Hillary Clinton puts the nuclear deal in clear terms for Iran

Acceptance fully of this proposal … would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to co-operate with the international community.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton • On Iran’s need to not balk at the nuclear deal presented to them by the international community, which is supposed to prove that they’re using the nuclear energy for energy and research, not weapons.. The deal won’t be changed, it won’t be screwed with. It won’t bend for Iran. They’re still deciding, by the way. • source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

Posted by Ernie Smith • 3 Comments • Permalink

No matter how hard the U.S.-led hostile forces may try all sorts of isolation and blockade, the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), a proud nuclear power, will not flinch from them.
North Korea • Which said it would weaponize its plutonium and enrich uranium in response to sanctions that were put on them by the rest of the world. Because that’s gonna help matters. • source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

*forehead slap* Great job, federal government. The U.S. revealed in a newsletter yesterday that somebody messed up and released a 266-page document LOADED with information about civilian nuclear holdings as well as maps of where we keep all of the fuel for our nuclear weapons. The document was marked “highly confidential,” which sounds scary. Some experts claim the leak isn’t THAT big a deal, but it’s not the first data screwup while Obama’s been in office. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

The solutions are all non-lethal and some of them, such as this blinding rifle, sound incredibly high-tech and awesome. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

Changes could be coming You might be wondering why, despite the long recent history of ships getting commandeered by pirates in the waters near Somalia, crews haven’t been armed. With this latest case involving the Maersk Alabama, expect some changes to happen – including a definition of terrorism stretched to include piracy, which would encourage on-board arms. source

Changes could be coming You might be wondering why, despite the long recent history of ships getting commandeered by pirates in the waters near Somalia, crews haven’t been armed. With this latest case involving the Maersk Alabama, expect some changes to happen – including a definition of terrorism stretched to include piracy, which would encourage on-board arms.
The argument against arms While this may seem to be a no-brainer to some, ship owners are very concerned that a failed attempt at stopping a pirate attack could lead to the death of the crew. Thus far, the pirates have been good at not harming the crews they overtake. Some say the real solution to the piracy problem is stronger maritime law enforcement of often-lawless waters. source

Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

02 Nov 2009 21:50