Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 18, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


Yesterday President Bush began banging the war drums again about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and invoking WWIII. That is the last thing we or the world needs.

The key to preventing Iran from developing their own nuclear weapons is to provide for monitoring their uranium enrichment activities. A concentration of 5% uranium is needed for use as fuel in a nuclear reactor like the one the Russians are helping the Iranians build. The concentration needed for a nuclear weapon is 96%. To concentrate uranium from 5% to 96% is no easy task. It requires thousands of centrifuges and even then takes a great deal of time to produce 96% pure uranium. Thus the way to insure Iran is not making bombs is to monitor their uranium processing.

What Bush should be doing is working with the Russians and the IAEA to develop an agreement with Iran to station IAEA and Russian technicians at the uranium processing sights to monitor the concentration of uranium being produced by Iran.

Why would Russia or Iran agree to such a process? For an agreement with the U.S. that we will not attack nor allow Israel to attack their nuclear facilities so long as the monitors certify the uranium being produced by Iran does not exceed 5% concentration levels. That would protect the ongoing Russian interest in doing business with Iran and would allow Iran to complete and operate their nuclear facility to produce electricity.

In order to get Russia, which is the key to this agreement to cooperate with the U.S., Bush must stop threatening to install the missile defense system in former soviet satellites. He must develop an atmosphere between the U.S. and Russia that will allow such an agreement to be established. The Russians hold the cards with the Iranians- Iran needs Russia to complete their reactor and to provide essential maintenance and technical support to operate it in the future. If we or Israel were to attack the reactor the Russians are helping the Iranians build, there is no assurance that would stop the uranium concentration process if that is being conducted deep underground.

Such an agreement does run the risk of the Iranians operating concentration facilities that are not known to the monitors. However by keeping track of all uranium ore that comes into to Iran it should be possible to detect an effort to divert that ore to the production of weapons grade uranium because the amount of uranium ore that would be needed to produce enough 96% pure uranium for weapons should be detectable. At the same time we must work with the Russians to control existing weapons grade materials that were part of the old Soviet Union. Even if we prevent the production of new fissionable material by Iran, we must also prevent Iran or any one else from obtaining existing supplies to prevent the construction of a nuclear weapon by Iran of any other terrorist group!

What ever the risks are in using this approach they are a lot less then risking WWIII like Bush talked about yesterday in his news conference.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 19, 2007
It does give the Israelis, Russians, Iran and the U.S. a much better solution then more ineffective sanctions or bombing Iran which will just make a bad situation worse! All Bush is doing is inflaming the situation and is driving a wedge between the U.S. and Russia. They have the MOST sway with Iran just like China has the most sway with North Korea. The Bush approach is to anger those that have the power to help and shows just how inept he has been in foreign policy. Until he finally got China to use its influence with North Korea NOTHING happened. The Agreement with North Korea is the ONLY Foreign policy achievement of his presidency. Before that agreement is fully implemented what does Bush do? He angers China by giving the Delia lama a gold medal. Bush is a stupid arrogant man who has done more to endanger our country then any president in our history!


Blah blah blah, do you even want an intelligent conversation with people? Now you sound like Sen. Spark yesterday. We are actually SUPPORTING your solution except for one tiny little piece while still giving you credit here. This is what drives most (if not all) of your readers crazy! We don't care of your opinion of the other right now. You are on a path to a solution but your rants only show a crazed obsession about Bush. As I said before you may want to talk to a professional about this.

The IAEA is a reliable overseer. Other countries like Jordan, Turkey or Saudi Arabia could also be included.


Yes Jordan, Turkey or Saudi Arabia can over see? Are you kidding? Ummm hello they are also Muslim countries that hate Jews. Why don't you just suggest Chamas or Hezzbulah?

on Oct 19, 2007
Jordan


this country has a small possibility. it depends on where the loyalties of the person from this country lie.


as if the IAEA or whatever if it is part of the UN don't trust it. the UN observers in Lebanon. you know the ones supposed to keep hezbollah from attacking Israel. just sits there and laughs when the missiles fly.

on Oct 19, 2007
Ooo, I know what President Bush's plan is to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons... every time nuclear weapons are discussed, you are to talk in code. The word for Nuclear... is Nucular. Got it?

Who doesn't hate Isreal, besides the United States of America?
on Oct 19, 2007
Reply By: Jythier Posted: Friday, October 19, 2007
Ooo, I know what President Bush's plan is to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons... every time nuclear weapons are discussed, you are to talk in code. The word for Nuclear... is Nucular. Got it?


Yes- I had a typo. Let’s follow Bush and attack Iran and start WWIII as he talked about yesterday. At the same time we better reinstitute the draft because we will need a hell of a lot more young people for Bush to set us as targets like he did in Iraq!
on Oct 19, 2007
Reply By: Jythier Posted: Friday, October 19, 2007
Ooo, I know what President Bush's plan is to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons... every time nuclear weapons are discussed, you are to talk in code. The word for Nuclear... is Nucular. Got it?


What Bush has done so far has not stopped Iran from moving forward with their Nuclear program. We need to boost the recruiting effort some more for al-Qaeda so even more nuts are willing to attack our country!
on Oct 19, 2007
The problem Col is the Iranians don't want the IAEA to monitor them (at least not completely). So there lies the rub: we don't want the mouse watching the cheese and they don't want our cat watching the mouse.
on Oct 19, 2007
isreal has the solution just bomb the facility
on Oct 19, 2007
isreal has the solution just bomb the facility


which is why I believe it is capable to standing for itself more than ennough
on Oct 19, 2007
the final war is going to be the united states and isreal versus the united nations.

on Oct 20, 2007
Depends what your ultimate goal is. The kid [Israel] used to stand alone against the big boys before her alliance with the US and the Arabs kept attacking her to drive the Jews into the sea (heck Arab radio stations in the 60s regularly announced that all the Jews would soon be dead). Since the US got involved, there have been no major wars any more. Attacking Israel suddenly means war with the greatest power on earth. That shut the big boys up. Big brothers can be helpful in these situations. If you want to abandon the kid again and let her face the big boys alone, thinking that she will be able to defend herself, the result will be another number of terrible wars when the Arabs feel that they can try to kill all the Jews again. "Good idea" is not the term I would use for war and another Holocaust. But as I said, it depends on what your ultimate goal is. Trying out an experiment and hoping that the results will be different then the last time it was tried is a bit dangerous when we are talking about human lives.



Well, time has changed since the 60s. Israel now has one of the most efficient and modern army of the region - as opposed to the hastly assembled of the time - and has the nuclear bomb (which no one seems to mind. Israel is the only country in the region - save Iraq- that actually conquered it'S neighbour in the past 50 years)

I don't think Syria would temp fate that much. Except off course if they had Turkey with them.

Jordan is not in a state to wage any war of that scale, and Egypt.. hmm.. I don't know about Egypt.. I think it does not want to loose whatever commercial ties it has with europe.

the united nations condemns isreal with almost every resolution that we cannot stop for what ever reasons


Well, the usual reason U.N. apply sanctions is because the target country broke international laws - which Israel have done on many occasions -.

And the U.S. could simply have vetoed any of those if they felt it was illegitime.

So.. I don't see how you imply that the U.N. are specificly aimed against Israel? Or you just believe that this country can do no wrong?

on Oct 20, 2007
Well, time has changed since the 60s. Israel now has one of the most efficient and modern army of the region - as opposed to the hastly assembled of the time - and has the nuclear bomb (which no one seems to mind. Israel is the only country in the region - save Iraq- that actually conquered it'S neighbour in the past 50 years)
Israel's army was always more efficient than the other armies of the region and thank G-d for that. Nevertheless, you are wrong. Israel is not "the only nation that conquered it's [sic] neighbour in the past 50 years. That's one of those silly urban legends used by some. Syria invaded Lebanon and occupied it for more than a decade. I admit that the other invasions failed, but that was simply due to Arabs losing when they tried to conquer. Syria and Egypt have attempted to conquer but failed. So I cannot see why it is relevant that Israel succeeded. I do reject your idea that we can risk all-out war again just because Israel would likely win it. The current situation is far preferable to that. I am surprised that anti-war people don't see it that way. They usually pretend to dislike war. But here they would gladly (let Israel) risk it.
I don't think Syria would temp fate that much. Except off course if they had Turkey with them.
Turkey would not join Syria in an attack on Israel.
Jordan is not in a state to wage any war of that scale, and Egypt.. hmm.. I don't know about Egypt.. I think it does not want to loose whatever commercial ties it has with europe.
If the so-called Muslim Brotherhood takes over commercial ties are not a priority. The Taliban did not worry about commercial ties either. Another war between Israel and Egypt would probably result in an Israeli victory as Israel will probably use a "disproportionate response" to defend her people against genocide. And the world, especially the UN, will condemn Israel, for both the Egyptian attack and the Israeli victory. Even if Israel should lose (and Israel only has to lose once, her enemies will not withdraw in exchange for a peace treaty) and the Arabs can kill all the Jews (or "drive them into the sea"), Israel will be blamed, I am sure.
Well, the usual reason U.N. apply sanctions is because the target country broke international laws - which Israel have done on many occasions -.
Very funny. Those "international laws" are usually made up on the spot. They are never applied to any other country and can never be found written down before Israel "violates" them. If you want to see what fascism is, look at the UN. Fascism is all about making up laws that never existed before, at least not for everyone, and use them against Jews.
on Oct 20, 2007
So.. I don't see how you imply that the U.N. are specificly aimed against Israel? Or you just believe that this country can do no wrong?
Why don't you count how often the UN condemn Israel for "human rights violation" and compare with how often the UN condemn other countries that actually do commit genocide or execute children or some of the other things allegedly "illegal" according to international "law". No... either internal law says specifically that a human rights violation is only when a Jew or Israel kills somebody (regardless of why the death occurs) and is not when, say, Sudan kills a few hundred thousand people; or the UN is aimed specifically at Israel. SOMETHING must be the aim of the UN, and it's either the crime or the perpetrator. As for "can do no wrong", that's a cheap shot. I believe Israel does remarkably little wrong. I do not have to believe that Israel "can do no wrong" to defend Israel based on the fact that Israel simply DIDN'T do anything wrong in most cases. Sometimes people can be innocent, even Israelis.
on Oct 20, 2007
I realy do have to say that i do not believe that the Iranian leader is only seeking to have nuclear power fo domestic reasons .When he states that Isreal should be wipped off the face of the earth . ALL of you debaters out there ,just stand back and let that statement sink in .if you of a christian belief y,you cannot practice your reigion openly in Iran ,in fact one can do very little ''OPENLY'' in Iran or else the state religious police haul you off to place where you will not be heard of again and if you are a woman , well they get the nearest crane and a strong rope and hang them from it..now there is a nice '' civilised '' society ...
As long as there are terrorist groups willing to die for ALLAH BY FLYING planes into civillian buildings and being funded by states like Iran .Do people honestly believe that a sucide bomber would not use a nuclear device if he /she had the chance..i honestly believe that if IRAN DEVELOPES A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. IT WILL PASS ON THE KNOW HOW TO TERRORISTS GROUPS THAT HAVE IT IN THEIR HEARTS ..YES IN THEIR HEARTS THE URGE TO CAUSE UTTER DESTRUCTION AND KILLING .
if people believe that a sucide bomber would not use such a device to kill even more people we,well then i have to ask ..WHO IS TRYING TO FOOL WHOM
I REALY HATE TO SAY THIS BUT THERE IS NO CHOICE .IF THE FREE NATIONS OF THIS WORLD DO NOT GET TOGETHER AND AGREE A MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN THEY ARE ONLY DELAYING THE DAY WHEN IT WILL COME TO PASS THAT THERE WILL BE NO OTHER CHOICE .....THEN WHAT HAPPENS
I SAY SEND IN THE PLANES NOW ...BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE .
on Oct 20, 2007
Isayhere,

I do not condone your screaming (get the finger off the shift key, man!), but you have a point.

Iran is a terrible dictatorship and nobody should just accept that it become more powerful, because Iran _will_ abuse power.

It is weird that countries like Germany are moving away from nuclear power because it's bad for the environment and more expensive than burning oil or gas and then a country like Iran, that is swimming in oil, claims that it will use nuclear power for civilian purposes. Which particular civilian purpose does one use nuclear power for? Iran has all the power it needs with cheaper oil and gas. Why is Iran working on a project that would simply make electricity more expensive for them?

But it is funny to see many left-wingers who are traditionally opposed to nuclear power suddenly stand up for nuclear power when Iran wants it.
on Oct 22, 2007
Very funny. Those "international laws" are usually made up on the spot. They are never applied to any other country and can never be found written down before Israel "violates" them. If you want to see what fascism is, look at the UN. Fascism is all about making up laws that never existed before, at least not for everyone, and use them against Jews.


Again, your point it totally baseless. First, if such laws really were "made on the spot" and simply antisemitic-oriented, the U.S. would veto them - as it is in their power -.

Israel is breaking more than a fair share of international laws, is wrong about the oppression and colonization of Palestinian territories - on both moral and legal ground -.

On the other side, Israel is right to defend itself. It has the right to exist, and the way the other arab countries treated it in the past was awful.

Treating the U.N. as "fascism" simply because they are doing sanctions against Israel is an insult to the victims of the Holocaust - the victim of true Nazi Fascism -.

(btw, I don't see what the problem with the basic "fascism" ideology is. Not the monstrosity the Nazi created, but the true basic idea. Look up wiki)

Criticizing Israel - or any Jew community for that matter - doesn't make you a Nazi, nor an antisemite. Doing so is using a cheap trick to allow these people to act as if they can do no wrong.

then a country like Iran, that is swimming in oil, claims that it will use nuclear power for civilian purposes.


You simply don't know what you are talking about. Search "refining capacity" in the part of using oil as energy power. Try to look up Iran's: they have absolutely nothing.
3 Pages1 2 3