|
26 Oct 04 - 06:50 PM (#1308066) Subject: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Non-Proliferation Don't take my word for it. Source: MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004 Half the world's stockpile of plutonium and highly enriched uranium is in Russia. 600 metric tons are now warehoused. Of that quantity, the US Department of Energy reported at the end of 2003, 22% is satisfactorily stored. As Kerry pointed out in the first debate, at the current rate it will take 13 years to do it all. He says he can and will do it in 4. Bush has decided to let 2 of the major programs to secure this material lapse, since Russia would not agree to a change in the agreement which would shield US firms from worker safety liability. Senator Pete Domenici, Republicaan of New Mexico: "I wonder if he (Bush) has been advised that the liability issue is preventing destruction of enough plutonium for about 10,000 weapons." Robert Galluci, dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service: "This (unsecured nuclear material) is the principal security threat to the United States in the next decade". Of course, he could have added it's the major threat to the world. Sounds like Bush should change the slogan of the US from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Corporate Privilege At All Costs" (have to find the Latin for that). And for this he's willing to sacrifice world nuclear safety. OK, Doug R, Larry K et al.--let's hear your feeble excuses. And, for all that, those of the Naderites, who cannot bring themselves to support the one person in the world who can improve the situation. |
|
26 Oct 04 - 07:05 PM (#1308088) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Peace It only takes one or two nuclear devices in the right place and all hell will break loose. Great post, Ron. |
|
26 Oct 04 - 08:20 PM (#1308157) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Cluin Is that anything like Nucular? ;) |
|
26 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM (#1308167) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Peace Have to ask Bush on that one, Cluin. |
|
26 Oct 04 - 08:40 PM (#1308172) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Jack the Sailor Can you post a link please Ron? |
|
26 Oct 04 - 08:45 PM (#1308176) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Amos Here's one link, although it is the same story covered by the Post, not MSN. A |
|
26 Oct 04 - 10:14 PM (#1308227) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Blissfully Ignorant Novus ordo seclorum...printed right there on the dollar, all blatant like... |
|
26 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM (#1308248) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/ The above is the site---I'm afraid I don't know how to do links. |
|
26 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM (#1308250) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/ |
|
26 Oct 04 - 11:01 PM (#1308251) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies Sorry, I still can't seem to do the "blue clickies" |
|
27 Oct 04 - 12:16 AM (#1308301) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Amos http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/ |
|
27 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM (#1309173) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies Still waiting for an explanation of Bush's conduct from members of his fan club. Deafening silence from Bearded Bruce, Doug R., Larry K, et al. Fascinating. Well, as they say, silence consents. |
|
27 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM (#1309207) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Bobert You all seem to think that Bush lettin' the rest of the world get into the nuclear arms race is a mistake. Make no bones about it, the neocons want exactly what they are getting. Don't forget the 2 motivational goals of the neo-cons: 1. Bankrupt the American government so they can kill off the New Deal. 2. Scare the American people to the degree that they will allow the military industrialists profits beyond thier wildest dreams. So lets keep things in perspective here. There is meatghod to their madness. Does it make the world safer? No. Does it makes their daddies proud? Sho nuff... Bobert |
|
28 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM (#1310131) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies Still waiting for answers from Bush supporters. It appears there are none---neither answers nor supporters. |
|
29 Oct 04 - 01:03 AM (#1310243) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Peace Ron, I am holding my breath on the Canadian Submarine thread. Don't you do it here. Brucie |
|
29 Oct 04 - 07:51 AM (#1310424) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: GUEST,Bunky "Munitions Overkill The story behind the story of Saddam's lost explosives. Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT " "In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein's regime purchased large stocks of the explosives HMX, RDX and PETN from suppliers in China, Yugoslavia and--deep breath now--France. Ostensibly, these explosives have their civilian applications, such as mining and demolition. But because they are both chemically stable (they detonate only when properly fused) and highly explosive, they also have extensive military uses. They are common in conventional military ordnance, such as mines and artillery shells. They are uniquely well-suited for terrorist attacks; less than a pound of these explosives brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. And they can be used as triggers to set off a nuclear chain reaction. Following the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency put the Qaqaa cache under seal, where it remained until U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Upon the inspectors' return in late 2002, some 35 tons of HMX were found to be missing; the Iraqis claimed some of it had been removed for civilian use. That's the last we know of their whereabouts. According to a Times source, U.S. troops "went through the bunkers, but saw no items bearing the IAEA seal." NBC News, which was embedded with the 101st Airborne when it arrived at Al-Qaqaa on April 10, 2003--the day after the fall of Baghdad--also reports this week that back then it found no sign of the explosives either. Stands to reason: Of course Saddam would remove his precious HMX from its last known location before U.S. cruise missiles could find it. So much, then, for Mr. Kerry's suggestion that Bush Administration negligence is to blame for the missing stockpile." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005812 |
|
30 Oct 04 - 12:31 AM (#1311201) Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non- From: Ron Davies Bunkie--- I'll say this very slowly so you can understand. Read....the......thread......title OK. Now--read.......the........first......posting The question is simple and narrow. Why did Bush decide to let 2 of the major programs to secure Russian plutonium and highly enriched uranium lapse? Senator Pete Domenici (Republican of New Mexico) says it's because of a liability issue---that US firms, who, I would hazard a guess, just might possibly be Bush supporters----imagine that!----want exemption from worker safety liability. We are not discussing alleged problems in Missouri in 2000, missing explosives in Iraq, or the relative merits of Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears. Why did Bush end these 2 programs? OK, got it? What's your answer? |
|
30 Oct 04 - 06:40 PM (#1311745) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Bunky "WSJ Opinion Journal The Wages of Appeasement How Jimmy Carter and academic multiculturalists helped bring us Sept. 11" "In contrast, George W. Bush, impervious to such self-deception, has, in a mere 2 1/2 years, reversed the perilous course of a quarter-century. Since Sept. 11, he has removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, begun to challenge the Middle East through support for consensual government, isolated Yasser Arafat, pressured the Europeans on everything from anti-Semitism to their largesse to Hamas, removed American troops from Saudi Arabia, shut down fascistic Islamic "charities," scattered al Qaeda, turned Pakistan from a de facto foe to a scrutinized neutral, rounded up terrorists in the United States, pressured Libya, Iran and Pakistan to come clean on clandestine nuclear cheating, so far avoided another Sept. 11--and promises that he is not nearly done yet." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952 |
|
30 Oct 04 - 09:48 PM (#1311869) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Pickles "Highlights of Program to Cut Nuke Threat Updated: Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2004 - 4:03 PM For research reactors _ Russia has agreed to retrieve uranium from reactors in 17 countries, and the United States has accelerated its retrieval program. " wtopnews.com |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:01 PM (#1311874) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies The 2 programs I cited have been suspended. Why? I must compliment you 2 most recent posters on your ability to dance around the question without answering it. |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:03 PM (#1311875) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Arfie "True? Only partly. Most of Kerry's figures came from a study by Harvard nuclear experts Matthew Bunn and Anthony Wier. But Bunn himself admits that he had to correct some of his own numbers" http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161107/site/newsweek/ Arf Arf |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:10 PM (#1311880) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies What is your answer to (Republican) Senator Domenici, who, it is remotely possible, may know more about the topic than the giant intellect who now alleges to head the country? |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:33 PM (#1311887) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Bobert Looks very much like the Bushites don't want to discuss real issues which effect real people... This thread has beena round long enough for them to have their say and they haven't... Their silence speaks volumes about the substance of their political philosopies... Bobert |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:41 PM (#1311890) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly "Senator Domenici is confused. That is perhaps the kindest explanation of his current lapse into nuclear evangelism. He equates anti-plutonium with anti-nuclear and concludes that America's energy salvation can be attained only through the rebirth of nuclear energy built upon a new acceptance of the virtues of plutonium." http://www.nci.org/p/pl-bas98.htm S |
|
30 Oct 04 - 10:43 PM (#1311893) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies So then there's no problem that the nuclear material is not secured? That will be big news to a lot of people. |
|
31 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM (#1311916) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: dianavan ...because Russia has agreed to dispose of Iran's nuclear waste? I don't know... Is it related? d |
|
31 Oct 04 - 10:55 AM (#1312192) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Let's not let the Bushites off the hook I want them to tell us why there is no problem that nuclear material is unsecured. |
|
31 Oct 04 - 10:59 AM (#1312198) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly In view of Beslan, the Russkys are just as interested in securing the nukes as we are. S |
|
31 Oct 04 - 11:13 AM (#1312206) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Metchosin How about if I guess why there's no problem.... The US is going to build a great big star wars blanket over the North American continent to stop any nasty stuff dropping in from other places. The US can't really come up with a technology to accurately count votes yet, but the star wars blanket....Hey, no sweat! |
|
31 Oct 04 - 11:20 AM (#1312211) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Please read the opening post again. Bush has suspended 2 programs to secure nuclear material since some US firms want the agreement changed to allow them immunity from worker safety liability, and Russia will not change the program to fit Bush's domestic allies' interests. Nor should it---worker safety should not be ignored----or do you think it should? Therefore Bush has dramatically slowed the progress of securing nuclear matierial in Russia (obviously Russian still has huge financial problems and cannot pay for the program itself) Just as obviously, it's in our, and the world's interest that the programs continue. Ergo Bush is needlessly jeopardizing world nuclear safety. That in itself is actually grounds for removing him on Tuesday. |
|
31 Oct 04 - 11:55 AM (#1312231) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly Any direct quotes? Any links to Pro Bush sources? S |
|
31 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM (#1312695) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Exactly which part of the opening post do you doubt? |
|
01 Nov 04 - 06:51 AM (#1312919) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly Everything that is not from a pro bush source and is not quoted directly as per the RD socialist party specifications. S |
|
01 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM (#1313321) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: dianavan Smedly - if you doubt it then it is up to you to find a source that confirms your position. Whatever that is...? d |
|
01 Nov 04 - 09:24 PM (#1313748) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly Anything that does not meet the RD specs must not even be read, much less evaluated. S |
|
01 Nov 04 - 09:36 PM (#1313754) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol From: GUEST,Clint Keller Smedly, what's the "the RD socialist party?" Do you say MSNBC lies? I can't follow your argument. Can't even find it. Explain, please. clint |
|
02 Nov 04 - 07:09 PM (#1314632) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly I don't have a position or an argument. I want to know if the information in the original post to this thread meets the spefications laid down by Ron Davies before I study it. I don't want my mind to be poisioned. S |
|
02 Nov 04 - 09:03 PM (#1314693) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Bill D *grin*...I have known a number of 'smedleys' in my time.. |
|
03 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM (#1315948) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies "Smedley"-- I have a sneaky suspicion you'd rather blow smoke than actually debate the topic. Say it ain't so. If you don't believe the first post, you are welcome to refer to MSNBC of the day cited, or to the Washington Post of the same day. Sorry it isn't Rush Limbaugh--maybe next time. |
|
03 Nov 04 - 11:48 PM (#1316005) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly Ron: So Bush is an asshole for arrogantly trying to be the peace keeper of the world. But he is also an asshole for not being the peace keeper of the world. I got it. And Pete Domenici's wondering, not statements to the effect that Bush is preventing destruction of something makes him twice an asshole either way. In addition everything that any previous administration has or has not done is scooped up and laid at the feet of Mr Bush. I am wondering if someone is not trying to put all the blame for everything on Bush. Was there a global test done on the US acting unilaterally to "destroy this material? Was it approved by the UN? Yes, If what you are saying is true and not just finger pointing. we are all doomed. Start digging your hole. But let me go into more detail: The title to your thread is your creation not NBC's. That is your unbiased interpretation of what was on NBC. Right? "Don't take my word for it" means that your word is the same as NBC's word? The statement about half the world's stock pile comes from the DOE and does not point any fingers at Bush or anybody. Just a statement of facts. The John Kerry statement points a finger, one of thousands, at Bush. That is proof of something? "Bush has let 2 programs lapse because Russia would not agree to something." It is their shit that they made and they want to place conditions on someone else to take care of it for free? Is that the fault of Russia or Bush? It seems to me that he is protecting American interests and the tax money that you and me pay. Then a Domenici wondering. His opinion, not NBC's? His attempt to put a spin on something to make it a Bush fault? I wonder If Ron D has considered the liabilities involved in toying with world opinion on nuclear proliferation? Ha! you are in trouble now. Then a statement by Robert Galluci that applies to any nuclear material anywhere in the world at any time from the creation of the first nuclear material and into the future. Where does he say it is a George Bush fault? Then it says he could have added...... Who said that? NBC, Galluci? Kerry or you? The I read "It sounds like........" Was that NBC saying what it sounds like? Sounds like it was you are putting your spin on NBC's story. And lastly a statement that "he" is willing to sacrifice something. Again it looks like you are adding your spin to NBC's story because you have not delineated what was from NBC and what was not. I am sorry to sound so hostile but I get mad when I parse something like this and evaluate it. Bottom line is that Kerry accused Bush of ending something and it was wrong. It is my opinion that this is one of a thousand accusations Kerry has made in his failed attempt to make himself look good and get more votes at the expense of the national security. NBC reporting it does not ad validity. Anybody that wants to believe this is welcome to so but you wanted my opinion and my opinion it is a waste of time to read it. Also I note a dearth of direct quotations and Pro-Bush sources but I am not going to enforce those particular rules of debate. because you seem to have let them lapse. Smedly |
|
03 Nov 04 - 11:56 PM (#1316013) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Peace Smedley's (an English company) makes a passably good steak and kidney pie. Comes in a pie-shaped tin. Haven't had one in a few years. Thanks for reminding me. |
|
04 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM (#1316411) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly "U.S. blocked centrifuge parts bound for Libya" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3849885/ "Bush urges global effort to end WMD trafficking President emphasizes threat of weapons getting in terrorists' hands" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4268822/ "Bush urges nations to limit trade in nuclear fuel" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235681/ Smedly |
|
04 Nov 04 - 10:18 AM (#1316421) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol From: Uncle_DaveO Bush is dangerously wrong on most everything! Dave Oesterreich |
|
04 Nov 04 - 10:30 PM (#1317179) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Smedly-- 1) Thanks so much for responding in a way that might possibly indicate you would like to have a sane debate on this. 2) Foul language is not necessary, unless it's the only language you speak. I was hoping you'd be at least bi-lingual: guttter language and English----- (even though one of our enthusiastic posters seems to be just starting English, having mastered the first one cited.) 3) Objectivity of sources sounds like it will be a problem for you. Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective. (As you may know, NBC is owned by GE, one of the most respected firms in the country). I am not citing Ramparts, the Nation or another source which may not be objective, just as I don't believe that Mr. Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is precisely the ticket here either. 4) I'm sorry I gave you credit for more intelligence than appears to be the case. I assure you I won't again. Since you're a Bushite, I should have known. Have you figured out that the "RD socialist party" is in your head? As a registered Republican, albeit one totally disgusted with Mr. Bush, I find your idea faintly amusing. I did not quote the article--I paraphrased, except when I used direct quotes. The crucial quote is by Senator Domenici,---- (another Republican who has found Mr. Bush less than perfect, certainly on this topic.)---- and, like all quotes I use, word for word. In case you still haven't figured it out, everything after the quote by Robert Galluci is my own commentary. I would have thought that perhaps when I mentioned Doug R., Larry K, et al., you would have realized this. I also started the whole posting by referring any reader to MSNBC---to avoid having to take my word on anything. 5) You still haven't answered if Bush was right to sacrifice world nuclear safety to the wishes of a few firms --- (perhaps Bush supporters, who knows?)---who want a shield from workers' safety liability. |
|
08 Nov 04 - 08:13 AM (#1320330) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Well, well. It appears there's no word from Doug R., Larry K, Old Guy, Bearded Bruce, or any of the other Bush cheerleaders on precisely why it's just hunky dory that Bush, by discontinuing two programs to secure nuclear material in Russia,----- since some US firms want a shield against workers safety liability,---- has jeopardized world nuclear safety. Sounds like we're forced to the conclusion that Bushites don't care about nuclear safety, or just maybe, that they don't want to admit their boy is dead wrong on this. |
|
08 Nov 04 - 08:22 PM (#1320919) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly First this thread died and went off of the list from lack of interest utill you revived it. There is no link to MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004 I can't find it so I have no idea what part of your post was by you and what part is by them. A pretty sloppy job of posting in view of the restrictions you place on others. Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective. All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evaluations. But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6bJbYhaP8pAJ:www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.20.ElectionWatch.pdf+Center+for+Media+and+Public+Affairs+at+George+Mason+University+&hl=en I still assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US cleaning up their mess. Your guy lost. Get over it. |
|
08 Nov 04 - 09:00 PM (#1320955) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly First this thread died and went off of the list from lack of interest until you revived it. Yes I am able to speak foul language unlike the Liberal elite (when the mike is on). There is no link to MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004. I can't find it on MSNBC so I have no idea what part of your post was by you and what part is by NBC. A pretty sloppy job of posting in view of the restrictions you place on others. I have searched to find out what 2 programs Bush suspended but I can't find them so I am still only able to respond to the mixture of information and conjecture you posted. Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective. All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evaluations. But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6bJbYhaP8pAJ:www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.20.ElectionWatch.pdf+Center+for+Media+and+Public+Affairs+at+George+Mason+University+&hl=en What bearing do Hannity or Limbaugh have or your original post that we are repeatedly told to focus on? I too am a registered Republican and I am not all that enamored with all of Bush's policies. My posts were anti-Kerry not pro Bush. I feel honored to have my intelligence portioned out by someone of such superior intelligence. Therefore you will always think you have the upper hand and be faintly amused by lower class beings. crucial quote is by Senator Domenici I don't regard a wondering as any thing crucial. It is not a statement. I still assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US cleaning up their mess. Your guy lost. Get over it. You do not mention the links I posted about positive steps that bush has taken toward nuclear proliferation because it shoots holes in you botched anti-Bush posting that does not meet your own standards. Smedly |
|
09 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM (#1321998) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Smedly--- Even though your boy himself seems to believe that thinking is not something a true Republican does, you would be advised to try it some time. You would also be advised to check facts before shooting from the lip,--( though again your boy does not---is he really your role model?) 1) Please point out to me exactly where I complained about the election result on this thread. If you would do some elementary checking, you would find that I started this thread before the election. It was an issue before the election; it's still an issue. 2) I appreciate your acceptance of the ground rules---no profanity. It's not necessary in any civilized debate--although one of our posters ( not on this thread) seems to find it hard to live without it. 3) Obviously, the thread went off the list since you didn't deign to answer the basic question---was Bush right to sacrifice world nuclear safety to the wishes of a few US firms who want a shield from worker safety liability?. It's a simple question---yes or no. 4) If you assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US "clearing up their mess", I submit that is a, pardon the expression, stupidly short-sighted attitude on your part---- (but one which fits perfectly with the intellectual and moral brilliance of your mighty leader). If you don't think it is in the US interest to make sure Russian nuclear material is secure--and not trickling or flowing into the hands of anti-US states or parties--give your head a shake. 5) If you don't believe MSNBC is objective, what exactly is your gripe? Are you aware that even Fox news found that Kerry won the first debate? NBC is owned by GE--what do you have against GE? MS is obviously Microsoft--I loathe and despise Microsoft, but that doesn't mean I reject everything they have ever been associated with. 6) The only part of my original post which is absolutely crucial is the quote by Sen. Domenici. It is a direct quote. If you doubt he said it you can look it up. 7) Interesting that you feel honored to have your intelligence "portioned out" (sic) by me. Can you translate that into English? 8) Sean Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh on the Right correspond to Al Franken on the Left. All foam at the mouth and do little else. Therefore I am disinclined to take their word. Nor should you. 9) I think it's reasonable to be tolerantly amused when you made your brilliant remark about the "RD Socialist Party". Still waiting for your answer. Your boy is dead wrong on this, as on so much else. You'd best admit it. |
|
11 Nov 04 - 04:15 PM (#1323739) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies It's still apropos. And still there's been no answer from any of our wonderful Bushites---Bearded Bruce, Old Guy, Smedly, Doug R., Larry K., Guest US. etc. It's a simple question--was Bush right to suspend 2 of the programs to secure nuclear material in Russia, suspending them at the behest of few US firms which want immunity from workers' safety liability? Yes or no? Bushites seem expert at plundering other websites and posting information totally irrelevant to this narrow question. However, they have a severe problem actually answering the question. |
|
11 Nov 04 - 05:23 PM (#1323823) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly RD: You have presented such a sloppy thing to respond to that it is no wonder you cannot get a response that satisfies your stringent needs. An 8th Grader could present better. The articles you cite cannot be found and you did not provide a link. Suppose you restate your requirements for presenting something for debate and for the responses. Otherwise keep obloviating and asserting your superior intelligence. Smedly |
|
11 Nov 04 - 05:48 PM (#1323863) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Ron Davies Smedly-- Congratulations on the word "obloviating". Bet you don't get a chance to use it often. As to the article---you're still, after all this time, not reading carefully It is not only on MSNBC (link posted by Amos), but also in the Washington Post. Do you believe Senator Domenici said what I quoted---yes or no? Simple question--simple answer. |
|
12 Nov 04 - 11:22 PM (#1325309) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST,Smedly RD: I have found a link to the article you were to sloppy and lazy to put in your sub standard post. Basically the article says "Bush inherited a train wreck from Clinton" If Clinton had done his job when the previous Al Quaeda attacks happened there would have been no 9/11. Yes I believe Senator Domenici said what you quoted. Do you believe this part of the article?:" It was Libya's entire nuclear weapons program, bought over a decade for $100 million and change from Khan. On Dec. 19, three months before, Libya had become the first country since 1995 to pull up a nuclear program by its roots -- a striking accomplishment for Bush and Blair." Do you believe Einhorn, assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation under Clinton said "We were sniffing on the wrong trail through much of the '90s."? Do you believe Kerry said "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages — all of this is contrary to laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions"? Do you believe Kerry said "I wonder where all that black hair went"? Smedly |
|
19 Jul 05 - 10:50 AM (#1523977) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: catlova Bush administration plans production of deadly plutonium-238 for "secret missions" by William J. Broad, The New York Times; June 27, 2005 The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds of plutonium 238 over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming.Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste. Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details. But in the past, it has powered espionage devices. "The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview. He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space. The laboratory is a source of pride and employment for many residents in the Idaho Falls area. But the secrecy is adding to unease in Wyoming, where environmentalists are scrutinizing the production plan -- made public late Friday -- and considering whether to fight it. In 1964, a rocket failure led to the destruction of a navigation satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading radioactivity around the globe and starting a debate over the event's health effects. They say the production effort is a potential threat to nearby ecosystems, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park and the area around Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires, celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick Cheney. "It's completely wrapped in the flag," said Mary Woollen-Mitchell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, a group based in Jackson Hole. "They absolutely won't let on" about the missions. "People are starting to pay attention," she said of the production plan. "On the street, just picking up my kids at school, they're getting keyed up that something is in the works." Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons. Federal and private experts unconnected to the project said the new plutonium would probably power devices for conducting espionage on land and under the sea. Even if no formal plans now exist to use the plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy. "It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades, and this may be needed," said a senior federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the possibility that he would contradict federal policies. "Technologically, it makes sense." Early in the nuclear era, the government became fascinated by plutonium 238 and used it regularly to make nuclear batteries that worked for years or decades. Scores of them powered satellites, planetary probes and spy devices, at times with disastrous results. In 1964, a rocket failure led to the destruction of a navigation satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading radioactivity around the globe and starting a debate over the event's health effects. In 1965, high in the Himalayas, an intelligence team caught in a blizzard lost a plutonium-powered device meant to spy on China. And in 1968, an errant weather satellite crashed into the Pacific, but federal teams managed to recover its plutonium battery intact from the Santa Barbara Channel, off California. Such accidents cooled enthusiasm for the batteries. But federal agencies continued to use them for a more limited range of missions, including those involving deep-space probes and top-secret devices for tapping undersea cables. In 1997, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration prepared to launch its Cassini probe of Saturn, hundreds of protesters converged on its Florida spaceport, arguing that an accident could rupture the craft's nuclear batteries and condemn thousands of people to death by cancer. Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than the kind of plutonium used in nuclear arms, plutonium 239. Medical experts agree that inhaling even a speck poses a serious risk of lung cancer. But federal experts say that the newest versions of the nuclear batteries are made to withstand rupture into tiny particles and that the risk of human exposure is extraordinarily low. Today, the United States makes no plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material -- some 35 pounds since the end of the cold war -- for military purposes. With its domestic stockpile running low, Washington now wants to resume production. Though it last made plutonium 238 in the 1980's at the government's Savannah River plant in South Carolina, it now wants to move such work to the Idaho National Laboratory and consolidate all the nation's plutonium 238 activities there, including efforts now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. By centralizing everything in Idaho, the Energy Department hopes to increase security and reduce the risks involved in transporting the radioactive material over highways. Late Friday, the department posted a 500-page draft environmental impact statement on the plan at www.consolidationeis.doe.gov. The public has 60 days to respond. Mr. Frazier said the department planned to weigh public reaction and complete the regulatory process by late this year, and to finish the plan early in 2006. The president would then submit it to Congress for approval, he said. The work requires no international assent. The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho. The Big Lost River wanders its length. The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors -- more than at any other place -- most of them shut down. It has long wrestled with polluted areas and recently sought to set new standards in environmental restoration. New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million, Mr. Frazier said. The operations budget would run to some $40 million annually over 30 years, he said, for a total cost of nearly $1.5 billion. An existing reactor there would make the plutonium. Mr. Frazier said the goal was to start production by 2012 and have the first plutonium available by 2013. When possible, Mr. Frazier said, the plutonium would be used not only for national security but also for deep-space missions, reducing dependence on Russian supplies. Since late last year, the Energy Department has tried to reassure citizens living around the proposed manufacturing site of the plan's necessity and safety. But political activists in Wyoming have expressed frustration at what they call bureaucratic evasiveness regarding serious matters. "It's the nastiest of the nasty," Ms. Woollen-Mitchell said of plutonium 238. Early this year, she succeeded in learning some preliminary details of the plan from the Energy Department. Mr. Frazier provided her with a document that showed that production over 30 years would produce 51,590 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste. He also referred to the continuing drain on the government's national security stockpile, saying the known missions by the end of this decade would require 55 pounds of plutonium for 10 to 15 power systems. Those uses, he said, would leave virtually no plutonium for future classified missions. Ms. Woollen-Mitchell was unswayed. In January she told the Energy Department that so much information about the plan remained hidden that it had "given us serious pause." The Energy Department is courting Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free because it has flexed its political muscle before. Starting in late 1999, financed by wealthy Jackson Hole residents like Harrison Ford, it fought to stop the Idaho lab from burning plutonium-contaminated waste in an incinerator and forced the lab to investigate alternatives. In the recent interview, Mr. Frazier said he planned to talk to the group on Tuesday and expressed hope of winning people over. "I don't know that I'll be able to make them perfectly comfortable," he said, "but they know that the department is willing to listen and talk and take their comments into consideration." "We have a good case," Mr. Frazier added, saying the department could show that the Idaho plan "can be done safely with very minimal environmental impacts." |
|
20 Jul 05 - 10:53 AM (#1524240) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol From: freda underhill Showdown looms over nuclear deal; July 21, 2005 Washington: The US Senate has approved US-backed loans to build nuclear power plants in China. It rejected 62-37 an amendment that would have barred the US Export-Import Bank from granting $US5 billion ($6.6 billion) in loans for China to build nuclear plants. It was a win for Westinghouse Electric, which is bidding to build four huge nuclear reactors in China in a deal the Bush Administration backs. The Senate vote sets up a fight with the House of Representatives, which voted to block the deal that legislators said would subsidise China. The Oklahoma Republican senator Tom Coburn said: "It seems insane that we would give a subsidy to finance the export of American technology." But the Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum said his state could benefit from some of the up to 5000 US jobs created if Westinghouse got the deal. Reuters |
|
20 Jul 05 - 11:01 AM (#1524253) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol From: freda underhill Pentagon report stresses limits of China's military threat By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: July 20 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 20 2005 03:00 China could pose a future military threat to other Asian countries but its current ability to project power beyond its periphery is "limited", the Pentagon said yesterday. In its long-awaited annual report on the Chinese military, the Pentagon concluded that China was increasing its efforts to prepare for a conflict over Taiwan, including taking longer-term measures to defend itself from other countries who could get involved in a conflict over Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province. "We see China facing a strategic crossroads," the Pentagon report said. "Questions remain about the basic choices China's leaders will make as China's power and influence grow, particularly its military power." The report said the Chinese military was focusing in the short term on modernising its ability to fight short, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery. But it said the People's Liberation Army was also taking longer-term steps to increase its defences against the potential involvement of other countries in any conflict between China and Taiwan. Those measures include expanding its arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, its submarine fleet, and purchasing advanced aircraft. "Over the long term, if current trends persist, PLA capabilities could pose a credible threat to other modern militaries operating in the region," the report said. The tone of the report echoes remarks by Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, who when speaking to a June meeting of Asian defence ministers in Singapore questioned why China was dramatically increasing its defence budget when "no nation threatens China". The report comes on the heels of comments by a senior Chinese general last week who suggested that China would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in any conflict with the US over Taiwan. |
|
20 Jul 05 - 11:55 AM (#1524340) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Metchosin hmmm......interesting. I read the other day that China now holds the paper on 43% of America's massive debt. I wonder if the 6.6 billion in loans to China is a means to somehow loosen a finger of China on America's balls? |
|
20 Jul 05 - 12:11 PM (#1524361) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol From: freda underhill the dangers of capitalism - being $crewed by the communi$ts. |
|
20 Jul 05 - 08:46 PM (#1524688) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST This thread should be titled "Trolling for Conservatives..." The conservative faction of mudcat is wise not to rise to the bait on this one, despite the somber theme. |
|
20 Jul 05 - 10:20 PM (#1524748) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: dianavan Bait? I think that Conservatives cannot refute the comments on this thread or they would. Are you saying that China does not have the U.S. by the balls? |
|
20 Jul 05 - 11:45 PM (#1524812) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: Kaleea Try going to your local newspaper & do some research on all the countries which have detonated nuclear warheads. Go ahead, I double dog dare you. Go back at least 35 years. You will find, that there will be a teenie, tiny maybe one inch (including title of article) sentence or two in the back of one of the back sections saying that USSRnowRussia/Georgia/et. al., France, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Libbya (just to name a few), or whoever detonated a nuclear warhead at such place on such date. Now, do some addition. Where did all that plutonium come from? China makes most of our products now. Jobs have been shipped over there for years. And India, & wherever. Everytime my SBC DSL goes on the blink, I call the toll free number & get somebody in India. No, I'm not kidding. The factories where all our parts, components, etc. come from know all about our stuff. Stuff like electronics. Parts for TVs, computers, Jets, weapons, & lots more stuff--really techie stuff. Like the radios & computer parts for the weaponry & communication equipment & most all vehicles which our Military personnel uses in Iraq & Afghanistan. The personnel which actually has the correct equipment, that is. Some of which was purchased from wallyworld, radioshack & the like by the families of the said personnel & mailed over to them, "over there." Ok, a lot of the stuff. If they're making our stuff, they know most all of our "secrets." Duh. We just love to share with all of our allies we "trade" with. We give them our jobs, our money, and we get--stuff. Oh, I almost forgot--the American company that makes the bullet proof vests said the vests might degrade over time. Oh, and they might fail to function correctly even if new. Where did they get the stuff the vests are made with? |
|
20 Jul 05 - 11:53 PM (#1524813) Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer From: GUEST Whether China has the USA by the balls or not doesn't have anything to do with the intent of the originator of this thread. The purpose was to goad or lure conservatives into a thread to bash them. That's trolling, irrespective of any opinion concerning China, or the fate of Russia's nuclear material, or the price of eggs. Looks to me like the conservative Mudcat members realized what was about and wisely let this thread slip off the page. That said, there were some pertinent issues that could've been discussed in a rational and enlightened manner if the initial tone of the thread had not been established as being overtly aggressive. |