Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worm Was Perfect for Sabotaging Centrifuges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Meanwhile at the Legion of Doom:

    November 21, 2010
    North Korea Report Validates Concern, Mullen Says
    By JOSEPH BERGER
    Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that a report by a visiting American scientist that North Korea has built a new plant to enrich uranium lends “very visible life” to his simmering worries about that country’s nuclear ambitions.

    He said that American leaders have long assumed that North Korea continued “to head in the direction of additional nuclear weapons,” and a report in The New York Times on Sunday that Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was recently allowed to view a new and sophisticated plant for enriching uranium bolstered that assumption.

    “This validates a long-standing concern we’ve had with regard to North Korea and its enrichment of uranium,” he said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour.”

    The new plant, whose modernistic technology, rich collection of centrifuges and up-to-date control room astonished Dr. Hecker, did not exist in the spring of 2009, just before international weapons inspectors were thrown out of the country. While North Korea has already tested two atomic bombs and produced other nuclear weapons, those were manufactured from the spent fuel harvested from a nuclear reactor, not from enriched uranium.

    North Korea insists the uranium is intended for a reactor that would generate electricity. American officials, however, believe the Communist regime there is focused on building more nuclear weapons and fear that without any capacity to inspect, they cannot know for certain.

    North Korea is already being punished for flouting inspections with sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. The Obama administration’s new verbal campaign may be intended to pressure China, North Korea’s most important patron.

    However, Admiral Mullen did not express confidence that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-il, would respond to new pressures.

    “He blows hot and cold,” Admiral Mullen said, adding later that the North Korean leader was “predictable in his unpredictability.” “He moves in a certain direction and then reverts, and I certainly would see him in his reversion mode at this particular point in time.”

    Admiral Mullen also sought to prop up President Obama’s effort to secure ratification of an arms control treaty with Russia — the so-called New Start — by a two-thirds majority of the United States Senate. The prospects of knitting together that majority seemed to collapse last week when Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chief Republican negotiator in the Senate on the arms issue, said he would block a vote on the pact in the current lame-duck session of Congress.

    The treaty would force both countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and resume inspections that lapsed last year for the first time since the Cold War.

    Clearly targeting his remarks to Republican misgivings about a new treaty, Admiral Mullen said he was “completely comfortable with where we are militarily” and feared only that without a treaty the United States cannot verify Russian claims about paring its arsenal. He called ratification of a treaty an urgent “national security issue of great significance.”

    “We’re close to one year without any ability to verify what’s going on in Russia,” he said.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” reinforced his position, noting that Russia has “thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the United States,” and that from the Reagan administration on, arms controls treaties “have been overwhelmingly passed.”

    Both Admiral Mullen and Mrs. Clinton tried to clarify how long the Obama administration intends to keep American troops in Afghanistan. They said that American units would slowly turn over leadership in combat operations to the Afghan army starting in the spring, but the goal is not to cede that combat role completely until the end of 2014. Afterwards, Americans would continue to advise, equip and train the Afghan army, both said.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
      Why would Eisenhower give two ****s about a British oil company? The US actually was interested in forestalling any Soviet influence in Iran; "fighting communism" was no pretext.
      That's just not true, British lobbying was a huge factor. Never underestimate the power smaller allied nations have on U.S. foreign policy. You should read Donald Wilber's account of Operation Ajax, which he himself headed on the ground. The British government was eager to get rid of Mosaddegh and even tried blockading Iranian ports to deny them access to oil markets and thereby force his resignation prior to the coup. The British first lobbied Truman to go along with their own planned coup but he was not convinced. After Eisenhower was elected, they managed to convince John Dulles that Mossadegh was a communist and Soviet invasion was imminent. Operation Ajax was essentially a joint covert Anglo-American action.

      It's conceivable that without British influence, the U.S. would not have pursued the overthrow of Mossadegh.

      Comment


      • #93
        So after Eisenhower was elected, they managed to convince John Dulles that Mossadegh was a communist and Soviet invasion was imminent.



        So the US launched the coup to fight communism, not to save some British oil company. Thank you for backing me up and refudiating your original point.

        Comment


        • #94
          Neither Mossadegh being a communist or the imminent threat of a Soviet Invasion were true. They were both ideological motivated lies to justify imperialism.

          Comment


          • #95
            Your "pretext" argument doesn't make a lick of sense. The US had no interest in supporting continued British imperialism (Eisenhower told the British and French to go **** themselves during the Suez Crisis a few years after the Iran coup) and you just pointed out that the US refused to launch a coup against Mossadegh until they became concerned about Soviet influence in Iran.

            Comment


            • #96
              I don't know what more I can say without writing a thesis or something. You have either have terrible reading comprehension or are purposely being obfuscating what I'm trying to say, so this is going to be my last post on the subject. Knowing that the U.S. government would never outright support their economic interests in Iran, the British government purposely lied (key word here) to John Foster Dulles and convinced him that a Soviet invasion was immanent and Mossadegh was a communist knowing full well of U.S. eagerness to contain perceived Soviet influence. Neither of these things were true but the U.S. bought into it. Truman never joined because he distrusted British PM I don't know how I can simplify this any more.

              The Suez crisis is another matter and has nothing to do with Anglo-American actions in Iran. The lack of U.S. support during the Suez crisis was a result of the United States being out of the loop. Eisenhower was furious that he was not informed ahead of time and the fact that Britain and France circumvented the UN and the United States entirely. His non-support was a form of punishment.

              There two particularly good books on Operation Ajax that go into far more depth

              Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran by Donald Wilber and All the Shah's Men by Steven Kinzer
              Last edited by Riesstiu IV; November 21, 2010, 18:38.

              Comment


              • #97
                Knowing that the U.S. government would never outright support their economic interests in Iran, the British government purposely lied (key word here) to John Foster Dulles and convinced him that a Soviet invasion was immanent and Mossadegh was a communist knowing full well of U.S. eagerness to contain perceived Soviet influence. Neither of these things were true but the U.S. bought into it.


                So the US decision to overthrow Mossadegh actually was made to "fight communism", as I said. Fear of Soviet influence in Iran (whether warranted or not) wasn't a "pretext" for a coup designed to help out a British oil company that the US didn't care about.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Fighting communism was the pretext the British used to convince Americans to support them. The underlying cause of the coup was British economic interests. I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Asher View Post
                    Religion is the greatest scourge on this planet. While in the US, it just means lack of equal rights (and until recently, imprisonment), in Iran it means something more. Israel is an entire ****ing country based on bull**** religion. It's the root of almost all conflicts, this one not excluded.
                    IIUC, Israel is based on Jewish nationalism, not Jewish religion. There are some religious Zionists, but the point of Israel's founding in 1947 (again, IIUC) was to have a homeland for the Jewish race, not the Jewish religion.
                    1011 1100
                    Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                    Comment


                    • Fighting communism was the pretext the British used to convince Americans to support them. The underlying cause of the coup was British economic interests.


                      Riesstiu's initial post...

                      The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 on the pretext of fighting communism (In actuality, he was pursuing social and political reforms that threatened foreign British interests).


                      The CIA is a US intelligence agency and sure as **** wouldn't have launched a coup to overthrow Mosaddegh over some British oil company that US leaders didn't care about; US fears of communism was the actual reason for the CIA coup and was in no way a "pretext." Riesstiu's post was sloppily-worded and nonsensical.

                      Comment


                      • Just an aside, I know most regulars on this forum don't have much respect for the liberal arts but I wish more in the U.S. would take the time to explore the history of our own foreign and domestic policies for the last 100 years, and I don't mean just the simplified white-washed narratives you find in high school textbooks. There are a lot of well written books and articles out there which are hardly ever have audiences outside of academia and think-tanks that help explain rampant why there are profound anti-American feelings in places like Latin America or the Middle East.

                        And it isn't just Ivory tower liberals who are expressing these views. Old hardliners and cold warriors like late George Kennan, have come out against the stupidity of our own blundering foreign policies.

                        It isn't 1960 anymore. The golden years are gone, the U.S. has lost whatever morale high-ground it had as a defender of freedom and liberty. No one as faith in the United States anymore and we're rapidly rotting away from economic malaise and political polarization.

                        Comment


                        • George Kennan was an overrated thinker who only had one good idea and then didn't even have the wisdom to support its implementation.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elok View Post
                            IIUC, Israel is based on Jewish nationalism, not Jewish religion. There are some religious Zionists, but the point of Israel's founding in 1947 (again, IIUC) was to have a homeland for the Jewish race, not the Jewish religion.
                            If that was true, they'd have been happy with something other than The Holy City, wouldn't they?
                            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Asher View Post
                              If that was true, they'd have been happy with something other than The Holy City, wouldn't they?
                              They were until 1967.

                              Comment


                              • Obviously not too happy.
                                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X