Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/103954-do-you-think-iran-developing-nuclear-weapons.html)

stevo 05-23-2006 11:57 AM
Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.

Like I said previously,
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I can forgive typos, even bad grammar, hell, even regular misspellings,...
I said this because I know I don't have perfect spelling, punctuation, etc. and I don't think anyone expects these message boards to be ripe with king james english. But there is no way the poster thought "isriaily" is even a real word, and as nezmot pointed out, he should at least have the decency to look it up. Why don't you go back though post #93 and point out all the misspellings? I didn't bother. I didn't think they were that big of a deal. I obviously wasn't nitpicking his spelling or I would have had to re-write half his post. So don't give me your bs.

The_Jazz 05-23-2006 12:05 PM
I'm sorry to see that the once-proud political forum of TFP has devolved into a spelling bee. Wake me up when you guys want to discuss anything that's actually fun, like the topic at hand.

host 05-23-2006 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.....
This just in....stevo....today's news:
Quote:
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=104122
Chalutz To Deliver First Report Before Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee
11:55 May 23, '06 / 25 Iyar 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Today in the Knesset, <b>Chief of Staff Lieut. Gen. Dan Chalutz</b> will be giving his first report over to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, headed by Tzachi Hanegbi. The committee will also debate “the present dangers created by changes in the route of the fence surrounding Jerusalem,” a topic raised by MK Meir Porush......

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=104131
Chalutz: Iran Will Continue To Work On Atomic Bomb Through End of Decade
15:44 May 23, '06 / 25 Iyar 5766

(IsraelNN.com) During his appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, <b>Chief of Staff Dan Chalutz presented a different opinion from that of Prime Minister Olmert, who recently stated that the Iranians could develop the technology to produce an atomic bomb within months. Chalutz stated that the issue was not as urgent as Olmert stated,</b> and that attempts to develop the bomb might well continue until the end of the decade.

Regarding the separation fence, the Chief of Staff stated there are efforts to prevent illegal entry into Israel by setting up checkpoints along the fence.....
stevo, <b>it is not as urgent</b> as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated. Any decision about using U.S. force in Iran can safely take place after the November, mid-term U.S. election. Our president has a 67 percent disapproval rating, and polls reveal that his "credibility rating" is in the shitter. The assessment of the actual threat that Iran poses...and what to do about it...here in the U.S., should never rise to a louder crescendo than it rises to in Israel. It still seems louder on this board, and in this country, than it should be....why is that?

stevo 05-23-2006 12:29 PM
You don't know how loud the talk is in Israel, and neither do I. So I really can't comment. You should also ammend your bolded statement to add, "according to Chalutz." If you want to be accurate.

But you seem to admit that Yes, iran is working towards nuclear weapons. So we agree.

host 05-23-2006 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
You don't know how loud the talk is in Israel, and neither do I. So I really can't comment. You should also ammend your bolded statement to add, "according to Chalutz." If you want to be accurate.

But you seem to admit that Yes, iran is working towards nuclear weapons. So we agree.
Chalutz is also spelled Halutz in an equal number of web search results. Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz is an IDF air force general who was appointed to the IDF equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

stevo, I'm not going to alter the text of a news account that I emphasized with bold < b > html code. That would expose me to another avenue of criticism that is heavy on distracting from the actual debate here.

I think that we are only in agreement that your views are extremely close to the foreign and military policy talking points espoused by the Bush administration. I guess that you believe these views to be "mainstream" and thus require very little in the way of references from a variety of sources to dispel the notions that they are rife with contradictions, except when it comes to the connected making large profits and the consistency in which the interests of conservatives and businessses in Israel triumph over those of the average U.S. taxpayer.

stevo 05-23-2006 01:44 PM
the bold part I was talking about was
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
stevo, it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated.
That would be more accurate if you appended "according to Chalutz" to the end. His word does not dictate what is or is not ultimate urgency. In his opinion it is not as urgent.

But the premise of this thread is to gauge TFPers thoughts on whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Apparently you did not participate in the poll, but from what you have posted, and the arguements you have made I would think it is safe to assume that, even though you may not think it is an urgent matter, you believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Your opinion is that they are, but at the rate they are advancing, they won't pose a threat until the next decade sometime (which I might add is a mere 4 years away). Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I've gleamed from your posting in this thread.

host 05-23-2006 03:16 PM
I'm sorry, stevo, I misunderstood where you suggested that I should qualify my statement.....and not the sentence in the news report.
I'll amend my statement to:
stevo, <b>according to the May 23, report that Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Chalutz gave to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.. ....and from what I have gleaned and posted on this thread,</b> it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated.

I am inclined to agree with willravel's opinion that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, for the reasons that he gave. I have checked Newsbank's archives of news reports over more than the past 20 years and reports of Iran nuclear weapons acquisition ambitions have been reported throughout the period. I do not believe that Iran possesses nuclear weapons today. I do not believe that Iran will manufacture their own nuclear weapons five years from now.

Beyond five years....I have no way of knowing. It strikes me as odd that the Israeli in the highest position in the IDF is less concerned about an immiment nuclear threat from Iran, than our own leaders and the Israeli PM, Olmert. I believe that this is a political issue that is being hyped to shore up Bush's sagging poll numbers. If the government of Israel, in a united voice, announces that Iran poses an imminent threat to Israel's survival, and because of that threat, requests the help of the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability, I'll reconsider my stance. I do not see that scenario happening now....and I doubt that Israel will make such a request in at least the next five years. I'll continue to search for any news that seems signifigant.

Today's report by Dan Chalutz seems more signifigant than anything that I've heard on the subject, from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Joseph, Bolton, from either Bryen, or from anyone who has argued here that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities.....

cybersharp 05-23-2006 04:10 PM
Thanks for the defense you guys, although it was more of a correction to stay on topic. Actually it was really late at night when I posted, I was tired, in the dark, and have a very bad habit of leaving my contacts in for about a week with out resting my eye's. This leads usually leads to bad eye sight and a rather bad temperament at night I will run it through a spell check later and correct what needs to be corrected. Anyway I seriously don’t think that correcting my spelling was needed, it only gave this thread another off topic post.

Anyway back on topic, I think you make good points about Stephen Bryen, Host. It certainly seems that someone is a hypocrite here doesn’t it...

Elphaba 05-23-2006 04:30 PM
stevo
Quote:
Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpo...75&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.
I am catching up with this thread again and went to look at the link you provided. I see a blog entry in the Christian edition of The Jerusalem's website. How can this be an impeccable source? That would be like saying Jason Leopold is an impeccable source at TruthOut.com. Stevo, is the link you provided the one you intended?

stevo 05-24-2006 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
stevo

I am catching up with this thread again and went to look at the link you provided. I see a blog entry in the Christian edition of The Jerusalem's website. How can this be an impeccable source? That would be like saying Jason Leopold is an impeccable source at TruthOut.com. Stevo, is the link you provided the one you intended?
who said impeccable? I said credible. Host asked for opinions out of israel on the Iranian threat. So thats what I posted.

mr_alleycat 05-24-2006 01:34 PM
host,
Quote:
The assessment of the actual threat that Iran poses...and what to do about it...here in the U.S., should never rise to a louder crescendo than it rises to in Israel. It still seems louder on this board, and in this country, than it should be....why is that?
There was only one country that sold it's oil using the Euro.
We know what happened to it :rolleyes:

Gatorade Frost 05-24-2006 02:09 PM
I believe whole heartedly that they're building nuclear weapons. I don't care, though, because I don't honestly believe that they would use them. If they did, then what? I think the world would have to be daft to let Iran drop a nuclear bomb on Israel and get away with it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that if Iran makes the first move that the world wouldn't stand behind Israel. If Israel makes the first move, I think they should fend for themselves.

Same with if America were attacked. In this case, I think Iran should be allowed to do its thing, we should ignore them, and if they make a move, we can kick their ass for it, but I think they're smart enough to not try anything stupid.

mr_alleycat 05-24-2006 05:53 PM
I'd be a thinkin that if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, everyone down wind will be pissed indeed. Israel is too small a country to be dropping a nuke, it's friends live North South and East.

cybersharp 05-26-2006 01:44 AM
Here is anouther link I just ran across.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...kes/index.html

It pretty much say's that Iran wants to negotiate with the U.S and will directly, without conference with other Nation's if the U.S will stop using intimidation tactics.

There are a few more facts about how negotiations are going between Iran and European Nations that are attempting a peacefull solution. They are offering inncentives to Iran like giving Iran various nuclear resources if Iran agree's to stop their enrichment program's. - quick reply -.

Necrosis 05-27-2006 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezmot
Because only a complete fool would condemn his own country to obliteration by sanctioning the use of a nuclear weapon against another country. We've been through the whole M.A.D. escalation phase, people are aware than there is no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear strike without the other side retaliating with everything they have.
If people are crazy enough to be suicide bombers, what would prevent them from wiping out massive numbers of infidels? Wouldn't that just assure them of a better situation on the right hand of Allah?

Your scenario also doesn't include the obvious tactic of making a nuclear attack appear to have originated from a country other than one's own. This thread alone includes comments from many people who require a great deal of evidence in order to be convinced of which countries possess nukes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nezmot
Terrorist (secret) usage of these weapons would not be something to hide behind either, any state even looking as though it might be responsible for an aggressive nuclear act would be toast - and they know it.
U.S. possession of nuclear weapons hasn't deterred terrorist attacks so far.

Necrosis 05-27-2006 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Hmmmmm....... North Korea has had nukes and cash given to them by a HUGE GOP supporter in the Rev. Moon and they seem to have dropped of the "we hate them and they are in the Axis of terror and need to be dealt with" list. Hell, they aren't even in the news anymore. Of course N. Korea has no resources the US can use.... now do they?
I don't remember North Korea getting nukes from Rev. Moon, although I won't swear it didn't happen. Something to do with the subs?

I DO remember them getting plenty from Clinton and Carter. Link and my favorite excerpts:

Link

Quote:
He [Clinton] famously misled the public that "there's not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight" before asking China to re-orient its missiles away from U.S. population centers. When al Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center, two U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole, he bombed nothing, an empty tent, and nothing, respectively. This refusal to confront reality precipitated the present crisis in Korea, as well.
Quote:
Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.
Quote:
In August 1998, North Korea lobbed a Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan. Four months later, officials refused U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. President Clinton then sweetened the deal by rewarding Kim Jong Il's half-year-long stall tactics with 1.1 million tons of food worth nearly $200 million. Not surprisingly, American inspectors found no signs of wrongdoing at the long-sanitized facility.
Even this seemingly humanitarian food aid turned into a weapon in North Korea's hands. Reports abound that rations have been re-directed to the DPRK's military, the fifth largest in the world.
Quote:
It seems little wonder North Korea has made threats of nuclear conflagration its only functional export industry, besides the weapons themselves. Even as floods and famine emaciated its nearly 22 million citizens, regime leaders in this "worker's paradise" earmarked every available dollar for guns, not butter, in the hope that Uncle Sam would pay their price without demanding accountable disarmament. Their gamble paid off. Clinton's appeasement programs made North Korea the leading recipient of foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region.
And a particularly interesting statement, considering it was written in January of 2003:

Quote:
The attempt to blame the current state of affairs on Bush's "axis of evil" speech is cowardly blame-shifting of the worst sort. It is holding the solution responsible for the problem. Clinton's coddling of dictators with a yearning for Weapons of Mass Destruction got us here. But North Korea is only one bloom from the seeds planted during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, when he forged what one critic called an "astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations" and their refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It is a dangerous world, and one cannot imagine what future dictators will expect to negotiate for during future incidences of nuclear blackmail. Provided they are interested in negotiating at all.

Willravel 06-26-2006 05:05 PM
This is an article that I read a while back (before this thread was created) that rung true for this particular topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.

Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html

The conclusion of people that know more about uranium than I'll ever know is that it's not Iranian, and it clearly belongs to Pakistan.

I'm still not sure what the point is here. Is the US government still going to try and gain control of Iran like we have, rather unsuccessfuly, in Iraq? Is that really something we're willing to go through again?

Bush Administration: "They're bad and they can hurt us!! We have proof!!!!"
Intelligence and scientific community: "Um, no and no."
Bush Administration: "No seriously, they're bad and can hurt us...see the proof?"
Intelligence and scientific community: "Seriously, that's not proof. That's called innuendo and suspician. It's rather different than proof."
Bush Administration: "Here we go!!!" *cue Ride of the Valkyries as gun ships and bombers strike inncent civilians*
3 months later
Bush Administration: "We have liberated the people!!!!"
Everyone: "You didn't say we were going to free peope, you said they were going to kill us."

Here we are again in a situation where the currrent administration is saying that an oil rich, middle eastern country poses a serious threat to the US an our allies, despite proof to the contrary. Plans are being formulated and propoganda is being spun wildily.




Can we please just leave them alone? If the UN wants to investigate Iran, let them. The US has absolutely nothing to do with the situation, and is still transparent in it's rue purpouses. There are no nuclear weapons. Iran poses no threat to the US.

Mojo_PeiPei 06-27-2006 10:27 AM
Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?

Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?

Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean? :confused:

host 06-27-2006 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?

Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?

Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean? :confused:
They've fucked this up, badly, Mojo, and now they want to bomb their way out of it. When you vote for folks who have a propaganda driven policy of aggressive war, reports like the ones in the following quote boxes are proabably an accurate measure of what is happening. If you can live with these clowns in a vacuum empty of ethics, candor, or a moral sense that it is wrong to kill masses of people unless all avenues....short of going to war....have been seriously and exhaustively pursues, it must be easier to support the Bush/Cheney administration.....than it is for me to.

It means that the U.S. has a clear record of avoiding a diplomatic solution to improving it's relationship with Iran. Our pre-emptive war president has one policy....pre-emption. Is that fact not yet clear to you?

Here's how it works, Mojo..... because of the past record of the Bush administration, (a record that has left Iran in a much stronger position than it was in three years ago, with a much less "agreeable" Iranian president in office now....)a "pretense" of diplomacy must be trotted out....before the bombing can begin:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/wo...f33ea2&ei=5070
For Bush, Talks With Iran Were a Last Resort

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 31 —

<b>.....The idea of engagement is hardly new.</b> When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, several members of his senior staff argued vociferously that the United States needed to test Iran's willingness to deal with the United States — especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

There was strong opposition from the White House, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, according to several former officials.

"Cheney was dead set against it," said one former official who sat in many of those meetings. "At its heart, this was an argument about whether you could isolate the Iranians enough to force some kind of regime change." But three officials who were involved in the most recent iteration of that debate said Mr. Cheney and others stepped aside — perhaps because they read Mr. Bush's body language, or perhaps because they believed Iran would scuttle the effort by insisting that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to develop nuclear fuel. The United States insists that Iran gave up that right by deceiving inspectors for 18 years.

<b>In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks......</b>
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060013
Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:44pm EST

In interviews with Rice, Sunday talk show hosts never mentioned Iran's 2003 proposal for direct nuclear talks.....
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060201646.html
After Vienna, Both Sides Can Tally Their Gains

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 3, 2006; Page A08

VIENNA, June 2 -- Both Iran and the United States this week could claim significant gains, but the prospects for a solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse remain uncertain.

Iranian officials secretly approached White House officials in 2003, seeking a dialogue, but the offer was swiftly dismissed. Three years later, Iran finds itself in a much stronger position -- oil prices are at record highs, its nuclear program has made technological strides and the United States suddenly wants a seat at the negotiating table.....
Quote:
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfri...ew.ww?id=11539
Burnt Offering
How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity -- if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.

By Gareth Porter
Issue Date: 06.06.06

Print Friendly | Email Article

Iran’s “mad mullahs” want nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and can only be stopped by the threat or use of military force. That’s what the Bush administration would have the public believe, as it pushes toward a confrontation with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. A key link in the argument is that Tehran has shown no interest in negotiating over the nuclear issue. As State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters last January, the administration didn’t then see “anything that indicates the Iranians are willing to engage in a serious diplomatic process” on the nuclear issue.

In the woeful history of falsehoods about the targets of potential U.S. force, however, this one is particularly egregious. In the spring of 2003, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only proposed to negotiate with the Bush administration on its nuclear program and its support for terrorists but also offered concrete concessions that went very far toward meeting U.S. concerns......
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/op...erland&emc=rss
January 24, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT

Washington

AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.

Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. They can refer the issue to the Security Council, but, at a time of tight energy markets, no one is interested in restricting Iranian oil sales. Other measures under discussion - travel restrictions on Iranian officials, for example - are likely to be imposed only ad hoc, with Russia and China as probable holdouts. They are in any case unlikely to sway Iranian decision-making, because unlike his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disdains being feted in European capitals......

Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is writing a book about the future of Saudi Arabia.

Willravel 06-27-2006 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?
As stated above: this is called suspician.While it is possible that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there is still no proof. Just like it's possible that Iraqw had weapons of mass destruction, but there was never any proof. We have to put our gun away and sit and talk with these people instead of making threats via the media from across the globe while prepping a military response. The UN has some of the best weapons inspectors in the world, and since the treaty that Iran has sign is with the UN, and not the US, it is their responsibility to deal with the situation. The US has no direct jurisdiction over Iran unless there is absolutel proof that the US is in immediate danger, and no such proof exists. What we should do is simply send over the inspectors. If Iran makes a stupid decision and doesn't allow inspectors in, then we have several options. Trade embargos (don't let the oil out) would do nicely to coax them into cooperating. Bombing campaigns just kill innocent civilians.

I don't know for sure if Iran is clean or not, but the bottom line (in my kmind at least) is that no one knows for sure right now except Iran. We have to act in a manner befitting a great peaceful democracy, expically after Iraq. We cannot continue to be a nation of war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean? :confused:
Well look at it this way: Iraq was said to have a developing nuclear weapons program in the dawn of the second Gulf War, and they were oblitterated. The US bombed, invaded, and now controls Iraq (from an economic standpoint). Iran does not want to be the next target, so they try to hide this crap and get caught. It's a big blunder, but it's hardly proof of guilt. Again, this is suspicion. We need to investigate, not threaten and prep for war.

If we ever manage to get our troops out of Iraq and the Middle East, do you really want to send them right back to go after Iran? History dictates that we, the US, cannot win against insurgencies or rebelions after we invade a country that has shown no hostility towards us. Iran has shown no hostility towards us. Iraq never showed any hostility towards us. Vietnam. Korea. Several Central and South American countries. The list goes on and on.

Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

host 12-03-2007 07:43 PM
Post #7 on <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103954">this thread:</a>
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Isn't your thread just a "re-hash", of this one, over a year ago, here, titled:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1695374&highlight=mcclellan+weapons+thought#post1695374">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>

How many times do we have to debunk the same, tired propaganda "Op"?
I thought that this thread exposed this BS for what it is:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2051207&postcount=36">Are we going to let cheerleader Robert Joseph, lead us into another unnecessary war?</a>

It's a non-issue. Gold is above $650 oz...for the first time in 26 years....oil is headed back to $75 per bbl, and silver is pushing to $14 oz. (up from $3.75 oz, in 2003) Those are real issues...not the neocon propaganda intended to distract from the real impact of their failed, fiscally and morally corrosive agenda....here is where "they" have us heading:

In 2001, an ounce of gold was $257, by 2006, it was <a href="http://www.kitco.com/">$656.50</a>

Once again, we will attack a country, unilaterally, and then the POTUS reluctantly admit that <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1">"the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there."</a>

...the last time we followed the rantings of these folks, we suffered an estimated $2 trillion obligation, when the final cost is fully measured, including lifetime care for most severely wounded troops. The loss of future accomplishments of our 2400 dead troops, cannot even be estimated.

Here's the "news":

and here is what our "Intelligence Czar", had to say, eight days ago. He should know....shouldn't he? He seems to be calm and unconcerned, and he knows a lot more than any of us do.....

Nope....Negroponte doesn't seem too worried about anything, to me....


I responded to the question that you are really asking:
Is there enough evidence of an Iran, nuclear "threat", to give our POTUS the excuse to launch pre-emptive attacks against Iran. The answer, just as it was in Iraq...is <h6>no!</h6>.
<h3>The Bush administration have effing done it again....you can pick out the statements that Cheney insisted be included in this NIE, to temper the fact that Iran is not actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and has not been during this entire period of threats and bluster!</h3>
Quote:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20...terstitialskip
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
November 2007

This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it
examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire
nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those
nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.
This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran’s senior leadership
and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah
Khomeini in 1989. We acknowledge the potential for these to change during the time frame of
the Estimate, but are unable to confidently predict such changes or their implications. This
Estimate does not assess how Iran may conduct future negotiations with the West on the nuclear
issue.
This Estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31 October 2007.

Confidence in Assessments. Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that
varies in scope, quality and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of
confidence to our assessments, as follows:
• High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality
information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.
A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still
carry a risk of being wrong.
• Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible
but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence.
• Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is
questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid
analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

<h3>Key Judgments

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program1</h3>; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence
that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously
undeclared nuclear work.
• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
previously.
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least
some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it
has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired
from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material
for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would
need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge
with high confidence it has not yet done.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough
fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge
(CONTINUED AFTER FOOTNOTE)

1 For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” <h3>we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design
and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work;</h3> we
do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.

enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons
program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we
judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating
them.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be
technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this
is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of
producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
(INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of
foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the
possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would
also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing
to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its
options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt
it to restart the program.
• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit
approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and
military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified
international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its
security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived
by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear
weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo
the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many
within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s
key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable
effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment,
only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would
plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision
is inherently reversible.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—
rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a
weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium
conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably
were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been
restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing
and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial
capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

Key Differences Between the Key Judgments of This Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear
Program and the May 2005 Assessment

Quote:
2005 IC Estimate

Assess with high confidence that Iran
currently is determined to develop nuclear
weapons despite its international
obligations and international pressure, but
we do not assess that Iran is immovable.

Iran could produce enough fissile material
for a weapon by the end of this decade if it
were to make more rapid and successful
progress than we have seen to date.
Quote:
<h3>2007 National Intelligence Estimate

Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge
with high confidence that the halt lasted at least
several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate
confidence that the halt to those activities
represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons
program.) Assess with moderate confidence
Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know
whether it currently intends to develop nuclear
weapons.</h3> Judge with high confidence that the halt
was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from
exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear
work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence
that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the
option to develop nuclear weapons.

We judge with moderate confidence that the
earliest possible date Iran would be technically
capable of producing enough highly enriched
uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that
this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate
confidence Iran probably would be technically
capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon
sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR
judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this
capability before 2013 because of foreseeable
technical and programmatic problems.)

We judge with moderate confidence that the
earliest possible date Iran would be technically
capable of producing enough highly enriched
uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that
this is very unlikely.

Ustwo 12-03-2007 09:00 PM
So Iran continues to enrich uranium at the same rate as before but demilitarized the project.

I have the same prediction as they had before, Iran will have a working bomb next decade.

And host, why oh why didn't the shadow government of lies stop the intelligence agencies from making this report? Does it only work against obscure AP reporters but not at the CIA? Seems sort of silly don't you think?

Quote:
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
Call me when they stop.

Willravel 12-03-2007 09:09 PM
It's too bad that your conclusion is baseless. They are enriching uranium to 4% (instead of 90% necessary for weapons grade). Did you already forget that they allowed UN weapons inspectors to do their inspecting back in 2006.

Elphaba 12-03-2007 09:22 PM
Ustwo, that NIE has been held back for over a year by the Bush administration. No one, outside of the Bush/Cheney fear machine, claims that Iran is actively building a nuclear bomb. Frankly, isn't this just another Iraq redux, mushroom clouds and all that?

Shouldn't our real concerns be directed toward our great "friends" in Pakistan? They have multiple bombs and have spread the technology to other countries. They harbor the mastermind of 9/11 and his Taliban buddies. Pakistan is in political crisis and you believe our greatest threat is from Iran?!

Willful ignorance makes my head hurt.

Mojo_PeiPei 12-03-2007 09:39 PM
Iran being one of the countries AQ Khan supplied information too.

host 12-03-2007 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
So Iran continues to enrich uranium at the same rate as before but demilitarized the project.

I have the same prediction as they had before, Iran will have a working bomb next decade.

And host, why oh why didn't the shadow government of lies stop the intelligence agencies from making this report? Does it only work against obscure AP reporters but not at the CIA? Seems sort of silly don't you think?



Call me when they stop.
Again, the NIE is tempered with bullshit from Cheney's office that does not match the core conclusion. Look at the crap between
<i>"Key Judgments

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program 1"</i>

and:
<i>"2007 National Intelligence Estimate

Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge
with high confidence that the halt lasted at least
several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate
confidence that the halt to those activities
represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons
program.) Assess with moderate confidence
Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know
whether it currently intends to develop nuclear
weapons."</i>

Then, add this:

Quote:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2.../21-11779.html
Iranian Nuclear Developments Pose Concerns, Negroponte Says
Intelligence director also discusses North Korea, Iraq, terrorism

By Jacquelyn S. Porth
Washington File Staff Writer

....Negroponte, in a speech in Washington, sought to put Iran’s technical capabilities into perspective, pointing out that Iran will have to enrich uranium for several more years before it has enough fissile material to put into a nuclear weapon. Although intelligence analysts continue to believe that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, Negroponte said, they believe it might not achieve that goal until “perhaps into the next decade.”.....
and this:

Quote:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/10/...xter-hoekstra/
Wednesday, October 18th, 2006 in News by Scott Horton| Comment |

According to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the October 9th edition of the American Conservative magazine, the Bush administration is withholding a new CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

“The United States government’s intelligence community has prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, but the White House has decided that it is not “finished” yet and has decided to postpone any decision on issuing it until after the November elections. NIEs are the government’s document of record on international issues that confront the United States and they are supposed to be both impartial and definitive. Vice President Cheney’s office has reportedly objected to many of the conclusions in the draft Iran NIE, or, more to the point, to the lack of any conclusions that he would welcome.

“The draft document indicates that there is no solid intelligence confirming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, contradicting many recent statements made by the Administration. It also states that Iran exercised virtually no control over Hezbollah in the recent fighting in Lebanon and that there is little to no confirmed information supporting the often cited contention that Iran is arming the militias and insurgents in neighboring Iraq. The report ruefully observes that there are plenty of weapons floating around inside Iraq without any assistance from Iran, though it does note, without hard evidence, that Iran could have provided some bomb making expertise and possibly sophisticated timers and detonators to the insurgency’s arsenal. For what it’s worth, most US intelligence officers working on Iran believe that Tehran is concealing a weapons program even if the hard evidence is lacking.”....
How many times do these neocon asswipes have to make your views look foolish, at the time you post them, and then, in hindsight, as in the present example, before you feel foolish, let alone ever admit that you've been had?




Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20071021.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 21, 2007

Vice President's Remarks to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Lansdowne, Virginia


....The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.)

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) ....
<h3>Bush and Cheney have known for more than a year that Iran suspended it's nuclear weapons program in 2003, and have not restarted it, but their misleading bluster drones on, just weeks ago:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20071017.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 17, 2007

Press Conference by the President

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon....
<h3>"No nukes", no major role in Iraqi violence or resistance against US forces in Iraq...so why are Bush/Cheney throwing so much rhetoric and parades of US military hardware into the Persian gulf, at Iran's door?:</h3>
Quote:
http://dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf
Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead
January 2007

...Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020101152.html
Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns

By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 2, 2007; Page A01

.....The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.......
Bush's and Cheney's October, 2007 accusations against Iran contradict both the new NIE on Iran, and how the "threat" posed by Iran is described in the January, 2007 NIE on Iraq....

Skutch 12-03-2007 11:49 PM
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

host 12-04-2007 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
It's funny people bring Bush into it, somehow this problem, a 25 year old problem, is his fault. And for that matter, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iran is seeking to get nuclear weapons, it just happens you choose not to except it. I like that people buy into the Ayatollahs Fatwa, a man who supports terrorism, with known operational ties to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, yeah his fatwas are legit. Then people are saying that the Diplomatic game is Bush's fault, that's cute. Under their last president Khatami, a reformist, we were making a lot of head way, they claim to halted their programs for a substantial period of time under him to work on (I don't buy it), the second Ahmadinejad took office he resumed his programs.

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

It's funny how people so easily buy into the inconsistencies, rhetoric, and lies, all because of their distaste for one man, who is in no way responsible for this problem. Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old. <h3>Here are a few examples I pulled from a book I got "Countdown to Crisis" by Kenneth Timmerman, a nobel peace prize nominee.</h3>

It's all good if you don't care about this whole situation, but it's absurd to sit there and make baseless claims that are contrary to reality.
If you're reading Kenneth Timmerman as a "serious source", please consider:
Quote:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18546

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is best-selling investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman, the author of the new book Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.

FP: Ken Timmerman, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Osama in Iran?
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, June 24, 2005

.....Timmerman:....At the end of my book, I present a table with the nuclear capabilities the Islamic Republic has now admitted to possessing, and its production facilities for the full gamut of nuclear weapons material, highly-enriched uranium and plutonium.



The real tragedy of this story is that we’ve known about Iran’s nuclear intentions for nearly twenty years, but our “friends” and “allies” have consistently refused to help us to put an end to it...

.....The Israelis have made clear they cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. But just how long they are willing to wait – will it be weeks, months, a year – no one knows. We have very little time to get this right.....

FP: Ok, so let’s get to it: Osama in Iran?

Timmerman: One of the recurring themes of Countdown to Crisis is the wilful blindness and incompetence of our intelligence community, especially the CIA. For years,

....My sources have brought me hard evidence, which I detail in the book, not only of the active participation of Iranian intelligence in the September 11 attacks on America, but of the ongoing cooperation between Iran and al Qaeda, <h3>including meetings last November and this March between Osama bin Laden and top regime officials in Iran.</h3>


Simply put, al Qaeda would not exist today as an organized force without the active material support from Iran....
"Simply put", the only thing Timmerman ommited in the above "interview" is that men from the "Islamic Republic" have sexually assaulted some of our mother and sisters, and are plotting to "do" the rest of "our women", if we don't watch out!

Mojo, PLEASE read all of my two prior (see below) posts referencing Timmerman, and William Rivers Pitt's January, 2006 description of Timmerman and the agenda of he and his "colleagues":

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...47&postcount=9

Ustwo, you seem to at least be standing on the front porch of the dwelling that houses "the answer" that explains (excuses ?) a failed presidency, or you may already know what resides inside. Your questions are apparantly answered by author, journalist, and 2000 Maryland, US senate GOP primary candidate, Kenneth R. Timmerman:
Quote:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/018662.php
October 4, 2007
Shadow Warriors

For years, we have been writing about the CIA's campaign to undermine the Bush administration--the agency's most successful covert operation in many years. Scott came up with the felicitous phrase Three Years of the Condor for the CIA's secret war. For a long time we felt like voices in the wilderness, but it turns out that some of those who do this for a living were hard at work.

Yesterday, I got in the mail a new book by
Kenneth Timmerman, author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
and other books. <h3>Timmerman's new book is called Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender.</h3> I haven't had time to read it yet, obviously, but I can't resist quoting the book's beginning:

Some have called it the CIA's greatest covert operation of all time.

It involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.

It involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates.

It involved the financing, training, and equipping of effective opposition forces, who could challenge the regime openly and through covert operations.

The scope was breathtaking, say insiders who had personal knowledge of the CIA effort. All the skills learned by the U.S. intelligence community during the fifty years of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union were in play, from active measures aimed at planting disinformation through cutouts and an eager media, to maskirovka--strategic deception.

It was war--but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.

Many Americans believe this was the CIA's goal during the 1990s, when the Agency had "boots on the ground" in northern Iraq, working with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein. Most patriotic Americans probably hope that the CIA today has such an operation to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, or North Korean dictator Kim John Il.

<h3>But the target of this vast, sophisticated CIA operation was none of them.

It was America's 43rd President, George W. Bush.</h3>
Timmerman is a militant, zionist, neocon, extremely partisan conservative propagandist who has literally "set the stage" for an unnecessary and unjustified US military "pre-emption" against Iran. He is at war with the US intelligence community and anyone who doesn't subscribed to his empty, paranoid, militant views, as the title and content of his latest book clearly indicates. <h3>What is with you guys....you seem intensely and unreasonably extreme in your views about Iran and about the "Islamic threat"; after all...it is now "official" that the threat from Iran was as hyped as the threat from Iraq was.</h3>
Tiimmerman is viewed as legitimate...."mainstream" in the sphere of influence you allow into your thinking....so is "Powerline Blog" Time's 2004 <a href="http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1009851,00.html">BLOG OF THE YEAR!</a> Sheesh!! I don't know if your opinions and the influences on them that you embrace is the scariest thing about all of this, or the fact that you support the US military killing huge numbers of people and your reasons for doing it are so flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2055232">host</a>
The Hidden Influence of JINSA and CSP on Conservative Opinion

05-01-2006

Have you ever heard of JINSA or CSP ? I hadn't either....until yesterday. I am relieved to find that I share very little of their agenda. How much has JINSA and CSP agenda...and their members, influenced your thinking? Did you know of their influence? Is their agenda consistant with what is in the best interest of the American people? Do JINSA and CSP members have too much influence on the Bush administration, or on you?

What would influence moderate leaning, middle eastern governments to align themselves, or even trust the U.S...besides...fear?

I posted about this here, on the "Do You Think Iran is Developing Nuclear Weapons ?" thread.....

....The core point of all of this is that <h3>supporters of the Bush administration should be aware that they rely heavily on the writing of folks like Kenneth Timmerman, who may not have an agenda that seperates Israeli interests from American interests.</h3> Timmerman featured an endorsement from Dr. Stephen Bryen, on his Timmerman2000.com website:
http://web.archive.org/web/200011190...dorsements.htm

Are you comfortable embracing, it appears to be exclusively, a closed, one sided agenda, more influenced by a conservative, Israeli faction, than you may have known about, up until now?
Quote:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/48/17144
Democrats: Get Up and Walk Out
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

<h2>Sunday 22 January 2006</h2>

MEMO
To: Congressional Democrats
From: William Rivers Pitt
RE: A bold maneuver

.... In all likelihood, however, the White House won't even need to derail the Abramoff investigation to save Republicans from their ridiculous greed. Did you see the Washington Post headline from Friday? It read, "Rove: GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Issue." In reality, the headline should have read "GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Tactic." Once again, the Republicans are going to try to win midterm elections by scaring the hell out of the American people. This time, the fear factor will center around Iran and nuclear weapons.

The intelligence specialists in the United States, Germany and Israel all agree that Iran is between three and five years away from being able to manufacture nuclear weapons. This, of course, is based on the premise that such manufacture is Iran's goal. Take it as a given that it is, and we have at least three years to use diplomacy, economic pressures and possibly sanctions to keep them from creating these bombs.

But "three to five years" isn't going to help the GOP win the midterm elections. <h3>They need things to be scary, and they need things to be scary now. The same right-wing groups that ginned up the fantasy that Iraq was laden with weapons of mass destruction, and was an imminent threat, are now at work building up a martial froth about Iran. They did this in time for the midterms last time, and are preparing to do it again.

United Press International carried a story last Thursday about a group called the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. This group, according to the UPI story, claims that, "Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006." FDI, according to the story, offered absolutely no proof to back this claim.</h3> But that's not three to five years. That's less than ten weeks. Scary stuff, right?

Take a closer look, however, and you can see the fingerprints of the architects of our current Iraq boondoggle all over this. <h3>The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is run by a man named Kenneth Timmerman.</h3> Timmerman is umbilically connected to the godfather of right-wing think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. It was the American Enterprise Institute that spawned the Project for the New American Century, the think tank that gave us Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, the original noise about Iraqi WMD, and the idea that a military takeover of the entire Mideast is a bully idea. The same people that terrorized the American people into unnecessary war in Iraq are preparing to do the same with Iran, and all in time for the midterms.

One must also note the irony of the suggested date for this Iranian nuclear test. March 20, 2006, for those not paying attention, is the three-year anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. And round and round we go.

You've been outflanked, Democrats. Abramoff won't help you, and the noise machine is preparing to terrorize the American people into such a distracted state that anything you say in the next ten months will be lost amid the howling. The midterms are pretty much a done deal, and your continued marginalization will proceed at speed.

You can stomp your feet and yell at the wall. You can put your head in your hands and weep. You can sit silently and be simply satisfied that your own job-for-life is secure, thanks to your friendly district back home, and be damned to actually doing anything of substance. In other words, you can continue to do what you've been doing since this outrageous assault on basic American democracy began.

Or you can stand up.

It takes a spine to stand up. Find yours. Get up and walk out of the State of the Union speech. Turn your backs on the blizzard of lies and empty promises that are sure to pour forth from that podium. Give it exactly what it deserves.....

Plan9 12-04-2007 03:42 AM
Wheeee! Man, I can't wait for my next round of "Desert Vacations for Democracy" (TM) action!

Does the Middle East have a big sign above it that says, "US: Put Your Dick Here, All Up In Our Pie"

The_Jazz 12-04-2007 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skutch
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
In Tilted Politics we're not particularly fond of posts that add nothing to the conversation. It would be one thing if this were actually on the topic, but beyond your quote being about the country we're discussing, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If this is relevant, you need to tell us why. Otherwise, it is just a troll.

highthief 12-04-2007 06:39 AM
The most dangerous thing about Iran?

Just how powerful it has become in regional politics since the US et al. wrecked Iraq. This is not because of nuclear weapons - Iran is effectively running large swaths of Iraq and Afghanistan and the small nations in the area are crapping themselves as a result.

Rekna 12-04-2007 07:23 AM
What is scary is 66% of the people on this forum voted yes to this poll and now we can all see that BushCo duped us again. Fool me once shame on you.....


Here is a list of the people that voted yes and were worried about Iran:

Aladdin Sane, BigBen, Bodyhammer86, CandleInTheDark, Carno, CSflim, cyrnel, Daoust, Daval, dksuddeth, Dragonlich, FlatLand Flyer, flstf, forseti-6, Gabbyness, Humanitarismus, iccky, irateplatypus, jbauer2485, jorgelito, Karby, Lebell, Locke7, Locobot, loquitur, Lucarelli, Medusa, MojoRisin, Mojo_PeiPei, politicophile, powerclown, Redlemon, Seaver, SirLance, sprocket, SteelyLoins, stevo, stingc, The_Jazz, Ustwo, Xazy, zfleebin, Zodijackyl

Here is a list of the people that voted yes but were not worried:
Arc101, Charlatan, Elphaba, filtherton, Gatorade Frost, highthief, Incosian, MexicanOnABike, samcol, scout, Stick, Uncle Pony, Unright


My question for you people is with the NIE have your views changed? What are your views on the Bush admin holding back evidence so that they could further put us in a fear bubble?

ratbastid 12-04-2007 07:26 AM
Wait, Iran isn't making nuclear weapons and hasn't been since 2003? Oh fuck--who are we going to bomb now??

Kinda makes you wonder who's steering this boat, doesn't it? The cynical among us will see politically-motivated scare tactics in this. The fair-minded among us will merely see incompetence. The self-blinded among us will claim the new NIE is politically biased, or that we need to stop them from making those dangerous nuclear power plants...

Rekna 12-04-2007 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The fair-minded among us will merely see incompetence.
I don't agree with this because Bush held up the NIE for a year while he tried to get them to change their minds. This is more than incompetence.

Ustwo 12-04-2007 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Wait, Iran isn't making nuclear weapons and hasn't been since 2003? Oh fuck--who are we going to bomb now??

Kinda makes you wonder who's steering this boat, doesn't it? The cynical among us will see politically-motivated scare tactics in this. The fair-minded among us will merely see incompetence. The self-blinded among us will claim the new NIE is politically biased, or that we need to stop them from making those dangerous nuclear power plants...
And they are still enriching Uranium.

Lets see they stopped working on making a bomb in 2003, which in itself shows they had the desire to do so, they are still making the materials that could make said bomb at the same pace as always.

The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.

Rekna 12-04-2007 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And they are still enriching Uranium.

Lets see they stopped working on making a bomb in 2003, which in itself shows they had the desire to do so, they are still making the materials that could make said bomb at the same pace as always.

The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.
Except the uranium they are enriching is not weapons grade..... And a logical person would say look the international pressure is working and progress is being made. Let's continue to make progress with them. The illogical one would say look they once tried to make weapons so progress doesn't matter, lets bomb them!

roachboy 12-04-2007 08:00 AM
at what point is enough enough?
it seems to me that, functionally speaking, in the united states of late 2007, six years into a brave new world of neo-fascism american-style, three or four (i repress) years into being mired in a war based on false premises, managed with breathtaking ineptness, 7 years into the campaign to stack the judiciary in order to institutionalize neo-fascism american style and protect the administration itself from the consequences of its own idiocy and disengenuousness, there is no point at which enough is enough, there is no limit on the magnitude of the disinformation, no limit at all.

i think in political terms we, the people, are in serious trouble in the states.
this latest concession of the obvious fraud that was the bush administration's line simply demonstrates it.

the administration has to spin this report in a way that maintains a veneer of legitimacy--whence the surreal line that ustwo dutifully repeats and which no doubt will be repeated by others who confuse the line of the moment from the bush people, and its echo within the shambles that is the conservative media apparatus, with something legitimate.

but this is no more than spin.

this newest bit of pathetic theater from those specialists in self-serving disinformation wrapped up as bromides about national security represents is a very sobering lesson in the extent to which we, the people, are irrelevant, the extent to which we, the people, who allegedly "are sovereign" in a democratic system, have allowed ourselves to be herded first here, then there---we are as cheney once said we are--a management problem. so this bunch of disengenuous neo-fascists are still able to operate. so this bunch maintains some veneer of legitimacy.

personally, i think that if this administration had even the slightest bit of integrity and cared at all about the integrity of the system they have done so much to damage, that they would be talking about resignation.
call new elections for the good of the system.
it would be unprecedented--but so is their disengenous incompetence.

conservatives talk about checks and balances as if they were abstract mechanisms...concretely it seems that there are no checks, there are no balances.

that is why i find this report sobering and depressing and alarming.

highthief 12-04-2007 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
What is scary is 66% of the people on this forum voted yes to this poll and now we can all see that BushCo duped us again. Fool me once shame on you.....


Here is a list of the people that voted yes and were worried about Iran:

Aladdin Sane, BigBen, Bodyhammer86, CandleInTheDark, Carno, CSflim, cyrnel, Daoust, Daval, dksuddeth, Dragonlich, FlatLand Flyer, flstf, forseti-6, Gabbyness, Humanitarismus, iccky, irateplatypus, jbauer2485, jorgelito, Karby, Lebell, Locke7, Locobot, loquitur, Lucarelli, Medusa, MojoRisin, Mojo_PeiPei, politicophile, powerclown, Redlemon, Seaver, SirLance, sprocket, SteelyLoins, stevo, stingc, The_Jazz, Ustwo, Xazy, zfleebin, Zodijackyl

Here is a list of the people that voted yes but were not worried:
Arc101, Charlatan, Elphaba, filtherton, Gatorade Frost, highthief, Incosian, MexicanOnABike, samcol, scout, Stick, Uncle Pony, Unright


My question for you people is with the NIE have your views changed? What are your views on the Bush admin holding back evidence so that they could further put us in a fear bubble?
Just top clarify, I didn't vote "yes and I'm not worried" because of anything the United States administration said (at least nothing they said directly). I voted this way based on other reports - which may have drawn some of their own info from the Bush administration and spies, I suppose.

I imagine some voted the way they did because they always agree with Bush, some voted because they automatically disagree with Bush, and some voted because they did a little independant investigation.

Rekna 12-04-2007 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by highthief
Just top clarify, I didn't vote "yes and I'm not worried" because of anything the United States administration said (at least nothing they said directly). I voted this way based on other reports - which may have drawn some of their own info from the Bush administration and spies, I suppose.

I imagine some voted the way they did because they always agree with Bush, some voted because they automatically disagree with Bush, and some voted because they did a little independant investigation.
Thank you for the clarification.

I voted no myself because I did not see any real evidence presented by anyone to suggest the program was still running. History has shown us that this administration wont hesitate to show us evidence when it has some (even if the evidence is dubious). The administration didn't show us any evidence and instead used fear and talking points to drum up support which to me seemed like an admission that they had no evidence. Which is this case has turned out to be correct.

Ustwo 12-04-2007 08:26 AM
Does anyone remember what happened in 2003 which may have changed their plans?

roachboy 12-04-2007 08:32 AM
what does it matter, ustwo?
seriously.
seems to me that you are clutching at straws.

you need to advance to the higher level of denial that obviously fills the head of the dear leader...this from todays washington post:

Quote:
Bush said he is not troubled about his standing, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people. "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited _ pretty good about life," Bush said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


see, the administration is saying this morning that the fact that their entire line on iran of the last 2 years has been bullshit is not a problem because once upon a time there was a nuclear program which means that there could, at some future date, be maybe another nuclear program.

reality be damned.

Quote:
"No, I'm feeling pretty spirited _ pretty good about life," Bush said.

ubertuber 12-04-2007 08:48 AM
It might be worth bearing in mind that we still don't actually know what's going on over there. This NIE may be wrong as well. I'm not putting all viewpoints on equal ground here, but I don't think that we should accept this most recent report as the gospel truth.

Intelligence represents things that we think to be true, not things that we know to be true.

Confusing what we think and what we know is a good way to make rash decisions.

Ustwo 12-04-2007 08:52 AM
2003 US invades Iraq, with WMD's being the key reason given.

2003 Iran demilitarizes their nuclear program but keeps making enriched Uranium despite having basically free energy underneath them and having far more important uses for state money.

By approximately 2011-2015 they should have enough nuclear material for a bomb, this has not changed.

2008 we should have a democrat as president. They need a Carter again, not a Reagan.

I'm not sure what has changed here? They are not actively trying to build a bomb, a bomb they can't build until 2010+ no matter what. Building the bomb is not the rate limiting step here.

Rekna 12-04-2007 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
It might be worth bearing in mind that we still don't actually know what's going on over there. This NIE may be wrong as well. I'm not putting all viewpoints on equal ground here, but I don't think that we should accept this most recent report as the gospel truth.

Intelligence represents things that we think to be true, not things that we know to be true.

Confusing what we think and what we know is a good way to make rash decisions.
Of course the NIE might be wrong but it is the collective viewpoint of all 16 US intelligence agencies. What is scary is that even though the intelligence has said Iran no longer has such program, Bush has been telling us otherwise and citing "classified" intelligence in the process. Of course he can't show us the intelligence and at the same time he tries to stop the NIE from coming out (successfully for a year) so he can continue his drumbeat. Right now I don't understand the presidents motives. Right now the likely motives I can think of are he really hates muslims and wants to attack muslim nations, he knows that war means $$, he has paranoid dillusions, or maybe he is the Antichrist and wants to plummet the world into the end of days ;)....

roachboy 12-04-2007 09:02 AM
you know, i'm not naive enough to imagine that there are no significant geopolitical problems that the bush people, in their fumbling and bumbling way, were trying to work out how to confront, and that they confronted them in the way that worked best for them, by distorting information, creating a fradulent threat and floating it out there in order to soften up consent for whatever fumbling and bumbling direction they chose to take.

but the idea that there was ever a serious possibility of invading iran seems absurd. invading iran would have made iraq look like a walk in the park on a peaceful sunday afternoon, like something from a seurat painting. they knew it.

so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there was never any serious intent to "do something" about iran.

there is a problem.
the bush administration created it when they chose to invade iraq.
they have no idea what to do.
not wanting to concede regional power status to iran is probably one of the main geopolitical rationales for continuing the grind in iraq, talking about an endless presence blah blah blah.

fine.
its horrifying when you think about what this actually means, but fine.

but they also had a legitimacy problem to handle domestically, not only because they invaded iraq, but all the more because of the false grounds that they chose to float--for expediency's sake (remember wolfowitz's explanation?)----the theater of the "iranian threat" seems to me to have mostly been about maintaining a veneer of legitimacy internally by creating another Enemy.

if there had been a nuclear program, if there had been targets to bomb, i expect these clowns would have done it and justified it later.
but there werent any targets.
because there was no program.

rationalize this as you like, but this interpretation seems hard to get around.

Skutch 12-04-2007 09:16 AM
If the President of Iran can stupidly lie - publicly - about his country not being populated by a single homosexual, why should anyone believe his assertions about peaceful nuclear energy. With alll that oil they have, why is it even necessary for them to have nuclear energy? Shouldn't they be thinking about rebuilding infrastructure so 60,000+ people don't die in routine earthquakes and other natural disasters because they live in prehistoric collapsable mud huts? Anyway, it won't be the US who bombs Iran's nuclear weapons factories, it'll be Israel (as they did to Syria a few months ago).

ratbastid 12-04-2007 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skutch
If the President of Iran can stupidly lie - publicly - about his country not being populated by a single homosexual, why should anyone believe his assertions about peaceful nuclear energy.
Do you think maybe the 16 intelligence agencies' collective opinion carries more weight than yours? Maybe we don't have to believe Ahmadinejad, maybe we can just believe our own people.

I was proud of the way the media have headlined this as the US opinion. "US Says Iran Not Working on Nukes" is the prevailing headline. Just underscores again that Bush Industries, Inc. is DISTINCT from the United States of America.

host 12-04-2007 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And they are still enriching Uranium.

Lets see they stopped working on making a bomb in 2003, which in itself shows they had the desire to do so, they are still making the materials that could make said bomb at the same pace as always.

The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, <h3>say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.</h3><h3>what happened in 2003 which may have changed their plans?</h3>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
2003 US invades Iraq, with WMD's being the key reason given.

2003 Iran demilitarizes their nuclear program but keeps making enriched Uranium despite having basically free energy underneath them and having far more important uses for state money.

By approximately 2011-2015 they should have enough nuclear material for a bomb, this has not changed.

2008 we should have a democrat as president. <h3> They need a Carter again, not a Reagan.</h3>

I'm not sure what has changed here? They are not actively trying to build a bomb, a bomb they can't build until 2010+ no matter what. Building the bomb is not the rate limiting step here.
Iran was able, after march, 2003...to dominate their neighborhood militarily, because their greatest "neighborhood" threat was taken out by rabidly delusional American military pre-emption.

That is the rational explanation for discontinuing their nuclear weapons program, if they ever had one of any significant nature operating in the first place. US intelligence was corrupted by Cheney during that period.

You cannot see that the unnecessary invasion of Iraq made the ME more dangerous for the US, not less, and at a cost of 4000 US military lives, another thousand dead US paid "contractors", at least 20000 seriously wounded US troops, a trillion plus dollars in short and long term costs, 3 million Iraqis driven from their homes, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, and a ground down US military land force....hobbled in it's entirety, right down to the 50 individual state militias....and you still don't see it.

You have one thing right, the republican "leadership" you show such high regard for, is about one thing only, making it appear that they are "the answer" to dealing with the greatest threats to our nation. What you don't recognize is that they have been, since 9/11 themselves the greatest threat.
Their rhetoric, plans, and policies are killing our military, our reputationin the world, our treasury, and our fellowship with one another here at home.

You are what you read, Ustwo. Read the first page of this thread to see the stark differences between what each of us posted, and our posted supporting sources. If you read Ken Timmerman et al, as "serious" sources, you buy the BS.

You spout your parisan "blather" about "manly man" "republican daddy" we'll keep you safe from "the other" and those sissy weak kneed democrats....it's hard to tell the difference between the two, isn't it....BULLSHIT.

You read the obvious propaganda from sources like Ken Timmerman and PowerlineBlog, and who knows how many CNP/SCIAFE/COORS/MELLON financed "sources", AEI & HERITAGE-ized, tomes with Bozell's ridiculous agenda all over them....and, miracle of miracles, they all reinforce your POV, and nothing else EVER gets through:
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380

.....8) Help train the next generation.

Imagine, if you will, a future wherein <h3>the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States.</h3> A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."....
Above is the description of "the media" you seek out for the information that shapes your views, and....it shows, you betcha.

The problem is, you're wrong, always wrong, and lotsa people who didn't have to die, are killed by the empty, senseless policies your so heartily embrace. Look at the two leading candidates of your "party of protection".

Giuliani, 9/11 shill and corrupt joke, at this point. He was so committed to "keeping our nation safe", that he appointed an NYPD police commissioner...the head of a 45,000 officers dept., who he knew had mob ties, and avoided a full background check for, as a condition of appointment to that key security position. He then pushed Bush to appoint Kerik as first chief of the new DHS, and Bush did! Giuliani insisted on building his new NYC "disaster command center", within walking distance of his city hall office"

<h3>Ustwo, you recited it....but you don't understand it. Understand that you've bought a line of political lies intended no the "keep us safe", but to keep republicans in office. They don't believe their own bullshit, but you obviously have bought it:</h3>
Quote:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/0...of_context.php
Romney Campaign: Remark About Sons Was Taken Out Of Context
By Greg Sargent - August 8, 2007, 2:26PM

Okay, the Romney campaign is suggesting that his remark earlier today -- in which he appeared to say that his sons were supporting the country by helping get him elected President -- was taken out of context by the Associated Press.


The campaign has sent out this YouTube with his full remarks:


Question: "Hi, my name's Rachel Griffiths, thank you so much for being here and asking for our comments. And I appreciate your recognizing the Iraq War veteran. <h3>My question is how many of your five sons are currently serving in the U.S. military and if none of them are, how do they plan to support this War on Terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?"</h3>

Governor Romney: "Well, the good news is that we have a volunteer army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made their decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty. I respect their decision in that regard. I also respect and value very highly those who make a decision to serve in the military. I think we ought to show an outpouring of support just as I suggested. A surge of support for those families and those individuals who are serving. My niece, for instance, just to tell you what a neighborhood can do and how touching it can be.

"My niece, Misha, living out West, her husband I think he got a call on a Tuesday. He's in the National Guard. He got a call on a Tuesday that he was going to be called up and shipped overseas on a Thursday. And they just bought a home -– they hadn’t landscaped it -– but the rules in the neighborhood were that unless you got your home landscaped within a year of the time that you bought your home, they began fining you, because they didn’t want people having mud holes in front of their homes. And she was very worried and just before the year expired, she woke up one morning and looked out the window and all the neighbors were out there, rolling down sod, putting up trees, getting it all done."

<h3>"It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president.</h3> My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country."
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/073...63,6.html/full
Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11
On the stump, Rudy can't help spreading smoke and ashes about his lousy record
by Wayne Barrett
with special research assistance by Alexandra Kahan
August 7th, 2007 9:44 PM

....Don't blame me for 7 WTC, Rudy says.

....The 7 WTC site was the brainchild of Bill Diamond, a prominent Manhattan Republican that Giuliani had installed at the city agency handling rentals. When Diamond held a similar post in the Reagan administration a few years earlier, his office had selected the same building to house nine federal agencies. Diamond's GOP-wired broker steered Hauer to the building, which was owned by a major Giuliani donor and fundraiser. When Hauer signed onto it, he was locked in by the limitations Giuliani had imposed on the search and the sites Diamond offered him. The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects. Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. <h3>His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.</h3> Great concern was expressed in writing that the platform in the press room had to be high enough to make sure his head was above the cameras. It's inconceivable that the hands-on mayor's fantasy command center was shaped—or sited—by anyone other than him.

Of course, the consequences of putting the center there were predictable. The terrorist who engineered the 1993 bombing told the FBI they were coming back to the trade center. Opposing the site at a meeting with the mayor, Police Commissioner Howard Safir called it "Ground Zero" because of the earlier attack. Lou Anemone, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD, wrote memos slamming the site. "I've never seen in my life 'walking distance' as some kind of a standard for crisis management," Anemone said later. "But you don't want to confuse Giuliani with the facts." Anemone had done a detailed vulnerability study of the city for Giuliani, pinpointing terrorist targets. "In terms of targets, the WTC was number one," he says. "I guess you had to be there in 1993 to know how strongly we felt it was the wrong place."

Bizarrely, Giuliani even tried in the Wallace interview to deny that the early evacuation of the bunker left him searching for a new site, contrary to the account of that frantic morning he's given hundreds of times, often for honoraria reaching six figures. "The way you're interpreting it," he told Wallace, "it was as if that was the one fixed command center. It was not. There were backup command centers." To minimize the effect of the loss of the bunker, Giuliani said that, "within a half hour" of the shutdown of the bunker, "we were able to move immediately to another command center."

In fact, as Giuliani himself has told the dramatic tale, he and his entourage were briefly trapped in a Merrill Lynch office, "jimmied the lock" of a firehouse, and took over a deluxe hotel until they realized it was "sheathed in windows." They considered going to City Hall, but learned it was covered in debris. The only backup center that existed was the small one at police headquarters that had been put out of business when the WTC bunker opened; but Giuliani said its phones weren't working. "We're going to have to find someplace," Giuliani said, according to his Time account, which described it as a "long and harrowing" search. "Our government no longer had a place to work," he wrote in Leadership.

They wound up at the police academy uptown and, according to the account Giuliani and company gave Time, "we are up and operating by 4 p.m."—seven hours, not a half-hour, after the attack. But Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission that they quickly decided the academy "was too small" and "were able to establish a command center" at Pier 92 "within three days," virtually building it from scratch. Hauer said he'd asked for a backup command center years before 9/11, "but they told me there was no money for it." After Hauer left, and shortly before 9/11, the city announced plans to build a backup center near police headquarters—a site quickly jettisoned by the Bloomberg administration. Police officials told reporters that they were looking for space outside Manhattan and underground, citing the lessons of 9/11.

BIG LIE

4. 'Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.'....
<h3>And if the republicans are what you claim they are, explain how they've improved the agreement with North Korea formulated during the Clinton administration:</h3>

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/wo...=1&oref=slogin
North Koreans Agree to Disable Nuclear Facilities

By HELENE COOPER
Published: October 4, 2007

....The accord is the second stage of a six-nation pact reached in February, one that has continued to draw sharp criticism from conservatives who complain that the United States is rewarding North Korea for its test of a nuclear device last October. <h3>The agreement has not yet resolved the contentious question of when North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons.
</h3>
The agreement calls on the United States to “begin the process of removing” North Korea from a United States terrorism list “in parallel” with the North’s actions. Conservative critics said the United States should not take North Korea off the terrorism list until it gave up all its nuclear weapons, and argued that the pact was far too conciliatory toward a nuclear power with alleged ties to international terrorism.

But the Bush administration has been eager to show diplomatic progress, and President Bush suggested that the deal should serve as an example to Iran, which has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program.....

...John R. Bolton, the administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said the White House violated the original purpose of the diplomatic talks by agreeing to negotiate side agreements with North Korea about taking it off both the terrorism list and a second list of “enemy” nations forbidden from trading with the United States.

“If they come off either or both lists, without any final verification of their performance on the nuclear issue, I think the president will have embarrassed his administration in history,” Mr. Bolton said.

Critics of the White House, including some Democrats, note that the February accord bears a strong resemblance to the 1994 agreement between North Korea and the Clinton administration, one that Bush administration officials denounced in the past as a giveaway, and which fell apart in 2002.

Conservatives are also angry that the United States went ahead with the agreement despite a recent Israeli airstrike in Syria that Israeli officials have said was directed at nuclear material supplied by North Korea. During meetings this past weekend, Christopher R. Hill, the chief United States negotiator, told North Korea that one of the things it must disclose were details of whatever nuclear material it had been supplying to Syria, two senior Bush administration officials said.

Both officials, who asked that their names not be used because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said that North Korean officials denied giving Syria any assistance.

“We did not achieve clarity on this issue, but that does not mean we do not intend to keep trying,” one of the officials said. “We aren’t operating on faith.”......
<h3>For once, back up your assertions</h3>...start a new thread that describes the great progress in dealing with the North Korean nuclear weapons threat achieved by your "we'll keep you safe"republicans, vs. the plan in place in 2001. Tell us which republican 2008 presidential primary contender is "the real deal"...someone with a workable plan to identify and deal with real national security threats, has not been a "flip flopper" or a hypocrite on these issues of vital importance, and does not have a corrupt background. Don't look too hard, there are none, among republcan frontrunners.

Willravel 12-04-2007 09:59 AM
Also, the homosexual thing was a mistranslation (one of many mistranslations of the Iranian leader). According to a friend of mine who actually speaks arabic, what he said was more like, "Homosexuality isn't a problem here.", not "There are no homosexuals here."

ubertuber 12-04-2007 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Also, the homosexual thing was a mistranslation (one of many mistranslations of the Iranian leader). According to a friend of mine who actually speaks arabic, what he said was more like, "Homosexuality isn't a problem here.", not "There are no homosexuals here."
That's really interesting, because several sources report that Ahmadinejad only speaks Farsi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerusalem Post
Saturday evening, Ahmadinejad landed in Riyadh to a king's welcome. Feasts were prepared for him. Abdullah meant to speak with him about everything, but first and foremost the nuclear issue. Because they don't share a common language (Ahmadinejad knows only Farsi, and Abdullah doesn't speak it) the conversation was conducted through an interpreter. Abdullah was obviously trying. He sat close to Ahmadinejad, something he doesn't often do with his guests, and tried to smile for the cameras before the meeting.

host 12-04-2007 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
.....The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.
Quote:
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/news/pr/416/index.php
Rudy Giuliani Announces Foreign Policy Team Members
Jul 9th

The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee announced today several members of Mayor Giuliani’s foreign policy team. The team will advise the Mayor on a foreign policy vision that advances the United States as a world leader, while expanding America’s involvement in the global economy, strengthening our reputation around the world, and keeping our country on the offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.

Charles Hill, former executive aide to President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George P. Shultz, a lecturer in the International Security Studies program at Yale University, a special consultant on policy to the United Nations Secretary-General, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, will serve as the Chairman of the Senior Foreign Policy Advisory Board. He is also the campaign’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor.

<h3>Senior foreign policy team members include Norman Podhoretz</h3> and Senator Bob Kasten. Other team members include Steve Rosen, Senior Defense Advisor; Martin Kramer, Senior Middle East Advisor; S. Enders Wimbush, Senior Public Diplomacy Advisor; Peter Berkowitz, Senior Statecraft, Human Rights and Freedom Advisor; and Kim R. Holmes, a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor.

“This group is committed to helping the Mayor develop a comprehensive foreign policy vision that keeps America globally strong, promotes the expansion of freedom, and recognizes that our greatest challenge is remaining on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us,” said Bill Simon, the campaign’s Policy Director. “Mayor Giuliani understands the critical foreign policy issues facing our nation, and we’ve assembled an outstanding team with decades of experience and knowledge to help advise the Mayor.”...
Quote:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...podhoretz/1474
A Few More Questions About The NIE

Dark Suspicions about the NIE
<h3>Norman Podhoretz</h3> - 12.03.2007 - 17:50

A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” <h3>has just dealt a serious blow to the argument some of us have been making that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons and that neither diplomacy nor sanctions can prevent it from succeeding.</h3> Thus, this latest NIE “judges with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”; it “judges with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work”; it “assesses with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”; it assesses, also with only “moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”; but even if not, it judges “with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.”

<h3>These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program.</h3> For that one, issued in May 2005, assessed “with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons” and to press on “despite its international obligations and international pressure.”

In other words, a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.

It is worth remembering that in 2002, one of the conclusions offered by the NIE, also with “high confidence,” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” And another conclusion, offered with high confidence too, was that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”

<h3>I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community</h3>, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.

<h3>But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.</h3> This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”,,,,
Rudy's "senior advisor", Norman Podhoretz is making the same absurd argument that <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018662.php">Ken Timmerman made</a>....everybody in the CIA is "out to get George Bush". Isn't this George Bush's CIA? He's been in office seven effing years. Fringe candidates, fringe thinking, fringe behavior. The republican party is acting as if it is the greatest threat to our national security. The rhetoric and the "results" they are achieving reinforce that. You're a businessman Ustwo, what do you think of the return on investment from Bush's $3.3 trillion national treasury debt increase?
Quote:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10882?page=all
The Case for Bombing Iran
Norman Podhoretz

June 2007


....In a number of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.

Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A9629C8B63
PUBLIC LIVES; A Neocon Is Honored by a President He Reveres

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: June 24, 2004

AS the grandfather of so much more than his children's children, Norman Podhoretz stood proudly in the East Room of the White House yesterday as President Bush awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

''The biggest deal imaginable,'' Mr. Podhoretz called it during an interview several hours before the ceremony. ''It's the most wonderful honor ever to come my way, the most wonderful honor I could ever imagine coming my way.''

Well, maybe it's not so hard to imagine, after all. Mr. Podhoretz, 74, a lifelong New Yorker, is widely recognized as a grandfather of neoconservatism, the intellectual and political movement begun in the 1970's by former liberals to push a wide-ranging agenda that included a renewed flexing of American power in the world. Only a handful of major writers and thinkers traveled a similar path, and those who held their new beliefs the most passionately, like Mr. Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, begat a generation or two of followers, many of whom have reached high seats of power and, some say, transformed neocon ideology into current foreign
policy   click to show 

Willravel 12-04-2007 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
That's really interesting, because several sources report that Ahmadinejad only speaks Farsi.
I didn't know that, but considering that my friend is Persian and speaks about a half dozen languages (I'll ask about Farsi), I still suspect that his translation is reliable. He was the first person to explain to me that Ahmadinejad didn't say "wipe Israel off the map", as it was also a mistranslation, beating the press by days.

ubertuber 12-04-2007 10:54 AM
That makes more sense, as Farsi is the predominant language in Iran -- which, incidentally, is not considered to be an arabic nation or culture.

ustwo, this bit's for you:

Quote:
In 2004, a large share of Iran’s natural gas reserves were untapped. The addition of new hydroelectric stations and the streamlining of conventional coal- and oil-fired stations increased installed capacity to 33,000 megawatts. Of that amount, about 75 percent was based on natural gas, 18 percent on oil, and 7 percent on hydroelectric power. In 2004, Iran opened its first wind-powered and geothermal plants, and the first solar thermal plant was to come online in 2009. Demographic trends and intensified industrialization have caused electric power demand to grow by 8 percent per year. The government’s goal of 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2010 is to be reached by bringing on line new gas-fired plants and by adding hydroelectric, and nuclear power generating capacity. Iran’s first nuclear power plant at Bushehr was not online by 2007.
Apparently nuclear power generation is not the only alternative energy source Iran is pursuing.

roachboy 12-04-2007 10:56 AM
Quote:
The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.
i'll just post a shorter version of what host posted above:

retreating into categories of intent---relying on speculation as to motive and/or desire--is the weakest possible form of argument, given the evidence presented in the nic report--which i would advise you to read.

all this seems to be about is avoiding dissonance: avoiding a confrontation with the simple fact that the premises for the position you, ustwo, as dutiful repetition machine for the conservative meme-of-the-moment, have been falsified.

while such a move has been from the outset a basic pattern within american populist conservative ideology for a very long time, and seems to me part of such appeal as it has for those who subscribe to it, there really has to come a point where this move simply does not operate any longer. this seems to me to be such a point.

so deal with the situation, ustwo, and stop shucking and jiving.
there has been no nuclear weapons program in iran since 2003.
so the entirety of the bush administration's marketing campaign--stoking the flame of jingoism by providing it with yet another abstract bogeyman that conservatives can be afraid of on the one hand and posture as manly about on the other--has been false.

it is self-evident that iran stands to be the principal beneficiary of american fumbling in iraq. it is self-evident that in geo-political terms, the american right can't but see this as a yet another disaster brought about by the disaster that is iraq. worse than the cholera epidemic that reports over the weekend outlined as a very real possibility in baghdad in the coming months as a function of the collapse of the sewage system and the coming rainy season because it affects conservative credibility--which apparently folk like you imagine that you still have--and not only expendable brown people far away.

if you accept that an iran as beneficiary is not in american interests--thanks in large part to the history of american involvement in iran around the person of that lovely guy the shah, whose policies were responsible for the revolution and so was (along with the americans) responsible for the possibility that the americans now fear---is you accept this premise (which i am not entirely sure about but putting that aside for the moment) NOTHING could be more counter-productive than creating a needless legitimacy problem for the administration itself as a function of choosing expediency over reason, ease over deliberation, in their idiot choices as to how to address this strategic situation.

ottopilot 12-04-2007 10:58 AM
edit

Skutch 12-04-2007 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Do you think maybe the 16 intelligence agencies' collective opinion carries more weight than yours? Maybe we don't have to believe Ahmadinejad, maybe we can just believe our own people.

I was proud of the way the media have headlined this as the US opinion. "US Says Iran Not Working on Nukes" is the prevailing headline. Just underscores again that Bush Industries, Inc. is DISTINCT from the United States of America.
I like to think for myself in addition to what the government has to say. I come to the conclusion that he's got something to hide. It appears clear that Iran is trying to dominate the region on the (not so) sly. I don't care for what they are trying to do vis a vis Israel, Iraq or Syria. Now looking at the state of politics in Iran, with such religious fervor and radical anti-western sentiment in the highest corridors of power...this is a cause of concern to me, as conflicts can spread. Do I think Iran should be invaded by anyone, no. Do I think they should be isolated, perhaps. Do I think there needs to be major changes within the Iranian government, yes. Do I think a nuclear weaponized Iran is intolerable? At this point in their history, yes.

Willravel 12-04-2007 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Apparently nuclear power generation is not the only alternative energy source Iran is pursuing.
Fast Forward 3 months...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bush
We cannot let Iran have WMD: water of mass destruction. *pauses to smirk* We have reliable intelligence that... um... Ak.. Ahamajeen... Abercrombie... the president of Iran is actively seeking super soaker technology.

host 12-04-2007 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skutch
I like to think for myself in addition to what the government has to say. I come to the conclusion that he's got something to hide. It appears clear that Iran is trying to dominate the region on the (not so) sly. I don't care for what they are trying to do vis a vis Israel, Iraq or Syria. Now looking at the state of politics in Iran, with such religious fervor and radical anti-western sentiment in the highest corridors of power...this is a cause of concern to me, as conflicts can spread. Do I think Iran should be invaded by anyone, no. Do I think they should be isolated, perhaps. Do I think there needs to be major changes within the Iranian government, yes. Do I think a nuclear weaponized Iran is intolerable? At this point in their history, yes.
Skutch, can you share any influences in your process of "thinking for yourself", or is there no external input? I've shown you how I come to "know what I know", all the way back to my page one post on this thread.

Doesn't that aid in making my opinion more coherent than yours?

With the removal by the US of Saddam's regime, isn't it logical that Iraq's next door neighbor, a petroleum rich nation of 70 million, would be the dominant country in that region? Who was primarily responsible for Iran's new "dominance", Iran, or the US? Can you name another reasonable contender for that descritpion? Doesn't "dominant" have something to do with number of square miles, population, wealth, and alliances?

Can you show us how Iran has been more of an aggressor nation in it's own region, than, say...the US, a nation from the other side of the globe has been? What country has made more threats, invaded other countries, filled the gulf and the skies above it with menacing military hardware, Iran, or the US? How would you react if Iran placed a series of naval task forces in Puget or in Long Island sound? Would you be as comparatively measured in your reaction, as Iran has been to US military presence on it's borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, and along it's shores?

ottopilot 12-04-2007 12:35 PM
edit

Willravel 12-04-2007 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Not that you're right or wrong, it shows that you probably have way more time on your hands to make your point.
I don't know where you'd get an idea like that... :expressionless:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Yes. Is it possible that the intervention in Iraq was really aimed at neutralizing Iran's growing dominance in the region all along?
This is an idea that I've toyed with on and off for the past few years. Honestly, though, is there someone on the planet stupid enough to think that invading Iraq wouldn't unite the Arab countries, under the lead of Iran and Syria? I mean really, it's one thing to taylor intelligence reports in order to push for an invasion, but the level of ignorance required to think that invading Iraq would somehow hurt Iran is mind boggling.

ratbastid 12-04-2007 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Not that you're right or wrong, it shows that you probably have way more time on your hands to make your point.
So you're too busy to show your work? I'm interested too--what makes you think the things you claim to think? Because as far as I can tell, they're unsupportable by anything resembling fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Yes. Is it possible that the intervention in Iraq was really aimed at neutralizing Iran's growing dominance in the region all along?
No, that's not possible. Again, facts.

You're thinking like Bush here. Which is to say: not. "Oh, geez, there's a country growing that we're scared of. Let's take out their single largest opponent. That'll neutralize their growing dominance in the region! Condie! Git me another Red Bull!"

ottopilot 12-04-2007 01:46 PM
edit

Rekna 12-04-2007 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Could you please support your opinion?
I'll support mine, please read the NIE.

Now support yours.

host 12-05-2007 12:48 AM
We are going to be subjected to this "theory", often in the coming days:

Quote:

bility on Iran, it's under fire. His own intelligence agencies downgrading Tehran's nuclear threat. So, why is Mr. Bush refusing to budge? We're watching the story....

...BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: The intelligence community is like generals fighting the last war. They got Iraq wrong and they're overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., does he think the new report on Iran's nuclear activities was released for political purposes?....

....(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Bush is refusing today to downgrade his view of the Iranian nuclear threat. He says even if Iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago, it still could start it up once again.

But will that newly declassified information sway others with a get-tough approach toward Iran?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I'm joined now by the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. He's the author of the new book Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad.

Mr. Ambassador, welcome back.

BOLTON: Glad to be here.

BLITZER: Well, does it change your view about the threat coming in from Iran?

BOLTON: No. I think in the first place there is a artificial distinction in this estimate between so-called civil activities and military activities.

The estimate itself says Iran continues its uranium enrichment program. And what that means is Iran is building up an inventory of at least low-enriched uranium, that it's at Iran's discretion when to convert that fissile material into a nuclear weapon.

So I think there are a lot of questions about this estimate, which is only an analyst's judgment. And I don't think I would change my view of the threat that Iran poses.

BLITZER: But they specifically say that back in 2003, they have only recently confirmed and learned -- this is the 16 agencies involved in the U.S. intelligence community -- that back four years ago, the Iranians flatly suspended any nuclear weapons program that they clandestinely had earlier. That's new information, and it clearly would indicate that the president and all of his top advisers who were so worried about Iran's nuclear threat were wrong.

And I assume that includes you, as well?

BOLTON: Right. Well, that's one reason I'm suspicious about the conclusion here, that this took four years to find out.

And by the way, two agencies dissent from that conclusion. And even what was published says that the NIE itself only has moderate confidence that the suspension in 2003 continues today and that there are gaps in our intelligence. I think there's a real risk here of over-judging what the intelligence community found and that there is a real risk of disinformation on the part of Iran.

BLITZER: So let me just -- let me -- this is a significant point that you're raising. You're saying that this new NIE, the one that was just issued, 2007, is potentially wrong? Is that what you're saying? And that it was released for, what, political purposes?

<h3>BOLTON: Well, I think it's potentially wrong. But I would also say many of the people who wrote this are former State Department employees who, during their career at the State Department, never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now they are writing as members of the intelligence community, the same opinions that they have had four and five years ago.</h3>

<h3>BLITZER: President Bush says he has confidence in this new NIE,</h3> and he says they revamped the intelligence community after the blunders involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He says there's a whole new community out there and he has total confidence in what the national intelligence director is doing.

<h3>BOLTON: Well, I have to say I don't.</h3> I think there's a very real risk here that the intelligence community is like generals fighting the last war. They got Iraq wrong and they're overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran.

I really think this is something the House and Senate intelligence committees need to get into in a very big way to probe as they can do behind closed doors how this estimate was put together. There is another issue here.

The only thing that has been made public are the general conclusions, two pages, not the 140 or 150 pages underlying it. Obviously, that information is very sensitive, but I would like to know what the decision was to allow the headlines to get out without the underlying facts for people to evaluate.

BLITZER: The president said he authorized the release of this NIE this summer and there will be hearings on the Hill.

A few weeks ago, I interviewed the director general of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, and he basically said then what the NIE says now, and I want to play this clip for you. I played it for you in the past.

Listen to what Dr. ElBaradei said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you believe there is a clandestine, secret nuclear weapons program right now under way in Iraq?

DR. MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR-GENERAL: We haven't seen any concrete evidence to that effect, Wolf. We haven't seen any information that there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapons program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The last time I played that clip for you a few weeks ago, you said he was an apologist for Iran.

Now, you want to revise or amend that comment? Because he now seems to be pretty much in line with the U.S. government's intelligence community.

BOLTON: Well, I don't want to revise it, and he's not in line, because the NIE itself says they did -- Iran did have a military program, at least until 2003, which ElBaradei still disagrees with and which the Iranians continue to deny. That's one of the reasons Iranian credibility is so much in question and why the prospect of disinformation I think is very real here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: The former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton speaking with me earlier...
Taken from the transcript above:
Quote:
..Well, I think it’s potentially wrong. But I would also say many of the people who wrote this are former State Department employees who, during their career at the State Department, never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now they are writing as members of the intelligence community, the same opinions that they have had four and five years ago....

-John Bolton
Considering that Bolton was the president's ardent choice to be the senate approved US Ambassador to the UN, after he served a year long, recess appointment in that same position, I think his statments in this interview with CNN's Blitzer are outrageous....revealing him to be a man of very small stature,blinded by his own misconceptions, dispayed trying to save face by contradicting "his president" and by making incredibel, inaccurate and denigrating statements about the intelligence community that authored the NIE.

ratbastid 12-05-2007 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Could you please support your opinion?
Mine is supported by the NIE. Yours appears to be supported by a cloud of hot air.

I say appears because you could accept the request to cite your sources, and then we'd be at a rational basis for discussion. But without that, all we can do is blow you off. I'm actually trying to help you here.

Ustwo 12-05-2007 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Mine is supported by the NIE. Yours appears to be supported by a cloud of hot air.

I say appears because you could accept the request to cite your sources, and then we'd be at a rational basis for discussion. But without that, all we can do is blow you off. I'm actually trying to help you here.
Its amazing how democrats trust the intelligence agencies again :thumbsup:

They are still enriching uranium, once a democrat gets elected to the presidency they will build their bomb.

Or did they just change their mind in 2003 to never build one?

roachboy 12-05-2007 06:58 AM
nice, ustwo.

so you see the democratic party--the loyal opposition democratic party which has minimal ideological differences with moderate republicans (you have heard of them, i'm sure)---as a fifth column.

that's funny.

mixedmedia 12-05-2007 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
nice, ustwo.

so you see the democratic party--the loyal opposition democratic party which has minimal ideological differences with moderate republicans (you have heard of them, i'm sure)---as a fifth column.

that's funny.
No shit.

I love it when people think the world revolves, reverses or stops according to which color sweater the Americans are wearing this season.

ratbastid 12-05-2007 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
They are still enriching uranium, once a democrat gets elected to the presidency they will build their bomb.
See, that sort of thing is so transparent, from those who have gleefully gulped the Republicans Will Protect You From Big Scary Terrorists Kool-Aid. If you actually LOOK, you'll see that line of rhetoric inevitably leads to the fabrication of Big Scary Terrorists. It's nothing new--we've always had an Evil Other built for us by those in control of the military purse-strings. But MOST Americans are starting to see through it. That's the difference 9/11 really made.

ottopilot 12-05-2007 08:43 AM
edit

roachboy 12-05-2007 09:08 AM
topic coherence/maintenance intervention


at the risk of shamelessness, i put up a thread this morning about the press reactions to the nic report--lead stories in the washington post and ny times--that tried to get at questions that run parallel to otto's post above, but pitched in a different way (i foregrounded the role of the press in managing a political crisis rather than speculating about the maybe "agenda" that explains the bush people's actions)....i think the question of the report itself with respect to iran/us policy-warmongering relative to iran/management of the fallout from the iraq debacle fit here, but that other issues concerning political interpretation/consequences might be better either in the other thread or in a third that is framed in a way that makes it easier to talk broadly (your call, comrades)...

this seems an interesting enough situation to merit some attempt to keep things from blurring into each other.

ottopilot 12-05-2007 09:37 AM
edit

Rekna 12-05-2007 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
They are still enriching uranium, once a democrat gets elected to the presidency they will build their bomb.
Please provide a citation that they are enriching weapons grade uranium. Weapons grade is defined at 80% or higher which is needed for a real nuke. Also please let me know which physic you are seeing that told you that a democrat being elected means they will build a bomb. Cause my psychic told me that if a Republican gets elected the end of days will be coming....

ratbastid 12-05-2007 10:13 AM
Thanks for your elaboration, otto. I (and probably others) can now see where you're coming from, and we can now discuss that. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my request. It really was just a request, because your ideas are interesting and outside what I've heard others say, but from the small, fragmentary way you'd presented them, I couldn't get my hands around quite what you were saying. Now that you've laid it out, I can see where you're coming from and the questions you're asking, and we can now have an interesting conversation about it. So thanks.

I actually think there's LESS going on than meets the eye. I think Bush is a cowboy who wanted to join the pantheon of war kings and who didn't have the brains or cross-aisle political savvy to accomplish it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Iranian weapons research ceased roughly the same time we invaded Iraq, but I'm not sold on the cause-and-effect you're speculating about.

I think the Bush reaction to this "news" ("Well, I still see a threat there. Just because they haven't been building weapons for four years just like they've been saying, it changes nothing--war with Iran is still on the table!") shows that this isn't the master stroke of some grand global chess game. In my view, Bush is still a little boy playing toy soldiers.

Willravel 12-05-2007 01:54 PM
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/...9544216%7D.gif
The bottom line is and has always been that the facts do not support the assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and yet the Bush administration continues to insist that Iran "disarm".

It's beyond clear that the Bush administration is incapable of executing any kind of reasonable policy and considering the consistent work in opposition to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the good of the American people, they should all be impeached. I don't mean to shout from my soapbox here, but how many people have to die (current Iraq death poll lowest estimate: around 600,000) before we do something? I don't want this to be my legacy, and I sure as heck don't want to skirt my responsibility to running a decent government as a member of a democratic public.

Skutch 12-05-2007 04:45 PM
Not only do I wonder about the content of the nie report, but also the timing. What just happened, that the US intelligence services did a complete 180 with regard to Iran? Why wasn't this revealed a year ago? 2 years ago? I think something *major* must have happened behind the scenes for the US to back down so suddenly. It is almost Cuban Missile Crisis-esque.

Elphaba 12-05-2007 04:56 PM
Skutch, the facts of this NIE was brought to public attention more than a year ago by Symore Hersh. Google and you will find his claims and how he was poo-poo'd by Bush. Once again, Hersh was correct.

The timing of this report is an open question, but it is known that Cheney held up the report for a different result of the "facts". (Iraq, anyone?) "Faulty" intelligence took the blame for Iraq, and with the war drums pounding again, sixteen (I believe) intelligence agencies forced the publication of this NIE.

If a pre-emptive strike against Iran has been avoided due to this, we owe the authors of the NIE that did not back down, the Presidential Medal of Honor that Tenant (and others) received and did not deserve.

Willravel 12-05-2007 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?
It's stream, and it's from a reactor. Why shout fire?

(Yes, it took me this long to come up with a clever response).

Skutch 12-05-2007 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Skutch, the facts of this NIE was brought to public attention more than a year ago by Symore Hersh. Google and you will find his claims and how he was poo-poo'd by Bush. Once again, Hersh was correct.

The timing of this report is an open question, but it is known that Cheney held up the report for a different result of the "facts". (Iraq, anyone?) "Faulty" intelligence took the blame for Iraq, and with the war drums pounding again, sixteen (I believe) intelligence agencies forced the publication of this NIE.

If a pre-emptive strike against Iran has been avoided due to this, we owe the authors of the NIE that did not back down, the Presidential Medal of Honor that Tenant (and others) received and did not deserve.
I didn't know about Hersch, but I find it hard to believe (ie: impossible) that any countries' intelligence agencies would be allowed to make such public statements about Iran without Presidential approval. Plus, co-President Cheney was in the middle east 6 months ago.

Willravel 12-05-2007 05:34 PM
Could this be a part of a plan to finally establish a republican frontrunner? I'll be watching them each closely in the coming weeks.

Elphaba 12-05-2007 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skutch
I didn't know about Hersch, but I find it hard to believe (ie: impossible) that any countries' intelligence agencies would be allowed to make such public statements about Iran without Presidential approval. Plus, co-President Cheney was in the middle east 6 months ago.
(Thank you for the spelling correction on Hersch) :)

Significant leaks from the intelligence community and other important sources have been going on for a while now, and Hersch is trusted in that community as are many others that are coming forward. Cheney is the last of the neocons supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iran, so it became easier to insist on publishing the NIE without the changes he wanted. If you review the Pentagon officials' statements in the last few months, you will find that they claim there is no plan or intention to attack Iran, contradicting the sword rattling.

Was the leak that nukes took a flight to the launching facility to the middle east hard to believe? It happened. What is hard to believe is that a "mistake" is the best excuse given. Nukes don't get moved from one place to another by mistake. Do you believe the president leaked that information, or someone else that wanted to prevent a nuclear attack? The "impossible" happens.

Cheney was summoned by the House of Saud, six months ago. Not Bush or Rice, but Cheney. That is another discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Could this be a part of a plan to finally establish a republican frontrunner? I'll be watching them each closely in the coming weeks.
Given that none of the candidates have been given the nod by the GOP, I'll bet you a donut that another candidate is in the wings. Cheney's last heart event (and that he no longer has any supporters) might make it convenient for a new VP to serve out the last year of this administration and possibly become the heir to the throne. Of course a new 9/11 will be helpful to pull that one off.

Willravel 12-06-2007 07:22 PM
It's nice to be vindicated about Iran, though. I'm proud that my post history is a tale of how Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Others who were with me should also be proud.

I'd be a fool to take that donut bet, but considering I'm on Atkins you can have the donut.

Plan9 12-06-2007 07:28 PM
*cries into hands*

I don't wanna wear Velcro-closed pockets again!

rlbond86 12-08-2007 12:03 PM
Olbermann had a terrific comment on the NIE: http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/index.php?p=215

Willravel 12-08-2007 12:08 PM
Yeah, I saw that. I like Olbermann, though I think a lot of it has to do with preaching to the crowd. I suspect that if I disagreed with him I'd find him obnoxious.

jorgelito 12-08-2007 01:52 PM
This is great news!! I have always believed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

I couldn't care less who was wrong who was right. The petty bickering on this board is ridiculous. We're all winners here right? If you didn't think Iran was developing nukes then yay, you are apparently correct this time. Doesn't mean they aren't trying to or planning on it. If you thought they were, then yay, you win too, because ultimately, if you were concerned that they were developing nukes, then you should be happy to find our that they aren't or at the very least, not as far along as once thought. Sounds like a win-win to me. But my guess is that a few posters here simply can't let go of the whole "I-have-to-be-right-and-argue-endlessly-and-needlessly-and tell-everyone-how-smart-I-am-and-how-I am-perfect-or-how-other-posters are-boring-and-uninteresting-or-don't-contain-enough-links-and-proof-blah blah-fucking-blah"

But if this latest report is accurate, then we still have sufficient time to deter them from doing so. My main concern was that their research had hit the point of no return. So as long as they allow IAEA or UN monitors and inspections, then their shouldn't be too much alarm. Some monitoring would still be prudent especially as long as hardliners like Ahdeminijad and and the Ayatollahs are in control. But yes, I am happy to see this report and can only wonder why we didn't see it sooner.

Keith Olberman is a sports analyst. He was a pretty bad one too, I really felt sorry for Dan Patrick. Why anyone would listen to his politics is beyond me.

Ustwo 12-12-2007 04:42 PM
Quote:
Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.


Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.
Photo: AP [file]

The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow, said the TV channel.

According to the report, the new missile is an improvement on the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, giving it a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not specified whether it had actually been tested.
RELATED

According to the country's IRNA news agency, Najjar said the missile was named the "Ashoura," meaning "the tenth day" in Farsi - a sacred reference among Shi'ite Muslims to the martyrdom of the third imam.

The Iranian defense minister said that "the production of the new missile was one of the Defense Ministry's greatest achievements."

Analysts believe much of Iran's military production has benefited from assistance from Russia, China and other countries, but many of their weapons development claims have not been independently verified.

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran's standoff with the US over its controversial nuclear program.

The Shihab-3, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, has a range of at least 1,300 kilometers.

In 2005, Iranian officials said they had improved the range of the Shihab-3 to 2,000 kilometers, a range equal to that of the new missile reported Wednesday.

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shihab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometers that would enable it to hit much of Europe.
Just to remind some of you less military minded. There is absolutely no point to a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead. At best it would be a terror weapon.

Just thought I'd point this out.....
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Baraka_Guru 12-12-2007 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
At best it would be a terror weapon.
Just to remind some of you less propagandic-minded: This is called political bias.

Willravel 12-12-2007 06:39 PM
Not only is it political bias, but it's not understanding that ballistic missiles would likely be the type of weapon used to counter a nuclear attack from the only other terrorist nation in the Middle East that's a nuclear threat to anyone: Israel. A barrage of land based ICBMs would be a decent deterrent for Iran to use to prevent Israel from attacking. Iran's missiles would have to get over Iraq and Jordan to strike Israel. That requires a long range ballistic missile. The mechanics may be rocket science, but the reasoning most certainly is not.

Ustwo 12-12-2007 07:50 PM
Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.

Iran has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel.

Iran is STILL enriching Uranium and will have enough for a bomb by 2011.

Liberals still assume all is well and its just self defense and peaceful power.

Thats a fine set of blinders.

Edit: Iran is building conventional missiles to protect themselves from Israels nuclear arsenal?

Thats not logic. I think will you do think Iran is working on nuclear weapons, my guess is you want them to have them.

ratbastid 12-12-2007 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.
No, he most certainly has not. That is a mistranslation. I can find you a citation if you need it.

Khrushchev also didn't say "We will bury you". Just FYI. That mistranslation made GREAT cold-war press for the warhawk Republicans, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Thats a fine set of blinders.
Are you implying that the 16 intelligence agencies are (gasp) liberals? Because they said Iran's NOT working on a nuclear weapon.

Baraka_Guru 12-12-2007 08:12 PM
How does the saying go?

Don't bring conventional missiles to a nuclear war?

jorgelito 12-12-2007 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
How does the saying go?

Don't bring conventional missiles to a nuclear war?
I thought it was "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"

Let's ask DK, he probably knows.

Willravel 12-12-2007 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.
If only you knew the first thing about Iran. It's sad how people who lack the ability to see past partisan politics actually lack the ability to see truth even when it's stated to them repeatedly.

Ouch, eh?
Here is the actual farsi text from his speech:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iranian President
Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.
How's your farsi, doctor? Here's a clue. See rezhim-e? Does that remind you of anything? Like 'regime'? Well what do you know, we're learning farsi! Hmmm...so let's put that in. "I want the Israeli regime wiped off the map". Still kinda harsh, mostly because of the word 'map'. Of course if you were to ask someone who speaks farsi if they have a phrase "wipe off the map" they'd laugh and say of course not. Actually, the word for map "nagsheh", isn't even in there! Hmmm....

Here is the actual english translation:
Quote:
The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
Wow. So you're totally wrong. I'll be waiting for your retraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Iran has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel.
And Israel has nukes capable of hitting Iran. You don't think having defenses is prudent? Oh, right, you want the Iranians to be wiped off the map. Or was that a mistranslation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Iran is STILL enriching Uranium and will have enough for a bomb by 2011.
So we're going to ignore the conclusive report by the NIE? Which source more credible than the NIE are you getting your information from? Fox News, perhaps?

Enjoy those blinders, doctor.

ratbastid 12-12-2007 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahmadinejad
The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
It wasn't for nothing I cited Khrushchev a few posts up.

What Khrushchev actually said was, "We will survive you."

Awfully similar to "must vanish from the page of time", isn't it?

Willravel 12-12-2007 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Thats not logic. I think will you do think Iran is working on nuclear weapons, my guess is you want them to have them.
I'd much rather have the Israeli government overthrown by the Israelis who are fed of with the ongoing civil war with the Palestinians.

Do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons? I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons. No one ever born is responsible enough to have them. No one. Not me, not you, not Bush, not Clinton, not Truman; not anyone. Not Iran, not Syria, not the UK, not the US. But, just like guns, it's too fucking late to prevent idiots from having a tool of immeasurable destruction. So what do we do? MAD. Mutually assured destruction. So how does one protect themselves from a rogue state that has nuclear weapons (Israel)? Well there are a few options.
1) Give up.
2) Attack.
3) Make your own nukes
4) Make friends with nukes

Iran is shooting for #4, of course, but if they were to shoot for #3? What would that mean? Are they more likely to sell to terrorist groups than Eastern block defectors? Nah. Are they more likely to use it than Israel? Of course not.

I'd not be happy if Iran had nuclear weapons, but I'd not be afraid, either.

ottopilot 12-12-2007 08:56 PM
edit

ratbastid 12-13-2007 05:59 AM
I trust he defended what he actually said. It WASN'T "We will wipe Israel off the map", no matter how hard the Beeb or anybody else stands behind that mistranslation.

Read Will's post above for what he ACTUALLY said--the sense of which is more like, "Israel is a temporary phenomenon."

Willravel 03-01-2008 09:19 AM
Israeli Minister Vows Palestinian Holocaust

Baraka_Guru 03-01-2008 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm hoping this was merely a slip of the tongue.


* * * * *
But in thinking of the balance (lack thereof?) of power in the Middle East, I'm moving toward the opinion that Iran would be making huge compromises on their national security by not developing nuclear weapons. Unless there were a true and global non-proliferation treaty and disarmament agreement, can you really blame them?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:57 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360