Iran: expect ‘good nuclear news’ on Tuesday night.

[gardenweasel]

TEHRAN - Iranians will hear “good news” on their country‘s nuclear program on Tuesday night, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

The news is widely expected in Iranian media to be the announcement that Iran has enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level needed to fuel nuclear power stations like the one it is building at the Gulf port of Bushehr. Such an announcement would be a big setback to UN efforts to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment work, as it has done before.

“After hearing all the good news tomorrow (Tuesday) night, Iranians should prostrate themselves before almighty God,” Ahmadinejad said in the northeastern city of Mashhad on Monday night. ...

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to visit Iran this week and any announcement of advances in uranium enrichment work by Iran could cast an embarrassing cloud over his visit. ...

“After the good nuclear news, the psychological war against us will start,” lawmaker Gholamreza Mesbahi-Moghaddam told a parliament session on Tuesday. “I can say there will be international media campaign against us in the next days because of the news the president will announce.”

follow-up..

Iran Has Enriched Uranium for First Time.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — """Iran has enriched uranium for the first time using 164 centrifuges, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted a former president as saying Tuesday.

The announcement by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani was the first disclosure that Iran had successfully enriched uranium since February, when it began research at its enrichment facility in the town of Natanz.

“Iran has put into operation the first unit of 164 centrifuges, has injected (uranium) gas and has reached industrial production,” the Kuwait News Agency quoted Rafsanjani as saying.

“We should expand the work of these machines to achieve a full industrial line. We need dozens of these units (sets of 164 centrifuges) to achieve a uranium enrichment facility,” he said""""

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

a quick primer on uranium enrichment fyi, imperfect as all summaries are....

natural uranium - 0.7% U-235

enriched.....

fuel for nuclear reactor - 3-5%

fuel for nuclear weapons - 90%

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

i wonder how the "joos" are taking this "good news"?.....

hmmmm...

joos..."i think we should wait and see how things work out. ahmadinejad is obviously a rational actor on the world stage...he wants to (fill in the blank):

1. "sit at the table with the big boys."
2. "deter israel." (never mind israel having the ability to destroy iran for decades)
3. "join the nuclear club." (overrated, but the bullseye jacket is nice)
4. "produce nuclear energy peacefully." (which can't be done under international inspection? ...go figure.)

or, i guess, as a last resort, we could listen to what the iranians have been saying since 1978-9, i.e. , "death to israel" and "death to the u.s"......

nah, let's wait and see how things turn out. peace in our time is finally within our grasp.""


well guys,it looks like the excrement is preparing to make forceful contact with the ventilator in the near future.....

get those bomb shelters stocked in case putin or the chinese decide to weigh in on behalf of their muslim cash cow.....

 

[AR182]

gw....

this a major problem.......

china & russia do business with iran......

they are against putting sanctions against iran.....

they also wouldn't mind that the u.s.come under attack by iran via terrorists......they are probably tired of hearing that the u.s. is the sole military power in the world......

with what's going on in iraq it will be pretty hard for the u.s. to do anything militarily.....not to mention about the anti-war crowd in this country if there is some military attack....

i'll repeat what i wrote several times before.....

i heard 2 ex-cia agents on hardball right before the iraq war......at that time they said that the u.s. should be attacking iran before invading iraq....they thought that iran was a much bigger threat.....

 

[djv]

AR182 dead on and now everyone knows we went wrong direction. And the press and our own government should shut up about only superpower. We must just love to piss others off and lose friends.

 

[kosar]

with what's going on in iraq it will be pretty hard for the u.s. to do anything militarily.....not to mention about the anti-war crowd in this country if there is some military attack....

That's an interesting paragraph. The so-called 'anti-war' crowd was right every step of the way regarding Iraq. And as you say, as a result of Iraq, we can't really do anything about Iran on our own.

So it seems to me that if the powers that be saw things more like the 'anti-war' crowd, pre-invasion, we would be a hell of a lot less vulnerable to what Iran is trying to accomplish right now.

If you're talking about the hippies in San Francisco who would protest a war against anybody, then so be it, but there were plenty of people who are not 'anti-war' in itself, who predicted exactly what has happened in Iraq.

More than that, it's disturbing that most of our info 'on the ground' came from 'Curveball', a disgruntled Iraqi who was living in Germany. All of his 'testimony' has since been discredited by our intel branches. Please tell me how the f*ck you don't try to verify his lies BEFORE invading.

It's already been shown that Congress was not given ALL the evidence. It seems that any contradicting evidence was omitted, except to a small committee. So any argument about how 'everybody' voted for it is immediately negated.

Now just today we learn that an independent 9 man team of bio-war experts was sent to Iraq by the Pentagon after they found 2 trucks that were supposed to be mobile bio labs. This team was sent to inspect the trucks and report back their opinion.

On May 27th, 2003, they sent back a 122 page report where all 9 members agreed that it was highly unlikely that it was a bio lab and highly likely they were used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. They were missing 11 crucial components that would be needed to produce bio agents.

They were asked if the trucks could quickly be converted and they responded that it would be easier to start off fresh with just a bucket than to retrofit the trucks.

On May 29th, W declares that these trucks were the smoking gun. Proof of WMD. They sent this team and completely ignored their report.

It just goes on and on.

 

[gardenweasel]

i`ll repeat...every major intelligence agency in the modern world believed that saddam had....and would try and procure more wmd`s as soon as the sanctions were pulled.....and the heat was off......which was in the pipeline,btw.....

including the russians....who wanted saddam to stay in power,btw...

he had them...and there`s no way that he destroyed them without u.n. oversight...and if he did,it was not only incredibly stupid...and counterproductive........it was illegal....

they were never EVER accounted for...never EVER bagged and tagged...as the u.n. mandated...

what benefit saddam would have gained by secretly disarming can never, ever be rationalized...

destroy them in secret...so other people still think he has them?...

sooo,why not just keep them,and others will think he has them?...same conclusion...and he`s still armed...

why play games with the u.n. inspectors?...why not save your regime?...

because it`s an irrational argument...

what galls me is that the bush administration is either to stupid to make the argument...or,just plain inept....

i can make it...but,they can`t?...

i agree..f-ck bush....i`ve lost all respect for the administration with the ports deal and immigration...

but,don`t play like saddam wasn`t a menace...a threat...and wouldn`t continue to arm with all that illegal oil for food money that the u.n. ran interference for...continue to subsidize terrorists...

he made the same threats against israel that ahmadinnerjacket did....and would have seen them become a reality if the "joo`s hadn`t saved the world`s ass....

while i`m here...

"we created saddam"...liberals whining and crying...

why do you think that we backed saddam?.....where do you think that idea originated?....

it was very similar to why we allied with the murderer stalin in ww2....

what happened after ww2?...we fought a decades long cold war with the russians...who were, after ww2,our biggest threat...

kinda makes sense,don`t it?...alliances shift as the world geopolitic shifts....as the tide ebbs and flows...

at the time,saddam was by far a better option than iran....after jimmy carter paved the way for the ouster of the shah....

we backed him because the tide in the iraq/iran war was heading south for iraq and we were deathly afraid of an empowered iran....

i wish you`d mentioned joe wilson....so i could finally put that whole left wing bullshit story to rest....

the story that`s been perpetuated by the lamestream media...about his phony report to the media...that was completely different than his report to the administration.....

btw,the administration never sent that political hack to niger...they might as well have sent howard dean or michael moore...

that little plot was formulated by the left wing contingent of the c.i.a....who continue their dirty work to this day...by leaking covert info and strategy in the war on terror to like minded lefties like the n.y.times.....

was it a good idea to remove saddam?...absolutely yes....

was the war proper a success?...yes...the iraqi military folded like a cheap tent.....

was the aftermath..the occupation... horribly botched by the bush administration?......

hell,yes...

sheesh...

 

[kosar]

GW,

I don't think there are many people on either side who STILL try to claim that Saddam was this big immediate threat. You're one of them, I guess.

'Military folding like a cheap tent.' ----- Not a threat

No WMD ------- where did they go? No threat

If I recall, we found a few missles that were capable of going like 10 miles further than they were allowed, under the sanctions. That was the worst that we found.

He wanted nukes someday but had absolutely no program since 1991 because we were watching? Ummm, that's not a threat. And certainly nowhere near an immediate one.

So really, how in the world can you CONTINUE to say that saddam was this big, immediate threat?

He had no army, no weapons to speak of, no known ties to any americans death or to any plots against america.

I guess your continued defense of the war is that saddam wanted nukes. Pretty damn flimsy, buddy.

As far as the 'aftermath' being handled poorly? Come on, did anybody (no need to raise your hand, Wayne, I already have ya down) really think that we'd roll in there and the three tribes would welcome us and set up a peaceful lasting government together? That we'd be greeted as liberators and with flowers, as Rummy liked to say?

You think the aftermath is bad now, just wait until we leave.

I just shake my head when people say, 'if we only sent more troops', or 'if only we had no rules of engagement' or 'if only turkey would have let us come from the north.'

Here's a newsflash: This isn't WW2. The Germans aren't lined up in columns.

What does 'more force allowed' mean, anyways? Nukes? The go ahead to spray machine gun fire into markets hoping that by luck we killed a bad guy? Seriously, currently we use intelligence to identify the bad guys and then we go and try to blow him/them up. Somebody tell me exactly how 'more force' would work in this sort of a 'war.'

No, these are just excuses. The real issue is that we neither knew or cared about tribalism, regional mores, the power of religion. That's the problem.

You wanna try to get Saddam? Go ahead. Tell him to prove he destroyed his WMD or his palaces start getting blown up one by one. Whatever. But a full-blown invasion and attempt to nation-build and form a country in our mold is the pinnacle of idiocy and arrogance.

 

[gardenweasel]

no...my defense is that he spit in the face of the u.n....which was basically a show....because they were complicit ..

that he never disarmed....and he did these things because he believed that europe,russia and china would keep him safe.....as long as they continued to get their cut of oil for food and other perks...

we know that russia,china and others have provided iran with nuclear technology......

we knew that france, germany,russia and others supplied saddam with an actual reactor....

there`s not much difference between the two...same players...same scenario......it`s about economics....very shortsighted...

and there`s rumors that russia diverted nuclear weapons from the ukraine to iran....

WHAT IS THE WORLD THINKING?.....

now saudi arabia is angling to arm themselves...

we now know that the u.n.....is not a factor in deterring any despot in acquiring anything that they want to obtain....THE IRANIAN ISSUE WILL CONTINUE TO DRAG ON IN THE U.N....UNTIL THEY`RE ARMED...OR UNTIL THEY GIVE A WEAPON TO A TERRORIST...OR UNTIL THEY NUKE ISRAEL....

that`s the plan....footdragging....until the desired result is obtained...

all intelligence...pointed to saddam having weapons...certainly chemical and bio weapons...

and wilson`s report to the cia confirmed that iraq was trying to obtain uranium from niger....not what he fed the mainstream media....

the difference between iraq and iran at the time when saddam became a serious issue?...his history of destabilizing the middle east...his continued foibles...

invasions...assasinations....the destruction of oil fields...the unprovoked bombing of israel to try and initiate a full scale middle eastern war.....

"""""""""""THIS WAS THE IDEA,KOSAR....STOP THE MIDDLE EASTERN SNOWBALL FROM ROLLING DOWNHILL...BEFORE IT GOT MOMENTUM....ONE UNSTABLE REGIME GETS WEAPONS,THEY`LL ALL GET THEM....

you`d rather have rolled the dice?...what if you had been wrong?.....what if iran gets a weapon...and does what they say they`ll do to israel?.....close the straits of hormuz....as saddam tried to gain a stranglehold by taking kuwait...

we got no help..if the world had stood shoulder to shoulder against iraq...the iran situation wouldn`t be happening....

i know you think it`s alright right for these zealots and despots to have wmd`s...many of us disagree....

as far as the invasion....i think that if we`d rolled in there and not let the remnants of the baathist regime go...including the military(rummy sent them home..very stupid)......and had had more troops on the ground......that much of this could have been circumvented.....

 

[kosar]

Rolled the dice? On what? That Saddam may have still had bio and chem weapons from the 80's? Yeah, compared to what is going on, and our costs in soldiers, money and security I would roll the dice. There was never any evidence proferred, embellished or otherwise, that he even had a nuke program. We went in on the premise of him still having remnants of chem and bio weapons. Who cares. Regardless of the corrupt UN, he was contained, as has been proven.

He was toothless and useless. No capacity to harm us, period.

Your defense is that he 'spit in the face of the UN?' So IOW, you'd concede that he was no immediate threat whatsoever. You just didn't like him disobeying the UN.

It's a pretty broad brush to say that I don't see a problem with the 'zealots' having WMD. Do I care that Syria has stockpiles of chem and bio weapons? No.

Do I care that Iran is full speed ahead towards a nuke and we have been neutered by this Iraq disaster? Yes.

 

[StevieD]

"what galls me is that the bush administration is either to stupid to make the argument...or,just plain inept....

i can make it...but,they can`t?..."

Exactly GW. They can't make that argument because Saddam was contained. The sanctions were working. If they weren't don't you think they would be running it up every flag pole they could find? .

 

[djv]

The good news if you can say good. Today they state Iran 4 maybe 5 years from a true nuke bomb. Of course this is from more intelligence that has been wrong for last 5 to 8 years about almost everything in that region. Going back to Somalia. And our government leaders must stop twisting this chit. Bad enough it's been way off and then helped to make it even more so.

 

[onetrickpony]

Can't imagine this turning out badly...

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: 'Be angry at us and die of this anger,'" Ahmadinejad said.