# US Intelligence Agencies:  Iran doesn't currently have a Nuclear Weapons Program



## DeadCanDance

Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program years ago, and  may be a decade away from developing a nuke, assuming they restarted their nuclear weapons research program



American Intelligence Agencies &#8211; New NIE Report on Iran:



> *NIE: Iran &#8216;Halted&#8217; Nuclear Weapons Program In 2003, Unlikely To Develop A Weapon In This Decade *
> 
> A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released today concludes with* &#8220;high confidence&#8221; that &#8220;in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.&#8221; *From the report&#8217;s findings:
> 
> 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&#8217;s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is *less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.
> 
> http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf *



IAEA Reporting on Iran:


> UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday* he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons* and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.
> 
> "We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.


----------



## maineman

listen to the Bushies and it's deja vu all over again!

They'll ignore this just like they ignored the August '01 PDB about OBL!


----------



## Larkinn

Well shit...if the US intel agencies say they don't have nukes, we should probably assume they do.


----------



## DeadCanDance

maineman said:


> listen to the Bushies and it's deja vu all over again!
> 
> They'll ignore this just like they ignored the August '01 PDB about OBL!



I could have sworn that NeoCons have spent the last few weeks posting here, that they know for a fact Iran is building nuclear bombs, and are merely a year or two away from having a nuclear bomb.


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program years ago, and  may be a decade away from developing a nuke, assuming they restarted their nuclear weapons research program
> 
> 
> 
> American Intelligence Agencies  New NIE Report on Iran:
> 
> 
> 
> IAEA Reporting on Iran:



What's more interesting, they are highly confident Iran stopped 2003, which is when US did what? They may or may not have resumed again.


----------



## DeadCanDance

first, before you backpeddle and dance away from your previous assertions kathy, do you admit it looks like you were wrong when you suggested Iran was currently working on nuclear weapons, and was a year or two away from having a bomb?


----------



## DeadCanDance

Crickets chirping. 

Having spent weeks having Bush lovers lecture me that they were simply sure that somehow, somewhere, Iran was building a nuclear bombs.  No evidence of course was ever proffered.  It was just the collective gut feeling of wingnutotopia. 

Gut feelings of neocons on message boards don't count for much: 

...because, the collective assessment of all US intelligence agencies (NIE) is that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program years ago.   Though, its still is worth it to keep pressure and inspections on them. 

And on the ground inspection by IAEA supports NIE's conclusions:  no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. 


I guess its good we nipped those lies in the bud, before Bush lovers could trick us into another unneccessary war.


----------



## maineman

DeadCanDance said:


> Crickets chirping.
> 
> Having spent weeks having Bush lovers lecture me that they were simply sure that somehow, somewhere, Iran was building a nuclear bombs.  No evidence of course was ever proffered.  It was just the collective gut feeling of wingnutotopia.
> 
> Gut feelings of neocons on message boards don't count for much:
> 
> ...because, the collective assessment of all US intelligence agencies (NIE) is that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program years ago.   Though, its still is worth it to keep pressure and inspections on them.
> 
> And on the ground inspection by IAEA supports NIE's conclusions:  no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> 
> I guess its good we nipped those lies in the bud, before Bush lovers could trick us into another unneccessary war.



I don't put it past them to still take us into an unjustified unwarranted war in Iran.  The PNAC vision is pretty blinding once you've had a drink of that koolaid.


----------



## Alpha1

12/3/07

the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

*That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
====================================
(same NIE?)Now, in late 2007 the NIE "don't know"
a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."*
SOOOooo...whats you point ?
-----------------------------------
But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
U.S. Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Program

Reuters

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in findings released on Monday that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Following are highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments.

-- Iran had a nuclear weapons program but halted it in 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007. The halt applied to design and engineering of an explosive device, such as fuses or shielding, and to covert uranium-conversion activities, according to senior intelligence officials. Other activities such as civilian uranium enrichment and missile development continue.

-- Iran is keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons, but U.S. intelligence agencies "do not know" whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. This is a major change from a 2005 intelligence estimate which concluded that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
http://tinyurl.com/2awtrh
--------------------------------


----------



## Psychoblues

As usual, the chickenhawks cower away in the face of their own horseshit being reflected back to them in the mirrors of their consciences.


----------



## Gunny

DeadCanDance said:


> Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program years ago, and  may be a decade away from developing a nuke, assuming they restarted their nuclear weapons research program
> 
> 
> 
> American Intelligence Agencies  New NIE Report on Iran:
> 
> 
> 
> IAEA Reporting on Iran:



These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?


----------



## Psychoblues

Holy Shit!!!!!!!  As much information as has been published concerning the collective information by our intelligence agencies being accurate in denying wmd's existed in Iraq and the cherry picking of the bush cabal to the exclusion of those otherwise more important and accurate assessments is astounding!!!!!!!!!!





GunnyL said:


> These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?



I actually thought better of you, gunny.


----------



## Gunny

Psychoblues said:


> Holy Shit!!!!!!!  As much information as has been published concerning the collective information by our intelligence agencies being accurate in denying wmd's existed in Iraq and the cherry picking of the bush cabal to the exclusion of those otherwise more important and accurate assessments is astounding!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually thought better of you, gunny.



What you think of me is irrelevant.  Intelligence agencies had 12 years + to collect data on Saddam/Iraq.  According to you lefties, it was wrong.

But the second they say what you want to hear ... Iran has no nuclear program ... you'd swear it was Jehovah himself preaching the gospel.

Hypocrites.


----------



## Alpha1

While they still ignore the fact that  a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
I repeat.....

SOOOooo...whats you point ? Besides the top of their heads...


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> What you think of me is irrelevant.  Intelligence agencies had 12 years + to collect data on Saddam/Iraq.  According to you lefties, it was wrong.
> 
> But the second they say what you want to hear ... Iran has no nuclear program ... you'd swear it was Jehovah himself preaching the gospel.
> 
> Hypocrites.



So are you saying you believe the intel now and we can expect to see you stop warmongering against Iran?


----------



## Alpha1

His post is pretty clear...why ask was what he was saying.....the words he used are too big or what?


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> His post is pretty clear...why ask was what he was saying.....the words he used are too big or what?



The implications of it are not clear.   I am asking so that I don't accuse him of doing something before it is clear that is what he is doing.   It is a line of questioning you would do well to avail yourself of on occasion.


----------



## Alpha1

Psychoblues said:


> Holy Shit!!!!!!!  As much information as has been published concerning the collective information by our intelligence agencies being accurate in denying wmd's existed in Iraq and the cherry picking of the bush cabal to the exclusion of those otherwise more important and accurate assessments is astounding!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually thought better of you, gunny.



Your not very acquainted with the facts are you?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/missile-prewar2003.htm

Iraqi Delivery Systems
2003 Prewar Assessments

In the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the Intelligence Community (IC) claimed that Iraq maintained a small missile force and several development programs, including for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent (BW). Specifically, IC concluded that Iraq maintained an arsenal of a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km; Iraq was deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq was developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities; and that Iraq was developing a UAV capable of delivering BW to the U.S. homeland. Although a later NIE in January 2003 withdrew the claim that Iraq was pursuing UAVs capable of hitting the U.S., only the US Air Force (USAF) Intelligence service disagreed with the NIE's judgement that the UAVs were for BW use (see below for details). In his speech before the UN in February 2003, Fmr. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stated that these weapons were built for power projection and not for self-defense.
Evidence for Assessments

Missiles

The IC's assessment that Iraq still posessed a small assortment of Scud-type missiles was largely based on gaps in Iraqi declarations. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) data and reports showed that the UN had been unable to account for two of 819 Scud missiles Iraq acquired from the Soviet Union, seven indigenously produced al Husayn Scud-type missiles, 50 conventional Scud warheads and over 500 tons of proscribed Scud propellants Iraq claimed to have destroyed unilaterally. In addition to these accounting discrepancies, more than twenty intelligence reports from at least ten different human intelligence (HUMINT) sources of varying reliability provided to the Committee suggested that Iraq retained prohibited Scud missiles, used trucks to carry and conceal them and hid the missiles, launchers, and missile components at various sites in Iraq. This information contradicted interviews with Hussein Kamel (Saddam Hussein's son in law who defected from Iraq in 1995), in which Kamel claimed that Iraq had destroyed all of its Scud missiles after the Gulf War. Finally, the post-war Senate Intelligence Committee noted that it was unclear exactly how the IC established the estimate that Iraq may have retained "up to a few dozen" Scuds. Analysts told Committee staff that the number was estimated based on Scud missiles and components for which the UN could not adequately account, but the IC had no estimate of the number of components that may have been withheld from inspectors.

The judgement that both the al Samoud and Ababil-100 missiles had ranges beyond 150 km was based on a combination of observed tests, engine specifications, and Iraqi admissions. Since at least 1998, the IC had assessed that the al Samoud had a range greater than the 150-km allowed by the UN. This assessment was based on information extrapolated from Iraq's UN declarations in which Iraq provided details of the missile and engine parameters. A report provided to the Senate Intelligenc Committee assessed that in August 2002 two al Samoud missiles flew to ranges above the UN permitted range. Additional intelligence indicated that the missile had been deployed. Iraq's full and complete discolsure in December 2002 confirmed these assessments. Iraq admitted to developing an al Samoud II variant, but said the range of this variant was also 150 km. Iraq admitted that the missile had flown beyond 150 km during 13 of 23 flight tests, but only by at most 33 km. Intelligence regarding the Ababil-100 indicated that it had been flight tested 18-20 times since 2000. In late May 2002, Ababil-100 launch boxes were seen at a tactical missile and support facility and Ababil-100 missile launchers were found at a barracks and training facility. 

And theres more if you care to read it all....


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> So are you saying you believe the intel now and we can expect to see you stop warmongering against Iran?



Find a post where I have "warmongered" against Iran and quote it right here in this thread.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Find a post where I have "warmongered" against Iran and quote it right here in this thread.





> Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense. So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.



In the thread about Iran.

Now can I get an answer to my question?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> In the thread about Iran.
> 
> Now can I get an answer to my question?



About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."





> So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.



Not letting them means not allowing them to have them.   Not allowing them to have them would require US strikes or a US invasion.   

Really...this is simple stuff.   You said it, we all know what you meant, why are you trying to squirm out of it?


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> The implications of it are not clear.   I am asking so that I don't accuse him of doing something before it is clear that is what he is doing.   It is a line of questioning you would do well to avail yourself of on occasion.



If 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." and that caused concern with US leaders, don't you think that was prudent...?
And now with a new assessment of Irans capabilities, I would expect that the rhetoric will change to reflect todays intell.....

 Just as suspect Al Gore would not repeat this in todays world.....

"We know that he(Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200

It ain't rocket science...


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Not letting them means not allowing them to have them.   Not allowing them to have them would require US strikes or a US invasion.
> 
> Really...this is simple stuff.   You said it, we all know what you meant, why are you trying to squirm out of it?



I see.  So you think you can fill in the blanks with your assumptions and they are correct just because you have decided so?

Rather than me squirming, you have stepped in it ... again ... by presuming to think what someone else is thinking.

FYI, I have not advocated using specific means of deterring Iran from having nuclear weapons.  I have only advocated that Iran should be deterred from having them.  That does NOT necessarily mean by use of force, and in fact, I would prefer a peaceful solution.

And I guess that would mean you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about, huh?


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> If 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." and that caused concern with US leaders, don't you think that was prudent...?
> And now with a new assessment of Irans capabilities, I would expect that the rhetoric will change to reflect todays intell.....
> 
> Just as suspect Al Gore would not repeat this in todays world.....
> 
> "We know that he(Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200
> 
> It ain't rocket science...



All this says to be is be skeptical about US intel.   I wish some individuals, specifically in our government, had a bit more skeptical before invading other countries based on said intel.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> I see.  So you think you can fill in the blanks with your assumptions and they are correct just because you have decided so?



Its not much of a blank ol boy.   



> Rather than me squirming, you have stepped in it ... again ... by presuming to think what someone else is thinking.



I would never presume to think what you are thinking.   I have much higher standards than that.   



> FYI, I have not advocated using specific means of deterring Iran from having nuclear weapons.  I have only advocated that Iran should be deterred from having them.  That does NOT necessarily mean by use of force, and in fact, I would prefer a peaceful solution.



No, it does not necessarily mean by use of force, but the obvious interpretation of your statement is that it includes the use of force.


----------



## Larkinn

And since you seem to want to squirm, I will ask you point blank.

Would you use force to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons?


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> All this says to be is be skeptical about US intel.   I wish some individuals, specifically in our government, had a bit more skeptical before invading other countries based on said intel.



  As I hope some individuals will be a bit more skeptical of what todays intell. may imply....some will ignore the rhetoric from Iran and some will believe it....
and over reaction in either direction could be a serious mistake as you NOW find out the facts about Iraq.....but what was believed in 2002 about Saddam, and what we now know about Saddam is 20/20 hindsight....


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> As I hope some individuals will be a bit more skeptical of what todays intell. may imply....some will ignore the rhetoric from Iran and some will believe it....
> and over reaction in either direction could be a serious mistake as you NOW find out the facts about Iraq.....but what was believed in 2002 about Saddam, and what we now know about Saddam is 20/20 hindsight....



Yes it is 20/20 and the far left was right and everyone else was wrong.   Life's a bitch, ain't it?   

As for Iran considering the claims are almost identical to what the claims were in Iraq (they have a secret weapons program!...oh noes the sky is falling!), by an administration which I trust not one whit, I am quite skeptical of the claims of a nuclear Iran.   I am significantly more concerned with Pakistan, which nobody seems to give a damn about, than Iran.


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> And since you seem to want to squirm, I will ask you point blank.
> 
> Would you use force to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons?



Me? I'd wait on confirmation, rather than act on suspected nuclear weapons.

But I'd hope someone acts before the confirmation is seen in the sky over Europe or Isreal or over a US Naval fleet at sea....thats the nature of the problems the west faces....


----------



## Chips Rafferty

GunnyL said:


> These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?




Gee, Gunny's, (pl) is this proof of yet another attempt to con cement-headed Americans into a criminal war?  

If so, then why all the subterfuge? When all ya have to do is tell them they are gonna kick serious ass, with fuck-all casualties, and a flag-waving, ego-inflating good time will be had by all!  

Do I detect a justified coup de etat in the intelligence services? A belated attempt to stop your monosyllabic Christapitalist megalomaniacal leader from murdering millions more, before an equally religiously demented Democrat takes his place in the Retchstag?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Its not much of a blank ol boy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would never presume to think what you are thinking.   I have much higher standards than that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not necessarily mean by use of force, but the obvious interpretation of your statement is that it includes the use of force.



You assumed.  You assumed wrong.  Period.

The "obvious interpretation" is you just ain't half as smart as you wish you were.


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> Me? I'd wait on confirmation, rather than act on suspected nuclear weapons.



I was asking Gunny, but interesting nonetheless.   What type of confirmation...and from who?   Intel agencies?   I think we got confirmation that Saddam had WMD's, yes?   Or supposedly we did...



> But I'd hope someone acts before the confirmation is seen in the sky over Europe or Isreal or over a US Naval fleet at sea....thats the nature of the problems the west faces....



Disagree with Iran, think they are violent, stupid, whatever, they aren't suicidal.  Iran wants nukes to improve its standing in the world, unless it falls into chaos its not exactly going to go around using them.


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> Yes it is 20/20 and the far left was right and everyone else was wrong.   Life's a bitch, ain't it?
> 
> *Yeah....and the worlds intell. was wrong, along with dozens of UN unanimous votes on resolutions against Iraq...lifes a bitch*
> 
> As for Iran considering the claims are almost identical to what the claims were in Iraq (they have a secret weapons program!...oh noes the sky is falling!), by an administration which I trust not one whit, I am quite skeptical of the claims of a nuclear Iran.   I am significantly more concerned with Pakistan, which nobody seems to give a damn about, than Iran.
> 
> *The only real difference between the two is Iraq actually used WMD, so the beliefs were not as suspect....Iran has the centrifuges and is using them to enrich the uranium, they don't even deny that, its their final application that is still suspect.....*



000


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> You assumed.  You assumed wrong.  Period.
> 
> The "obvious interpretation" is you just ain't half as smart as you wish you were.



So...would you use force if necessary to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons Gunny?   Yes or No?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> So...would you use force if necessary to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons Gunny?   Yes or No?



I would not use force for "suspected" nuclear weapons.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> I would not use force for "suspected" nuclear weapons.



So what level of proof would you require?   Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Larkinn said:


> So what level of proof would you require?   Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?



Why not? It was good enough for the Demochats, and all America's sycophantic "allies," like us, to slavishly goosestep behing Dad and Junior into both Gulf "Wars."


----------



## Alpha1

Just to be on the SAFE side...lets just wait until Tel Aviv disappears in a flash, then we can listen to the loons screaming, "why didn't you know", "why did you let that happen", "why didn't you act if the NIE thought Iran had a nuke".....

thats the standard operating procedure of the loons.....you can't win....

like "don't stereotype those Muslims getting on that plane, they have rights"....then after it blows, "why didn't you stop those terrorists".....


----------



## Larkinn

PS...just a few more quotes for you Gunny...



> Their[Irans] idea of a peaceful resolution and coexistence is each and every one of us dead.
> 
> Do you try and negotiate with rattlesnakes? I shoot them.





> Fallacy #2: That we need to invade Iran. *Locating the facilities and blowing them back into the desert from whence they came would suffice*.



I know with my massive incompetence I tend to make incorrect assumptions about you, so I'd ask for clarification of how these two statements are consistent with NOT wanting to attack Iran?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> So what level of proof would you require?   Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?



That's a good question.  Being in the position to make such a decision would also allow me access to intel from anyone in the world we share intel with.  I would also assume that I would be privvy to whatever physical evidence exists.

As far as level of proof goes, I would need to see some evidence/intel that was unquestionable and would withstand the closest scrutiny.


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> Just to be on the SAFE side...lets just wait until Tel Aviv disappears in a flash, then we can listen to the loons screaming, "why didn't you know", "why did you let that happen", "why didn't you act if the NIE thought Iran had a nuke".....
> 
> thats the standard operating procedure of the loons.....you can't win....
> 
> like "don't stereotype those Muslims getting on that plane, they have rights"....then after it blows, "why didn't you stop those terrorists".....



tsk, and you were actually saying things vaguely intelligent and then you had to go and blow it all like this.

Or we could, you know, invade Pakistan and North Korea who both actually have nukes, before we threaten countries which might get them in the future.   Do you honestly think that Iran is less stable than North Korea?  God knows how they build nukes, they can't even build a hotel, but yet they've got them.  And with how many US soldiers between them and SK?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> PS...just a few more quotes for you Gunny...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know with my massive incompetence I tend to make incorrect assumptions about you, so I'd ask for clarification of how these two statements are consistent with NOT wanting to attack Iran?



Neither statement is "warmongering."  

Try keeping statements in context.  I have NO problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes, or anything like them whose idea of compromise is me dead.

If indeed, a nucear weapons producing facility is discovered I also have no problem with destroying it.  Bear in mind, we have the capability to destroy such a facility without declaring war on Iran and invading.

There's a FAR CRY between warmongering and being willing to use violence when necessary as a means of last resort to achieve an end.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> That's a good question.  Being in the position to make such a decision would also allow me access to intel from anyone in the world we share intel with.  I would also assume that I would be privvy to whatever physical evidence exists.
> 
> As far as level of proof goes, I would need to see some evidence/intel that was unquestionable and would withstand the closest scrutiny.



But you don't get that.   All you get is what whoever happens to be the leader decides to show you...or asks for your trust.   Would you advocate invading Iran if the same amount of evidence that we recieved regarding Iraq was put onto the table by the same administration?   My worry is that a large amount of people would say yes, and I find that foolish.   We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Neither statement is "warmongering."



That is open for some debate.



> Try keeping statements in context.  I have NO problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes, or anything like them whose idea of compromise is me dead.



The context was in a discussion about invading Iran.   You didn't say no we shouldn't, you said you have no problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes.   That seems to imply a willingness to use force to me.



> If indeed, a nucear weapons producing facility is discovered I also have no problem with destroying it.  Bear in mind, we have the capability to destroy such a facility without declaring war on Iran and invading.



So your statement before where my "obvious interpretation" apparently meant that I was stupid, in fact included a willingess to use force?   



> There's a FAR CRY between warmongering and being willing to use violence when necessary as a means of last resort to achieve an end.



No, not really.   It depends entirely on what that end is.   If the US uses violence as a last resort to remove Chavez from power, I would consider that warmongering.


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> first, before you backpeddle and dance away from your previous assertions kathy, do you admit it looks like you were wrong when you suggested Iran was currently working on nuclear weapons, and was a year or two away from having a bomb?



No and that's NOT what that report was saying. It says they are 'highly confident' that they had ceased in 2003, they are uncertain what is currently going on. BTW, this is the 'unclassified' info.


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> Crickets chirping.
> 
> Having spent weeks having Bush lovers lecture me that they were simply sure that somehow, somewhere, Iran was building a nuclear bombs.  No evidence of course was ever proffered.  It was just the collective gut feeling of wingnutotopia.
> 
> Gut feelings of neocons on message boards don't count for much:
> 
> ...because, the collective assessment of all US intelligence agencies (NIE) is that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program years ago.   Though, its still is worth it to keep pressure and inspections on them.
> 
> And on the ground inspection by IAEA supports NIE's conclusions:  no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> 
> I guess its good we nipped those lies in the bud, before Bush lovers could trick us into another unneccessary war.


Sorry, that wasn't crickets, rather class starting, which was why the original post was cut short.


----------



## Annie

Alpha1 said:


> 12/3/07
> 
> the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
> 
> *That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
> ====================================
> (same NIE?)Now, in late 2007 the NIE "don't know"
> a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."*
> SOOOooo...whats you point ?
> -----------------------------------
> But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
> U.S. Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Program
> 
> Reuters
> 
> U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in findings released on Monday that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Following are highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments.
> 
> -- Iran had a nuclear weapons program but halted it in 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007. The halt applied to design and engineering of an explosive device, such as fuses or shielding, and to covert uranium-conversion activities, according to senior intelligence officials. Other activities such as civilian uranium enrichment and missile development continue.
> 
> -- Iran is keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons, but U.S. intelligence agencies "do not know" whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. This is a major change from a 2005 intelligence estimate which concluded that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
> http://tinyurl.com/2awtrh
> --------------------------------



Ah, you didn't read the 'preface' where they put on the use of certain terms. They did NOT treat the mid2007 with the certainty of 2003. I don't think anyone, certainly NOT I, (other than my response to you post about 'backing off), knows for certain what Iran is or isn't doing. I do believe that is what the UN is saying, basically that Iran is being uncooperative. Now State or CIA release this report, to try and give IAEA an out.


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> tsk, and you were actually saying things vaguely intelligent and then you had to go and blow it all like this.
> 
> Or we could, you know, invade Pakistan and North Korea who both actually have nukes, before we threaten countries which might get them in the future.   Do you honestly think that Iran is less stable than North Korea?  God knows how they build nukes, they can't even build a hotel, but yet they've got them.  And with how many US soldiers between them and SK?



Ha...you find no valid point in my sarcasm....?  What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
 I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....
Like you pointed out...lifes a bitch.....

Those that have the nukes, have the nukes...we can't turn the clock back...
The dangers from China, Russia, Pakistan, and India are quite enough...we don't need the really mentally unstable leaders of Iran and N. Korea to get them also.....


----------



## DeadCanDance

GunnyL said:


> These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?



Let's review:

Both the collective intelligence of the U.S., and the IAEA (the ones who were right about Iraq, remember?) are saying that there's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program years ago. 

Do you expect me to take your and RSG's word for it, that Iran is building a bomb?

lol


----------



## Larkinn

Alpha1 said:


> Ha...you find no valid point in my sarcasm....?  What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....



Notice that I said far left, not left.   



> thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....



Yes they did.   Obviously a huge mistake...but there was great political pressure on them to do so.   Its hard not to go along when questioning the general wisdom gets one called a traitor/terrorist sympathizer/etc.



> I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....



Correct it doesn't, but I blame the Republicans a great deal more than the Democrats for this particular fuck up.   



> Those that have the nukes, have the nukes...we can't turn the clock back...
> The dangers from China, Russia, Pakistan, and India are quite enough...we don't need the really mentally unstable leaders of Iran and N. Korea to get them also.....



Don't look now, but NK already has the bomb.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Kathianne said:


> Ah, you didn't read the 'preface' where they put on the use of certain terms. They did NOT treat the mid2007 with the certainty of 2003. I don't think anyone, certainly NOT I, (other than my response to you post about 'backing off), knows for certain what Iran is or isn't doing. I do believe that is what the UN is saying, basically that Iran is being uncooperative. Now State or CIA release this report, to try and give IAEA an out.



It says they judge with *high confidence* that iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. 

Its almost like you warmonger WANT a war.  This is not what you've been saying the last few weeks.  You've been claiming that you KNOW iraq is building a bomb.    You were wrong.  Again. 

Whether or not Iran may intend at some point in the future to restart its nuclear weapons research is not a reason to go to war NOW.  Its a reason to keep pressure on them. 

The NIE also states that it appears that Iran's behaviour can be modified with international pressure.   Which is what I've been saying all along.   Bush lovers have been itching to let loose with another war.    Do you guys love war that much, that you're willing to go to war with no credible evidence?


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> It says they judge with *high confidence* that iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
> 
> Its almost like you warmonger WANT a war.  This is not what you've been saying the last few weeks.  You've been claiming that you KNOW iraq is building a bomb.    You were wrong.  Again.
> 
> Whether or not Iran may intend at some point in the future to restart its nuclear weapons research is not a reason to go to war NOW.  Its a reason to keep pressure on them.
> 
> The NIE also states that it appears that Iran's behaviour can be modified with international pressure.   Which is what I've been saying all along.   Bush lovers have been itching to let loose with another war.    Do you guys love war that much, that you're willing to go to war with no credible evidence?



Actually, I disagree with the war mongering. I'm all in favor of increasing sanctions, to get Iran to cooperate. To the best of my knowledge that is what has been being argued by US, France, and England. Russia and China, somewhat different, but having to come around due to Iran's behavior. 

It's almost like you don't care about anything other than casting aspersions on 'conservatives' and GW. Go figure.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Kathianne said:


> Actually, I disagree with the war mongering. I'm all in favor of increasing sanctions, to get Iran to cooperate. To the best of my knowledge that is what has been being argued by US, France, and England. Russia and China, somewhat different, but having to come around due to Iran's behavior.
> 
> It's almost like you don't care about anything other than casting aspersions on 'conservatives' and GW. Go figure.




So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?    


I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?
> 
> 
> I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.



Somehow I doubt we agree on much. I do find your ability to spin top notch however.  

As for disavowing anything, I'd have to see them to decide.


----------



## Psychoblues

I know that countless intelligence reports contradicted the opinion as espoused by the bush bunch, that significant international support beyond Tony Blair (not England) was not forthcoming, that the reports asserting Iraqi intent to obtain nuclear technology were known to be false even before the war and that even Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector, vehemently claimed to no avail that there were no wmd's in Iraq despite his dissatisfaction of a complete inspection as cut off by the international terrorists that were determined to got to WAR ON IRAQ.




Alpha1 said:


> Your not very acquainted with the facts are you?.



Yeah, I'm acquainted with the facts, a1, and I suspect you only want to hear what you want to hear.  That's ok.  Our prez does much the same.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> 12/3/07
> 
> the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
> 
> *That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
> ====================================
> (same NIE?)Now, in late 2007 the NIE "don't know"
> a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."*
> SOOOooo...whats you point ?



It is not THE SAME NIE.... idiot.  NIE is an acronym which means National Intelligence Estimate.  An NIE is a document produced by ALL of the nation's intelligence communities....based upon the most current intelligence.  Would you prefer that, when they find out something new that contradicts a previous estimate that they keep it a secret so as not to spoil their image?


----------



## Alpha1

Larkinn said:


> Notice that I said far left, not left.
> 
> Well I'm referring to mainstream Democrats and their quotes about Saddam BEFORE Bush ever was elected
> 
> Yes they did.   Obviously a huge mistake...but there was great political pressure on them to do so.   Its hard not to go along when questioning the general wisdom gets one called a traitor/terrorist sympathizer/etc.
> ...Political pressure?  Thats not much of a excuse, but regardless, they voted the way they voted and thus share responsibility
> 
> 
> Correct it doesn't, but I blame the Republicans a great deal more than the Democrats for this particular fuck up.
> 
> Well, thats as close to admitting you're a hack without actually saying it....kinda like the Dems continually warning about the dangers of Saddam and WMD without actually saying 'invade'....the runup to the war was 10 years in the making...the Bush gang, the Clinton gang, and the UN, along with every major intell org. got it wrong, so I tend to spread the blame around
> 
> Don't look now, but NK already has the bomb.



 Last I saw, their test bomb was a dud, as was their missile, both pretty much failures


----------



## maineman

again.... the neocons always want to make a big deal out of the fact that democrats voted for the use of force resolution.

FACT: a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST it
the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support FOR it


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> It is not THE SAME NIE.... idiot.  NIE is an acronym which means National Intelligence Estimate.  An NIE is a document produced by ALL of the nation's intelligence communities....based upon the most current intelligence.  Would you prefer that, when they find out something new that contradicts a previous estimate that they keep it a secret so as not to spoil their image?



Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
you 'll catch on soon....


----------



## Annie

Alpha1 said:


> Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
> you 'll catch on soon....



Yep, me too. I'll take the 'wrong' when I am. I'll even take being called a 'pin head', I do get miffed at pinhead and downright pissed at idiot.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
> you 'll catch on soon....



I'll catch on?  YOu don't even understand the lexicon, let alone the nuances of the subject matter.

SAME NIE?  You clearly thought the NIE was an organization.  what a moron.


----------



## Psychoblues

Have you heard the latest KKKarl Rove screed?





maineman said:


> again.... the neocons always want to make a big deal out of the fact that democrats voted for the use of force resolution.
> 
> FACT: a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST it
> the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support FOR it



Now, it seems, this bunch is trying desparately to blame the entire Iraqi fiasco on the Dems!!!!!!!!!  Emagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alpha1

Psychoblues said:


> I know that countless intelligence reports contradicted the opinion as espoused by the bush bunch, that significant international support beyond Tony Blair (not England) was not forthcoming, that the reports asserting Iraqi intent to obtain nuclear technology were known to be false even before the war and that even Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector, vehemently claimed to no avail that there were no wmd's in Iraq despite his dissatisfaction of a complete inspection as cut off by the international terrorists that were determined to got to WAR ON IRAQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm acquainted with the facts, a1, and I suspect you only want to hear what you want to hear.  That's ok.  Our prez does much the same.


Thats our problem ... we just don't recognize Hans Blix as a greater authority than our own intell or Tony's intell. services....or numerous unanimously passed UN resolutions.....Blair and Bush and all the rest should check with Hans before making any important decisions ...and some of us actually thought the food for oil might have influenced their conclusions
Hey...WE were wrong, bottom line, I admit that....I just like to consider why and all the circumstances that had influence at that time in history
What was confirmed in 2005 or 2006 is irrelevant to decisions made in 2002 or 2003
---


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I'll catch on?  YOu don't even understand the lexicon, let alone the nuances of the subject matter.
> 
> SAME NIE?  You clearly thought the NIE was an organization.  what a moron.



If thats what gets you off sailor, have a ball....I don't feel like playing your childish games now....I'm conversing with someone with brain right now....


----------



## Alpha1

Psychoblues said:


> Have you heard the latest KKKarl Rove screed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it seems, this bunch is trying desparately to blame the entire Iraqi fiasco on the Dems!!!!!!!!!  Emagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Then you obvioulsy didn't understand my post of some time ago....

What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....

Intell from almost every western country, 
along with UN resolutions,
including many noteworthy Democrats(their votes and quotes)
the reaction to the intell was wrong.(Obviously the reaction was Bush's doing)

  Theres enough blame for a whole lot of folks...honest people recognize that .....nobody comes off clean in this......takes almost any one of these factors away and maybe, just maybe the invasion wouldn't have taken place....


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?
> 
> 
> I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.



A few posts ago I wondered at the timing and who made the report known. I don't think it's a bad thing, just interesting is all. While trying to catch up on reading before going to bed, I ran across this and think you might find some of it interesting perhaps. There's links to every mention, some of whom you may respect, some maybe not? Anyhow:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/012462.php



> December 03, 2007
> 
> WELL, THAT'S CONVENIENT: "A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb."
> 
> But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?
> 
> UPDATE: I just got an email with this story under the subject line "Your Zionist lies exposed." But actually I think that's a mistaken take, because I don't think this story cuts that way at all. This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into *stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq -- meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat -- and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration.* Cui bono? I think it's pretty obvious. . . .
> 
> ANOTHER UPDATE: Dan Riehl isn't comforted: "I don't find it the least bit reassuring. *I can't get too excited about the NIE given the recent bombing of what's now being called a nuclear bomb factory in Syria. If those reports are accurate, it would make sense for Iran to be doing a rope-a-dope with facilities such as Natanz."* Yes, given the consistent unreliability of the "intelligence community" on these matters, *alarmism might be more comforting than the reverse. Note, however, that while we can't know -- no one this side of Tehran can -- whether the report is accurate, I think the Bush Administration's decision to publicize it tells us something about what the Bush Administration thinks, as noted above.*
> 
> And some related thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson: *"After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war-aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region-might have been the elimination for some time of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?"* Yet that seems plausible, now.
> 
> MORE: Further thoughts from Norman Podhoretz: *"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.*"
> 
> STILL MORE: Uh oh: "If these appalling imbeciles say that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, then I say it's time to go long on bomb shelters." Hard to argue . . .
> 
> And Tom Maguire -- after a close analysis worth reading in full -- sees a *Hillary angle:* "And does it defuse criticism of Hillary's controversial support of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization? If we have no basis for war then we don't need to worry that Hillary has given some support for it."* Lucky for Hillary that the Bush Administration released this just as she got into primary trouble.* . . .
> 
> Meanwhile, Shannon Love makes sense: "My cursory reading of the report suggest that Iran has just moth balled its nuke project and can restart it in short order once the heat is off. For conspiracy theorist I would point out that a lot of that heat comes from credible saber rattling and having two armies parked on either side of Iran. Keeping the pressure on Iran is exactly the right thing to do. I suspect they are waiting for a change in the winds like a democrat President or a shift in European leaders to a more pacifistic stance. They only need a window of year or two of dithering to make their nukes a fait accompli."
> 
> FINALLY: A clueless reader emails to accuse me of shilling for Bush. But, you see, the post above, read properly, suggests that the decision to release this report was politically motivated. That's not shilling. Er, unless you're clueless. Jeez.
> posted at 02:46 PM by Glenn Reynolds


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Kathianne said:


> A few posts ago I wondered at the timing and who made the report known. I don't think it's a bad thing, just interesting is all. While trying to catch up on reading before going to bed, I ran across this and think you might find some of it interesting perhaps. There's links to every mention, some of whom you may respect, some maybe not? Anyhow:
> 
> http://instapundit.com/archives2/012462.php



This intelligence expose is the equivalent of the Gestapo admitting the atheistic Communists* didn't burn down the Reichstag on the eve of the invasion of Poland. 

Yet still the Amerinazis here keep trying to spin a silk purse out of a sow's ear... 

Face it, Gladys. Those in the know just torpedoed the megalomaniac pipe-dream of your self-appointed demigod and dear leader, Ol' Yella.  

*peculiar how Nazis and Amerihristians execrate Communists, isn't it? Anyone would think they both came from the same Biblical stable!


----------



## JeffWartman

Alpha1 said:


> While they still ignore the fact that  a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
> I repeat.....
> 
> SOOOooo...whats you point ? Besides the top of their heads...



Why do you believe it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. yet ignore the nuclear capabilities of countries like Pakistan and rouge former Soviet states?


----------



## Psychoblues

Oh, I understood it alright.




Alpha1 said:


> Then you obvioulsy didn't understand my post of some time ago....
> 
> What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....
> 
> thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
> You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
> I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
> The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....
> 
> Intell from almost every western country,
> along with UN resolutions,
> including many noteworthy Democrats(their votes and quotes)
> the reaction to the intell was wrong.(Obviously the reaction was Bush's doing)
> 
> Theres enough blame for a whole lot of folks...honest people recognize that .....nobody comes off clean in this......takes almost any one of these factors away and maybe, just maybe the invasion wouldn't have taken place....



And I gave it all the consideration it deserved.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> But you don't get that.   All you get is what whoever happens to be the leader decides to show you...or asks for your trust.   Would you advocate invading Iran if the same amount of evidence that we recieved regarding Iraq was put onto the table by the same administration?   My worry is that a large amount of people would say yes, and I find that foolish.   We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.



Wrong.  The person who makes the decision has access to any and all intel available.  You put me in that person's position -- decision maker.

Since Iraq was not invaded solely over the issue of WMDs, and you are disucussing invading Iran solely over the issue of nuclear weapons, I do not make the correlation beyond the word "invasion."

In the position of decision maker, I have said on many occasion I would not have chosen to invade Iraq when we did.  So obviously, given the EXACT SAME list of reasons for invading Iran as given for Iraq, I would not choose to invade.

Change those reasons in any way and it becomes an open question again.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> That is open for some debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The context was in a discussion about invading Iran.   You didn't say no we shouldn't, you said you have no problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes.   That seems to imply a willingness to use force to me.
> 
> 
> 
> So your statement before where my "obvious interpretation" apparently meant that I was stupid, in fact included a willingess to use force?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.   It depends entirely on what that end is.   If the US uses violence as a last resort to remove Chavez from power, I would consider that warmongering.



You're fishing.  "Warmongering" has a specific definition.  The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition.  I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.  

Bad form.  Thought YOU were the literalist?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> You're fishing.  "Warmongering" has a specific definition.  The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition.  I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.
> 
> Bad form.  Thought YOU were the literalist?



He is a player with words. He is free to do all he wants while decrying anyone else doing the same. That is a basic tenant of Liberal thought now adays. Being our intellectual superiors they are free to do as they wish while demanding we do as they say not as they do.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Spot on:



> WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 &#8212; Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here.
> 
> *An administration that had cited Iran&#8217;s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy &#8212; as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago &#8212; now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.*
> 
> The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate&#8217;s conclusion &#8212; that _Iran had halted a military program in 2003_, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses &#8212; will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/w...cf89a37edfb9e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss




Yet again - like with Iraq -  not all of us were wrong about Iran. 

 Many of us questioned why Bush and his supporters were rattling their sabers for war again.  Many of us asked where the evidence of a nuclear weapons program was, and what was the rush to bomb them.   Many of us said that the prudent option was aggresive diplomacy, and we didn't see an immediate need to go bombing a country without evidence of an imminent threat. 

In short, many of us don't believe a word bush or his supporters say with regard to national security, Iraq, or Iran.   And for good reason, given the conclusions and findings of the NIE and IAEA.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Cheney fought like hell to keep the NIE from coming out, even though it was basically done 6 months ago...because he evidently knew it would undercut the rush to bomb Iran that  BushCo. and their supporters had been salivating for.  




> The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued.
> 
> So why did the NIE come out today? Scott Horton hears from his contacts that the administration push to war was overwhelmed by the objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and Israel to the Bush plans for carrying out an air war against Iran. We know the administration doesn't give a damn about the opinion of intelligence community or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so perhaps it was the Israeli objection that finally made them realize they couldn't pull off their next war?
> 
> How does the NIE stack up next to the highly dramatized contentions made about the Iranian nuclear threat in connection with the roll-out to support a pre-emptive air strike on Iran? The key contention is that Iran is now aggressively trying to make nuclear weapons. The NIE rejects this, with high confidence. The next suggestion is that production of nuclear weapons by Iran is on an immediate horizon, within hailing distance of the end of the Bush Administration. Again, the NIE says this is hooey.
> 
> The NIE is not saying that analysts are not concerned about Irans nuclear aspirations. But it is saying that the threat continues to be out there on a more remote timeline. And that means, to cut to the quick, that a massive aerial strike against Iran before the end of the Presidents term can no longer be justified on the basis of the threat emanating from the Iranian nuclear program. Theres still time for diplomacy. In fact, it says that earlier diplomatic efforts did bear fruit.
> 
> http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001837


----------



## onedomino

I wonder why a country that is not developing nuclear weapons refuses to cooperate with the IAEA. I wonder why such a country risks attack over the failure to cooperate. Why does such a country suffer sanctions over failure to cooperate? Surely, it must be because they have nothing to hide. No doubt that is why they bury some of their nuclear facilities deep underground. Everyone knows that deep underground is the best place to make civilian energy. I wonder why Iran would not do a deal with Russia for enriched uranium supply. Why would a country pay billions extra to buy centrifuges, other equipment, and build facilities to be able to enrich uranium themselves? It must be because they had extra money lying around. Anyone, including those who put together the NIE, that do not think that Iran wants nuclear weapons, is wrong. Iran is encircled by the US: with bases in former Soviet republics, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf. The Mullahs are worried that they are next. If not now, then somewhere down the road. The Mullahs have good reason to be afraid. Iran is surrounded by a country and military that would like to see its leadership gone. And that includes many Democrats. Iran knows, despite the phony bluster, that it has zero chance against the American military. Irans only chance in a military confrontation with America is deterrence, i.e., the credible threat of the first use of nuclear weapons. That, in the final analysis, is the only thing that can guarantee the survival of the Mullahs. Regardless of what the NIE says (and the report does specify that it knows nothing of Iranian intentions), it is illogical to assert that the Mullahs do not want nuclear weapons. It is well known that the Mullahs want a security guarantee from the US. They want the existence of their regime enshrined as inviolate. That will not happen.


----------



## Shogun

it BUUUUUUUUUUURNNSSSS!


the PAAAAIN!


hehehehehehehe...


I tellya.. this has GOT to be one giant pebble in the shoe of jpost readers who thought they were on the verge of sending in their attack dog.


----------



## DeadCanDance

onedomino said:


> I wonder why a country that is not developing nuclear weapons refuses to cooperate with the IAEA. I wonder why such a country risks attack over the failure to cooperate. Why does such a country suffer sanctions over failure to cooperate? Surely, it must be because they have nothing to hide. No doubt that is why they bury some of their nuclear facilities deep underground. Everyone knows that deep underground is the best place to make civilian energy. I wonder why Iran would not do a deal with Russia for enriched uranium supply. Why would a country pay billions extra to buy centrifuges, other equipment, and build facilities to be able to enrich uranium themselves? It must be because they had extra money lying around. Anyone, including those who put together the NIE, that do not think that Iran wants nuclear weapons, is wrong. Iran is encircled by the US: with bases in former Soviet republics, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf. The Mullahs are worried that they are next. If not now, then somewhere down the road. The Mullahs have good reason to be afraid. Iran is surrounded by a country and military that would like to see its leadership gone. And that includes many Democrats. Iran knows, despite the phony bluster, that it has zero chance against the American military. Iran&#8217;s only chance in a military confrontation with America is deterrence, i.e., the credible threat of the first use of nuclear weapons. That, in the final analysis, is the only thing that can guarantee the survival of the Mullahs. Regardless of what the NIE says (and the report does specify that it knows nothing of Iranian intentions), it is illogical to assert that the Mullahs do not want nuclear weapons. It is well known that the Mullahs want a security guarantee from the US. They want the existence of their regime enshrined as inviolate. That will not happen.




And right on cue, here was have Bush loving message board posters asking us to trust their "gut feelings", rather that the collective assessments of the american intelligence community, and the IAEA.  

Bottom line:  You and your president totally exaggerated the threat from iran.   Totally.   Now, you have egg on your face, and are asking us to trust your "feelings" about iran. 

No, Iran is not a shining example of being forthcoming about its nuclear activities.  Neither, for that matter, has our good ally Pakistan.  But, the fact is that the Iranian "problem" is exaggerated, and they are nowhere close to having a nuke, even assuming that they restart the nucelar weapons research.


----------



## Shogun

jeez...


it's kinda like we were able to dodge the bullet that the 03 conservatives used to take us to war over similarly phantom gut feelings..


----------



## Shogun

*'US report should not deter world'*
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546799748&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

SHOCKER


----------



## onedomino

DeadCanDance said:


> And right on cue, here was have Bush loving message board posters asking us to trust their "gut feelings", rather that the collective assessments of the american intelligence community, and the IAEA.
> 
> Bottom line:  You and your president totally exaggerated the threat from iran.   Totally.   Now, you have egg on your face, and are asking us to trust your "feelings" about iran.
> 
> No, Iran is not a shining example of being forthcoming about its nuclear activities.  Neither, for that matter, has our good ally Pakistan.  But, the fact is that the Iranian "problem" is exaggerated, and they are nowhere close to having a nuke, even assuming that they restart the nucelar weapons research.


'Gut feelings?" What are you talking about? And thanks for the typically insulting tone of your remarks. I have not disputed the NIE report. The report itself admits to knowing nothing of Iranian intentions. I submit that Iranian failure to cooperate with the IAEA, hiding nuclear facilities underground, and refusal to negotiate an enrichment deal with the Russians, can logically be explained by the intention to develop nuclear weapons. How would you explain such behavior? Point to one line in my post that is incorrect or cannot be debated either way. I have written about what the situation looks like from the Iranian side. A logical analysis would yield that in the absence of an American security guarantee that will never be forthcoming, the Mullahs must obtain nuclear weapons to ensure their survival. And if you imagine they do not think about it in such terms you are naive in the extreme.


----------



## mattskramer

onedomino said:


> 'Gut feelings?" What are you talking about? And thanks for the typically insulting tone of your remarks. I have not disputed the NIE report. The report itself admits to knowing nothing of Iranian intentions. I submit that Iranian failure to cooperate with the IAEA, hiding nuclear facilities underground, and refusal to negotiate an enrichment deal with the Russians, can logically be explained by the intention to develop nuclear weapons. How would you explain such behavior? Point to one line in my post that is incorrect or cannot be debated either way. I have written about what the situation looks like from the Iranian side. A logical analysis would yield that in the absence of an American security guarantee that will never be forthcoming, the Mullahs must obtain nuclear weapons to ensure their survival. And if you imagine they do not think about it in such terms you are naive in the extreme.



It looks as if the war hawk position is that just because we dont have irrefutable proof that Iran is making nukes does not mean that it is not making nukes.  The proof may still be out there.  Like real WMD and God and unicorns, you cant prove that such things do not exist.


----------



## Shogun




----------



## DeadCanDance

onedomino said:


> 'Gut feelings?" What are you talking about? And thanks for the typically insulting tone of your remarks. I have not disputed the NIE report. The report itself admits to knowing nothing of Iranian intentions. I submit that Iranian failure to cooperate with the IAEA, hiding nuclear facilities underground, and refusal to negotiate an enrichment deal with the Russians, can logically be explained by the intention to develop nuclear weapons. How would you explain such behavior? Point to one line in my post that is incorrect or cannot be debated either way. I have written about what the situation looks like from the Iranian side. A logical analysis would yield that in the absence of an American security guarantee that will never be forthcoming, the Mullahs must obtain nuclear weapons to ensure their survival. And if you imagine they do not think about it in such terms you are naive in the extreme.





_I submit that Iranian failure to cooperate with the IAEA, hiding nuclear facilities underground, and refusal to negotiate an enrichment deal with the Russians, can logically be explained by the intention to develop nuclear weapons. How would you explain such behavior?_


See, you're still relying on gut feelings that somehow, somewhere, Iran is building a nuclear bomb, despite no evidence supporting that gut feeling.  Despite the fact that all intelligence agencies have concluded Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program years ago.  Despite the fact that IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. 

There are plenty of reasons that iran would enrich its own uranium.   The same reason that Brazil has centrifuge facilities to enrich its own uranium for its domestic nuclear industry (see attached article below).  Its a matter of national sovereignty. 

This is not to say that Iran never has, and never will, conduct research into nuclear weapons.  Heck, even Argentina and Brazil had nuclear weapons research programs.   But, it is to say that Warhawks jumped the gun on concluding Iran was actively building a bomb, that they were a mere one or two years away from having a bomb, and that we should bomb them.    The gig is up.  The saber rattling and warmogering of Bush lovers has been based on totally hyped and exaggerated fear mongering.




> *Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility*
> 
> RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, May 8, 2006 (ENS) - Brazil has inaugurated its first uranium enrichment facility to produce the type of fuel for nuclear power plants that Iran is running into trouble for attempting to produce. There are strong suspicions that the objective of the Iranian nuclear program is to eventually build a bomb, but Brazil has managed to assure the international community its intentions are industrial and commercial, not military.
> 
> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-08-04.asp


----------



## M14 Shooter

> A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released today concludes with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.




Anyone want to guess as to WHY they halted their nuke program?


----------



## maineman

"bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Brazil"

you know the tune


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> Anyone want to guess as to WHY they halted their nuke program?



Gee.  I dont know.  Perhaps international pressure.  Perhaps diplomacy.  Perhaps communication followed by better mutual understanding.  Perhaps Bush slipped a few dollars under the table for Iran.  You tell us.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Anyone want to guess as to WHY they halted their nuke program?



I could guess just like you could guess...and that is all it would ever be.... a guess!


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> Gee.  I dont know.  Perhaps international pressure.  Perhaps diplomacy.


What pressure/diplomacy, and from whom?
Specifically, please.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> I could guess just like you could guess...and that is all it would ever be.... a guess!



Nope.  Some people like M14 can read minds.


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> What pressure/diplomacy, and from whom?
> Specifically, please.



Perhaps other nations sent communications to Iran telling it to be careful or they would not be trade as readily with it.    Perhaps Pakistan said that Iran seems to be causing too much havoc and better shape up.


----------



## DeadCanDance

M14 Shooter said:


> What pressure/diplomacy, and from whom?
> Specifically, please.



Jesus, how could you have already forgetten the the US, the european nations, the UN, and the IAEA were pressuring Iran?  Seriously, do you read newspapers or anything?



> NIE REPORT:  "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."*


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> Perhaps other nations sent communications to Iran telling it to be careful or they would not be trade as readily with it.    Perhaps Pakistan said that Iran seems to be causing too much havoc and better shape up.


You ddnt answer my question.

Who, specifically, used what specific international pressure/diplomacy to get Iran to halt their program - in 2003?

Now, you say you always answer every question...


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> Jesus, how could you have already forgetten the the US, the european nations, the UN, and the IAEA were pressuring Iran?  Seriously, do you read newspapers or anything?


I'm looking for dspecific pressures placed by specific people/countries.
Do you have examples of any, or are you simply supposing?


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> You ddnt answer my question.
> 
> Who, specifically, used what specific international pressure/diplomacy to get Iran to halt their program - in 2003?
> 
> Now, you say you always answer every question...



I dont know is my answer.  Look at my previous posts.  I used the word Perhaps.  I dont know.  Im just shooting off possible scenarios.  What is your guess?


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> I dont know is my answer.  Look at my previous posts.  I used the word Perhaps.  I dont know.  Im just shooting off possible scenarios.  What is your guess?


Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts.  I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.

How about:
Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?


----------



## DeadCanDance

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm looking for dspecific pressures placed by specific people/countries.
> Do you have examples of any, or are you simply supposing?




What does it matter?  The NIE is not going to publish classified, behind the scenes diplomacy and contacts between Iran, Russia, UK, France, and others. 

Why do you care?  Are you trying to divert from the fact that Bush lovers have been wrong....AGAIN...with respect to anothter supposed imminent threat to us?


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts.  I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.
> 
> How about:
> Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?




an opinion that you cannot back up with facts.  what a surprise


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> You ddnt answer my question.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628525&postcount=87

Question: 

Anyone want to guess as to WHY they halted their nuke program?

Answer: 

*I dont know.* 
*Perhaps* international pressure. 
*Perhaps* diplomacy. 
*Perhaps* communication followed by better mutual understanding. 
*Perhaps* Bush slipped a few dollars under the table for Iran.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> What does it matter?  The NIE is not going to publish classified, behind the scenes diplomacy and contacts between Iran, Russia, UK, France, and others.


And what of the -public- diplomacy and contacts between Iran, Russia, UK, France, and others? 



> Why do you care?  Are you trying to divert from the fact that Bush lovers have been wrong....AGAIN.


You'll remember that the Bush administration was not alone in the discussion of the nuclear threay from Iran.

You also seem to be trying very hard to avoid giving GWB credit for getting Iran to drop their nuke program.  Why is that?


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts.  I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.
> 
> How about:
> Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?



That is a good guess too.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628525&postcount=87
> 
> Question:
> 
> Anyone want to guess as to WHY they halted their nuke program?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> *I dont know.*
> *Perhaps* international pressure.
> *Perhaps* diplomacy.
> *Perhaps* communication followed by better mutual understanding.
> *Perhaps* Bush slipped a few dollars under the table for Iran.


Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts. I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.

How about:
Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts. I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.
> 
> How about:
> Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?




I don't get it.... he gives an opinion, you denigrate it, and then give an opinion.


----------



## DeadCanDance

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts. I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.
> 
> *How about:
> Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?*




LOL! 

How did I know, you were going to try to give Bush and his Iraq war credit!   You love Bush!

Unfortuanately, that's not what the NIE says.  You should really click the link, before you keep making yourself look like a fool"




> 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-ProliferationTreaty Safeguards Agreement, *was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Irans previously undeclared nuclear work.*



It was the IAEA that exposed the scope of Iran's enrichment activity.  You know, the same IAEA that bush and his fans hate?

And it was international pressure (not your war) from the europeans, us, and others, that did it.


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh that's right -- you stated an opinion so that you dont have to back up with facts. I, somehow, forgot that this is popular here.
> 
> How about:
> Iran gave up its nuke program because of the very real threat that, after the invasion of Iraq, they were next?



No.  I think that money has more to do with it after I read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628536&postcount=42


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> No.  I think that money has more to do with it after I read:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628536&postcount=42



don't confuse shooter...he thinks that nuclear weapons are made _gratis_ by elves and there IS no cost!


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL!
> How did I know, you were going to try to give Bush and his Iraq war credit!   You love Bush!


How did I know, you were going to try to avoid giving Bush and his actions regarding Iraq credit!   You hate Bush!




> Unfortuanately, that's not what the NIE says.



It says:



> in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure



You still havent described the term "pressure", in specific terms.

Aside from your partisan bigotry, how can you argue that Bush's actions aginat Iraq are not part of that 'pressure'?



> You should really click the link, before you keep making yourself look like a fool"


It appears you have clicked it several times, and it hasnt saved you...



> And it was international pressure (not your war) from the europeans, us, and others, that did it.


Show this to be true.
Show that our actions, as you claim, are NOT part of the reason.


----------



## DeadCanDance

LOL

What a Class A Bush-worshipper!

After shooter and his president have been shown to be wrong, about their previous assertions about Iran's nuke program, he's trying to claim credit by tying this to Bush's War.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> No.  I think that money has more to do with it after I read:


You presume that the only "cost" is money.

What other 'costs' were/are associated with contunuing the program?


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> don't confuse shooter...he thinks that nuclear weapons are made _gratis_ by elves and there IS no cost!



Yes.  That was pretty rich.  Wasnt that one reason why the USSR crashed the way that it did?  It just couldnt keep up with the cost of its military program when it seemed to be in a race with the USA?  Nations invest their money and resources how they see fit.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> You presume that the only "cost" is money.
> 
> What other 'costs' were/are associated with contunuing the program?



why isn't "money" reason enough?  when they did the cost/benefit analysis, it wasn't a good investment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> What a Class A Bush-worshipper!
> 
> After shooter and his president have been shown to be wrong, about their previous assertions about Iran's nuke program, he's trying to claim credit by tying this to Bush's War.



Your partisan bigotry knows no bounds.

Please -try- to be honest:

If GWB had not done everything he did regarding Iraq up to the point that Iran gave up their program do you REALLY think Iran would have given up its program when it did?


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> You presume that the only "cost" is money.
> 
> What other 'costs' were/are associated with contunuing the program?



I think that resources would have been a better word to use (money being one resource).  For any such program, one needs tools, supplies, (and money so that one can buy more tools and supplies once the tools and supplies run out).  Good trade relations are needed.   There are probably other examples too. Are you going anywhere with this line of questioning?


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Your partisan bigotry knows no bounds.
> 
> Please -try- to be honest:
> 
> If GWB had not done everything he did regarding Iraq up to the point that Iran gave up their program do you REALLY think Iran would have given up its program when it did?



I have no idea.... I think that the NIE indicates that they had done a cost-benefit analysis and that they had succumbed to diplomatic pressure.  What do you have, other than your clearly partisan "gut feeling" that would indicate otherwise?


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> I think that resources would have been a better word to use (money being one resource).  For any such program, one needs tools, supplies, (and money so that one can buy more tools and supplies once the tools and supplies run out).  Good trade relations are needed.   There are probably other examples too. Are you going anywhere with this line of questioning?


What about the "cost" in terms of military action being taken against them, and how that would not only destory their investment, but probably destory their strategic infrastructre?

And why do you present any number of 'possible' reasons, but refuse to acknowledge the 'possibility' that the credible threat of force -- that is, their thought that "he took out Saddam, we might be next" -- had something to do with it?


----------



## DeadCanDance

In spite of the pathetic attempt to spin this as a victory for Bush and his iraq war, lets remember the salient point:

Up until 48 hours ago, Bush and his cyberspace worshippers had been lecturing us that iran was activly building a nuclear bomb, that there were a mere one or two years away from having a bomb, and they were on the verge of becoming an imminent threat. 

Bush worshippers were wrong....AGAIN.   Just like with Iraq.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> What about the "cost" in terms of military action being taken against them, and how that would not only destory their investment, but probably destory their strategic infrastructre?
> 
> And why do you present any number of 'possible' reasons, but refuse to acknowledge the 'possibility' that the credible threat of force -- that is, their thought that "he took out Saddam, we might be next" -- had something to do with it?




maybe you should ask the authors of the NIE - all of whom work for Bush, by the way - and ask them that question!


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> Up until 48 hours ago, Bush and his cyberspace worshippers.... and every had been lecturing us that iran was activly building a nuclear bomb, that there were a mere one or two years away from having a bomb, and they were on the verge of becoming an imminent threat.


I love how the liberals try to distance themselves from the errors that THEY made, just like they did regarding WMDs in Iraq.  They hope that people are stupid enough to forget that while GWB and everyone else were dicussing the dangers and the threats, they were right there alongside him, agreeing with the whole thing.

It must suck to be a liberal, knowing that the only chance you have at political power is to hope that American People are so stupid they wont remember what you said a few days ago.


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> What about the "cost" in terms of military action being taken against them, and how that would not only destory their investment, but probably destory their strategic infrastructre?



That is speculative cost. 



> And why do you present any number of 'possible' reasons, but refuse to acknowledge the 'possibility' that the credible threat of force -- that is, their thought that "he took out Saddam, we might be next" -- had something to do with it?



I did not bash that possibility.  I acknowledge that Iran might have thought that the US and its allies might use force, and that such a thought might have influenced Iran to do what it did.  Perhaps Irans decision was based on a mixture of different variables (including the possible threat of military force).  Im sorry if you thought that I didnt give your idea much weight.


----------



## DeadCanDance

And here's our dumbass president this morning, trying to spin his way out of admitting that he totally hyped and exaggerated the iranian nuclear threat, to the american people:




> Question:  My question, sir, is, are you feeling troubled about your standing here yesterday, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people?
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm feeling pretty spirited, pretty good about life, and have made the decision to come before you so I can explain the NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.




Moron.  You were talking about World War Three, mere weeks ago.  When you KNEW, what the NIE report was going to say.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> That is speculative cost.


Which must necessarily be part of the equation.
Dont you suppose the question of "what will GWB do with all those troops and aircraft at our dorrstep if we continue with this?" was asked, and then answered, with the answer factoring into the 'costs' of continuing?



> I did not bash that possibility.


No, you refused to even consider it, at least up to the point where you were pressed.



> I acknowledge that Iran might have thought that the US and its allies might use force, and that such a thought might have influenced Iran to do what it did


Thank you.

Now, if only certain others here had the intellectual honesty to make such an admission.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Which must necessarily be part of the equation.
> Dont you suppose the question of "what will GWB do with all those troops and aircraft at our dorrstep if we continue with this?" was asked, and then answered, with the answer factoring into the 'costs' of continuing?
> 
> 
> No, you refused to even consider it, at least up to the point where you were pressed.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Now, if only certain others here had the intellectual honesty to make such an admission.




I will admit that any number of things might have influenced Iran's decision.  The NIE, however, suggests that diplomatic efforts and cost-benefit analysis were the noteworthy factors.  

Your speculation that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a significant factor in the decision is unsupportable by the facts - which never seems to bother YOU all that much, although other people's speculations seem to drive you into a tizzy.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> What does it matter?  The NIE is not going to publish classified, behind the scenes diplomacy and contacts between Iran, Russia, UK, France, and others.
> 
> Why do you care?  Are you trying to divert from the fact that Bush lovers have been wrong....AGAIN...with respect to anothter supposed imminent threat to us?



 Bush lovers  Bush lovers  Bush lovers, You're like a freekin' broken record....

*"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb."*

So ...were the NIE conclusions reported 2 years ago written by a bunch of "Bush lovers".?

"Bush lovers" weren't wrong...the NIE report in 2005 was wrong....and now the intell has been re-assessed and different conclusions have been arrived at....are you that narrow-minded that you cannot put facts into the time frame in which they happened....

It took 4 years for the NIE's conclusions to change.
And 4 years from now, their conclusions may change again, maybe 180* different....

Will you be so quick to rant, "Oh, us Bush haters were so wrong in 2007. The new NIE report says that Iraq will test an atomic bomb tomorrow"....

You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Bush lovers  Bush lovers  Bush lovers, You're like a freekin' broken record....
> 
> *"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb."*
> 
> So ...were the NIE conclusions reported 2 years ago written by a bunch of "Bush lovers".?
> 
> "Bush lovers" weren't wrong...the NIE report in 2005 was wrong....and now the intell has been re-assessed and different conclusions have been arrived at....are you that narrow-minded that you cannot put facts into the time frame in which they happened....
> 
> It took 4 years for the NIE's conclusions to change.
> And 4 years from now, their conclusions may change again, maybe 180* different....
> 
> Will you be so quick to rant, "Oh, us Bush haters were so wrong in 2007. The new NIE report says that Iraq will test an atomic bomb tomorrow"....
> 
> You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....




do you think that the ink is just now drying on this NIE?  Don't you suspect that the president got an advanced briefing on it?  back when he was talking about WWIII?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Alpha1 said:


> You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....


That someone wont even consider the possibility that our action against Iraq had -something- to do with Iran giving up its nuke program is pure partisan bigotry. 

Diplomatic efforts?  
Labelling Iran as part of the axis of evil, then going after another member of that axis because of its concealed WMD programs, thereby establishing military actions as a credible threat?  
Yes, that's diplomacy

Pressure?  
Having all those troops next door, commanded by someone with the obvious will to use them? 
Yes, that's pressure.

Cost/benefit?  
The cost of having those troops used against you to take out all that investment in a nuclear weapons program?  
Yes, that cost would be very high, and there would be no benefit.

This is what you get when you start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> That someone wont even consider the possibility that our action against Iraq had -something- to do with Iran giving up its nuke program is pure partisan bigotry.
> 
> Diplomatic efforts?
> Labelling Iran as part of the axis of evil, then going after another member of that axis because of its concealed WMD programs, thereby establishing military actions as a credible threat?
> Yes, that's diplomacy
> 
> Pressure?
> Having all those troops next door, commanded by someone with the obvious will to use them?
> Yes, that's pressure.
> 
> Cost/benefit?
> The cost of having those troops used against you to take out all that investment in a nuclear weapons program?
> Yes, that cost would be very high.
> 
> This is what you get when you start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.



I think that there are many possibilities including combinations of possibilities in varying degrees.  Maybe Iran felt threatened.  Maybe there is an underground trade deal going on (bribing or threatening Iran to change (recall the oil for food fiasco in Iraq)).  Maybe the US is trading secretly with Iran (recall the Iran / Contra controversy).  Maybe Iran decided that the making of nukes was more costly than first anticipated (irrespective of any imagined military interfention or reprisal).   Maybe other nations are were quietly telling Iran to back off (Didnt China get annoyed by the saber-rattling of North Korea?) Maybe the most recent reports, or previous reports, have errors (Wasnt Bush given inaccurate information about Iraq before we invaded it?).  Maybe the citizens of Iran wanted change (Perhaps the money of Iran needed to be better redistributed to immediate domestic issues like health and welfare.). Yes, maybe Bush spooked Iran.  I mean, come on.  There are all sorts of possibilities if you open your mind to them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> Yes, maybe Bush spooked Iran.  I mean, come on.  There are all sorts of possibilities if you open your mind to them.


Ah...  the absence of an open mind.
That explains everything.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> do you think that the ink is just now drying on this NIE?  Don't you suspect that the president got an advanced briefing on it?  back when he was talking about WWIII?



I really can't answer that question, MM....
I believe that it usually takes about 4 to 6 months for all the different agency's involved to meet and hash out what they have found out and how valid their different assessments are before they arrived on a conclusion they all can agree to....
but I would hope that any President would be briefed in a timely manner on what the likely final NIE conclusions might be after everyones input is considered.....

IMO...
In light of what the NIE's conclusions were in 2002, (pre-war) and 2005, I would suspect that all involved, the intell. agencys and the Admin.  would not be too quick to take any serious action on these assessments alone....they have been known to be seriously flawed in the past....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program.  Nor does the NIE say that.  

the only ones I see speculating that  are that bush voters.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Alpha1 said:


> I really can't answer that question, MM....


And you dont have to.
See, GWBs warning that a nuclear-capable Iran will bring about WW3 is sound, period.  The fact that they might not have nukes for several more years only puts WW3 farther out than originally thought.

But, here's a guarantee:
When Iran DOES get a nuke, the liberals will blame Bush for not doing something about it when he had the chance.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program.  Nor does the NIE say that.
> the only ones I see speculating that  are that bush voters.


Ah... the absence of an open mind.
That explains everything.


----------



## mattskramer

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah...  the absence of an open mind.
> That explains everything.



Yep.  It is easy, and sometimes dangerous (particularly in the area of personal relationships), to rush to judgment without taking the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mattskramer said:


> Yep.  It is easy, and sometimes dangerous (particularly in the area of personal relationships), to rush to judgment without taking the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible.



Question to DeadCanDance:

Did you take the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible before you decided to completely rule out the possibility that GWBs actions in Iraq created some of the pressure, comprised at least part of diplomacy, and entered at least in part into the equation of cost that convinced Iran to drop its nuke program?

Or are you illustrating for us the product of the absence of an open mind?


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program.  Nor does the NIE say that.
> 
> the only ones I see speculating that  are that bush voters.



(don't miss post 123)

mattskramer at least shows he can consider events with an open mind...

Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....and the only rational conclusion we can arrive at is that the US working in conjunction with the countries of Europe, and possibly some in ME and the UN have shown Iran its in their best interest to abandon nuke weapons....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Alpha1 said:


> Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....


Two things regarding the Iranian's halting of their nuke program:
-The majority of the external factors are attributable to the US;
-All of the actions by the US are because of GWB.

Given those, its impossible for an intellectually honest person to NOT give a large degree of credit for the Iranians shutting down their nuke efforts to GWB.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> (don't miss post 123)
> 
> mattskramer at least shows he can consider events with an open mind...
> 
> Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....and the only rational conclusion we can arrive at is that the US working in conjunction with the countries of Europe, and possibly some in ME and the UN have shown Iran its in their best interest to abandon nuke weapons....



Okay.  Okay.  As if I dont have enough of a swelled ego.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program.  Nor does the NIE say that.
> 
> the only ones I see speculating that  are that bush voters.



Just WHO would you speculate has been leading the parade against Iran's effort to develop Nuclear capability.....Libya perhaps?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Just WHO would you speculate has been leading the parade against Iran's effort to develop Nuclear capability.....Libya perhaps?



that is different that trying to claim that the war in Iraq made them stop.


----------



## eots

ya but we need to understand that  IF they did have a bomb they would be dangerous and just because they don't have one and are not making one now does not mean that one day they MIGHT maybe have one so nothing has really changed and if we preemptively bomb them back into the stone age it would be a less dangerous world in the future


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> You're fishing.  "Warmongering" has a specific definition.  The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition.  I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.



Incorrect.  

From Wikipedia..."A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. Some may even admit that their selfishness includes the lust for war for personal satisfaction."

That is not a "specific definition".   Secondly I am not mixing use of force and warmongering "as I see fit".   Sometimes use of force is warmongering, sometimes it is not.   And there is not such thing as a general "necessary" use of force.   Necessary to achieve certain aims perhaps, but not a general necessity.   What those aims are determines whether it is warmongering or not IMO.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> that is different that trying to claim that the war in Iraq made them stop.



Speculations and opinions of posters on the net don't bother me....its only if an attempt is made to pass off those speculations and opinions as truth and fact that I might respond to them....

Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand, though it is only speculation.....
Just recognize it for what it is....a posters opinion, nothing more,nothing less.

So in this case, it might be other people's speculations seem to driving you into the tizzy.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Just WHO would you speculate has been leading the parade against Iran's effort to develop Nuclear capability.....Libya perhaps?



No, the international community, just as the NIE states.  Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us. 

2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians.  That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight.  And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research. 

If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions.  Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> From Wikipedia..."A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. Some may even admit that their selfishness includes the lust for war for personal satisfaction."
> 
> That is not a "specific definition".   Secondly I am not mixing use of force and warmongering "as I see fit".   Sometimes use of force is warmongering, sometimes it is not.   And there is not such thing as a general "necessary" use of force.   Necessary to achieve certain aims perhaps, but not a general necessity.   What those aims are determines whether it is warmongering or not IMO.



By your own definition, it is YOU who are incorrect.  I am not and was not warmongering.  You assumed incorrectly.  Simple as that.

And that IS a fairly specific definition.  Nowhere in there do you see someone who is willing to use force when necessary.  And yes, there IS such a thing.  Y


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> By your own definition, it is YOU who are incorrect.  I am not and was not warmongering.  You assumed incorrectly.  Simple as that.



Well, how can I argue with an argument which just states the conclusion without providing any evidence.   You state I am incorrect (about saying you were warmongering).   Then you say that you were not warmongering (same sentence).   Then you again repeat that I was incorrect.   I guess if you are just going to say the conclusion to your argument (if it can be called that), three times as a defense, then yes it is very simple.   



> And that IS a fairly specific definition.



No, actually its pretty vague.   It allows for many different actions to fall into the category.



> Nowhere in there do you see someone who is willing to use force when necessary.



There is nothing incompatible with someone who is willing to use force when necessary either.   Not that it matters since "when necessary" is an incoherent term without knowing what the end is that would necessitate the force.   



> And yes, there IS such a thing.  Y



As a general necessity?   No, theres not.   Its an incoherent term without defining the goal that the force is necessary to achieve.   Nothing is, by itself, necessary until you figure out what the purpose is.


----------



## Annie

DeadCanDance said:


> No, the international community, just as the NIE states.  Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.
> 
> 2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians.  That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight.  And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research.
> 
> If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions.  Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.


And if you wish to dress up you pig in lipstick, keep the mantra up that suddenly the 'sanctions' worked, for some reason in 2003. Ignore the force, go ahead and do such.

You are now doing everything you are accusing the opposition of doing.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Well, how can I argue with an argument which just states the conclusion without providing any evidence.   You state I am incorrect (about saying you were warmongering).   Then you say that you were not warmongering (same sentence).   Then you again repeat that I was incorrect.   I guess if you are just going to say the conclusion to your argument (if it can be called that), three times as a defense, then yes it is very simple.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually its pretty vague.   It allows for many different actions to fall into the category.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing incompatible with someone who is willing to use force when necessary either.   Not that it matters since "when necessary" is an incoherent term without knowing what the end is that would necessitate the force.
> 
> 
> 
> As a general necessity?   No, theres not.   Its an incoherent term without defining the goal that the force is necessary to achieve.   Nothing is, by itself, necessary until you figure out what the purpose is.



Just can't admit you're wrong, huh?  Got to try and deflect to some relativist argument over "necessity."

Well, let's hope you figure out what necesity is if and when someone shoves a gun in your face.  I'll bet you won't find it hard to do at all.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Just can't admit you're wrong, huh?  Got to try and deflect to some relativist argument over "necessity."



Jesus Christ...learn what these words mean before you use them.   Its not relativist at all.   Its a function of the definition of the word.  

For your elucidation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

I thought about admitting I was wrong after your stunning argument in which you stated the conclusion 3 times in a row with no statements to back it up.   But then I figured, despite the incredible logical soundness of that argument I'd see what I could squirm out of.   I know, I know...its a chance in hell to be able to get out of an argument like that, but I did my best.   



> Well, let's hope you figure out what necesity is if and when someone shoves a gun in your face.  I'll bet you won't find it hard to do at all.



If someone shoves a gun in my face the end becomes quite clear.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Jesus Christ...learn what these words mean before you use them.   Its not relativist at all.   Its a function of the definition of the word.
> 
> For your elucidation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
> 
> I thought about admitting I was wrong after your stunning argument in which you stated the conclusion 3 times in a row with no statements to back it up.   But then I figured, despite the incredible logical soundness of that argument I'd see what I could squirm out of.   I know, I know...its a chance in hell to be able to get out of an argument like that, but I did my best.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone shoves a gun in my face the end becomes quite clear.



Dude, deflect on your own time.  I'm well-aware of what words mean.  You just can't figure out the fact that I am.  It's how you get your ass torn up every time -- thinking you're just so much damned smarter.

You couldn't beat my argument, you tried a deflection, now you want to attack my intelligence all to draw away from the fact that you labelled me based on an erroneous assumption.

You lose.  Game over.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> No, the international community, just as the NIE states.  Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.
> 
> 2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians.  That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight.  And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research.
> 
> If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions.  Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.




Thats essentially what I said in post 134....

though I neglected to give the IAEA a role, its obvious they did play a role....

--------------
_Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....and the only rational conclusion we can arrive at is that *the US working in conjunction with the countries of Europe, and possibly some in ME and the UN have shown Iran its in their best interest to abandon nuke weapons....*_
---------------
And as I mentioned to mm....

Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand, though it is only speculation.....
Just recognize it for what it is....a posters opinion, nothing more,nothing less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, your accusation that I "want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. " is
nothing more than the unfounded rantings of a hack...
You're dismissed...


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Dude, deflect on your own time.  I'm well-aware of what words mean.



If so, then why did you use it in a completely inappropriate context?  



> You just can't figure out the fact that I am.  It's how you get your ass torn up every time -- thinking you're just so much damned smarter.



Where exactly did I "get my ass torn up".  It must have been somewhere between the argument with 3 repetitive conclusions and the inappropriate application of the term relativist.   But I just can't figure out where.   



> You couldn't beat my argument



Lmfao...you didn't provide a coherent argument.   You provided laughable snippets of information incoherently strung together.   



> , you tried a deflection, now you want to attack my intelligence all to draw away from the fact that you labelled me based on an erroneous assumption.



Actually I didn't attack your intelligence.   I said you didn't know what relativist means.   



> You lose.  Game over.



Right.   Gunny, the self proclaimed winner of the internet.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> If so, then why did you use it in a completely inappropriate context?
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly did I "get my ass torn up".  It must have been somewhere between the argument with 3 repetitive conclusions and the inappropriate application of the term relativist.   But I just can't figure out where.
> 
> 
> 
> Lmfao...you didn't provide a coherent argument.   You provided laughable snippets of information incoherently strung together.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I didn't attack your intelligence.   I said you didn't know what relativist means.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.   Gunny, the self proclaimed winner of the internet.



Bottom line:  YOUR misuse of a word has been the cause of your dancin' chicken routine.  

DO try and get over it.  Or don't.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DeadCanDance said:


> No, the international community, just as the NIE states.  Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.
> 
> If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions.  Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.



Did you take the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible before you decided to completely rule out the possibility that GWBs actions in Iraq created some of the pressure, comprised at least part of diplomacy, and entered at least in part into the equation of cost that convinced Iran to drop its nuke program?

Or are you illustrating for us the product of the absence of an open mind?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Alpha1 said:


> Speculations and opinions of posters on the net don't bother me....its only if an attempt is made to pass off those speculations and opinions as truth and fact that I might respond to them....
> 
> Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand...


It can...  but only if you hate Bush so much that it deprives you of your ability to think.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Bottom line:  YOUR misuse of a word has been the cause of your dancin' chicken routine.
> 
> DO try and get over it.  Or don't.



Actually I used it just fine.   If I hadn't you might be providing some evidence instead of restating your conclusion over and over again.   Then again, maybe not...


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Did you take the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible before you decided to completely rule out the possibility that GWBs actions in Iraq created some of the pressure, comprised at least part of diplomacy, and entered at least in part into the equation of cost that convinced Iran to drop its nuke program?
> 
> Or are you illustrating for us the product of the absence of an open mind?



no....it is you who are illustrating the phenomenon known as "grasping at straws."  
Certainly, Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq may have had some small role to play.  So could have the price of oil or some Iranian's horoscope.  Who cares?  The NIE gives its best guess as to what caused the cessation, and the war in Iraq was not part of their assessment.  

You COULD be smarter than the best minds at all our combined intelligence agencies...that, too, is POSSIBLE.....just not very likely.


----------



## ekrem

Alpha1 said:


> Just to be on the SAFE side...lets just wait until Tel Aviv disappears in a flash, then we can listen to the loons screaming, "why didn't you know", "why did you let that happen", "why didn't you act if the NIE thought Iran had a nuke".....
> 
> thats the standard operating procedure of the loons.....you can't win....
> 
> like "don't stereotype those Muslims getting on that plane, they have rights"....then after it blows, "why didn't you stop those terrorists".....



Off course Israel is telling exactly that what profits them the most.

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html


*Martin van Creveld* (born 1946) is an *Israeli military historian* and theorist.
He was born in the Netherlands but has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the *author of fifteen books on military history and strategy*, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known.* Van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December, 1999 and January, 2000.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

Marin Van Crefeld to Austrian Newspaper:

Generally speaking Israel has since 20 years the possibility to eradicate Teheran.
The Iranians know this and Israel should not have fear about Iran, even not a nuclear Iran.
The other side of the story is, that we always knew of marketing external threats in favour to our own security interests.
To the foreign world and also to our own public the Israelian government warns of Iranian nukes, just like it did before from the threat of the Arab world.
In this style Israel got in the 60s advanced weapons from Germany. In the 70s and 80s weapons from USA, in the 90s again from Germany. So every time Ahmadinajad talks about Israel, he is helping us to get weapon systems from abroad. This functions very well.
http://diepresse.com/home/diverse/archiv/99747/index.do

All those Arrows Missile Systems, submarines, Merkavas is nothing a little country like Israel can afford in terms of money nor develop in terms of technology. It is dependent on foreign money from USA and German technology. Also Israel is still the only country in the middle-east which stands against a nuclear-free Middle East.
It is hypocrisy to critize one country seeking for nuclear weapons and standing behind a country which illegaly posseses exact same kind of weapons.

All this bullshit talk of US president clique is an aggression against Iran. And an Iran seeing itself on the shoot-list for oil and gas interests will eventually indeed develop nuclear weapons. It is an insurance against aggressors like current USA.

The US president should apologize from Iran. In criminal codes in many countries defamation is an act which even can put you into jail.


----------

