Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163228
Yssup Rider60924
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42577
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36991
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-26-2019, 02:57 PM   #46
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,586
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
Not nonsense. Your Youtube video is from 2015 -- four years ago. The 2017 article in The Daily Wire reported how Odumbo facilitated the sale of enough uranium from Russia to iran to construct ten nuclear weapons. the November 2018 -- just two months ago -- Foreign Policy article reports that Iran is only seven to twelve months from fielding a nuclear weapon and that earlier reports of ten years were wrong. Then four days ago, an Iranian engineer admits and reports that Iran never abided by the terms of Odumbo's treaty and that Iran persisted in its nuclear program.
The Youtube video is 4 years old. The science does not change. In order to have an Atomic Bomb one would need U-235 to be enriched to a concentration of 97%. Before the deal Iran cut with Obama they did have weapons grade U-235 which is 20% concentration. Iran was only allowed to keep enough u-235 to heat their homes. If they did not comply with the deal how come they don't have an atomic bomb right now? Why do they need Russia to send them back slightly enriched U-235. If they did not get rid of their enriched u-235 and did not turn off their most efficient centrifuges then how come they don't have a bomb right now? Did that engineer say it exactly what is the concentration of enriched u-235 that they have and how many KG's of it do they have. Again the scientist in the other article that you posted said it DEPENDS on how efficient their enrichment process is. This is the one sentence that you try to ignore. If Trump had not backed out of the deal Iran would not be anywhere near getting an atomic bomb. The inspections committe said Iran was complying and Trump announced publicly that Iran was complying with the deal. General Mattis you know the best general since Patton (minus the pearl handled pistol) had advised Trump to stay with the deal that Obama cut with Iran.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 03:12 PM   #47
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
The Youtube video is 4 years old. The science does not change. In order to have an Atomic Bomb one would need U-235 to be enriched to a concentration of 97%. Before the deal Iran cut with Obama they did have weapons grade U-235 which is 20% concentration. Iran was only allowed to keep enough u-235 to heat their homes. If they did not comply with the deal how come they don't have an atomic bomb right now? Why do they need Russia to send them back slightly enriched U-235. If they did not get rid of their enriched u-235 and did not turn off their most efficient centrifuges then how come they don't have a bomb right now? Did that engineer say it exactly what is the concentration of enriched u-235 that they have and how many KG's of it do they have. Again the scientist in the other article that you posted said it DEPENDS on how efficient their enrichment process is. This is the one sentence that you try to ignore.
Yeah -- the article your hanging your hat on is dated January 2017 -- a story that reports Odumbo's role in supplying Iran with enough Russian uranium to build ten nuclear weapons. The November 2018 article says Iran was much further along than anyone knew. The November 2018 article says Iran is only seven to twelve months from fielding a nuclear weapon.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 03:17 PM   #48
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

IB, you obviously do not know wyf you are talking about in this regard where it is apparent ada if much more knowledgeable in this regard.

You might want to quit digging.
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 03:21 PM   #49
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
IB, you obviously do not know wyf you are talking about in this regard where it is apparent ada if much more knowledgeable in this regard.

You might want to quit digging.
I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles?
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 03:33 PM   #50
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,586
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles?
You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far away they are from a bomb.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."


(The Wire)
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 03:41 PM   #51
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far away they are from a bomb.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."


(The Wire)
It's dated January 2017. The Foreign Policy article dated November 2018 states that Iran is much further along than anyone knew, and they are only seven to twelve months from manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 04:27 PM   #52
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,586
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
It's dated January 2017. The Foreign Policy article dated November 2018 states that Iran is much further along than anyone knew, and they are only seven to twelve months from manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

The scientist Albright did not say anything about time. He said it depends on the efficiency of their enrightment process. If they are using slow centrifuges then they are much farther away than 12 months. Again from the same article this is what your guy said.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 04:35 PM   #53
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles?
Common sense....I've been blessed to know when someone is citing cherry picked items and the other person is telling them factually how they are presenting distorted facts.


You've seemed to morphed into believing Trump type lies into perpetuating them
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 04:39 PM   #54
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far )
Which means one of two things....either IB is purposely distorting the information or he does not know etf he is quoting or a combination of the two.

I readily admit I know nothing about nuclear weapons making but common sense goes a long way in figuring out who does.
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 05:25 PM   #55
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
The scientist Albright did not say anything about time. He said it depends on the efficiency of their enrightment process. If they are using slow centrifuges then they are much farther away than 12 months. Again from the same article this is what your guy said.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the information published in November 2018 is more current and up to date than the older articles, and that article reports -- based on newer and better information than any older article -- that Iran is only seven to twelve months from producing a nuclear weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Common sense....I've been blessed to know when someone is citing cherry picked items and the other person is telling them factually how they are presenting distorted facts.


You've seemed to morphed into believing Trump type lies into perpetuating them
I understand that an updated analysis from November 2018 based on newer and better information takes precedent over a report that's two years older.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Which means one of two things....either IB is purposely distorting the information or he does not know etf he is quoting or a combination of the two.

I readily admit I know nothing about nuclear weapons making but common sense goes a long way in figuring out who does.
Quote:
Iran would still need to produce weapons-grade uranium. If it restarts its centrifuges, it could have enough in about seven to 12 months, added Albright, who is preparing reports on the archive....

One of his key conclusions from studying the documents was that the Iranians “were further along than Western intelligence agencies realized.”

...the trove of documents demonstrates that Washington and the IAEA were constantly underestimating how close Tehran was to a bomb.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 07:50 PM   #56
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,586
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the information published in November 2018 is more current and up to date than the older articles, and that article reports -- based on newer and better information than any older article -- that Iran is only seven to twelve months from producing a nuclear weapon.

I understand that an updated analysis from November 2018 based on newer and better information takes precedent over a report that's two years older.
Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 08:02 PM   #57
Tsmokies
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2014
Location: Near mid cities but never whaco
Posts: 4,826
Encounters: 9
Default

Dang ib. You divert much? Get a clue dude. Obama is not president and left us a great economy that trump hasn't fkn up yet. Maybe your trump will build a wall around Iran and make them pay for it.

Now back to 2019 where Nancy is kicking trumps azz
Tsmokies is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 08:16 PM   #58
themystic
Valued Poster
 
themystic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 13, 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 7,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html
Thank you adav. IB gets carried away with "alternative facts". In this thread he didn't even have that. Thank you for "dismantling" HIS "nuclear program". That was impressive. IB like WTF said, quit digging. IB you don't know your stuff and adav does
themystic is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 09:05 PM   #59
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html
What Albright reported for the November 2018 article supersedes and takes precedence over what he reported for the January 2017 article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsmokies View Post
Dang ib. You divert much? Get a clue dude. Obama is not president and left us a great economy that trump hasn't fkn up yet. Maybe your trump will build a wall around Iran and make them pay for it.

Now back to 2019 where Nancy is kicking trumps azz
It was Odumbo's treaty that the Iranian engineer was bragging about violating from day one. Odumbo owns all of those fuck-ups: lock-stock-and-barrel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by themystic View Post
Thank you adav. IB gets carried away with "alternative facts". In this thread he didn't even have that. Thank you for "dismantling" HIS "nuclear program". That was impressive. IB like WTF said, quit digging. IB you don't know your stuff and adav does
The facts are the facts. The facts revealed in the November 2018 article supersede and take precedence over what the facts reported for the January 2017 article.

Like in a football game, a defense that plays 2nd down based on what the offense lined up to do on 1st down will not be properly prepared to deal with the offense that is running a different play on 2nd down.

What the intel agencies thought Iran could do in 2015 or the beginning of 2017 ceased to be not nearly as important as new revelations regarding what the intel agencies learned what Iran could do at the end of 2018.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 01-26-2019, 09:25 PM   #60
themystic
Valued Poster
 
themystic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 13, 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 7,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
[/SIZE][/COLOR] What Albright reported for the November 2018 article supersedes and takes precedence over what he reported for the January 2017 article.

It was Odumbo's treaty that the Iranian engineer was bragging about violating from day one. Odumbo owns all of those fuck-ups: lock-stock-and-barrel.

The facts are the facts. The facts revealed in the November 2018 article supersede and take precedence over what the facts reported for the January 2017 article.

Like in a football game, a defense that plays 2nd down based on what the offense lined up to do on 1st down will not be properly prepared to deal with the offense that is running a different play on 2nd down.

What the intel agencies thought Iran could do in 2015 or the beginning of 2017 ceased to be not nearly as important as new revelations regarding what the intel agencies learned what Iran could do at the end of 2018.
Ok whatever you say IB. Sure looks like you don't know your stuff. Is this some more of the "poisonous fruit"? talk. That didn't fly either
themystic is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved