[Jennifer_SFBA]

April 15, 2006

TEHRAN THIS WEEK claimed that it had enriched uranium, a first step toward nuclear weapons capability. The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?

No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.

Instead, the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.

The doctrine of preemption, first articulated by President Bush at West Point in June 2002, was spelled out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves."

Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S.
may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.

First, it demands that our intelligence be right - every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.

Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general - especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.

Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.

The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.

There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.

As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.

This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.

There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of conventional options.

So what steps should the United States be taking?

The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives.
It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.

At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[MAGI]

Concern about an Iran invasion is very realistic Jennifer, and yes DIPLOMACY is the answer I believe. Megalomaniacal bush & crew give reason to worry, but The World is watching them, so let's hope that's the good news and diplomacy will work.

"U.S. Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue "
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: May 27, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

a few paragraphs:

"State Department officials refused to talk about the issue, even anonymously. But over the last week, administration spokesmen have been careful not to rule out talks.

Discussion about possible American contacts with Iran has been fueled not simply by the Europeans, but by a growing chorus of outsiders with ties to the administration who have spoken out in favor of talks.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a recent column in The Washington Post, raised the possibility that the recent rambling letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush — dismissed by Ms. Rice as an offensive tirade— could be seen as an opportunity to open contacts.

Both Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Powell, have also advocated talks with Iran.

Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends," Mr. Armitage said in a telephone interview. "You've got to talk to people who aren't our friends, and even people you dislike. Some people in the administration think that diplomacy is a sign of weakness. In fact, it can show that you're strong."

Mr. Armitage held the last high-level discussions with Iran, after the Bam earthquake. In November 2004, Mr. Powell sat next to the Iranian foreign minister at a dinner during a conference in Egypt on Iraq, but he said they engaged only in small talk.

The United States has stayed out of the talks with Iran, which began in late 2004 and got new life last summer when, with American endorsement, the Europeans offered to help Iran integrate politically and economically with the West if it ended its nuclear ambitions.

Also on the table were unspecified security guarantees suggesting that Iran would not have to worry about outside efforts to topple the government.

The Europeans are now working with the United States, Russia and China on a revised package of economic, political and nuclear energy incentives if Iran ended its nuclear enrichment activities. Also being sought, at least by the Europeans and the United States, is an agreement to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council if it continues to defy the demands for compliance on nuclear issues."
and..........
"But since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the crisis over the seizure of American hostages in November that year, the United States has avoided direct talks with Iran. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess back-door deals, like Iran/Contra don't count............?
;)

[FDRfollower]

Hi Jennifer_SanFranciscoBayArea.;)

While Diannes stand is nice, there's one problem. If you don't REMOVE dick Cheney, you're going to have the war.

For a woman who had the gall to demand Clinton resign, where the hell is she now?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, FDRfollower. This past week House Minority Leader, Nancy Polosi demanded that Representative, William Jefferson D LA step down even though he's a Democrat and even though he's not been formally charged with any crime. I think men have more of a "boys will be boys" attititude about things like Clinton's affair (and I didn't vote for him either time) and what Jefferson is accused of doing, favors for bribes, than women do. It's a matter of propriety. Most married women would divorce their husband for having an affair with another woman like Bill Clinton did hehind Hillary's back, so women do, and Dianne Feinstein did take Clinton's indiscretion very seriously as did a huge number of other women in the 2000 Presidential elections who were totally disgusted with and turned off by what Democrat Clinton did and voted for what they thought would be a moral change in direction in the Whitehouse. That's were Nancy and Dianne as women were coming from, so they wouldn't see what they have done the way you do. It illustrates the gender gap and yet another difference between men and women, alas.

[MAGI]

No Jennifer, I wouldn't put most women in the same boat, speaking as another woman. We do not know all the personal things that goes on in other peoples' lives .................

I'm thinking our incumbents have an overflowing basket of dirty linen, with the way they have been proceeding these last 12 1/2, epecially these last 6 1/2 years.

I used to think Dianne Finestein was terrific! Not anymore! The last issue that ended my trust in her was watching & HEARING her questioning of general Hayden, who IS NOW our C.I.A. director. Unbelievable!

[MAGI]

No Jennifer, I wouldn't put most women in the same boat, speaking as another woman. We do not know all the personal things that goes on in other peoples' lives .................

I'm thinking our incumbents have an overflowing basket of dirty linen (not necessarily sexual), with the way they have been proceeding these last 12 1/2, epecially these last 6 1/2 years.

I used to think Dianne Finestein was terrific! Not anymore! The last issue that ended my trust in her was watching & HEARING her questioning of general Hayden, who IS NOW our C.I.A. director. Unbelievable! :mad:


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=86582
BLOG | Posted 05/26/2006 @ 2:11pm
Hayden Hijinks


"The die was cast when the Hayden nomination was considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Four Democrats who should know better – California's Dianne Feinstein, West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, Michigan's Carl Levin and Maryland's Barbara Mikulski -- voted with the united Republican majority to approve the appointment. Then, the Senate Armed Committee casually voted to reappoint Hayden as a four-star general, a move that effectively signaled surrender in the debate over whether the CIA should be headed by a military man.

In this disappointing scenario, it should be noted that a handful of Democrats did attempt to check and balance a lawless president by refusing to support his equally lawless nominee. Voting against Hayden's nomination were Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Hillary Clinton of New York, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Intriguingly, the dissident Democrats were joined in their opposition to Hayden by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who has been increasingly restive regarding the administration's assault on basic freedoms.

Predictably, the Senate's most diligent critic of the administration's reckless disregard for the rule of law was the most outspoken objector to Hayden's nomination.

"I voted against the nomination of General Michael Hayden to be Director of the CIA because I am not convinced that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight responsibilities," explained Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who bluntly declared that, "as Director of the NSA, General Hayden directed an illegal program that put Americans on American soil under surveillance without the legally required approval of a judge." "

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Magi, I really do think Bill Clinton's fling with Monika didn't help the Democrats in the 2000 election, but hurt them, and the country. People to this day have lingering bad feelings about Bill Clinton, not only about that affair, but because he so boldly and deliberately lied to everyone close to him and, then, to the American people and the entire world in that press conference he held at the Whitehouse. I was disgusted! As for myself in the 2000 election, I voted for Al Gore, and I'd vote for him again in 2008 over Hillary though I'd prefer Obama and Lee. Being political insiders the way Dianne and Nancy are, I would have certainly distanced myself and my party from any and all similar corruption every way I could. I don't fault Dianne or Nancy at all for doing that. The other side of the coin is the Bush men in the Whitehouse and how they are, and have been, handling all the terrible, horrible corruption that is everywhere there to be seen; Cheney and his refusal to turn over his office's meeting notes about meetings he had with those corrupt Enron Executives, the Vallerie Plame leak, that huge mostly Republican money for favors scandle, etc., etc., etc. It goes on for days with cover-up after cover-up over the worst corruption in every way that I've seen since Lyndon Johnson was President, another Texan. Should Nancy Polosi, being the House Minority Whip, even so much as allow the appearance that the Democratic Party leadership condones those same things and acts in the same ways as the Republicans are and have been? Absolutetly not! Just for the record, when LBJ was in office as President of the United States after JFK's assassination, and there were no women elected federal officials then, corruption at the federal level was about as bad in the Johnson administratoin as it is now in the Bush administration. Federal government is broken, and it needs very badly to be fixed from the FDA to the CDC to election reform and corruptable electronic voting machines to the underfunding of the space program, to the government dragging it's feet on alternative energy and global warming and civil rights eqality and separation between church and state, and privatization of the infrastructure of America and big business' ownership of everthing, and health care, and the marked decline of the American middle class with the outspourcing of jobs and the loss American manufacturing, and NAFTA that could at least be made democratic and transparent if not eliminated, and the way federal bills with onerous unrelated amendments are passed through, etc., etc., etc. Where is Hillary on all that? Where's the vision? Where's the passion? I say Barrack Omaba for President and Barbara Lee Vice President. There is the vision and and the passion, though, Al Gore is doing better in those ways now than he did in the 2000 elections that was, in my opinion, a totally lackluster Presidential campaign, especially on the issue of global warming where he is way out ahead.

As for Hayden, I'd have voted against his nomination! I heard Haydon speak, and he was smooth and influential, but there are constitutional rights and rights under the U.S. Code that it appears were violated. Those are OUR guaranteed constitutional rights, and there may only be exceptions to those rights subject to judicial review and the court's finding of probable cause. Dianne did not see that, but then, she's never been to law school, a distinct disadvantage and a necessity in that evaluation of Hayden's qualifications to become the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

[FDRfollower]

Hi, FDRfollower. This past week House Minority Leader, Nancy Polosi demanded that Representative, William Jefferson D LA step down even though he's a Democrat and even though he's not been formally charged with any crime. I think men have more of a "boys will be boys" attititude about things like Clinton's affair (and I didn't vote for him either time) and what Jefferson is accused of doing, favors for bribes, than women do. It's a matter of propriety. Most married women would divorce their husband for having an affair with another woman like Bill Clinton did hehind Hillary's back, so women do, and Dianne Feinstein did take Clinton's indiscretion very seriously as did a huge number of other women in the 2000 Presidential elections who were totally disgusted with and turned off by what Democrat Clinton did and voted for what they thought would be a moral change in direction in the Whitehouse. That's were Nancy and Dianne as women were coming from, so they wouldn't see what they have done the way you do. It illustrates the gender gap and yet another difference between men and women, alas.

Hello Jennifer_SanJoseBayArea. (that's the official term now)

I have to disagree with you, because there was a much larger issue during that time, than Bill's hormones getting out of control. I'm aware that most people tend to avoid the larger, more complex policy fight that was going on at the time, focussing on the sordid soap opera spectacle, and you seem to be no exception. Especially, considering, how much Richard Mellon Scaife spent to make you think that the whole thing was about PERVERTED OLD Bill taking advantage of some innocent young girl!!!!!!. :angel:

All throughout history, it has been all too common for someones enemies to plant women on them in order to destroy them. The political paths are littered with ruined careers and destroyed political parties by this method, and our Bill was no different, although, he survived politically, for a change. Remember Carvilles cutting remark about dragging $100 bills through the trailer park. :D

I don't know how aware you were at the time, but in late 1998, the entire global financial system was on the verge of total meltdown due to the Russian bond default and Long Term Capital Managements collapse (which is being discussed more and more, in comparison to the state of the current financial system). Clinton and Robert Rubin responded by announcing a "new financial architecture" or need to change the fanancial system, and week later, the Lewinsky tapes were released, and for two years, the presidency was severely hampered by a stupid concocted scandal. What was the most obscene thing about the whole circus was the taxpayer money spent "investigating" it.

At the time, Dems shouldn't have been so blind. Gore was the only Democrat that Bush could have beaten.

But, let's compare the two situations:

Bill Clinton: Lied about a B.J. - Dianne joins right-wing warmonger Joe Lieberman in calling for his resignation.

George Bush/Cheney: Launched a pre-emptive war based on lies, exposed a covert CIA agent, have looted the treasury of billion$ in war profiteering, have subverted constitutional government, massive spying on americans, etc. and where is Dianne?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, there again, FDRfollower.

No I'm Jennifer_SFBA, not Jennifer_SanJoseBayArea. See, it's got the an "F," not a "J" in it, and we do have the right to our own identity which does need to be respected if for no other reason than common courtesy if one does not see or look or ask questions beyond that.

Bill himself admitted that he did what he did for what he himself described as the worse possible reason, "Because I could." The rest of what you said is true, but the discussion was about what motivated Dianne. It certainly wasn't Bill's policies, but was about the political party and votes and what the American people were paying attention to. We both know what that was. It did play a role in the 2000 elections, and I'm quite certain it's still playing it's part today in Hillary's possible run for the presidency. I do agree the American public is not sophisticated in the ways of finance or political policy, unfortuantely, very unfortunately, since their livelyhood and freedoms are at stake.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Dianne's analysis of the Iran crisis (because that's what it still is) is Right On!

[MAGI]

Well Jennifer, we are on the same page for all that we wish for our country.

I don't condone Pres. Clinton for taking what what offered; they were BOTH BIMBOS and he lost my respect for his stupidity......in the sexual department...........
I also am angry about him talking us into NAFTA, ect........... because safeguards were not respected, instituted, whatever. FDRfollower, I'm sure could really spell this out. I'm really bothered by him working with GHbush!

I was gullible and because I believed Clinton to be a brilliant person, I trusted him on Free Trade, but know now Perot was SO RIGHT with his famous words about the "Giant Sucking Sound"? I sure wish Clinton would take up this devastating ISSUE NOW! I'd like to know how he thinks all could be resolved, I appreciate his feeling for helping poor countries..............but NOT at the risk of losing "The American Dream" as has happened! Enough is ENOUGH! Time for U.S. citizens NOW!

I used to think Dianne Finestein was great. She is on a privilged committee and privy to most U.S. and world intelligence. She spoke of Hayden as the man for the job even BEFORE his meeting with her committee, while most of us feared his appointment because of his NSA , http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm , eavesdropping case of EVERYONE in the USA.

Is Hayden against the Iraq war? A General (2005) in the military, chosen by bush who is proved to have lied us into this pre-emtive Iraq Invasion (along with female Condi & the rest of the White House cabal) is my reason to write Dianne off.

I researched Dianne Finestein's voting record after I wrote this morning and feel justified with the way I feel.

Nancy Pelosi is doing fairly well and has my respect....though she is not saying she will impeach (question) the busheviks. In my opinion that can be done and will NOT tie up all that needs to be fixed. Look what "they" did to the Clintons' from day 1 of his presidency, (whichever way he moved, esp. after he raised the taxes on the RICH and got through welfare reform, free trade, ?,) they (GOProstitutes) found him pretty much WRONG no matter which way he moved. Some good things happened in spite of the GOPs', like living within the budget with a surplus rather than a defecit and NOT devastating Social programs or engaging us in pre-emtive WAR!

Clinton believed in diplomacy. Do you remember bush didn't believe in "Nation building"? (fooled us again!) If he has his way we'd be waging war all over the world in the name of "building Democracy", and his GOPs' Congress & Senate would continue selling "We The People" out.

But, of course , there IS the issue of the FBI raiding Jefferson's office.......... :eek: where at last we find an issue where there is NO partisanship......but wait...there is Frist running away fast as he can.......:D He's busy trying to get the Evangelicals up in arms by trying to make a constitutional law against marraige between anyone other than a man & a woman............... I guess that's one way the GOPs' can get SOME of "the people" s' votes this Fall.

Sheesh what a MESS!

Anyway, I am sure a woman has to prove herself lots better in the workplace to secure a promotion and expect the same wage a man makes in the SAME position.
I feel pretty sure most woman would go to war as the VERY LAST RESORT....and fight like a tiger for their children and family when needs be, but, most of the men on this forum feel the same.
So, I think gender is not what matters but rather intelligence, integrity (morality, decency, honesty) brotherly love for humanity that truly counts.

I'm STILL not set on a candidate for 2008........ but that person better want a huge change and represent "The People"! Democracy rather than Corporatism (Fascism)!

I like Obama, but he likes Lieberman...............

Good night Jennifer, this took longer than I intended. :thumbup:

[MAGI]

Yep, you're right, Dianne's writing about Iran Is good!
Just finished reading FDRfollower & your last posts & reread what I wrote so this is a repeat with a couple of changes:

[QUOTE=MAGI]
Well Jennifer, we are on the same page for all that we wish for our country.

I don't condone Pres. Clinton for taking what was offered; they were BOTH BIMBOS and he lost my respect for his stupidity......in the sexual department...........
I also am angry about him talking us into NAFTA, ect........... because safeguards were not respected, instituted, whatever. FDRfollower, I'm sure could really spell this out.
I'm really bothered by him working with GHbush!
I was gullible and because I believed Clinton to be a brilliant person, I trusted him on Free Trade, but know now Perot was SO RIGHT with his famous words about the "Giant Sucking Sound"? I sure wish Clinton would take up this devastating ISSUE NOW! I'd like to know how he thinks all could be resolved. I appreciate his feeling for helping poor countries..............but NOT at the risk of losing "The American Dream" as has happened! Enough is ENOUGH! Time for U.S. citizens NOW!

I used to think Dianne Finestein was great. She is on a privilged committee and privy to most U.S. and world intelligence. She spoke of Hayden as the man for the job even BEFORE his meeting with her committee, while most of us feared his appointment because of his NSA , http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm , eavesdropping of EVERYONE in the USA.

Is Hayden against the Iraq war? A General (2005) in the military, chosen by bush who is proved to have lied us into this pre-emptive Iraq Invasion (along with female Condi & the rest of the White House cabal) is my reason to write Dianne off.

I researched Dianne Finestein's voting record after I wrote this morning and feel justified with the way I feel.

Nancy Pelosi is doing fairly well and has my respect....though she is not saying she will impeach (question) the busheviks. In my opinion that can be done and will NOT tie up all that needs to be fixed. Look what "they" did to the Clintons' from day 1 of his presidency, (whichever way he moved, esp. after he raised the taxes on the RICH and got through welfare reform, free trade, ?,) they (GOProstitutes) found him pretty much WRONG no matter which way he moved. Some good things happened in spite of the GOPs', like living within the budget with a surplus rather than a deficit and NOT devastating Social programs or engaging us in pre-emptive WAR!

Clinton believed in diplomacy. Do you remember bush didn't believe in "Nation building"? (fooled us again!) If he has his way we'd be waging war all over the world in the name of "building Democracy", and his GOPs' Congress & Senate would continue selling "We The People" out.

But, of course , there IS the issue of the FBI raiding Jefferson's office.......... :eek: where at last we find an issue where there is NO partisanship......but wait...there is Frist running away fast as he can.......:D He's busy trying to get the Evangelicals up in arms by trying to make a constitutional law against marraige between anyone other than a man & a woman............... I guess that's one way the GOPs' can get SOME of "the people" s' votes this Fall.

Sheesh what a MESS!

Anyway, I am sure a woman has to prove herself lots better in the workplace to secure a promotion and expect the same wage a man makes in the SAME position.
I feel pretty sure most women would go to war as the VERY LAST RESORT....and fight like a tiger for their children and family when needs be, but, most of the men on this forum feel the same.
So, I think gender is not what matters but rather intelligence, integrity (morality, decency, honesty) brotherly love for humanity that truly counts.

I'm STILL not set on a candidate for 2008........ but that person better want a huge change and represent "The People"! Democracy rather than Corporatism (Fascism)!

I like Obama, but he likes Lieberman...............

Good night Jennifer, this took longer than I intended. It's now 1:18 AM in CT.

:thumbup:

[FDRfollower]

Hi, there again, FDRfollower.

No I'm Jennifer_SFBA, not Jennifer_SanJoseBayArea. See, it's got the an "F," not a "J" in it, and we do have the right to our own identity which does need to be respected if for no other reason than common courtesy if one does not see or look or ask questions beyond that.


Ha ha! I guess gentle kidding doesn't come through in my words.:D Your name is fine. I prefer using SF Bay area myself. San Jose is pretty hollow compared to SF. It's just that recently, I heard this silly news report, where, because San Jose's population has surpassed SF's, the "official" designation is now San Jose Bay Area :p

As far as Dianne goes, I'm just speaking as a political activist with some experience in dealing with the political machine in Washington and dealing with the politicians.

Yes, her statement is nice, but, it's really just a "I-better-cover-my-ass" kind of statement, without her dealing with the problem of Cheney and the Neo-Cons, knowing who they are. And for someone in the intelligence committee, to make the issue, Irans nuclear weapons program, of which there is NONE, is not honest. It's agreed upon in the intelligence community at large, that Iran is minimally, 9-15 years away from developing any weapon, which she admits!! Yet, following the neo-cons, demands sanctions for something that ALL countries should have a right to.

Really, she should brush up on her physics, Nuclear WEAPONS require a different process then a Nuclear POWER station. Different element on the periodic table ya know.

What "Broad agreement" is she talking about? Is that like the "coallition of the willing"?

It's the old "if-I-don't-say-this-I'll-be-accused-of-being-with-the-terrorists" line the Democrats have been following like spineless jellyfish.

And really, if Cheney isn't FORCED out, there is going to be such an attack.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, Magi and FDRfollower. I am happy to have met you. Now I have two nice new friends with whom I am generally on the same page. I found an easy to read and understand article about Iran's nuclear achievements, how nuclear weapons material is made and what some of the sticking points are in international negotiations with Iran. The article is at the following website:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7858

I think you'll enjoy learning about those things in more depth, and I promise that reading it won't cause you too much brain strain while you are processing it through for understanding.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There is the following Carnegie report too that chronicles Iran's nuclear aquisitions and official responses to questions about them by international nuclear agencies:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iran_fact_sheet.pdf

[MAGI]

There is the following Carnegie report too that chronicles Iran's nuclear aquisitions and official responses to questions about them by international nuclear agencies:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Iran_fact_sheet.pdf


Thanks Jennifer, that really clarifies the nuclear process.

Would that our worldly "leaders" really use their common sense and develop enough environmentaly safe, clean ways to reduce our need for nuclear power and safely use and store.............. THEN ELIMINATE......... deadly nuclear "spent fuel"!

It has been acknowledged that in CT. a "pool" which held "spents rods" has been leaking for some time now! What inevitable problems this world faces with so called "clean atomic energy"! :mad:

Ah yes.."NOTHING CAN GO WRONG" WITH Nuclear power plants!, AND bush & COMPANY WANT MORE PLANTS! :evil:

:thumbup: on that article.

[FDRfollower]

It's a little late, and I'm a little tired, so I'll be quick.

As far as NAFTA went, after the Bush 41 admin got the ball rolling, Gore became the main booster in the Clinton admin.

As for the Nuclear "so-called-waste", yes, it's "spent", but, if the money was apropriated, nearly all the material sitting around in pools, 96-99%, could be recycled and reused in usefull ways. I'm glad Dilip mentioned that.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, FDRfollower. I agree with you about Gore. Clinton sent Gore down to be the tie breaking vote for NAFTA, but between Hillary and Al, I'd have to go with Al. I'd have to hold my nose to do it, but between those two, I'd vote for Al all the while thinking Al Franken to get me through it. I want Obama and Lee. The chances of Obama and Lee receiving the Democratic nomination are next to none in 2008, and don't I really know it! The powers that be want us to want Hillary. They could settle for Al if Hillary is doing badly. That's where it is now, and I'm not happy about it, not one bit!

As for energy policy, I have always favored decentralized, individually owned sources of energy production wherever and whenever possible. Solar is a decentralized energy source, and hydrogen could be. There is also the possibility of decentralized electromagnetic energy based on a combination of Tesla and manufactured crystals technologies. Those decentralized energy sources, compared with centralized nuclear energy production, are relatively pollution free. Decentralized energy source technologies would cost a whole lot less to implement too than nuclear plants do to build and maintain while creating many more good, new jobs and being better energy choices for our world and people's health.

[cion]

Greetings All,

Tehran is simply the latest horse to leave the barn. The USA was the first. We as a people, a nation, did not have the conscious awareness nor the will to stop it then and we now we seek to make demands of the rest of the world with a moral authority that we simply do not posess. Our hipocrisy seems to know no bounds. We unleashed this threat upon the world and we seek to corner the market on holding the world hostage with it now.

The speech posted is a very good example of how many words can be used to avoid the only options we really have if we wish to stop this madness.

1. We need to apologize for our mistakes.

2. We need to publicly hold our government officials accountable for crimes against humanity.

3. We, as a nation must make a bold and clear statement that we wish to live in peace with the people of the world instead of creating a new generation of nuclear weapons to kill them.

4. We need to set the example by moving right now to dismantle our own nuclear arsenal and poisonous nuclear power facilities.

5. We must admit our deception and immediatley withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

While radical terrorists are still, for the moment, the minority, perhaps we might begin to be taken seriously by the majority of the people of the world when we make our demands of them .

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, cion. Thank you for your post.

[MAGI]

Greetings All,

Tehran is simply the latest horse to leave the barn. The USA was the first. We as a people, a nation, did not have the conscious awareness nor the will to stop it then and we now we seek to make demands of the rest of the world with a moral authority that we simply do not posess. Our hipocrisy seems to know no bounds. We unleashed this threat upon the world and we seek to corner the market on holding the world hostage with it now.

The speech posted is a very good example of how many words can be used to avoid the only options we really have if we wish to stop this madness.

1. We need to apologize for our mistakes.

2. We need to publicly hold our government officials accountable for crimes against humanity.

3. We, as a nation must make a bold and clear statement that we wish to live in peace with the people of the world instead of creating a new generation of nuclear weapons to kill them.

4. We need to set the example by moving right now to dismantle our own nuclear arsenal and poisonous nuclear power facilities.

5. We must admit our deception and immediatley withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

While radical terrorists are still, for the moment, the minority, perhaps we might begin to be taken seriously by the majority of the people of the world when we make our demands of them .
:toast: :thumbup: