Iran enrichment capacity expanded dramatically on Obama's watch

In essence, the secretary of State was suggesting the staggering number of centrifuges that Iran now has effectively forced the hand of the P5+1 negotiators at the talks, making the placement of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program the only realistic prospect the negotiators could pursue. Kerry also suggested that had only President George W. Bush done the right thing a decade ago, the United States and its allies in the P5+1 -- Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- wouldn't have found themselves in such a precarious negotiating posture.

Iran enrichment capacity expanded dramatically on Obama's watch

Looks like the blame Bush rhetoric is alive and well even for the Iranian deal. Kerry is taking a play from the Obama playbook here. Except even MSNBC is calling them out on their BS. More from the article:

It is known that by late 2007, Iran possessed about 3,000 centrifuges. Over the course of Bush's final 12 to 15 months in the White House, it can be assumed safely that Iran added to, but probably did not fully double, the number of centrifuges it had installed. A fair estimate would accordingly place the number of the spinning machines that Iran had on hand at the beginning of 2009 at 5,000.

This would mean that roughly 25 percent of the regime's current total of centrifuges had been installed when the Bush-Cheney era ended. Put another way: Roughly 74 percent of the centrifuges Iran now has on hand were installed since the Obama-Biden team assumed office. Analysts say 10,000 of the total are actively enriching uranium to low levels, inconsistent with nuclear weapons production but well suited to the task should a decision be made to pursue that goal.

Um... So yeah... Totally Bush's fault. I mean Bush should have KNOWN that as soon as he left the Presidency, that Iran would triple their centrifuge output. For shame Bush! How dare you not know the future!

Seriously, do these Democrats have a flowchart or something that they read off of when questioned by the media?

Media Questions>
Is it a good question?
Yes>
Except responsibility
No>
Blame Bush

Bush has been out of office for over 5 years now, time to move on Democrats. Start accepting some of the blame. Maybe people would have a better opinion of you guys.

Are we worried that another country could soon have nuclear weapons or are we worried that its Iran specifically?

Personally I think I prefer Iran having the Bomb to Israel and the US, how many countries does Iran have troops in? How many countries have they invaded recently?

With bullies like the 2 above mentioned countries spewing their propaganda and basically holding the threat of invasion over them I cant say I blame them for wanting one

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Obama is not a bad president because he is democrat. Bush wasn't a bad president because he is republican.

Responsibility.

I wonder how many times that word is discussed in the West Wing.

Krazysh0t

Kerry also suggested that had only President George W. Bush done the right thing a decade ago, the United States and its allies in the P5+1 -- Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- wouldn't have found themselves in such a precarious negotiating posture.

You know...

What more could he have done? Invade yet another country? I mean there are many threads around here about "The Plan" being *peddled in a book* to topple this, that and another country. I think Iran was last or near the end of that list. So, if true, I think the balls in Barry's court if they so choose to proceed.

I'm sure there will be a few die hards popping to remind us and the world that Iran has a right to Nuclear Energy weapons because the Evil JEWS Zionists have them too. Meanwhile, I think we the people of planet Earth should really try to reduce the amount of these types of weapons instead of supporting this or that country in the expansion and proliferation of such weapons simply based on a tit for tat mentality.

We saw all of that before between the USSR, US and Red China and then later between India and Pakistan. Here we go again folks.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat...

Trueman
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Obama is not a bad president because he is democrat. Bush wasn't a bad president because he is republican.

You're right, they are bad presidents because they are rich politicians bought by lobbyists to further corporate agendas or in this case the Israeli agenda.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I find it hard to tell another country what they can and cannot have when we have that very thing that we are telling another country to have. In fact we have the most out of any other country. Iran hasn't attacked another country in a very long time, yet we hear time again how they are breathing down the Israeli's necks and are getting ready to invade. Yet it never happens. Why do we automatically assume that if Iran gets the bomb, they will just go buckwild nuking everything in sight? That's like denying someone the right to own a firearm because they look seedy.

so what? i have this mindset because iran hasn't attacked anyone in quite a long time and i don't see them starting now. israel on the other hand has been in active war for ever it seems and no ones trying to eliminate their nuclear arsenal. perhaps less propaganda and more critical thought would help our world eliminate such things quicker.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Interesting reply

Now, quote where and when I have said or implied Iran would do any of that? The point I was making is that the Proliferation of these weapons seems to always be based on fear. I haven't read much if anything about Israel being afraid of Iran invading them but I've read tons of stories about Iran being afraid of everybody and their brother invading Iran. Which as you've put "Never happens"

Now, whats wrong with ALL countries throwing in the towel and giving up their weapons and or continue [as the US and Russia have] to reduce their stockpiles? ?

AND

For the record, Russia has had and still has more Nukes than the US. Also, there is a rumor that sneaky China may have still more than the US and Russia. While the USSR and the US were acting out in a very public manner. China was supposedly quietly and methodically tunneling a vast under ground missile complex...

China's nuclear arsenal could be up to FORTY times bigger than thought

* Georgetown University student spent three years translating secret military documents and blogs

* Focus of research centred on 3,000 miles of underground tunnels dug by Second Artillery Corps

* Investigation launched after 2008 earthquake in Sichuan revealed existence of collapsed tunnels

* Study claims China could have as many as 3,000 nuclear warheads - far more then current estimates of between 80 and 400

China's nuclear arsenal may be many times larger than estimates suggest, a group of students have claimed after three years of painstaking researching through restricted documents.

Led by a former top Pentagon official, the students at Georgetown University, in Washington DC, have scrutinised satellite imagery, translated Chinese military documents and filtered through thousands of online files.

The focus of their extensive research has been the thousands of miles of underground tunnels dug by the Second Artillery Corps to hide China's missile arsenal.

So, Take your pick. Dem vs Repub, Commie vs Capitalist or now, Jew vs Muslim....

Same old Sh1T!

SLAYER69
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Interesting reply

Now, quote where and when I have said or implied Iran would do any of that? The point I was making is that the Proliferation of these weapons seems to always be based on fear. I haven't read much if anything about Israel being afraid of Iran invading them but I've read tons of stories about Iran being afraid of everybody and their brother invading Iran. Which as you've put "Never happens"

Now, whats wrong with ALL countries throwing in the towel and giving up their weapons and or continue [as the US and Russia have] to reduce their stockpiles? ?

I didn't mean to imply that you suggested that. I understand where you are coming from and while a total worldwide nuclear disarmament would be great for the world and all of humanity, it isn't going to happen. As long as the technology and knowhow to build these weapons exists, someone will do it. Once knowledge is released to the world, it cannot be taken back.

By the way, if Israel wasn't afraid of Iran lobbing nukes at them, why are they so opposed to these deal?

Israel's new focus on the Iran nuclear deal

For the next six months Israel's goal will be to seek an acceptable deal, rather than scupper the process. But a deal that does not meet its basic expectations, no deal at all, or an endlessly strung-out process while Iran advances its programme, will place its decision-makers back on the horns of a dilemma: whether or not to intervene to avert what it considers the most serious threat to its national security.

What threat to their national security? Israel is constantly provoking its neighbors then crying about their national security. Maybe they could mind their own business and they wouldn't be under threat of attack all the time.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Seriously, do these Democrats have a flowchart or something that they read off of when questioned by the media?

They use the same flowchart that the Republicans use after all Reagan did nothing but blame Carter for everything for eight years straight.

Had Bush negotiated with Iran then chances are they wouldn't have as many centrifuges. But seeing how Bush started two wars to protect Israel it's clear to see why Bush didn't even try to negotiate with Iran because we know who was in charge of our ME policy while he was in office. And seeing how it's a FOX "news" source they of course have to throw the bomb in for effect.

Krazysh0t
By the way, if Israel wasn't afraid of Iran lobbing nukes at them, why are they so opposed to these deal?

"Lobbing nukes" vs "Invading"

Krazysh0t
Iran hasn't attacked another country in a very long time, yet we hear time again how they are breathing down the Israeli's necks and are getting ready to invade. Yet it never happens.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

By the way, if Israel wasn't afraid of Iran lobbing nukes at them, why are they so opposed to these deal?

Because Israel is afraid that the rest of the world is going to demand that they allow inspectors in to see what kind of WMD's they have.

I'd seen this yesterday and shook my head in sadness with Kerry out there in his 'somber tones', describing the radical ramp up of Iranian material production.

I kept thinking...is Kerry stacking against Obama for 2016 or serving as his Secretary of State??? If one recalls that all his doom and gloom talk came as a result of and DURING the policies of his boss, it was almost surreal to watch. Reality isn't something they cherish highly in this White House. Not consistent reality anyway.


BTW.. They could have 10,000 or a million centrifuges running full speed, non-stop and with no plans to ever slow down. That doesn't translate to a weapon or warhead and IF that is their goal at current levels of infrastructure? They're shooting for a full World Power level arsenal, not the "one bomb" for the mad man looking to use it.

They could...also...be ramping up production to do precisely what they've said they intend to do and it WOULD take everything they currently have here...plus more which hasn't come online yet.

They've stated before and the evidence seems to show they intend to have a plan B to move away from Oil. Natural Gas is a biggy, since they are among the largest on Earth for reserves and production ability. However, their national goal seems to be creating the WalMart of Nuclear Energy. They intend, by their past statements, to support the expansion of nuclear energy into African nations while supplying a solution to their fuel and energy cycle issues. Basically how to give 100% non-nuclear nations, nuclear power. That's usually been OUR role around the world...and it obviously pisses us off to NO end that Iran may well be in a position soon to surpass us by miles in ability to deliver ...energy ...not warheads. Time will tell.

Krazysh0t
What threat to their national security? Israel is constantly provoking its neighbors then crying about their national security. Maybe they could mind their own business and they wouldn't be under threat of attack all the time.

In the short Time Israel has been in existence how many times have they've been overtly and covertly attacked by their Islamic neighbors? Since the overthrow of the Shaw in 1979 how many times has the Islamic Republic of Iran been attacked?


All that aside. I believe the world could be convinced dog crap is a valuable commodity given enough air time and the right spin. The proliferation of Nuclear weapons for whatever reason is moronic. Whether by Muslims, Jews, Commies or Capitalists.

We as a Species seriously need to pull our heads out of our backsides and grow up.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


What are you, some kind of Bush supporter/defender?

Is it surprising that Fox is blaming Obama while giving Bush a pass?

Truth be told, both presidents & their administrations were/are horrible.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I agree with you. I really do. I would LOVE for all nuclear weapons in the world to be dismantled and forgotten about. But the reality is that it won't happen. The knowledge to create one exists, therefore someone will make one. It is inevitable. It is just how people are. It is the same argument as people who are against guns. Sure it would be great to get rid of them, but the knowledge to make them exists, therefore someone will make one. The only way to defend yourself here is to have one of your own to fight back with. It is an unfortunate consequence of these things, but it is just the way things are.

reply to post by Swills


First off, there is this post I posted in the thread earlier:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second off, just because I call out the Democrats on their BS doesn't automatically make me a Bush supporter. You know it IS possible to talk about Bush in a non-negative light and not be a Bush supporter you know... I understand fully that Bush was a terrible president, but blaming him for everything is just stupid. I want our politicians to own up to their mistakes not blame the last guy for them.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I disagree. It is not possible to talk about Bush in a non negative manner, unless you're a Bush supporter.

Your OP comes off as your sounding like a Bush/Republician supporter.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Please people, stop worrying about yet another inconsequential 3rd world nation.

I realize that the government and media have you whipped up into a frenzy but take control of your cumulative brains. You dont have to listen to them.

I promise you, Iran is not stripping us of our civil liberties. Iran is not collapsing our economy or devaluing our dollar. Iran is not behind the Police State Industrial Complex. Iran is not trying to take your guns.

And even if Iran got a nuclear bomb, guess what, its not our business.

Why would they use it on us anyway (assuming they could even get it here, which they cant).

Because we overthrew their government in 1953 via Operation Ajax and installed a brutal dictator for the next 30 years? Because we have their nation completely surrounded and threaten to attack them on a monthly basis? Because even as we speak, our government is trying to subvert theirs?

Errr, now that I think about it, maybe we should stop Iran from getting a nuke. Seems like there are some damn good reasons for them to send a few nukes our way...

reply to post by Swills


Sounds like a personal problem with your reasoning. Maybe look into that. I can easily talk about Bush in a non-negative light, just like I can do the same for Obama. I'm a Libertarian by the way. I don't support most (if not any) Democrat or Republican. So how about stop making assumptions about my politics and address the article I posted in the OP, otherwise I don't think we have anything else to talk about.