akarunway 1 #1 November 4, 2006 Or is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #2 November 4, 2006 QuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #4 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare.Hell. I'm on the NO FLY LIST every other time I fly. Go figure. Won't even go w/ all the stolen shit outta my luggageI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #5 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed? - You approve of publishing nuclear primers for terrorists to use?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed? - You approve of publishing nuclear primers for terrorists to use? You mean like your demands that Bush disclose the methods of gathering intel? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #7 November 4, 2006 now wouldn't it be ironic if N Korea and Iran used those docs to advance their programs?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. That would be the same documents that everyone was saying showed Saddam didn't have an effective nuke program, yes? Either he didn't have an effective program, and this is a tempest in a teapot.... or he *did* have an effective program, so it's a good thing we went in and stopped him. Which is it? Of course, the fact that this site has existed (under various names) since 1994, with details on construction included, sorta takes the wind out of the "The Repubs published nuke details!!!!" sails, doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #9 November 4, 2006 QuoteEgypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices. I think that its a good thing that these countries are openly declaring their intent. We in the west should do everything to help them achieve Nuclear power for civil use. We shoud help them to develope Nuclear powerstations that are of no use in making Nuclear Weapons material (These do exist) Also if they are concerned with their security we should develop treaties with them ensuring their protection in return for not developing nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #10 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed? - You approve of publishing nuclear primers for terrorists to use? You mean like your demands that Bush disclose the methods of gathering intel? - No, I mean like showing terrorists how to make nukes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #11 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped. But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare. That would be the same documents that everyone was saying showed Saddam didn't have an effective nuke program, yes? Either he didn't have an effective program, and this is a tempest in a teapot.... or he *did* have an effective program, so it's a good thing we went in and stopped him. Which is it? Of course, the fact that this site has existed (under various names) since 1994, with details on construction included, sorta takes the wind out of the "The Repubs published nuke details!!!!" sails, doesn't it? No, it doesn't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteOf course, the fact that this site has existed (under various names) since 1994, with details on construction included, sorta takes the wind out of the "The Repubs published nuke details!!!!" sails, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Damn that Karl Rove... getting people to publish nuke plans on the Internet 6 years before the Republicans took the Presidency!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #13 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOf course, the fact that this site has existed (under various names) since 1994, with details on construction included, sorta takes the wind out of the "The Repubs published nuke details!!!!" sails, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Damn that Karl Rove... getting people to publish nuke plans on the Internet 6 years before the Republicans took the Presidency!! Apples and oranges. That contains nothing that hasn't been available in books since the 60s, and it wasn't put on the net at the specific request of a political party to gain policial advantage. The REPUBLICAN site that was just taken down contains engineering data that we consider classified. And then there's the highly classified stuff, apparently including Trident missile codes, that just walked out of Los Alamos under Bush's vaunted "security". Too busy looking for shampoo at airports (cosmetic security).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOf course, the fact that this site has existed (under various names) since 1994, with details on construction included, sorta takes the wind out of the "The Repubs published nuke details!!!!" sails, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Damn that Karl Rove... getting people to publish nuke plans on the Internet 6 years before the Republicans took the Presidency!! Apples and oranges. That contains nothing that hasn't been available in books since the 60s, and it wasn't put on the net at the specific request of a political party to gain policial advantage. The REPUBLICAN site that was just taken down contains engineering data that we consider classified. And the NYT was lauded for publishing classified briefings... Your point being? Quote And then there's the highly classified stuff, apparently including Trident missile codes, that just walked out of Los Alamos under Bush's vaunted "security". Too busy looking for shampoo at airports (cosmetic security). DHS isn't responsible for security at Los Alamos, as has been proven in the other thread ... but thanks for playing!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 November 4, 2006 QuoteAnd the NYT was lauded for publishing classified briefings... Do you honestly not see the difference between publishing a report that demonstrates the US intelligence community agrees that the war in Iraq is making Americans less safe, and documents showing how to build an atomic weapon? Please tell me you see the difference.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd the NYT was lauded for publishing classified briefings... Do you honestly not see the difference between publishing a report that demonstrates the US intelligence community agrees that the war in Iraq is making Americans less safe, and documents showing how to build an atomic weapon? Please tell me you see the difference. Seeing as how I work with classified materials on a daily basis, yes, I do. Care to explain why nuclear plans on the internet since 1996, or classified documents taken from the National Archives and (supposedly) destroyed by Sandy Berger are no big deal, but plans that were released "at the insistence of the Repubs" (got a link for that, John??) are such a huge loss of security?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #17 November 4, 2006 QuoteCare to explain why nuclear plans on the internet since 1996, or classified documents taken from the National Archives and (supposedly) destroyed by Sandy Berger are no big deal, but plans that were released "at the insistence of the Repubs" (got a link for that, John??) are such a huge loss of security? I will explain just as soon as you link to my post where I made such a claim. Hint: If you don't put words in my mouth (that I didn't come remotely close to saying), you can't make such silly arguments.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 November 4, 2006 QuoteI will explain just as soon as you link to my post where I made such a claim. Hint: If you don't put words in my mouth (that I didn't come remotely close to saying), you can't make such silly arguments. I never said you DID say that. However, since you decided to jump into the middle of a question directed at someone else, you shouldn't be surprised if you're called to answer in their stead.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #19 November 4, 2006 QuoteI never said you DID say that. No, you just implied it. Quotesince you decided to jump into the middle of a question directed at someone else . . . My bad. I thought this was a public forum. My mistake.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteI never said you DID say that. No, you just implied it. Quotesince you decided to jump into the middle of a question directed at someone else . . . My bad. I thought this was a public forum. My mistake. It is... you asked a question, I answered it and asked another one in turn...you tried to avoid answering by saying "where did I say that"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI never said you DID say that. No, you just implied it. Quotesince you decided to jump into the middle of a question directed at someone else . . . My bad. I thought this was a public forum. My mistake. It is... you asked a question, I answered it and asked another one in turn...you tried to avoid answering by saying "where did I say that" Allow me to rephrase my answer: No.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #22 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote DHS isn't responsible for security at Los Alamos, as has been proven in the other thread ... but thanks for playing! Where did I write that DHS was responsible? Having trouble reading this morning? The security breach took place under Bush's watch. The same BUSH that claims the Dems are aiding terrorists. The same BUSH whose administration posted nuclear secrets on an open web site at the request of congressional Republicans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #23 November 4, 2006 Quote, but plans that were released "at the insistence of the Repubs" (got a link for that, John??) are such a huge loss of security? Since you asked so nicely: Reuters: The Bush administration set up the Web site in March at the urging of Republicans in Congress who said that public access to such materials from Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. It was shut down after the Times inquired about the disclosure of nuclear information and the experts' complaints. Among documents posted were roughly a dozen that nuclear weapons experts said constituted a basic guide to building an atom bomb. Chicago Tribune: The administration put the documents on the Internet after conservatives in Congress and elsewhere pressured them to do so in the hope that members of the public could help intelligence analysts find evidence within them to support claims of supporters of the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program. International proliferation experts had expressed strong concerns about the documents presence on the web site. Andrew Card, the former White House chief of staff, acknowledged that the cautions from some members of the administration were very clear. The Times story said: “John Negroponte (the Director of National Intelligence) warned us that we don’t know what’s in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents,” Mr. Card said on NBC’s “Today” show, according to The Associated Press. So they were warned, but did it anyway! SHAME!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuote DHS isn't responsible for security at Los Alamos, as has been proven in the other thread ... but thanks for playing! Where did I write that DHS was responsible? Having trouble reading this morning? The security breach took place under Bush's watch. And how would the average reader interpret Quote that just walked out of Los Alamos under Bush's vaunted "security". Too busy looking for shampoo at airports (cosmetic security). eh, Professor? It deliberately misleads the individual to believe that DHS was responsible for the security at the lab, which is false. Of course, you ARE a college professor, and that falsehood allows you to get in another gratuitous slam at the current administration, so I'm not all that surprised at the intellectual dishonesty, I suppose. QuoteThe same BUSH that claims the Dems are aiding terrorists. And the same old Dems that say that the gov't has no right to find out WHO is leaking classified documents to the NYT... but there's nothing wrong with THAT either, right, Perfessor? QuoteThe same BUSH whose administration posted nuclear secrets on an open web site at the request of congressional Republicans. The same "nuclear secrets" that have been OPENLY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET since 1996?? Oh, damn... I forgot - it's only a crime when Bush or a Republican does it...my bad!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #25 November 4, 2006 Well, we're making progress, you're no longer denying that the BUSH administration posted nuclear secrets on the internet at the urging of congressional Republicans, over the objections of a number of government scientists, all the while claiming that Dems are soft on national security. There's a word for this type of behavior: HYPOCRISY... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,151 #23 November 4, 2006 Quote, but plans that were released "at the insistence of the Repubs" (got a link for that, John??) are such a huge loss of security? Since you asked so nicely: Reuters: The Bush administration set up the Web site in March at the urging of Republicans in Congress who said that public access to such materials from Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. It was shut down after the Times inquired about the disclosure of nuclear information and the experts' complaints. Among documents posted were roughly a dozen that nuclear weapons experts said constituted a basic guide to building an atom bomb. Chicago Tribune: The administration put the documents on the Internet after conservatives in Congress and elsewhere pressured them to do so in the hope that members of the public could help intelligence analysts find evidence within them to support claims of supporters of the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program. International proliferation experts had expressed strong concerns about the documents presence on the web site. Andrew Card, the former White House chief of staff, acknowledged that the cautions from some members of the administration were very clear. The Times story said: “John Negroponte (the Director of National Intelligence) warned us that we don’t know what’s in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents,” Mr. Card said on NBC’s “Today” show, according to The Associated Press. So they were warned, but did it anyway! SHAME!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 November 4, 2006 QuoteQuote DHS isn't responsible for security at Los Alamos, as has been proven in the other thread ... but thanks for playing! Where did I write that DHS was responsible? Having trouble reading this morning? The security breach took place under Bush's watch. And how would the average reader interpret Quote that just walked out of Los Alamos under Bush's vaunted "security". Too busy looking for shampoo at airports (cosmetic security). eh, Professor? It deliberately misleads the individual to believe that DHS was responsible for the security at the lab, which is false. Of course, you ARE a college professor, and that falsehood allows you to get in another gratuitous slam at the current administration, so I'm not all that surprised at the intellectual dishonesty, I suppose. QuoteThe same BUSH that claims the Dems are aiding terrorists. And the same old Dems that say that the gov't has no right to find out WHO is leaking classified documents to the NYT... but there's nothing wrong with THAT either, right, Perfessor? QuoteThe same BUSH whose administration posted nuclear secrets on an open web site at the request of congressional Republicans. The same "nuclear secrets" that have been OPENLY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET since 1996?? Oh, damn... I forgot - it's only a crime when Bush or a Republican does it...my bad!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #25 November 4, 2006 Well, we're making progress, you're no longer denying that the BUSH administration posted nuclear secrets on the internet at the urging of congressional Republicans, over the objections of a number of government scientists, all the while claiming that Dems are soft on national security. There's a word for this type of behavior: HYPOCRISY... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
