
There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Continued uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's June 2004 report.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Gonz said:
Towards the end, the conservatives were having convulsions. Something learned over & over & over during the Cold War, was once again conveniently forgotten for the hope & promise of a communist & a liar.

Kim Jung Il said somethin gto the effect of "give us nuke rods for electricity & we'll not make weapons". Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright & Slick Willie, looking to shore up his foreign policy failures with Arafat, thought about it. Talked about it. Pondered it.

Did it.

Foolishly.

Earlier this month, Madame Albright in her fine "I wish I was Coffee Annan" glory, admitted on Meet the Press what should have been clear from the start:


I almost brought it up then but I'd like to see Bill & Co slide into oblivion. 2008 must come first I suppose but, hey...I'm an optimist.

During the first Presidential debate Sen Kerry let slip the dogs of appeasement


First off, sanctions have been in place regarding Iran since the hostage crisis. Secondly, he wants to give the anti-western Mullahs of Iran, one of our fiercest enemies, the keys to a new bomb? Not only is John Kerry a fool & a political hack he is incredibly dangerous.

He went to 'Nam & came home a traitor. He spent 20 years undermining & naysaying almost every single weapon system, new weapon & intelligence bill to pass through his hands. He seems to be part of a conspiracy to arm our enemies. First the Clinton administration did it with North Korea & now John Kerry wishes to arm Iran.

Maybe this is his idea of a world test for self-protection.
Click to expand...


So out of context.

"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.

With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.

Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.

While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.

That happened on this president's watch.

Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send."

Link to debate transcript
 
Man do you work for the DNC? I've never seen so many buzz words in such a short amount of time.
 
Gonz said:
I'm not talking exclusively about this thread. HELLO!
Click to expand...

Well I would keep the thread discussion relevant to the thread. That is just me. Not diluting congruity of the message. Lets try to stay away from subterfuge.
 
You have noticed the title of our site have you not?

20 years of anti-war & anti-intelligence voting is all I need to know from Sen Kerry. He can talk all he wants...Hey, he's even been on message since the beginning, or so he says.
 
Angry Again said:
Well I would keep the thread discussion relevant to the thread. That is just me. Not diluting congruity of the message. Lets try to stay away from subterfuge.
Click to expand...
...says the same person who responds to a thread about whether humans are the cause of global warming with a story that presents evidence that it exists. How is posting evidence of its existence relevant and not diluting the congruity of the thread, when it only affirms something that already has to be accepted as a precondition for making a relevant argument in that thread?
 
Inkara1 said:
...says the same person who responds to a thread about whether humans are the cause of global warming with a story that presents evidence that it exists. How is posting evidence of its existence relevant and not diluting the congruity of the thread, when it only affirms something that already has to be accepted as a precondition for making a relevant argument in that thread?
Click to expand...

Gonz said "Let's see, there's the fact that global warming isn't due to cars & manufacturing"

That indicates that the article is stating there is a historical trend that causes global warming. I presented contradicting evidence.
 
Angry Again said:
Gonz said "Let's see, there's the fact that global warming isn't due to cars & manufacturing"

That indicates that the article is stating there is a historical trend that causes global warming. I presented contradicting evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidence that's pure speculation though...
"That's the logical conclusion, although it may be somewhat controversial," he said.
Click to expand...
"Logical" does not particularly equal "Fact".

I'd need more real evidence to draw a conclusion.

It "still" amazes me that people think that piss-ants like us can destroy
the whole earths ozone layer in even several life times to the extent that
it threaten our destruction.
(maybe with a total nuke war, but not merely with friggin' cars, and such.) :confused:
 
Now look, damnit, I have a manmade global warming is bullshit thread. This is the Albright & Kerry are idiots & dangerous thread.

WTF, do you people think this is OFF TOPIC Central or something?
 
Gonz said:
Now look, damnit, I have a manmade global warming is bullshit thread. This is the Albright & Kerry are idiots & dangerous thread.

WTF, do you people think this is OFF TOPIC Central or something?
Click to expand...
:rofl:

I've seen no 'credible' evidence that convinces me other wise gonz. I got
to build my post count somehow though, with out just cutting and pasting. :nerd:
 
Sex bombe flourless chocolate cake



  • 180g hazelnuts finely ground
  • 180g soft brown sugar
  • 180 g unsalted butter
  • 7 eggs yolks & white separated
  • 300 g dark chocolate
  • Two round cake tines 20cm in diameter, 5cm height
  • Greaseproof paper.
Ganache/Icing

  • 300 ml cream
  • 300g chocolate
  • 25g butter
Pre set oven to 170 degrees Celsius.

In a large mixing bowl cream the butter and sugar.

Add the yolks one at a time and mix into butter and sugar.

Add hazelnuts.

Add melted but slightly cooled chocolate.

In a separate bowl whisk egg whites until soft peaks are formed.

Add half of whites to chocolate mix and fold through, add remaining whites and fold.

Cut rounds of greaseproof paper for base of cake tin.

Evenly place mix into the two cake tins.

Place in oven oven for approximately 30-35 minutes until mix is slightly cracked on top or until mix is not liquid in it's centre.

Test with small knife or skewer.

Set aside to cool for at least 90 minutes, then turn cakes out of them.

Remove greaseproof paper.

Place one cake on a large flate plate.

Add enough ganache on top of cake to cover.

Place second cake on top, with a stainless spatula start to spread ganache over and around cake.

Be generous with ganache.

Method for ganache.

This is best done the night before.

Add cream to small pot.

Gently bring up to heat.

Add chocolate and butter and thoroughly mix until mix nearly comes to boil.

Pour into container and refrigerate overnight.

When you come to dress cake you may need to warm ganache in a stainless steel bowl over boiling water.
 
Angry Again said:
Gonz said "Let's see, there's the fact that global warming isn't due to cars & manufacturing"

That indicates that the article is stating there is a historical trend that causes global warming. I presented contradicting evidence.
Click to expand...
Your article stated three things:
1) Hurricanes have become more common in the last couple of decades.
2) A possible cause is that global warming is warming up the ocean.
3) This has not been an issue in the current presidential election.

None of those contradict the assertion that global warming is part of a cyclical trend, as evidenced by growth patterns in trees that were alive more than 400 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top