US to give Iran nuclear technology

[Uh-huh 0]

A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium - a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

 

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.

 

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2796600.html

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Fock that. Iran should have to go to China and get the technology Clinton gave them for campaign contributions.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

So, we don't negotiate with terrorists, but countries that fund and support terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Iran) are a different matter?

[edjr 5,567]

let's do what the bushies did..

 

train and teach a tyrant, put him in power and then go to war to take him down 20 years later.

[paulinstl 295]

So, we don't negotiate with terrorists, but countries that fund and support terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Iran) are a different matter?

 

 

See Libya.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

let's do what the bushies did..

 

train and teach a tyrant, put him in power and then go to war to take him down 20 years later.

 

Ooh, sounds like fun! Hope we can create a character as entertaining as Saddam again.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

See Libya.

 

You mean the country that gave up all it's nuclear program when we invaded Iraq because Qadaffi sh!t his sheets?

 

Thanks for the reminder of just one more positive from the Iraq war.

[RLLD 3,455]

let's do what the bushies did..

 

train and teach a tyrant, put him in power and then go to war to take him down 20 years later.

 

Uhmm....what?

[paulinstl 295]

You mean the country that gave up all it's nuclear program when we invaded Iraq because Qadaffi sh!t his sheets?

 

Thanks for the reminder of just one more positive from the Iraq war.

 

What nuclear program? The only weapons Libya had were a few old scuds and a few containers of WWII mustard gas. They had no WMD program, ZERO! Years of economic sanctions had crippled their economy. The only way for Qadafi to survive was to to give Bush a political victory in denouncing terrorism and giving up a nonexistent weapon program. Unlike Iraq, Libya was proven to be behind actual terror acts on the USA.

 

So, to gain a political win at a time when he needed to make points before an election two months away, Bush unfroze Libiya's assets, allowed American countries to trade with Libya.

 

Economic embargo worked with Libya just like it worked in Iraq before we invaded. Need proof? Where are the WMD? There were none in Iraq either. Instead of Yosemite Sam wanting to kick some Arab ass in Iraq, if we had just waited a little longer, the result we got in Libya would have been repeated in Iraq.

 

Please don't attempt to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. Why I even bother to reply to your idiotic posts, I have no idea, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about on this one.

[Evil number 0]

You mean the country that gave up all it's nuclear program when we invaded Iraq because Qadaffi sh!t his sheets?

 

Thanks for the reminder of just one more positive from the Iraq war.

 

Libya was in talks with US aimed at improving ties in 2002. Nice try.

[GobbleDog 816]

So, we don't negotiate with terrorists, but countries that fund and support terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Iran) are a different matter?

 

I agree. I don't see why we're negotiating with Iran. Ordering them to stop enriching uranium should be enough. Seems like Iran is actually going to benefit from their behavior.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What nuclear program? The only weapons Libya had were a few old scuds and a few containers of WWII mustard gas. They had no WMD program, ZERO! Years of economic sanctions had crippled their economy. The only way for Qadafi to survive was to to give Bush a political victory in denouncing terrorism and giving up a nonexistent weapon program.

 

Please don't attempt to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. Why I even bother to reply to your idiotic posts, I have no idea, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about on this one.

 

No nuclear program? And I have no idea what I'm talking about?

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence agencies had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium-enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior Bush administration official said Friday.

 

 

"Libya admitted to nuclear fuel-cycle projects that were intended to support a nuclear weapons program, weapons development, including uranium enrichment," this official said.

 

The acknowledgment of a nuclear program marked the first time Libya has ever done so. The U.S. and British governments said Friday that Libya has agreed to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and to allow international weapons inspectors into the country.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19...lear/index.html

 

On December 19th, the Libyan government reversed course and announced a plan to dismantle all of its programs for making mass destruction weapons and to allow immediate international inspections of its weapon sites. Libya’s declaration resulted from secret negotiations with the United States and Britain that began in March 2003. By the end of December, Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi had allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Mohamed ElBaradei to lead a team of inspectors through four of Libya’s nuclear facilities.

 

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/...a/libya-nuc.htm

 

There are more, some with the drawings and pictures of the nukes they were attempting to build.

 

Thanks for playing, Paulie.

[kpbuckeye 2]

What nuclear program? The only weapons Libya had were a few old scuds and a few containers of WWII mustard gas. They had no WMD program, ZERO! Years of economic sanctions had crippled their economy. The only way for Qadafi to survive was to to give Bush a political victory in denouncing terrorism and giving up a nonexistent weapon program. Unlike Iraq, Libya was proven to be behind actual terror acts on the USA.

 

So, to gain a political win at a time when he needed to make points before an election two months away, Bush unfroze Libiya's assets, allowed American countries to trade with Libya.

 

Economic embargo worked with Libya just like it worked in Iraq before we invaded. Need proof? Where are the WMD? There were none in Iraq either. Instead of Yosemite Sam wanting to kick some Arab ass in Iraq, if we had just waited a little longer, the result we got in Libya would have been repeated in Iraq.

 

Please don't attempt to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. Why I even bother to reply to your idiotic posts, I have no idea, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about on this one.

 

 

Too be fair it was a combo of administrations that deserve credit for putting Libya in its place.

[hoytdwow 202]

Appeasement is a mirage born of fear

[surferskin 30]

so what IS the right move against Iran? i know it's to sit back and easy call any/every move stupid but what's a better solution? i know most don't want another war or maybe they do...

[torridjoe 0]

Libya was in talks with US aimed at improving ties in 2002. Nice try.

 

Try 1998. Clinton opened negotiations after Qadaffi turned over the Lockerbie killers.

 

so what IS the right move against Iran? i know it's to sit back and easy call any/every move stupid but what's a better solution? i know most don't want another war or maybe they do...

 

at the risk of giving certain people heart failure:

 

"Trust, but verify."

[Toro 1]

"Trust, but verify."

 

 

Trust the same government that held our citizens hostage?

[torridjoe 0]

 

Trust the same government that held our citizens hostage?

 

trust the same government that put warheads in Cuba?

[MDC 5,892]

so what IS the right move against Iran? i know it's easy call any move stupid but what's a better solution? i know most don't want another war or maybe they do...

 

This is a tough call. I do like that we're actually engaging in a dialogue with them. This way, if there has to be a military solution we can at least demonstrate that we've exhausted all options as far as diplomacy.

[Evil number 0]

Try 1998.

 

I didn't mean that they were started in 2002. I just said 2002 because it was before the Iraq war.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I didn't mean that they were started in 2002. I just said 2002 because it was before the Iraq war.

 

So, it turns out Clinton opened negotiations with a known terrorist.

 

And nothing substantial happened until Qadaffi thought we were gonna run over him from Iraq.

 

Glad that's cleared up.

[mighty_thor 115]

This is a tough call. I do like that we're actually engaging in a dialogue with them. This way, if there has to be a military solution we can at least demonstrate that we've exhausted all options as far as diplomacy.

 

We have two examples of dealing with terrorist nations that we could use as a guide. Libya, where we dropped a couple of bombs to scare them, isolated them for a couple of decades and then talked with them. then we have Iraq where we are getting young american men and women coming back in body bags or without limbs. Not a difficult choice IMO.

[torridjoe 0]

I didn't mean that they were started in 2002. I just said 2002 because it was before the Iraq war.

 

Oh, OK. Sorry.

[Toro 1]

trust the same government that put warheads in Cuba?

 

What does that have to do with Iran - a country that held our citizens as hostages - and Russia - a country that was putting warheads in a country that was allowing them to? We had warheads in Turkey?

 

Also, Russia already had the power. This is about proliferation of nukes.

[Uh-huh 0]

This is a tough call. I do like that we're actually engaging in a dialogue with them. This way, if there has to be a military solution we can at least demonstrate that we've exhausted all options as far as diplomacy.

[torridjoe 0]

What does that have to do with Iran - a country that held our citizens as hostages - and Russia - a country that was putting warheads in a country that was allowing them to? We had warheads in Turkey?

 

Also, Russia already had the power. This is about proliferation of nukes.

 

do I have to do all your history homework for you?

 

You do know who said "trust but verify," right?

[Toro 1]

do I have to do all your history homework for you?

 

You do know who said "trust but verify," right?

 

No, I don't.

 

Glad to see you are happy with yourself for knowing a quote from history.

 

Why don't you actually answer the question? Oh, because your wrong.

[torridjoe 0]

No, I don't.

 

Glad to see you are happy with yourself for knowing a quote from history.

 

Why don't you actually answer the question? Oh, because your wrong.

 

Ronald Reagan. He was speaking about how to control nuclear proliferation. Kind of like, um, y'know, what we're talking about now.

[parrot 789]

So, it turns out Clinton opened negotiations with a known terrorist.

 

And nothing substantial happened until Qadaffi thought we were gonna run over him from Iraq.

 

Glad that's cleared up.

Yes, because Iraq is conveniently located just thousands of miles from Libya.

[Toro 1]

Ronald Reagan. He was speaking about how to control nuclear proliferation. Kind of like, um, y'know, what we're talking about now.

 

Good for you, torrid. How about starting up your own quote factory page or something?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ronald Reagan. He was speaking about how to control nuclear proliferation. Kind of like, um, y'know, what we're talking about now.

 

Yeah, decades after there were any nukes in Cuba.

 

His "Trust but verify" quote was not about nuclear proliferation, but about verifying the destruction of nukes in Russia as agreed upon in treaties signed with Russia.

[Toro 1]

Yeah, decades after there were any nukes in Cuba.

 

His "Trust but verify" quote was not about nuclear proliferation, but about verifying the destruction of nukes in Russia as agreed upon in treaties signed with Russia.

 

damn.

 

 

Sorry torrid. Just not your day.

[hoytdwow 202]

His "Trust but verify" quote was not about nuclear proliferation, but about verifying the destruction of nukes in Russia as agreed upon in treaties signed with Russia....

...so they wouldn't proliferate

[torridjoe 0]

Yeah, decades after there were any nukes in Cuba.

 

 

Yeah--which makes it the perfect corollary for Iran, which held hostages decades ago.

 

His "Trust but verify" quote was not about nuclear proliferation, but about verifying the destruction of nukes in Russia as agreed upon in treaties signed with Russia.

 

that's a good one. That's almost as funny as the White House claiming that taking the codicile about degrading and humiliating punishment from the field manuals, was designed to ensure that prisoners would be treated humanely!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

that's a good one. That's almost as funny as the White House claiming that taking the codicile about degrading and humiliating punishment from the field manuals, was designed to ensure that prisoners would be treated humanely!

 

A good one?

 

Here ya go Sparky:

 

In 1987, Ronald Reagan was negotiating an arms reduction with Soviet Premier, Mickhail Gorbachev. At the time, Reagan told Gorbachev that his favorite Russian proverb was, doveryai no proveryai - trust but verify.

 

 

I don't know what the rest of your blathering is about.

[paulinstl 295]

No nuclear program? And I have no idea what I'm talking about?

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence agencies had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium-enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior Bush administration official said Friday.

 

 

"Libya admitted to nuclear fuel-cycle projects that were intended to support a nuclear weapons program, weapons development, including uranium enrichment," this official said.

 

The acknowledgment of a nuclear program marked the first time Libya has ever done so. The U.S. and British governments said Friday that Libya has agreed to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and to allow international weapons inspectors into the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19...lear/index.html

 

On December 19th, the Libyan government reversed course and announced a plan to dismantle all of its programs for making mass destruction weapons and to allow immediate international inspections of its weapon sites. Libya’s declaration resulted from secret negotiations with the United States and Britain that began in March 2003. By the end of December, Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi had allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Mohamed ElBaradei to lead a team of inspectors through four of Libya’s nuclear facilities.

 

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/...a/libya-nuc.htm

 

There are more, some with the drawings and pictures of the nukes they were attempting to build.

 

Thanks for playing, Paulie.

 

At one time some observers classified Libya among the most dangerous countries from the standpoint of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But in recent years concerns about Libyan nuclear ambitions have faded, though apprehensions about Libyan chemical weapons efforts remained very much alive. Libya was in no position to obtain access to nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, given the extremely limited domestic technical base of the country.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/index.html

 

IAEA statement came months after the spoonfed White House claims. Libya, at the time of their agreement didn't even have one person in the entire fockin' nation that had the technical ability to repair an elevator!

 

This taken directly from your second link:

 

It was reported that ElBaradei and U.S. officials disagreed on the status of Libya’s nuclear program. U.S. and U.K. weapon inspectors, who had visited at least ten of Libya’s secret weapon sites during the lengthy negotiation process, reportedly believed Libya’s program to be more advanced than ElBaradei, who described the program as one “in the very initial stages of development” following his preliminary inspection on December 29th. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “we haven’t seen any industrial-scale facility to produce highly enriched uranium. We haven’t seen any enriched uranium.”

 

 

 

Nicely done. Thanks for proving my point that it wa ll much to do about nothing. Nothing but getting votes for Bush.

[torridjoe 0]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/index.html

 

IAEA statement came months after the spoonfed White House claims. Libya, at the time of their agreement didn't even have one person in the entire fockin' nation that had the technical ability to repair an elevator!

 

That's only because nobody in Libya names their kid OTIS.

[parrot 789]

Libya, at the time of their agreement didn't even have one person in the entire fockin' nation that had the technical ability to repair an elevator!

Completely foiling their plan to split the atom by dropping an elevator on it!

[Uh-huh 0]

...so they wouldn't proliferate

 

Apparently Recliner Pilot didn't go to school the day the teacher explained "cause and effect".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Great post Paulie.

 

I never said anything about how advanced Libya's Nuke program was. So you are trying to prove me wrong on a point I never addressed.

 

Nice of you to post more from my link pointing out that:

 

"It was reported that ElBaradei and U.S. officials disagreed on the status of Libya’s nuclear program. U.S. and U.K. weapon inspectors, who had visited at least ten of Libya’s secret weapon sites during the lengthy negotiation process, reportedly believed Libya’s program to be more advanced than ElBaradei".

 

The only disagreement between the US, UK, and Al Baradei was how far along the program was. You however, said they had no program at all, I believe your exact words were:

 

 

"What nuclear program? They had no WMD program, ZERO!"

 

So, while you argue with me on a point I never made, you have just been proven wrong on the point you were making.