Article

2006-05-17 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Ahmadinejad Resents Being Treated 'Like a Four-Year-Old' even though he is one.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-17 12:26|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Rather than a 4-years old, I'm thinking about a chimp with a shotgun. Safer to put him down before he gets to find the trigger, I guess.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-05-17 12:53|| 2006-05-17 12:53|| Front Page Top

#2 If the reactor at Arak is a heavy water reactor, something I just learned today, why do they need to enrich uranium? The whole point of a heavy water moderated reactor is that you can use natural uranium (~.7% enriched anyway). The only other benefit is that it produces Plutonium. So they don't need enriched uranium for the Arak plant, but it would take years to produce plutonium from spent fuel rods, in just 2-3 years they could enrich enough bomb grade uranium with an enrichment facility though.

Figure it out for yourself and you'll be smarter than the whole U.N. put together.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-05-17 13:27|| 2006-05-17 13:27|| Front Page Top

#3 There he goes insulting 4-year-olds....

4 year olds are far better behaved.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-05-17 13:34|| 2006-05-17 13:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Off to the Naughty Chair with you, Ahmanutbar. One decade for each of your years.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-05-17 13:38|| 2006-05-17 13:38|| Front Page Top

#5 See, whatd I tell ya? He rejected the offer anyway. So what are the Russkies and Chinese gonna say to the Euros now, when they say theyve tried negotiating.

Course they could say, we're gonna veto, whether its justified or not. But it increases the cost of a veto.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-17 13:40|| 2006-05-17 13:40|| Front Page Top

#6 LH, the Euros have tried negotiating for years and the Russians and Chinese haven't changed thier tune yet. It would be unlikely that they would now.

Also, I don't see how the cost of a veto is going up because of this latest rejection.

Everybody with half a brain knew this program could not be stopped with hand-wringing as soon as they rejected the Russian offer to provide the enriched uranium.

Posted by Mike N. 2006-05-17 14:48|| 2006-05-17 14:48|| Front Page Top

#7 HEAVY WATER REACTOR!!!!!!!!
Oh Sister Mary and Margaret.......that is BAD.
I think the Iranians are far closer to going nuclear than everyone thinks.
The IAEA should be disbanded in disgrace for letting this thing get this far without any knowledge.......oh wait ElBaradei got the Nobel prize.......for what? There is going to be no peace in this world if those mullahs in Teheran get the big one.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-05-17 15:29|| 2006-05-17 15:29|| Front Page Top

#8 why do they need to enrich uranium? The whole point of a heavy water moderated reactor is that you can use natural uranium (~.7% enriched anyway). The only other benefit is that it produces Plutonium. So they don't need enriched uranium for the Arak plant, but it would take years to produce plutonium from spent fuel rods

A very good question. I expect the Persians might be looking to the future when a uranium jacket can be brought to together with a Plutonium core.

Posted by 6 2006-05-17 15:32|| 2006-05-17 15:32|| Front Page Top

#9 Mike N, cause they (The Russians and Chinese) have recently said that further inducements need to be offered, and now they have been, and the mullahs still say no.

Will add to the cost - not much but some. Im not going to go into detail on that, since it largely means loss of reputation and "soft power" and this forum is not in agreement that soft power, reputation for reasonableness, etc is worth anything. If one thinks theres no costs for the US going all Jacksonian, then why would one expect there to be costs for Putin to go all Jacksonian? Putin doesnt appear to think there is. I think hes wrong, but this simply isnt the place to argue it out.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-17 15:36|| 2006-05-17 15:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Mike N, cause they (The Russians and Chinese) have recently said that further inducements need to be offered, and now they have been, and the mullahs still say no.

So obviously more inducements need to be offered.

If you think the reaction will be any different, you're delusional. The UN is not interested in keeping Iran from getting nukes; IMHO, the UN is interested in HELPING Iran get nukes.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-05-17 16:13|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-05-17 16:13|| Front Page Top

#11 LH, I will agree that soft power has no value on this board, but between you and I, (Don't tell anyone at Rantburg)soft power does have a purpose and it's importance is often understated. I do feel however, that others give it too much importance.

As far as Russian soft power goes, arguably thier soft power is almost entirely centered around thier seat at the UNSC. If they veto this, they make the U.N. a little bit more worthless than it already is therebye making what little bit of soft power they do have a bit more meaningless. I guess if one values soft power enough this could be seen as a cost. If your case is anything like what I have just said, we will have to agree to disagree.

Now on to China.

China's soft power is basically economic. They really don't care about having U.N. permission to support any international "adventures" they may chose to go on, so degrading the U.N. really costs them nothing. In fact the U.N. going away completely would most likely be a plus for the Chinese because it would help remove some of the international eyes and pressure. They can only gain from a weaker U.N.

The only real way a veto could hurt them is economically, and no nation on this planet right now is willing to give up a part of the booming Chinese economy. A veto will cost the Chinese nothing at all. Nothing.

A veto will cost the Russians something that doesn't matter, and the Chinese nothing at all. I would hardly consider that a cost.

And on to going Jacksonian. You're right, this would not be the place to discuss that.

Posted by Mike N. 2006-05-17 16:34|| 2006-05-17 16:34|| Front Page Top

#12 how many untold countries have the bomb?
Saudi?
Syria?

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-17 17:39|| 2006-05-17 17:39|| Front Page Top

#13 I learned on CSI that these immature nutjobs are eccentric because they didn't have a mother that loved and nurtured them. Tend to have a real big anal fixation...and he did have 2 large phallic missiles on his yellowcake. I also read he was one of the youngsters sent to the minefields during the Iraq/Iran border dispute, as another good Islamic mother offers her children to the sacrifice. I think what he needs is a good ballistic enema.

Posted by Danielle 2006-05-17 19:20|| 2006-05-17 19:20|| Front Page Top

#14 Danielle,

He was not one of the youngsters sent to the minefields with a plastic key made in Taiwan.

He was the SOB leading them and handing out the "Keys to Heaven"(tm).

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-17 20:18|| 2006-05-17 20:18|| Front Page Top

00:00 Oldspook
00:00 FOTSGreg
23:59 Oldspook
23:58 Seafarious
23:55 Seafarious
23:54 Seafarious
23:52 Fordesque
23:48 Fordesque
23:46 ed
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:33 SPoD
23:29 Barbara Skolaut
23:26 SPoD
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:21 badanov
23:20 anonymous2u
23:20 Brett
23:14 Great White Polar Bear
23:11 xbalanke
23:08 Captain America
23:06 Frank G
23:02 DMFD
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 Great White Polar Bear