Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Iran Hiding Nuclear Activities

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 03:20 PM
Original message
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Iran Hiding Nuclear Activities

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Iran Hiding Nuclear Activities

Friday, September 25, 2009

“I am extremely troubled by the latest revelations that the Iranian government has sought to hide its nuclear activities from the international community. I applaud President Obama and other world leaders for clearly stating that this behavior by Iran will not be tolerated. The international community must act, through multilateral sanctions if necessary, to ensure that the government of Iran immediately opens up all of its facilities to international inspections.”

Senator Feingold (D-WI) is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wasn't Saddam "hiding" things too?
Things that turned out not to exist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Here comes the hari kari squad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The UN didn't think so...
neither did the IAEA - none of them found anything to justify BushCo's drumbeat for war.

In this case, BOTH agencies are sounding the alarm - take careful note of that important fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Iran has already admitted the charges are true


In fact Iran notified the IAEA on Monday that they had the plant and that's why the US disclosed its secret intelligence.


Thread on Iran's admission in LBN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. So, they told the IAEA about a "secret", making it a non-secret...
It's a disclosure of an enrichment site, which is tangentially related to weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. You are supposed to advise the IAEA PRIOR to starting construction
we have known of this facility for 2-4 years and Obama and certainly Russ Feingold ain't George W. Bush.

A wise observer would also take note that France, Germany (big trade partner), and even RUSSIA "buy" the evidence this time. Skeptical, cynical, and paranoid are all different things and only the 1st lets dubiousness work as a tool towards finding truth because everything beyond skepticism is you putting obstacles in the way of your own ability to observe reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. PRIOR to starting construction?
I was under the impression that it was prior to use for Nuclear Enrichment purposes, as just about any building of sufficient size can hold a centrifuge chain, and alerting them to "every large building" being built seems... silly.

Dinner Jacket's position seems to be that they were building a facility, and expected it to become active in the future for enrichment, so they contacted the IAEA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. Military option is a bad idea
Clearly the purpose of putting the facility underground is to layer concrete on top to protect it from a conventional strike. Ironically, it'll take a preemptive nuclear strike to destroy this nuclear facility, something that would be unconscionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually, we have non-nuke munitions designed for this purpose...
BLU-109, BLU-116, BLU-118/B, BLU-113..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

It might take a few sorties, and cost quite a few hundred million, but first you blow out the ground, then the concrete, then you're just targeting a hole. (The 113 can handle 20 feet of concrete, might take more than a few).

There might be better ways to spend that money, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. What a relatively calm thread.
Guess the name Kerry just brings out the detractors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Oops, I did not notice that the thread was a few days old.
Edited on Mon Sep-28-09 01:03 PM by Mass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm hearing the war drums beginning to beat in the background.
Damn them! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. Iran has not committed a single violation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC