Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : John Kerry for President Free speach thread NON-CENSORED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (610)	12/2/2004 3:51:15 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

U.S. told of Iranian effort to create nuclear warhead By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Recent intelligence shows Iran has been working to produce a missile re-entry vehicle containing a small nuclear warhead for its Shahab missiles and has encountered problems developing a reliable centrifuge system for uranium enrichment, U.S. officials said. The officials, who discussed the intelligence on the condition of anonymity, said Iran's new nuclear warhead program includes what specialists call the basic "physics package" for fitting a nuclear bomb inside the nose cone of a missile. The officials provided details on the program after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell disclosed Nov. 17 that Iran was developing delivery systems for nuclear missiles. Iran has since agreed to halt uranium enrichment under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and three European governments, a deal the Bush administration views skeptically. The warhead is based on an indigenous Iranian design and is not being built from design information supplied by the covert nuclear network headed by Pakistani technician Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has admitted supplying nuclear goods to Libya, Iran and North Korea, the officials said. "They are moving ahead with a design for a warhead," one official said. Mr. Powell two weeks ago told reporters traveling with him to Santiago, Chile, that the intelligence shows that Iran is "actively working on [nuclear delivery] systems." "You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," he said. Other officials said the intelligence revealed that Iranians belonging to the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran were conducting research and testing on development of a nuclear warhead for a missile. The information came from reliable intelligence sources and was not provided by an Iranian opposition group, they said. In November, the governments of France, Germany and Britain negotiated an agreement with Iran that calls on Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment. In exchange, Iran received assurances that it will not be brought before the U.N. Security Council for potential sanctions. Iran demanded that it be allowed to keep 20 centrifuges for research. The IAEA said it will monitor the machines. U.S. officials said privately that the Iranians appear to be trying to buy time to continue covert work on nuclear weapons. The Bush administration wants to take the issue to the United Nations, where sanctions can be imposed on Iran. A U.S. official said the Iranians learned from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq not to put all their nuclear programs in a single location. "They have multiple locations that can be used in case one facility is lost," the official said. A CIA report made public last week said the U.S. government "remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program." The program is based on making a nuclear fuel cycle "ostensibly for civilian purposes but with clear weapons potential," the report said. Regarding Iran's uranium enrichment program, the officials said Tehran is having problems with developing a reliable centrifuge "cascade," a series of hundreds or thousands of machines that spin uranium hexaflouride gas into highly enriched uranium — the key fuel for nuclear bombs, the officials said. However, the design work is close to completion and once testing is finished on a successful machine, the Iranians will begin large-scale production of centrifuges, they said. "They just need to make one machine that doesn't explode when it spins at 7,000 rpm, and then they'll go into large-scale production," one official said. Iran has deployed at least six 620-mile-range Shahab-3 missiles, said the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies. U.S. officials think these missiles and future long-range versions will be the main system for the nuclear warheads. The IAEA, the watchdog group of the United Nations that has been dealing with the Iranian nuclear problem, announced Monday that it has verified most of Iran's claims about its nuclear material, after months of dissembling by Tehran. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, in a report to the board made public Monday, said Iran has been working on nuclear activities since the 1980s at various locations and is using several methods for making nuclear fuel. The report said Tehran has not fully cooperated in explaining its nuclear programs, although Mr. ElBaradei said he has accepted most of Tehran's explanations for discrepancies. The White House has disagreed. "Iran has time and time again deceived and denied, deceived the international community," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. The IAEA report said that Iranians had provided false statements and conflicting responses to questions about the program, and that unanswered questions remain about Iran's uranium enrichment and its importation of centrifuges. Personalize Your News with The Insider Subscribe to the daily or weekly printed edition

To: geode00 who wrote (610)	12/2/2004 3:52:09 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

Exiles: Iran Making Missiles That Could Hit Europe Thu Dec 2,10:27 AM ET By Madeline Chambers LONDON (Reuters) - Iran is working on long-range missiles capable of hitting European capitals, as well as nuclear and chemical warheads, an exile group said on Thursday. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which has in the past given accurate information on some of Iran's nuclear facilities, said Tehran was working on missiles with a range of 1,600 to 1,900 miles, capable of hitting cities such as Berlin. Iran denies any intention of making long-range ballistic missiles and says its existing medium-range missiles are purely for deterrence. The NCRI told reporters Iran was carrying out research, testing and making the Ghadr 101 and Ghadr 110 missiles, comparable to advanced Scud E missiles, at the Hemmat Missile Industries Complex. Ghadr means value or merit in Farsi and Shab-e Ghadr refers to the night the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The NCRI is a coalition of exiled opposition groups fiercely opposed to Iran's clerical rulers. The State Department lists the NCRI and its armed wing, the People's Mujahideen, as a terrorist organization. The exiles also said Tehran had in August tested a Shahab-4 missile with a range of 1,200 to 1,900 miles, depending on the weight of the warhead. Shahab means meteor in Farsi. Iran has acknowledged it can make large numbers of medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of hitting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf, but has repeatedly denied Israeli accusations it is developing Shahab-4. "Militarily speaking, by obtaining long-range and medium-range missiles, the clerics are trying to put many regions of the world, including all of Europe, within their range," NCRI's Ali Safavi told reporters. The NCRI acknowledged that the missile programs did not contravene international law. It provided site maps and detailed explanations but had no blueprints of the work. Safavi also said Iran's Shahid Karimi Industrial Group was pursuing nuclear and chemical warheads, but he gave few details. Last month Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) suggested Iran was working to fit missiles with nuclear warheads but Iran says its atomic plants are solely for power generation. Earlier this week the United Nations (news - web sites)' nuclear watchdog decided against referring Iran to the Security Council after Tehran agreed to freeze all activities which could be used to make bomb-grade material.

To: geode00 who wrote (610)	12/2/2004 4:47:59 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

The Real Reasons Why John Kerry Lost Written by Anthony Stahelski Thursday, December 02, 2004 In the post-mortem analysis of the 2004 presidential election pundits have concluded that George W. Bush won and John Kerry lost because Republicans are perceived as strong on moral values and fighting terrorism, and Democrats are perceived as weak. This conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but it ignores the 50-year history of televised presidential elections. There have been 14 presidential elections since 1952, the beginning of the television age. In 13 of those 14 elections the candidate perceived to be emotionally ''warmer'' (more caring and empathetic) and ''closer'' (more similar) to the common people has beaten the emotionally colder and less similar candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The only exception was in 1968, when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey, who was saddled with defending a very unpopular war. Eight of the 13 elections were won by Republican candidates, and 5 were won by Democrats. Apparently Republicans are somewhat more successful in fielding candidates who are perceived to have the empathetic ''common touch,'' despite being the presumed party of the rich elite. Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush II are the best examples of these candidates. Democrats seem to have fewer candidates with the common touch, despite being the presumed party of common folks. In fact, Democrats frequently field candidates who are perceived to be out of touch intellectual elitists, such as Stevenson, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. When Democrats counter their elitist tendencies and field candidates who have the ability to connect with common people, such as Carter in 1976 and Clinton, they win. When Republicans field candidates who lack the common touch, such as the 1960 version of Nixon, Ford, Bush I in 1992, or Dole, they lose. It can be concluded that Americans want a president who at least seems to be one of them. They want a president who understands and cares about their problems and actually participates in activities that they enjoy. Most Americans are not intellectuals, and therefore they are suspicious of highly educated, articulate individuals. These individuals, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as uncaring elitists and as out of touch with common people. There is a relation between ''common touch'' presidential candidates and the moral-values issue that analysts concluded was the deciding factor in this election. Polls consistently show that most Americans have one of two basic beliefs: They believe in God, or, they have a simple patriotic belief in the goodness of America. Many Americans have both of these beliefs. Therefore, part of a candidate's appeal to the common person is the sincere profession of religious beliefs in a patriotic context, and the moral behavior that corresponds to those beliefs. This perhaps explains why intellectuals fair so poorly as presidential candidates. Most American intellectuals are trained in academic environments where secular humanism is the dominant philosophical orientation. Secular humanism focuses on humans and human progress. Many humanistically oriented intellectuals think that theological and nationalistic concerns (religion and patriotism) impede global human progress. Consequently many intellectuals find beliefs in religion and patriotism naïve, antiquated, contemptible, and potentially dangerous. They also assume that those who do believe in God and country are stupid, ignorant, and in need of guidance from their intellectual betters. Most intellectuals either cannot or will not hide their disdain for common people. Since most common people are much smarter than intellectuals give them credit for, they can easily tell when an intellectually-oriented candidate is being disdainful of their core beliefs in religion and patriotism. Therefore candidates who are perceived to be secular humanist intellectuals are at a distinct electoral disadvantage compared to those candidates who are not so perceived. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals. About the Writer: Anthony Stahelski is director of the Organization Development Program at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington. Anthony receives e-mail at stahelsa@cwu.edu.