Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Brown is an experienced season politician.

    Re: "Are you saying that the stuff in Wikipedia doesn't get verified at some point?"
    Um, where have you been the past few weeks?
    Clicky.
    Just because he's more experienced? People don't always vote for experience, you know. Also, Brown is vacating his seat at 13th district to run for the senate seat. Who's going to fill that?

    I need to find another source for references.
    Last edited by naivete; 02/16/2006 at 10:57 AM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by StrangeReaction
    How are you going to provide arms control when you have countries like Russia selling weapons to terrorist nations without any way to track them?
    See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is what gets me flipping nipple tweaked! This is and has been a topic of special interest to Kerry. During the election he laid out his plan to confront this serious issue. All Bush could say during a debate is, "What he said." In case everyone forgot or it was "too complictated", here's what he said:

    "In order to confront nuclear terrorism, Kerry offered a four-step plan. His first step called for safeguarding all bomb-making materials worldwide. He called for an approach that would "treat all nuclear materials needed for bombs as if they were bombs," and pledged to secure all potential bomb material in the former Soviet Union within his first term as president. "For a fraction of what we have already spent in Iraq ," he pointed out, "we can ensure that every nuclear weapon, and every pound of potential bomb material will be secured and accounted for."

    Kerry's second step called for US leadership to verifiably ban the creation of new materials for creating nuclear weapons, including production of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium. He pointed out that there is strong international support for such a ban, but that the Bush Administration has been "endlessly reviewing the need for such a policy."

    Kerry's third step called for reducing excess stocks of nuclear materials and weapons. He recognized the importance of the US adopting policies consistent with what we are asking other countries to do. He asked rhetorically, "If America is asking the world to join our country in a shared mission to reduce this nuclear threat, then why would the world listen to us if our own words do not match our deeds?" In line with this commitment, Kerry promised that as president, he would "stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs." He called the bunker-buster "a weapon we don't need," one that "undermines our credibility in persuading other nations."

    The fourth step in Kerry's plan called for ending the nuclear weapons programs in other countries, such as North Korea and Iran . He called for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, strengthening enforcement and verification through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and tightening export controls to assure no future black market activities in nuclear materials.

    In order to accomplish these goals, Kerry pledged to appoint a National Coordinator for Nuclear Terrorism and Counter-Proliferation to work with him "to marshal every effort and every ally, to combat an incalculable danger." Kerry made clear that "preventing nuclear terrorism is our most urgent priority to provide for America 's long term security." "

  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I need to find another source for references.
    I think by it's easily edited nature, wikipedia is not a good source for current topics or issues, but for more historical stuff it's good.
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is what gets me flipping nipple tweaked! This is and has been a topic of special interest to Kerry. During the election he laid out his plan to confront this serious issue. All Bush could say during a debate is, "What he said." In case everyone forgot or it was "too complictated", here's what he said:

    "In order to confront nuclear terrorism, Kerry offered a four-step plan. His first step called for safeguarding all bomb-making materials worldwide. He called for an approach that would "treat all nuclear materials needed for bombs as if they were bombs," and pledged to secure all potential bomb material in the former Soviet Union within his first term as president. "For a fraction of what we have already spent in Iraq ," he pointed out, "we can ensure that every nuclear weapon, and every pound of potential bomb material will be secured and accounted for."

    Kerry's second step called for US leadership to verifiably ban the creation of new materials for creating nuclear weapons, including production of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium. He pointed out that there is strong international support for such a ban, but that the Bush Administration has been "endlessly reviewing the need for such a policy."

    Kerry's third step called for reducing excess stocks of nuclear materials and weapons. He recognized the importance of the US adopting policies consistent with what we are asking other countries to do. He asked rhetorically, "If America is asking the world to join our country in a shared mission to reduce this nuclear threat, then why would the world listen to us if our own words do not match our deeds?" In line with this commitment, Kerry promised that as president, he would "stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs." He called the bunker-buster "a weapon we don't need," one that "undermines our credibility in persuading other nations."

    The fourth step in Kerry's plan called for ending the nuclear weapons programs in other countries, such as North Korea and Iran . He called for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, strengthening enforcement and verification through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and tightening export controls to assure no future black market activities in nuclear materials.

    In order to accomplish these goals, Kerry pledged to appoint a National Coordinator for Nuclear Terrorism and Counter-Proliferation to work with him "to marshal every effort and every ally, to combat an incalculable danger." Kerry made clear that "preventing nuclear terrorism is our most urgent priority to provide for America 's long term security." "

    DaT, do you really believe the NK, Russia or Iran would follow these plans. They believe it is their right to have nuclear weapons and are doing everything they can to acquire them to include ignoring current protocols set by the UN and the IAEA. I am baffled by your belief that we can control "Black Market activities" the function of black markets would be to skirt the legal markets.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    DaT, do you really believe the NK, Russia or Iran would follow these plans. They believe it is their right to have nuclear weapons and are doing everything they can to acquire them to include ignoring current protocols set by the UN and the IAEA. I am baffled by your belief that we can control "Black Market activities" the function of black markets would be to skirt the legal markets.
    The plan does not rely on stopping nuclear programs alone for success, it's a single facet. I know, I know. Multi-pronged approach. SO COMPLICATED, it will never work!

    sigh,
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    DaT, do you really believe the NK, Russia or Iran would follow these plans. They believe it is their right to have nuclear weapons and are doing everything they can to acquire them to include ignoring current protocols set by the UN and the IAEA. I am baffled by your belief that we can control "Black Market activities" the function of black markets would be to skirt the legal markets.
    Yes. Yes he does believe that. To those of his ilk American power is an evil that must be checked by treaties with the enemies of freedom.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The plan does not rely on stopping nuclear programs alone for success, it's a single facet. I know, I know. Multi-pronged approach. SO COMPLICATED, it will never work!

    sigh,
    Fully understand you have difficulty recognizing these 4 prongs as you call them really are one thing spun into 4 steps
    1.Treat all material as bomb and account for it, secure it in soviet union
    2. Verify no new materaial (well if it is all accounted for/secured, all should know if new is made)
    3. Reduce stockpiles (a little different than the other 3, however if no new is made reduction will occur naturally)
    4. Ending in other countries (no new material kind hard to continue to produce don't you think).

    And again, do you really think the previously mentioned countries (or any country for that matter) would follow a new plan when they won't follow the current less stringent plan? If so you do live in a fantasy world.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    In order to accomplish these goals, Kerry pledged to appoint a National Coordinator for Nuclear Terrorism and Counter-Proliferation to work with him "to marshal every effort and every ally, to combat an incalculable danger." Kerry made clear that "preventing nuclear terrorism is our most urgent priority to provide for America 's long term security." "

    Yes, the issue was undoubtedly seared into his consciousness when he was fighting in Cambodia.
  9. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
       #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I think by it's easily edited nature, wikipedia is not a good source for current topics or issues, but for more historical stuff it's good.
    Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions