GOP Senators send a letter to Iran

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

But let's return to your egregiously stupid insistence that “they haven't progressed much at all since 2003”. Since I don't want to overtax your limited comprehension abilities by pasting and explaining the dry technical details of numerous IAEA reports, I will let a couple of graphs do the talking:








.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Look at the pretty graphs...

Yes undercunt, look at the pretty graphs! Do they remind you how you keep getting your ass handed to you? Not only have the Iranians made substantial progress on their nuclear program since 2003 (contrary to your wrong and colossally stupid comment that they haven't), most of this progress has occurred since 2009. Question for undercunt - who became POTUS in 2009? If our options vis-a-vis Iran are today greatly diminished, as you keep arguing in other threads, whose fault is that? Who let the problem grow to its current dimensions?

.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes undercunt, look at the pretty graphs! Do they remind you how you keep getting your ass handed to you? Not only have the Iranians made substantial progress on their nuclear program since 2003 (contrary to your wrong and colossally stupid comment that they haven't), most of this progress has occurred since 2009. Question for undercunt - who became POTUS in 2009? If our options vis-a-vis Iran are today greatly diminished, as you keep arguing in other threads, whose fault is that? Who let the problem grow to its current dimensions?

.

How can someone say within a 24 hour period that the Iranians are not making progress toward making a nuclear weapon and also say it is inevitable that they are going to make one we just need to monitor it.

While at the same time wringing one's hands over the "military option"???

Apparently the Iranians have come to terms with the reality of the military option! It is an acceptable risk to them, OR they KNOW Obaminable will cave.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

How can someone say within a 24 hour period that the Iranians are not making progress toward making a nuclear weapon and also say it is inevitable that they are going to make one we just need to monitor it.

While at the same time wringing one's hands over the "military option"???

Apparently the Iranians have come to terms with the reality of the military option! It is an acceptable risk to them, OR they KNOW Obaminable will cave.

Because it depends on their end goal. If they want one bad enough, they'll eventually get there. I can't entertain multiple scenarios? I know your brain is limited to one track but I can fart and chew gum at the same time, unlike yourself.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes undercunt, look at the pretty graphs! Do they remind you how you keep getting your ass handed to you? Not only have the Iranians made substantial progress on their nuclear program since 2003 (contrary to your wrong and colossally stupid comment that they haven't), most of this progress has occurred since 2009. Question for undercunt - who became POTUS in 2009? If our options vis-a-vis Iran are today greatly diminished, as you keep arguing in other threads, whose fault is that? Who let the problem grow to its current dimensions?

.

Nuclear energy dumbass. You didn't quote the part where it said that what they were doing actually made it MORE difficult to produce fissile material of a high enough quality for it to be weaponized. You haven't handed me jack shit cockbreath.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Nuclear energy dumbass. You didn't quote the part where it said that what they were doing actually made it MORE difficult to produce fissile material of a high enough quality for it to be weaponized. You haven't handed me jack shit cockbreath.

This is the part you didn't include and I don't blame you, it doesn't help your narrative.

The IAEA February 2013 report stated that Iran has resumed reconverting near-20% enriched uranium into Oxide form to fabricate fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes it more difficult to further enrich that uranium to weapons grade, since it would first need to be converted back to uranium hexafluoride gas.

Would they be trying to make a nuclear device if they're actually making it MORE difficult to convert it to weapons grade material? Not to mention that 20 percent is NOWHERE near what they need to even consider weapon's grade fissile material. We're talking 90 percent or more.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

This is the part you didn't include and I don't blame you, it doesn't help your narrative.

The IAEA February 2013 report stated that Iran has resumed reconverting near-20% enriched uranium into Oxide form to fabricate fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes it more difficult to further enrich that uranium to weapons grade, since it would first need to be converted back to uranium hexafluoride gas.

Would they be trying to make a nuclear device if they're actually making it MORE difficult to convert it to weapons grade material? Not to mention that 20 percent is NOWHERE near what they need to even consider weapon's grade fissile material. We're talking 90 percent or more.

That's correct. In theory 20% enriched uranium is enough to make weapons but they would be both extremely weak and highly unpredictable. Hardly what I call a threat.
It's obvious LustyIdiot has no idea what he's talking about. Copy paste gets him through the day.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Nuclear energy dumbass. You didn't quote the part where it said that what they were doing actually made it MORE difficult to produce fissile material of a high enough quality for it to be weaponized. You haven't handed me jack shit cockbreath.

Listen you retarded faggot, your ass is already over-cooked on this thread, do you now want me to burn it to a crisp? Why don't you tell us again how the Iranians “haven't progressed much at all since 2003”? Go back and study the graphs. Over 19,000 centrifuges installed today versus near zero in 2007. Does that sound like “progress”, dickhead? 13,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, up from 500 kg in 2008 - a 26-fold increase! Does that constitute “progress” in your dim enfeebled mind? Where do you get your fucking information from? If you want to challenge those numbers, be my guest. Otherwise, your ass is completely fried on this subject!

And if you want to continue to look like a fool, answer this simple question – if the Iranians haven't made any progress since 2003, why are we talking to them?

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

This is the part you didn't include and I don't blame you, it doesn't help your narrative.

The IAEA February 2013 report stated that Iran has resumed reconverting near-20% enriched uranium into Oxide form to fabricate fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes it more difficult to further enrich that uranium to weapons grade, since it would first need to be converted back to uranium hexafluoride gas.

Would they be trying to make a nuclear device if they're actually making it MORE difficult to convert it to weapons grade material? Not to mention that 20 percent is NOWHERE near what they need to even consider weapon's grade fissile material. We're talking 90 percent or more.

Listen fucktard, I already addressed your deliberately misleading and deceiving point in post #145. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you stop spewing your nonsense? The same IAEA report stated that the purpose of fueling the Tehran Research Reactor is to test fuel for a new plutonium reactor that can produce more efficient weapons grade material. That's why they are converting SOME of their 20% EU into Oxide form – to make it easier and faster to produce more efficient weapons grade material using the new plutonium reactor. Your superficial and naive conclusion is the exact opposite of what the facts tell us the Iranians are really up to.

The sheer scale and magnitude of their nuclear program gives the lie to your silly argument that it's all peaceful and the Iranians have no intention of making weapons. Nobody in the Odumbo administration believes that, otherwise they wouldn't even be talking to Iran.

Originally Posted by shanm

That's correct. In theory 20% enriched uranium is enough to make weapons but they would be both extremely weak and highly unpredictable. Hardly what I call a threat.
It's obvious LustyIdiot has no idea what he's talking about. Copy paste gets him through the day.

Lookee here folks – undercunt is getting his ass kicked so badly that he has to yell for help from his idiot wingman, shammytard! And what is even more rib-tickling is how shammytard is attempting to pose as some kind of expert in nuclear technology! Questions for you morons:

1) The vast majority of the world's nuclear power plants use fuel rods containing uranium enriched to what level?
2) When it comes to uranium enrichment, which is more technically challenging and difficult – getting to the 20% level or enriching further to the 90%+ level?
3) How hard would it be for Iran to convert oxidized uranium back to hexaflouride gas?


.

[UnderConstruction]

Progress towards a bomb you odious fucktard. Of course they've progressed towards nuclear energy for civilian use. You have no proof they've progressed towards a bomb. Even your boy Bibi had to backtrack on that claim. Because it was bullshit.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You have no proof they've progressed towards a bomb.

During WWII the U.S. was not the only country working on "a bomb"!

Who knew that in this country? Who even knew that "we" were working on it?

The next thing you'll be doing to "prevail" in this board discussion is ask for..

.... A LINK!!!!

Let's "assume" you are correct ...then ...

#1: Why would you post it is inevitable they will get a nuclear weapon, so it's better if the U.S. just monitor the situation, and more importantly to me ...
#2: Why is the Obaminable Administration trying to negotiate a nonproliferation agreement with Iran with sanctions from several administrations in the past .. if they aren't working on a nuclear weapon?

#3: Why is Iran prohibiting open visits to it's facility when requested?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I know your brain is limited to one track but I can fart and chew gum at the same time, unlike yourself.

And you think you know what's happening in Iran?

Boy this is the internet. I don't know about your gum chewing, but I sure see a lot of your hot, stinky gases posted on here under the pretense of being "intelligence."

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

During WWII the U.S. was not the only country working on "a bomb"!

Who knew that in this country? Who even knew that "we" were working on it?

The next thing you'll be doing to "prevail" in this board discussion is ask for..

.... A LINK!!!!

Let's "assume" you are correct ...then ...

#1: Why would you post it is inevitable they will get a nuclear weapon, so it's better if the U.S. just monitor the situation, and more importantly to me ...
#2: Why is the Obaminable Administration trying to negotiate a nonproliferation agreement with Iran with sanctions from several administrations in the past .. if they aren't working on a nuclear weapon?

#3: Why is Iran prohibiting open visits to it's facility when requested?

There are so many moves at play here, I understand it's hard for you to keep up. Sometimes, circumstances change. They can even change very quickly. It is inevitable that IF they want a weapon, they most likely will achieve it. Why would he negotiate even if they weren't working on one? To make sure it's as hard as possible for them TO get one. IF that's really what they're doing.

And thirdly, I don't know. Maybe because they're a sovereign nation and don't like being treated like a child? Do we have inspectors rummaging around our nuclear sites? Your lack of ability to see a situation from any side but your own is staggering. Do I want them to get a bomb? Of course not, but throwing a tantrum and acting like a goddamned petulant child isn't going to get us anywhere. Let them develop their civilian nuclear energy program. Continue to monitor them. Let them know this is a one-strike scenario. First time they fuck up, put the hammer down. And make them aware of that last fact.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

There are so many moves at play here, I understand it's hard for you to keep up. Sometimes, circumstances change. They can even change very quickly. It is inevitable that IF they want a weapon, they most likely will achieve it. Why would he negotiate even if they weren't working on one? To make sure it's as hard as possible for them TO get one. IF that's really what they're doing.

And thirdly, I don't know. Maybe because they're a sovereign nation and don't like being treated like a child? Do we have inspectors rummaging around our nuclear sites? Your lack of ability to see a situation from any side but your own is staggering. Do I want them to get a bomb? Of course not, but throwing a tantrum and acting like a goddamned petulant child isn't going to get us anywhere. Let them develop their civilian nuclear energy program. Continue to monitor them. Let them know this is a one-strike scenario. First time they fuck up, put the hammer down. And make them aware of that last fact.

The big problem with this senario is once they get a viable Nuclear Weapon, which by all accounts would be a 20/30 kiloton device, "putting the hammer down", as you say, becomes much more complicated. All they have to do is threaten to turn Jeruselum into a cinder, and the entire World will demand that we take a pause.

No doubt, we could turn Iran into a wasteland with just a couple of Nuclear Subs. Do the religious Thugs that run Iran care? Do they really mean it when they say that dying in the name of their Prophet Muhammad is the ultimate expression of their faith?

The rules change when you are dealing with Religious Zealots. So that is why I say it is imperative that we never allow them to aquire the means to carry out their ultimate expression of their dedication to their God.

The argument can be made that everyday Iranians could care less about all of these issues, that it is the Country's Leaders who are hell bent on a course leading to an ultimate showdown with the infidels. But just as millions of German and Japanese civilians died in a previous conflict when their Leaders took to a ill advised course that lead to total defeat and destruction, millions of Iranians would perish if the US was forced to use it's full destructive might.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The big problem with this senario is once they get a viable Nuclear Weapon, which by all accounts would be a 20/30 kiloton device, "putting the hammer down", as you say, becomes much more complicated. All they have to do is threaten to turn Jeruselum into a cinder, and the entire World will demand that we take a pause.

No doubt, we could turn Iran into a wasteland with just a couple of Nuclear Subs. Do the religious Thugs that run Iran care? Do they really mean it when they say that dying in the name of their Prophet Muhammad is the ultimate expression of their faith?

The rules change when you are dealing with Religious Zealots. So that is why I say it is imperative that we never allow them to aquire the means to carry out their ultimate expression of their dedication to their God.

The argument can be made that everyday Iranians could care less about all of these issues, that it is the Country's Leaders who are hell bent on a course leading to an ultimate showdown with the infidels. But just as millions of German and Japanese civilians died in a previous conflict when their Leaders took to a ill advised course that lead to total defeat and destruction, millions of Iranians would perish if the US was forced to use it's full destructive might.

They could demolish Israel now or die trying, IF that's what they really wanted to do. They have weapons capable of reaching Israel. Israel has the iron dome but it is only effective against short-range rockets. As for them using a weapon, they would have to test it first and we would detect that test, so it's highly unlikely it would come out of the blue.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Lookee here folks – undercunt is getting his ass kicked so badly that he has to yell for help from his idiot wingman, shammytard! And what is even more rib-tickling is how shammytard is attempting to pose as some kind of expert in nuclear technology! Questions for you morons:

1) The vast majority of the world's nuclear power plants use fuel rods containing uranium enriched to what level?
2) When it comes to uranium enrichment, which is more technically challenging and difficult – getting to the 20% level or enriching further to the 90%+ level?
3) How hard would it be for Iran to convert oxidized uranium back to hexaflouride gas?

Where did the "experts" go? Did I waste my breath again? Too bad. Grades are due at midnight so I'll have to give both of them an "F" in chemistry and physics.

.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

There are so many moves at play here, I understand it's hard for you to keep up. Sometimes, circumstances change. They can even change very quickly. It is inevitable that IF they want a weapon, they most likely will achieve it. Why would he negotiate even if they weren't working on one? To make sure it's as hard as possible for them TO get one. IF that's really what they're doing.

And thirdly, I don't know. Maybe because they're a sovereign nation and don't like being treated like a child? Do we have inspectors rummaging around our nuclear sites? Your lack of ability to see a situation from any side but your own is staggering. Do I want them to get a bomb? Of course not, but throwing a tantrum and acting like a goddamned petulant child isn't going to get us anywhere. Let them develop their civilian nuclear energy program. Continue to monitor them. Let them know this is a one-strike scenario. First time they fuck up, put the hammer down. And make them aware of that last fact.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately for you LexusLover is not an odious fucktard, (for that matter, neither is Lustylad) but LL is actually smarter than you. So, I'm going to side with him at this point.
As usual, however, you make some good points, and your input is appreciated.
I hope if your side prevails, Iran is thwarted somehow.