December 4, 2007

Bush Administration admits Iran is probably not pursuing a Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_steven_l_071204_bush_a dministration_.htm)---------------By Steven Leser

If you had been following press releases and statements from Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency, you knew at least a year ago what it has taken the Bush administration until yesterday to learn (or to admit, given your perspective). Iran is not pursuing a Nuclear weapons program.

This http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran_analysis article yesterday by Associated Press White House Correspondent Terence Hunt raised what I am sure is going to be a common theme in the news over the next few days and that is the striking similarity between the incorrect statements and assessments from the White House on both Iraqi and Iranian weapons programs. Hunt and AP had these choice quotes in the article:


National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress in January. "Our assessment is that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons."


Just last month, President Bush, at a news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said, "We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace."


More ominously, Bush told a news conference Oct. 17, "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."


Asked then if he definitely believed that Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb, Bush said, "Yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."


All Bush and the administration had to do to get a clear picture on Iran was to listen to statements coming from IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The IAEA and ElBaradei have had trained nuclear inspection teams on site examining every aspect of the Iranian nuclear program for the better part of four years. The Financial Times published an interview http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft190207.html with ElBaradei in February of 2007 where ElBaradei explained the situation with Iran’s nuclear program. Here are relevant excerpts:


Financial Times : If you define industrial capacity as a cascade of 3,000 centrifuges or more, since if that was fully functioning it would take a year to get enough fissile material for a bomb, how far away do you think they are at the current stage of progress?


ELBARADEI: I think they are still far away.


FT: A year, two years?


ELBARADEI: It´s difficult, I really like not to take numbers, to speculate, but away from what, from developing the three thousand centrifuges?


FT: From getting three thousand functioning smoothly.


ELBARADEI: I don´t know, it could be a year, it could be six months. It could be a year, but we need to remember but as long as even they have 3,000 [centrifuges], as long as these 3,000 are under [NPT] safeguards, they cannot go beyond five per cent, people forget that... it's really a risk assessment more of tomorrow more than it is of today...

[and from earlier in the same article]

"Yes, they might acquire a little bit more, perfecting the knowledge, but to aim at denying a country knowledge is almost impossible, to say the least. And there´s a big difference between acquiring the knowledge for enrichment and developing a bomb. It is almost impossible for a country to, particularly because this right is quoted under the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], and the difference between acquiring knowledge and having a bomb is at least five to ten years away."


Even beyond the above Financial Times article, one can go to the IAEA Website and find documents like this one http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html , which details Iran’s signing in December of 2003 of the Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards which formally granted the IAEA the right to perform more aggressive onsite inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, inspections which in fact had been ongoing since February of 2003. Ever since that time, the IAEA has been issuing regular reports on the progress of their inspections. One doesn’t come away from reading the last four years of reports with any suggestion that Iran is hurtling toward full development of a nuclear weapon.


The Bush Administration is probably going to blame its incorrect position and previous bellicose posturing regarding Iran on the CIA. History will probably judge that the CIA has been this administration’s favorite whipping boy from the very beginning. Anytime the administration has made incorrect judgments, it was the CIA’s fault. Then, of course, the administration gave another body blow to the agency when it outed one of its undercover agents in a juvenile, cowardly and underhanded act of political revenge.


It is not the CIA’s fault. No matter what the administration tries to do, if in about 20 minutes of research I can pull up the evidence I included in this article to refute the idea that Iran was pursuing nukes, how can the administration blame the CIA and the rest of the US Intelligence community for its foibles? Again, as with Iraq, relevant UN Weapons inspection agencies were on the ground at the sites in question and performing inspections and taking samples and their assessments were ignored by the administration. I think the American people have a right to know why that was so.


I think the answer is that like with Iraq, this administration wanted/wants to invade and occupy Iran and is willing to selectively interpret intelligence estimates to do justify doing so. I don’t know for sure why, it is probably a number of things. Of course one cannot ignore the oil aspect. I think that Ahmadinejad’s antagonistic attitude was also a contributing factor. But we should not ignore that there are still a lot of former PNAC members and their acolytes in the administration. PNAC or People for a New American Century have been advocating since 1998 for more aggressive and militaristic US policies in the Middle East. PNAC has asserted that all the US had to do was invade a few Middle Eastern countries to show the US means business and the rest of the region would fall into line. These folks aren’t satisfied with the catastrophe of the Iraq war and want to try again with Iran.


This admission by the administration may be their way of signaling their giving up on their grand scheme to invade Iran. Bush is a lame duck with little more than a year in office and has a hostile Democratic congress to deal with who do not even want to fund the current conflict in Iraq yet alone a new one in Iran. Perhaps that has been the new Democratic Congress’ greatest triumph even as they have thus far failed to end the war in Iraq. They have succeeded; it seems, in stopping a war with Iran. We should all stay vigilant. If the administration somehow gets a reason for war with Iran that it things is compelling enough to sell, whether it is true or not, they will attempt to use it.

Now these persians and arabs will hate us even more!

Now these persians and arabs will hate us even more!

Since the people running this country have already killed around a million or more of them, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent women and children, I don't really think that that comes into play.

Now we look like a bunch of war hungry liars!

IOW, the leaders of this country have revealed themselves --for once-- as being just who and what they are.

yeah, maybe. But I was all pumped about Iran getting bombed. Now what? I have nothing to look forward to.
I atleast can hope the Steelers will stop the Cheatriots on Sunday. Maybe Roethlisberger will throw a couple of good "bombs". That should make up for my American win, win, win, war, war, tough-guy mentality!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. From the NIE (pg. 9 for the intellectually challenged2005 IC Estimate
Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable

Really. Do you guys even read the document or just cut and paste what some idiot says? You guys are so gullible it's amazing you can make it thru the day with your head still on your shoulders.

The IAEA has never given iran the all clear sign. From the IAEA's own website we have. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n003.html

That is good news, a nuclear capable Iran would not benefit anyone but the leader of Iran.

That is good news, a nuclear capable Iran would not benefit anyone but the leader of Iran.
....And, they have Iraq as a pretty-good example (of the downside) of not being as well-armed as the other-guy.

I figured news of Iran not having WMD's and the threat of war with Iran reduced, plus the cabal admiting it was wrong would be good news to people. I guess I forgot who I was dealing with though. We could cure cnacer and AIDS and you dip shits would accuse them of doing for the money.

The IAEA has never given iran the all clear sign. From the IAEA's own website we have............


Quote:
Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.

This is hilarious.

You read something that says they are not able to determine --after 3 years of intensive investigation-- that Iran even intends to build nuclear weapons, much less that they are in the process of building nuclear weapons, much less that they have them now, and you think it buttresses your point?!?!?!.......................ROTFLOL.

This is hilarious.

You read something that says they are not able to determine --after 3 years of intensive investigation-- that Iran even intends to build nuclear weapons, much less that they are in the process of building nuclear weapons, much less that they have them now, and you think it buttresses your point?!?!?!.......................ROTFLOL.

You were citing the same organization as proof that they weren't building anything. Now you're running down your own source? So what are they, Gold certificate of a bunch of dopes?

You were citing the same organization as proof that they weren't building anything. Now you're running down your own source? So what are they, Gold certificate of a bunch of dopes?

Freethinker,

http://www.turboninjas.com/gallery/d/3255-2/Owned_Gun.jpg

Bush Administration Admits It Lied About Iran Possessing Nukes
when did anyone in the Administration say that Iran possessed nuclear weapons? did i miss something?:@@:

This is freethinker we are talking about, the trees tell him Cheney is the son of satan and he listens.

This is freethinker we are talking about, the trees tell him Cheney is the son of satan and he listens.
my bad...:matrix:

Freethinker,

http://www.turboninjas.com/gallery/d/3255-2/Owned_Gun.jpg


Oooohh.. a guy with a gun...wow so strong..man he's tough..typical.(what a moron)

I figured news of Iran not having WMD's and the threat of war with Iran reduced, plus the cabal admiting it was wrong would be good news to people.
....Until people (finally) get the news the cabal had been bullshitting them, for months (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120302210.html?hpid=topnews). :rolleyes:

*

"The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency."

Oooohh.. a guy with a gun...wow so strong..man he's tough.

I think it is a good pic. Very telling.

The character that John Goodman plays in the movie is probably a carbon copy of Travh20.

A complete simpleton and laughingstock.

You were citing the same organization as proof that they weren't building anything.

No......what the statement by the IAEA organization revealed (although you are, laughably, too stupid to grasp it) is that we do not have any proof that they are building the weapons in question.

As usual, you have it backwards and cannot seem to comprehend what your own link is saying.

when did anyone in the Administration say that Iran possessed nuclear weapons? did i miss something?

Yes, you evidently did miss something.

Various spokesmen for B*shCo have been sent out to push the lies for months that Iran poses a dire threat to this country and that they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. (Only now, in the past couple of days, have they have admitted that they were misleading the people on that score)

It is disingenuous in the extreme to act now as if these scurrilous SOBs in the White House have not been -exactly as they did with the lies about Iraqi WMDs-- fanning the flames of war.

Amid deepening frustration with Iran, calls for shifting Bush administration policy toward military strikes or other stronger actions are intensifying, including among some U.S. officials. On the Web and through more traditional means, a wave of commentary, analysis, and think-tank studies on Iran policy—along with rumor, speculation, and possible leaks about military preparations—has been building through the summer.__________Sept, 2007 (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/09/14/think-tank-buzz-is-building-on-the-chances-of-war-with-iran.html)

As has been well documented (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/cheney-deja-vu/), the White House’s manipulation of the Iran NIE bore a striking resemblance to the campaign of lies that the sheep in America were fed during the build up to the (bogus, illegal, ill-advised, unwarranted) war against Iraq.

You were citing the same organization as proof that they weren't building anything. Now you're running down your own source? So what are they, Gold certificate of a bunch of dopes?
You seem to have misinterpreted FT's comment, but I'll let you and Trav high-five each other without actually bothering to think through what FT is saying. Though I will grant that his comment was worded somewhat awkwardly.

Trav, nothing sucks as much as crowing about a victory then discovering that you were wrong all along. I'm beginning to sense the makings of a typical Allforums pissing contest going on, and I'm getting sick of it. Try debating rather than posting "Owned" graphics. This isn't Fark.

I can't say I'm thrilled with your choice of "Owned" pics, Trav.

I'll say one thing though; what a terrific movie. The Big Lebowski is one of my all time favorites.

Truly hilarious.

As has been well documented (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/cheney-deja-vu/), the White House’s manipulation of the Iran NIE bore a striking resemblance to the campaign of lies that the sheep in America were fed during the build up to the (bogus, illegal, ill-advised, unwarranted) war against Iraq.

Um,does it ever occur to yer type,that the pres doesn't formulate
his own Intel.A Pres does not provide himself with facts that
fit his agenda.A Pres goes with what he has been arrived at thru
investigation and due dilligence.
John Bolton said earlier tonight that some things in the latest
NIE on Iran were comprised by Men who have certain agenda and
that means a propensity to find conclusions that fit into their
overall bias.Everything boils down to interpretations and certain
impressions.Even when we had hard evidence that Iran's Republican
Guard were providing Iraqi insurgents with IRANIAN manufactured IED's
many on the left { except Hillary } dint wanna hear it.
Bush can't win to seize the day,let alone the moment.
All you leftists wanna do is make a scapegoat out of Republicans.
Even things that are unequivocally Positive,like the Surge,will be
discounted and downplayed,because of Power Politics.
I'd juts as soon trust a Lefty about as far i wood an Iranian
Cuckoo clock maker.

I can't say I'm thrilled with your choice of "Owned" pics, Trav.

what? It is a shot from The Big Lebowski.

I heard this and was amazed they admitted it!

Now if they would just admit that 9/11..............

I heard this and was amazed they admitted it!

Now if they would just admit that 9/11..............

Hey maaaaaaaaan............since we're talking Big Lebowski-- are you really the Dude........the Dudester....the Duderino..........you know!......the Dude?!?!?!

:smile2:

No......what the statement by the IAEA organization revealed (although you are, laughably, too stupid to grasp it) is that we do not have any proof that they are building the weapons in question.

You're only reading half the statement you think supports your position. It says they have no proof that they are nor do they have any proof that they aren't. And yet (for some strange reason) they're concerned. Figure that.

That's no more a clean bill of health than the hooker claiming she no longer has aids because it's dormant.

You seem to have misinterpreted FT's comment, but I'll let you and Trav high-five each other without actually bothering to think through what FT is saying. Though I will grant that his comment was worded somewhat awkwardly.

Feel free to explain what you think he was saying.

Yes, you evidently did miss something.

Various spokesmen for B*shCo have been sent out to push the lies for months that Iran poses a dire threat to this country and that they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. (Only now, in the past couple of days, have they have admitted that they were misleading the people on that score)

It is disingenuous in the extreme to act now as if these scurrilous SOBs in the White House have not been -exactly as they did with the lies about Iraqi WMDs-- fanning the flames of war.
ok, how are possessing and pursuing the same thing?

your obvious exaggerations and mis truths serve you no favor. read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

....your obvious exaggerations and mis truths serve you no favor. read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Perhaps you should address this comment to our president as well. ;)

Perhaps you should address this comment to our president as well. ;)
remember the last time he read a children's book? i don't want him having flashbacks:hahanot:

This thread really has no point.. the admin thought Iran might WANT to come up with a nuclear weapons program. There are quotes that we "hope" they don't do it. Now, if it's clear they don't... I'm happy. Iran doesn't have nukes! This is a GOOD thing. If it's NOT clear... then should we find out? or should we "leave them alone".. you can't have your cake and eat it too.

maybe us taking out Sadaam scared some sense into them.

maybe us taking out Sadaam scared some sense into them.
it worked on Libya:)

This thread really has no point..

The point is that prior to a couple of days ago the liars infesting the White House were hell-bent on selling yet another load of bullshit to the gullible sheep in this country in order to foment yet another disastrous, unwarranted war. The fact that they got scared and admitted they were lying does not absolve them of wrongdoing or of having lied previously.

the admin thought Iran might WANT to come up with a nuclear weapons program. There are quotes that we "hope" they don't do it.

The liars in this Adminstration were saying much more than simply --"We hope they don't".

It has been demonstrated beyond a doubt that they were concocting a pack of lies.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/cheney-deja-vu/

They were peddling pure unadulterated fear once again, so as to have an excuse to wage yet another (extremely profitable for Big Oil, extremely expensive for the dimwitted taxpayers who were willing to go along with it) oil war.

Now, if it's clear they don't... I'm happy. Iran doesn't have nukes! This is a GOOD thing. If it's NOT clear... then should we find out? or should we "leave them alone"...

We have already found out.

They don't.

But what was attempted by the despicable liars in the B*sh Administration was putting forth --for the purpose of setting off another war-- the false notion that Iran did have nukes and/or a nuclear program for the production of nukes.

THAT is the point of the thread.

Trying to drum up a war. (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/09/14/think-tank-buzz-is-building-on-the-chances-of-war-with-iran.html)

ok, how are possessing and pursuing the same thing?

They aren't. That was part of the point.

But sometimes gullible sheep can be led into supporting disastrous wars on the basis of either notion.

your obvious exaggerations and mis truths.....

?!?!?

Name them.

(not holding my breath)

They aren't. That was part of the point.

so your lies are ok, but the mistakes of others are war crimes?:@@:



?!?!?

Name them.

(not holding my breath)
look at the title of this thread. are those not your words? did you not post them?

look at the title of this thread. are those not your words? did you not post them?

you want to hear something crazy? i think I saw some guy in dark glasses and an american flag pin changing the title of the thread a while ago.

you want to hear something crazy? i think I saw some guy in dark glasses and an american flag pin changing the title of the thread a while ago.
I'm starting to thing that FT is really a Baptist Minister and he does this sort of thing to scare ppl to the right.

So, Trav, Mike...how do you feel about this? (emphasis mine)

" The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, upended a long-running rhetorical campaign by the president and vice president. Just six weeks prior, in a signature tag-team offensive in late October, Bush had worried out loud about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East.

But the president knew the thrust of the NIE's conclusions about a nuke-less Iran at least as early as last August, according to Flynt Leverett, a top Middle East expert and former senior director on Bush's National Security Council. In an interview Tuesday, Leverett said that the bellicose rhetoric in October was accompanied by a telling shift of the goal posts. It was déjà vu all over again. Bush no longer spoke of Iran's imminent weapons of mass destruction, he spoke of its imminent plans to gain the capability for making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush knew the NIE report was going public, of course, and he has tried to spin it as a measure of successful policy. But the White House failed to anticipate the impact of the report, says Leverett, now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "Obviously," he says, "this NIE does damage to the credibility of their representations on Iran."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/05/iran_nie/

You can have fun and pretend that FT is a fool, but how do you feel about the fact that your President and Vice President deliberately lied to you and the rest of the American people?

(I'd also like to add that IMO they lied about something at least slightly more important than whether or not they got a hummer from an intern)

I'd really like to know.

So, Trav, Mike...how do you feel about this? (emphasis mine)

" The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, upended a long-running rhetorical campaign by the president and vice president. Just six weeks prior, in a signature tag-team offensive in late October, Bush had worried out loud about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East.

But the president knew the thrust of the NIE's conclusions about a nuke-less Iran at least as early as last August, according to Flynt Leverett, a top Middle East expert and former senior director on Bush's National Security Council. In an interview Tuesday, Leverett said that the bellicose rhetoric in October was accompanied by a telling shift of the goal posts. It was déjà vu all over again. Bush no longer spoke of Iran's imminent weapons of mass destruction, he spoke of its imminent plans to gain the capability for making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush knew the NIE report was going public, of course, and he has tried to spin it as a measure of successful policy. But the White House failed to anticipate the impact of the report, says Leverett, now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "Obviously," he says, "this NIE does damage to the credibility of their representations on Iran."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/05/iran_nie/

You can have fun and pretend that FT is a fool, but how do you feel about the fact that your President and Vice President deliberately lied to you and the rest of the American people?
lied when? no on has ever said that Iran has nukes, so nuke-less is a given! it's the intent and capacity for them that's the problem.

FYI-this intelligence is from a "defector", and they are more often the source of disinformation than good intelligence:thumbs:

(I'd also like to add that IMO they lied about something at least slightly more important than whether or not they got a hummer from an intern)

I'd really like to know.

one more time, it wasn't about the BJ, although i can understand his embarrassment over it, it was about the perjury covering it up:rolleyes:

lied when? no on has ever said that Iran has nukes, so nuke-less is a given! it's the intent and capacity for them that's the problem.

You're right of course...no one said that...let's try this again...

"The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003..."

And,

"Bush had worried out loud (in Oct. 2007) about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East."


FYI-this intelligence is from a "defector", and they are more often the source of disinformation than good intelligence:thumbs:

Of course. :thumbs:


one more time, it wasn't about the BJ, although i can understand his embarrassment over it, it was about the perjury covering it up:rolleyes:

Ok, how do you feel about the President deliberately lying, by saying that Iran had an ongoing desire to produce nuclear weapons, when he knew that they had no such program in place?

If you don't want to call it a lie, that's ok with me, but at least admit he was deliberately misleading. About a very serious matter.

I'm starting to thing that FT is really a Baptist Minister and he does this sort of thing to scare ppl to the right.

No, I'm no Baptist minister. And I wouldn't want anyone moving further to the Right.

But you're correct about one thing.

Religionists have always used fear to keep the faithful firmly in line.

And one of the primary ways the ConservaFascists use to coerce the sheep to *move to the Right* is to use fear. Fear based on lies.

________________________

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

So, Trav, Mike...how do you feel about this? (emphasis mine)

" The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, upended a long-running rhetorical campaign by the president and vice president. Just six weeks prior, in a signature tag-team offensive in late October, Bush had worried out loud about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions" to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East.

But the president knew the thrust of the NIE's conclusions about a nuke-less Iran at least as early as last August, according to Flynt Leverett, a top Middle East expert and former senior director on Bush's National Security Council. In an interview Tuesday, Leverett said that the bellicose rhetoric in October was accompanied by a telling shift of the goal posts. It was déjà vu all over again. Bush no longer spoke of Iran's imminent weapons of mass destruction, he spoke of its imminent plans to gain the capability for making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush knew the NIE report was going public, of course, and he has tried to spin it as a measure of successful policy. But the White House failed to anticipate the impact of the report, says Leverett, now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "Obviously," he says, "this NIE does damage to the credibility of their representations on Iran."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/05/iran_nie/

You can have fun and pretend that FT is a fool, but how do you feel about the fact that your President and Vice President deliberately lied to you and the rest of the American people?

(I'd also like to add that IMO they lied about something at least slightly more important than whether or not they got a hummer from an intern)

I'd really like to know.

What is the lie in this instance?

What is the lie in this instance?

"The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003..."

And,

"Bush had worried out loud (in Oct. 2007) about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions"[b] to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East."

Simply put, Bush and Cheney repeatedly stated that Iran was in the process of developing/acquiring nukes when they knew this to be false.

"The revelation this week of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003..."

And,

"Bush had worried out loud (in Oct. 2007) about a nuclear-armed Iran setting off "World War III," while Cheney warned in a speech that America "cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions"[b] to acquire nuclear weapons and lord over the Middle East."

Simply put, Bush and Cheney repeatedly stated that Iran was in the process of developing/acquiring nukes when they knew this to be false.

You might want to go back and read what it actually says. Then get back to us. On page 9, to wit 2005 IC Estimate Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable

So based on the intelligenc provided by the IC the existing beleif was that iran was attempting to build a weapon. The notion that any lie took place is only a wish.

And for added emphasis.
The NIE also says 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.

so you think they have no desire to aquire nuclear weapons and dominate the middle east?

I am wondering just what part of the statement from the National intelligence agency ----

""we do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons""

-- it is that these stupid SOBs cannot seem to understand.

How can you lobby for a goddamned WAR against a country because you claim it poses a "nuclear threat to the U.S." when it has been clearly stated that we do not even know if they intend to develop nuclear weapons, much less that they possess nuclear weapons.

so you think they have no desire to aquire nuclear weapons and dominate the middle east?
That's like suggesting, the purpose of the U.S. having Nukes is to dominate North America.

When you're already there, what's to dominate??

I think Iran is a little-more concerned about the NeoCons' moves to dominate the Middle East!

I am glad you people are so secure in the intentions of radical muslim extemeists. Seriously, your attitude of "BUSH WRONG ANYONE WHO OPPOSES BUSH RIGHT" is dangerous and just down right stupid.

I am wondering just what part of the statement from the National intelligence agency ----

""we do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons""

-- it is that these stupid SOBs cannot seem to understand.

How can you lobby for a goddamned WAR against a country because you claim it poses a "nuclear threat to the U.S." when it has been clearly stated that we do not even know if they intend to develop nuclear weapons, much less that they possess nuclear weapons.

actually i'm wondering if people can discern between a president using the bully pulpit to get iran to comply with it's treaty obligations and 'lobbying for war'. Apparently the EU is 'lobbying' for a war as well since they too want iran to comply with their treaty obligations and UNSC resolutions.

I think freethinker is just not used to having a president do what he says he will do so he is scared. threatening Iran after we threatened Iraq and did something about it carries nmore wight then hollow threats from the EU or UN.

I think freethinker is just not used to having a president do what he says he will do so he is scared.

I am definitely *scared of* the Administration of any two digit IQ pawn of Big Oil ....a lapdog who would (and has) peddle all sorts of lies in order to foment insane, preemptive wars of aggression against countries who are not threatening us.

threatening Iran after we threatened Iraq and did something about it carries more weight then hollow threats from the EU or UN.

Absolutely!

After a psycho has murdered one person, and is then threatening to murder another, it lends a great deal of weight to the supposition that he might do it.

actually i'm wondering if people can discern between a president using the bully pulpit to get iran to comply with it's treaty obligations and 'lobbying for war'.

I cannot believe you are so blind as to not realize the sort of things Bush and Cheney have been pushing, the sort of comments they and their spokesmen have made, in their attempt to lead this country to a war against Iran.

The links have been posted here more than once.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/cheney-deja-vu/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/09/14/think-tank-buzz-is-building-on-the-chances-of-war-with-iran.html

Apparently the EU is 'lobbying' for a war as well since they too want iran to comply with their treaty obligations and UNSC resolutions.

The huge difference is that the EU is not using heated warmongering rhetoric to try to instill a hatred and fear of Iran in the people, and thus drum up support for a war.

B*sh and Cheney and company ARE doing so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Neo-con Iran attack strategies (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4579)

First Attack Strategy

The first strategy is to drive up public perceptions of an international security crisis (or was to drive them up, now that this Administration has backed away from its former lies) by warning of a Third World War if Iran’s nuclear program is not stopped. In a Press Conference speech on October 17, President Bush declared:

""I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat."" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

Bush’s startling rhetoric was followed soon after by Vice President Cheney on October 23 who warned in a speech before the Washington Institute for Near East Studies: ''Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.” http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/

Cheney went on to allude in his speech to military action where the US and its allies were "prepared to impose serious consequences." He then declared: “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Second Attack Strategy

“Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as "counterterrorism". http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh .

The change in strategy was given a powerful boost by the passage of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment by the U.S. Senate on September 26 which designated “the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization” http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3017: . This would enable the Bush administration to authorize strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities inside Iran on the basis that they are supporting Iraqi terrorist groups targeting U.S. military forces. According to Hersh the shift in strategy is gaining support from among the American military. While Admiral William Fallon has privately expressed opposition to military action against Iran, the commander of U.S. forces inside Iraq, General Petraeus, supports the Bush administration’s Iran policies. Petraeus has declared: “None of us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern”. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?curren... Petraeus went on to claim that Iran was fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.” Consequently, limited surgical strikes against Revolutionary Guards facilities might be authorized by the Bush administration.

why would they back out of lies? why would they not hide the NIE?

For as evil as you say they are they do a lot of things even a non evi person such as myself would do if I truly were the evil cabal. If it were not for such obvious clues that they are not satan incarnate as you would have us believe you may almost be convincing.
But, real evil never backs down form its lies. real evil would have planted WMD's in Iraq ending all of this "patriotism" before it started. Face it, you just dont like THEM.

I am definitely *scared of* the Administration of any two digit IQ pawn of Big Oil ....a lapdog who would (and has) peddle all sorts of lies in order to foment insane, preemptive wars of aggression against countries who are not threatening us.

***************************
Oh! When are Bush/Cheney scheduled to take all that Iraqi Oil
you promised they would.?
Lets try and hole you to one promise per diem,at least.

I cannot believe you are so blind as to not realize the sort of things Bush and Cheney have been pushing, the sort of comments they and their spokesmen have made, in their attempt to lead this country to a war against Iran.

The links have been posted here more than once.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/cheney-deja-vu/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2007/09/14/think-tank-buzz-is-building-on-the-chances-of-war-with-iran.html



The huge difference is that the EU is not using heated warmongering rhetoric to try to instill a hatred and fear of Iran in the people, and thus drum up support for a war.

B*sh and Cheney and company ARE doing so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Neo-con Iran attack strategies (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4579)

First Attack Strategy

The first strategy is to drive up public perceptions of an international security crisis (or was to drive them up, now that this Administration has backed away from its former lies) by warning of a Third World War if Iran’s nuclear program is not stopped. In a Press Conference speech on October 17, President Bush declared:

""I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat."" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

Bush’s startling rhetoric was followed soon after by Vice President Cheney on October 23 who warned in a speech before the Washington Institute for Near East Studies: ''Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.” http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/

Cheney went on to allude in his speech to military action where the US and its allies were "prepared to impose serious consequences." He then declared: “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Second Attack Strategy

“Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as "counterterrorism". http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh .

The change in strategy was given a powerful boost by the passage of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment by the U.S. Senate on September 26 which designated “the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization” http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3017: . This would enable the Bush administration to authorize strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities inside Iran on the basis that they are supporting Iraqi terrorist groups targeting U.S. military forces. According to Hersh the shift in strategy is gaining support from among the American military. While Admiral William Fallon has privately expressed opposition to military action against Iran, the commander of U.S. forces inside Iraq, General Petraeus, supports the Bush administration’s Iran policies. Petraeus has declared: “None of us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern”. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?curren... Petraeus went on to claim that Iran was fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.” Consequently, limited surgical strikes against Revolutionary Guards facilities might be authorized by the Bush administration.

This is precisely the point. You can't distinguish between rhetoric and war-mongering.

Here's a hint about when you should start worrying. When they start massing the army and marines on iraq's border. When they start doing flyovers of iranian territory. When they go to the UN and try to get a resolution authorizing the attack. Until then no need to get your shorts in a knot. But then you wouldn't know what to do with your day.

This is precisely the point. You can't distinguish between rhetoric and war-mongering.

I can distinguish between the two, but I don't like either of them much.



Here's a hint about when you should start worrying. When they start massing the army and marines on iraq's border. When they start doing flyovers of iranian territory. When they go to the UN and try to get a resolution authorizing the attack. Until then no need to get your shorts in a knot. But then you wouldn't know what to do with your day.

I think perhaps we disagree on some basic diplomatic issues.

Do tell.

why would they back out of lies? why would they not hide the NIE?

They did indeed hide it.

They did everything in their power to suppress the report for a year. I suppose the pressure to release it became so great that they decided they had to come out and admit the truth before some small-time reporter in some fringe media outlet (the internet, most likely) somewhere did a story (certainly, none of the Corporate owned "journalists" can be counted on to grow a pair and point out that the Emperor has no clothes) on how dishonest they'd been.

For as evil as you say they are they do a lot of things even a non evil person such as myself would do if I truly were the evil cabal. If it were not for such obvious clues that they are not satan incarnate as you would have us believe you may almost be convincing.

:rolleyes:

Forgive me if I find your logic here laughable.

You seem to be saying --"Well gee, they can't be truly evil, because sometimes they do things that are not evil!".

But, real evil never backs down from its lies.

The best example of that I can think of is Rush Limbaugh. I have never heard that pusillanimous fucking gasbag admit that he was wrong or that he had told an outright lie.

But it also applies to B*shCo.....in the final analysis, they are not really **backing down from** their lies.

They are simply making a slight retreat so as to not be fully exposed for the liars that they are and for what they were trying to perpetrate; iow, committing yet another act of treason by dragging the country into a war based on lies.

That they retreated momentarily does not mean that they are not still pathological liars.

Face it, you just dont like THEM.

Yes....that's one way of putting it.

This is precisely the point. You can't distinguish between rhetoric and war-mongering.

You miss the point that their rhetoric was specifically aimed at fomenting a war.

Just because they --for now-- seem to have had a set back in their plans does not mean that they did not weave an immense web of deceit and lies in the attempt to drag this country into a war against Iran.

Not that any of the useful idiots in this country will ever hold them accountable for having done so.

Do tell.

I think perhaps you favor "gunboat diplomacy" a bit more than I do. :)

The best example of that I can think of is Rush Limbaugh. I have never heard that pusillanimous fucking gasbag admit that he was wrong or that he had told an outright lie.

But it also applies to B*shCo.....in the final analysis, they are not really **backing down from** their lies.


I tend to agree on Moral principles,certainly not Politics.
J.F.K was to be admired,but he also played Politics when it came to
dealing with Kruchev and The Bay of Pigs.
I like men,who aren't so consumed with their Ego's {Limbaugh excluded}
who will stand up and admit when they're wrong.
But it's a learned response that Men should never back down,as that
is a sign of weakness.
I think Bush/Cheney suffer that affliction.
Proud strong Hawks,who almost refuse to have the ability to
appear weak and fess-up to a mistake.
But being a Presidnet isn't for Saints.
Or a Vice President.
Sometimes Men have to swallow the truth and carry on.
For the Good of Country & Flag.
Hell,watch most any War movie from the 40's,50's. It's a given.
As for Limbaugh.He has a few character flaws.Some Biggies.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]You miss the point that their rhetoric was specifically aimed at fomenting a war.


Or more importantly to send a direct and pert message.
That is what leaders do.
Make sure in no uncertain terms what you expect from other
countries and leaders.
Obviously it worked.
If we hadn't started Iraqi Freedom,we'd most likely have TWO
huge threats in the middle East,gaining strangth and momentum.
Now we have NO More Hussein & Sons and Iran knows we mean
business.
2 for the price of ONE War.

Or more importantly to send a direct and pert message.
That is what leaders do.
Make sure in no uncertain terms what you expect from other
countries and leaders.
Obviously it worked.
If we hadn't started Iraqi Freedom,we'd most likely have TWO
huge threats in the middle East,gaining strangth and momentum.
Now we have NO More Hussein & Sons and Iran knows we mean
business.
2 for the price of ONE War.
The Middle East is no safer now than it was before we got involved there. Getting rid of Hussein was perhaps the only good thing that came out of this stupid war, and even that is debatable. At least Hussein was a known madman. When we inevitably leave, who knows what oddball will come to power.

You miss the point that their rhetoric was specifically aimed at fomenting a war.

Just because they --for now-- seem to have had a set back in their plans does not mean that they did not weave an immense web of deceit and lies in the attempt to drag this country into a war against Iran.

Not that any of the useful idiots in this country will ever hold them accountable for having done so.

Words don't start wars. Armies do. Unless you think bush's rhetoric is about to go storming across the iranian border and force the mullahs to throw up their hands in complete and utter despair.:woohoo:

Words don't start wars. Armies do. Unless you think bush's rhetoric is about to go storming across the iranian border and force the mullahs to throw up their hands in complete and utter despair.:woohoo:
Do you understand the word "foment"?

I think perhaps you favor "gunboat diplomacy" a bit more than I do. :)

I favor effective diplomacy. Sometimes the carrot and stick approach works better than pleading. If you could demonstrate that mere pleading with iran would work have at it. I'm all ears.

Do you understand the word "foment"?

Do you think we were going to force the iranians to attack us?

Words don't start wars. Armies do.

Absolutely incorrect.

Armies do not start wars. The military goes where it is told to go.

The people in power who direct the armies are the ones who start wars.

The words are what those leaders use to convince the People to go along with the decision to send the army to war.

When those words are lies, and they are used to stir up a war, it is treason.

Absolutely incorrect.

Armies do not start wars. The military goes where it is told to go.

The people in power who direct the armies are the ones who start wars.

The words are what those leaders use to convince the People to go along with the decision to send the army to war.

When those words are lies, and they are used to stir up a war, it is treason.

so now you're confirming what i said earlier. When you see armies massing on iran's border's then you can get your shorts in a knot. In the meantime up the dosage.

Do you think we were going to force the iranians to attack us?

Although B*sh and all the PNAC types would ---from the words of their own documents-- dearly love for that to happen, it likely will not.

Iran recently came out publicly and stated that it had no interest in or aim toward starting hostilities with the U.S.

B*shCo's campaign of lies was twofold; to increase animosity between this country and Iran, and to dupe the sheep into believing that Iran was some nation of "evildoers" who wanted to attack the U.S.

so now you're confirming what i said earlier.

I am not only not confirming it, I am directly and diametrically refuting it.

When you see armies massing on iran's border's then you can get your shorts in a knot.

The time to stop these RightWing warmongers from dragging us into another disastrous war is BEFORE they mass the armies along Iran's borders.

If it gets that far along, there will be no stopping it.

For now --even though useful ConservaZombies like you make every conceivable goddamned excuse for their warmongering-- they seem to have been halted from starting another war.

Although B*sh and all the PNAC types would ---from the words of their own documents-- dearly love for that to happen, it likely will not.

Iran recently came out publicly and stated that it had no interest in or aim toward starting hostilities with the U.S.

B*shCo's campaign of lies was twofold; to increase animosity between this country and Iran, and to dupe the sheep into believing that Iran was some nation of "evildoers" who wanted to attack the U.S.

Of course not. They saw what happened in iraq. They'd like to be around a bit longer.

I notice you've studiously avoided the question i posed in the other thread. So why do you think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a country which violated it's NPT obligations, hindered the IAEA every step of the way, an recently turned overblueprints on how to build a bomb to the IAEA?

So why do you think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a country which violated it's NPT obligations, hindered the IAEA every step of the way, an recently turned overblueprints on how to build a bomb to the IAEA?

I will be happy to answer. But first I'd like to see some substantiation for the claims the questions are based on.

a) Please detail the ways (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran violated its NPT obligations.

b) Please provide your evidence (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran hindered the IAEA every step of the way.

No matter WHAT they did in that regard however, the fact remains that they bowed to pressure and stopped their nuclear program. THAT tells me that they are more sane and reasonable than you give them credit for being.

Additionally, I understand perfectly why they might want to have some form of a nuclear deterrent. The nations around them have them.

And lastly, IF they ever were to develop a nuclear weapon 10 years down the road, it will not worry me in the slightest, provided that the current band of callous, greedy ConservaFascist warmongers is not still in the White House trying to fan the flames of confrontation between the US and Iran so as to have an excuse to wage yet another (very prosperous for Big Oil and Big Defense) bogus war.

I will be happy to answer. But first I'd like to see some substantiation for the claims the questions are based on.

a) Please detail the ways (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran violated its NPT obligations.

b) Please provide your evidence (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran hindered the IAEA every step of the way.
Iran violates the treaty
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
2) http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/89702.htm"In view of many years of violation of non-proliferation obligations by Libya and Iran, I am asking for the provision of information and a full measure of transparency," El Baradei said at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.

Iran hinders
1) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june07/iran_02-22.htmlKWAME HOLMAN: For the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, it was a return to a familiar topic: Iran's uranium enrichment program. Yesterday, another deadline passed for Iran to stop its nuclear activities at facilities such as Natanz, south of the capital, Tehran.
2)http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav061404.shtmlThe most recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program chronicles a long list of deceit, defiance, contradictory accounts and denial of access to some key sites.
3) http://in.news.yahoo.com/070419/43/6errd.htmlIran stopped inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from conducting design information verification at the country's heavy water reactor at Arak, violating agreements with the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

I could post pages of this stuff.

And now we get the proverbial but from iran's apologists
No matter WHAT they did in that regard however, the fact remains that they bowed to pressure and stopped their nuclear program. THAT tells me that they are more sane and reasonable than you give them credit for being.[?QUOTE]
If they did indeed stop they've played it well. Except for the sanctions which are wrecking their economy. Whatever they may have gained on the international stage has come at the expense of it's citizenry. And we all know how free feels about gov'ts that use their citizenry. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Additionally, I understand perfectly why they might want to have some form of a nuclear deterrent. The nations around them have them.
Yeah like iraq, and syria, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan:rolleyes: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!

And now the irrelevant add on
And lastly, IF they ever were to develop a nuclear weapon 10 years down the road, it will not worry me in the slightest, provided that the current band of callous, greedy ConservaFascist warmongers is not still in the White House trying to fan the flames of confrontation between the US and Iran so as to have an excuse to wage yet another (very prosperous for Big Oil and Big Defense) bogus war.

So there you go. We wait with baited breath.

When you see armies massing on iran's border's then you can get your shorts in a knot. In the meantime up the dosage.

The irony is almost too much to handle.

It's wrong of me to be concerned about my country's actions until they become blatant and imminent, but you are allowed to worry about Iran's possible future actions. Got it. ;)

The irony is almost too much to handle.

It's wrong of me to be concerned about my country's actions until they become blatant and imminent, but you are allowed to worry about Iran's possible future actions. Got it. ;)

It might be ironic if your concern about your country's actions had an element of probality better than OJ finding his wife's killer. Even a simple analysis of the situation tells you the probability of an invasion is somewhere between slim and none. The military's ability to maintain 150k soldiers in iraq is stretched to say the least. The notion that they are going to be able to sustain 2 or three times that to invade iran is the stuff of hopes and dreams not reality.
As to the idea that they would bomb iran's nuclear facilities that's also a slim and none probability. A simple CBA, like the one the iranians are alledged to have done, says it's not worthwhile. Unless you have certitude that you can destroy all of iran's nuclear facilities their is more downside than upside. Since they don't even know where all of the facilities/research/manufacturing take place, and is located underground they're not going to get any certitude.
Given all that the only tool left to the admn is the bully pulpit and for the world it's the broader threat of sanctions.
In the end all the US can do is talk about it, take advantage of the (unrealistic) fear that they might actually do something, and marshall the world's opinion toward a regime of sanctions.
The reason you worry about iran is that they've started down a path that they can resume at any time, in secrecy. And given their track record on the issue their is no certainty that they won't do it.
That's why one worries more about iran than any US action.

Given Iran's track record of complying with the IAEA and the NNPT, I am not worried about them at all.

I will be happy to answer. But first I'd like to see some substantiation for the claims the questions are based on.
a) Please detail the ways (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran violated its NPT obligations.

b) Please provide your evidence (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran hindered the IAEA every step of the way.

No matter WHAT they did in that regard however, the fact remains that they bowed to pressure and stopped their nuclear program. THAT tells me that they are more sane and reasonable than you give them credit for being.

Additionally, I understand perfectly why they might want to have some form of a nuclear deterrent. The nations around them have them.

And lastly, IF they ever were to develop a nuclear weapon 10 years down the road, it will not worry me in the slightest, provided that the current band of callous, greedy ConservaFascist warmongers is not still in the White House trying to fan the flames of confrontation between the US and Iran so as to have an excuse to wage yet another (very prosperous for Big Oil and Big Defense) bogus war.

Just a reminder. I've held up my end. We're still waiting.

It might be ironic if your concern about your country's actions had an element of probality better than OJ finding his wife's killer. Even a simple analysis of the situation tells you the probability of an invasion is somewhere between slim and none. The military's ability to maintain 150k soldiers in iraq is stretched to say the least. The notion that they are going to be able to sustain 2 or three times that to invade iran is the stuff of hopes and dreams not reality.
As to the idea that they would bomb iran's nuclear facilities that's also a slim and none probability. A simple CBA, like the one the iranians are alledged to have done, says it's not worthwhile. Unless you have certitude that you can destroy all of iran's nuclear facilities their is more downside than upside. Since they don't even know where all of the facilities/research/manufacturing take place, and is located underground they're not going to get any certitude.
Given all that the only tool left to the admn is the bully pulpit and for the world it's the broader threat of sanctions.
In the end all the US can do is talk about it, take advantage of the (unrealistic) fear that they might actually do something, and marshall the world's opinion toward a regime of sanctions.
The reason you worry about iran is that they've started down a path that they can resume at any time, in secrecy. And given their track record on the issue their is no certainty that they won't do it.
That's why one worries more about iran than any US action.

You may be right waldo, but I do see several problems with your approach.

Firstly, you are relying on conjecture and estimates when you attempt to predict Iran's future actions and reactions to the US and its allies in dealing with Iran. While this may be unavoidable, its something to consider before you ramp up the saber-rattling.

Secondly, Bush and Cheney haven't been pushing for sanctions as much as they've been trying to scare the crap out of Iran, so I'd have to say that IMO they're using the "bully pulpit" to spread the wrong message.

Lastly, if successful in their campaign of fear-mongering, do you thing this fear will help the Iranians make a rational decision or hinder them?

It's been my experience that frightened people make poor decisions.

It's been my experience that frightened people make poor decisions.Reminds me of something Heinlein said:

"Never frighten a little man. He'll kill you."

:)

It's been my experience that frightened people make poor decisions.

Sorta like the U.S. after 9-11...

Given Iran's track record of complying with the IAEA and the NNPT, I am not worried about them at all.

Chamberlain wasn't worried about Hitler either. And Churchill was considered a war monger for warning the west about Hitler.

Chamberlain wasn't worried about Hitler either. And Churchill was considered a war monger for warning the west about Hitler.

Iran is no Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
I will be happy to answer. But first I'd like to see some substantiation for the claims the questions are based on.
a) Please detail the ways (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran violated its NPT obligations.

b) Please provide your evidence (a link, a news story, anything) that Iran hindered the IAEA every step of the way.

Just a reminder. I've held up my end. We're still waiting.

Sorry i took so long to get back to you on this. I haven't been on the computer all that much, and i lost track of this thread.

Firstly, no need to get so anxious about getting your answer. I seem to recall a time or two asking you something, writing a post that took me 30 minutes to research, outlining a question or a point i was trying to make and hear your refutation to, only to have you fade from the thread never to be heard from again.

Secondly; you "held up" part of your end.

You showed where they violated certain NPT obligations, but did not demonstrate where they hindered the IAEA every step of the way.

anyway...

Your question--

""Why do you think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a country which violated it's NPT obligations, hindered the IAEA every step of the way, an recently turned overblueprints on how to build a bomb to the IAEA?""

My answer---

No matter what they did in regard to NPT obligations or the IAEA , the fact remains that they DID bow to pressure and stopped their nuclear program. THAT tells me that they are more sane and reasonable than you give them credit for being.

It is easy to see why they might want to have some form of a nuclear deterrent. And IF they ever were to develop a nuclear weapon 10 years down the road, (which itself seems quite unlikely) I will not lose one wink of sleep over it, provided that the current regime --or people of their ilk-- is not still in the White House trying to foment yet another bogus fucking war. (a war that would be extremely prosperous for all the war profiteers of the military/Industrial complex who are huge campaign contributors to the conservafascists in Washington)

Here's a news cast (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120807Z.shtml)

You may be right waldo, but I do see several problems with your approach.

Firstly, you are relying on conjecture and estimates when you attempt to predict Iran's future actions and reactions to the US and its allies in dealing with Iran. While this may be unavoidable, its something to consider before you ramp up the saber-rattling.

Secondly, Bush and Cheney haven't been pushing for sanctions as much as they've been trying to scare the crap out of Iran, so I'd have to say that IMO they're using the "bully pulpit" to spread the wrong message.

Lastly, if successful in their campaign of fear-mongering, do you thing this fear will help the Iranians make a rational decision or hinder them?

It's been my experience that frightened people make poor decisions.

I don't disagree. It's always conjecture, best estimates....no one takes it lightly. Do you have any other alternatives? Or do you think it even matters whether iran has the bomb?
As to sanctions the US has been leading the way on organizing sanctions. Why you think they haven't is a puzzle. The sanctions became a vialbe option for many because of the bully pulpit. Better that than another war say many.
As to whether it 'helps' the iranians make a rational decision or not is unknown. One must first determine whether or not they are rational. There is evidence that they are not.

Sorry i took so long to get back to you on this. I haven't been on the computer all that much, and i lost track of this thread.

Firstly, no need to get so anxious about getting your answer. I seem to recall a time or two asking you something, writing a post that took me 30 minutes to research, outlining a question or a point i was trying to make and hear your refutation to, only to have you fade from the thread never to be heard from again.

Secondly; you "held up" part of your end.

You showed where they violated certain NPT obligations, but did not demonstrate where they hindered the IAEA every step of the way.

anyway...

Your question--

""Why do you think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a country which violated it's NPT obligations, hindered the IAEA every step of the way, an recently turned overblueprints on how to build a bomb to the IAEA?""

My answer---

No matter what they did in regard to NPT obligations or the IAEA , the fact remains that they DID bow to pressure and stopped their nuclear program. THAT tells me that they are more sane and reasonable than you give them credit for being.

It is easy to see why they might want to have some form of a nuclear deterrent. And IF they ever were to develop a nuclear weapon 10 years down the road, (which itself seems quite unlikely) I will not lose one wink of sleep over it, provided that the current regime --or people of their ilk-- is not still in the White House trying to foment yet another bogus fucking war. (a war that would be extremely prosperous for all the war profiteers of the military/Industrial complex who are huge campaign contributors to the conservafascists in Washington)

That doesn't answer the question asked. That avoids it entirely.

One thing we do now know is that you have no problem with regimes that sponsor terrorism, that destabilize their neighbors and meddle in their affairs, that send their citizens (including children) to certain death, that object to freedom of the press, that suppress their citizens rights.....what's that i smell?

I don't disagree. It's always conjecture, best estimates....no one takes it lightly. Do you have any other alternatives?

No, as I said, I think a certain amount of speculation is inevitable. It wouldn't hurt to improve our intelligence gathering however.


Or do you think it even matters whether iran has the bomb?

I think it matters when anybody new gets the bomb. The more bombs there are, the more likely it becomes one of them will go off, either accidentally or intentionally. I don't subscribe to the notion that the Iranians want to build one so that they can nuke Israel, or that they want to sell one to Hezbollah.


As to sanctions the US has been leading the way on organizing sanctions. Why you think they haven't is a puzzle.

Yes we have, but then why all the saber rattling?


The sanctions became a vialbe option for many because of the bully pulpit. Better that than another war say many.

Again, I agree, but again, why all the talk of WWIII?


As to whether it 'helps' the iranians make a rational decision or not is unknown.

While I agree that we never will be able to predict the behavior of others with 100% accuracy, I do think it's reasonable to conclude that anyone would likely react better when not threatened.


One must first determine whether or not they are rational. There is evidence that they are not.

Even if this were true, which I don't believe is the case, are you suggesting that irrational people respond well to threats?

No, as I said, I think a certain amount of speculation is inevitable. It wouldn't hurt to improve our intelligence gathering however.
We agree. As for intelligence much of it is interpretative. It's like putting a jigsaw together where all the pieces are one color. It's nothing like 24.



I think it matters when anybody new gets the bomb. The more bombs there are, the more likely it becomes one of them will go off, either accidentally or intentionally. I don't subscribe to the notion that the Iranians want to build one so that they can nuke Israel, or that they want to sell one to Hezbollah.
That i'm not convinced of. I find it hard to make sense of why iran would threaten israel. The US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE... yes. Israel?



Yes we have, but then why all the saber rattling? Because it enhances support for sanctions.



Again, I agree, but again, why all the talk of WWIII? See above.



While I agree that we never will be able to predict the behavior of others with 100% accuracy, I do think it's reasonable to conclude that anyone would likely react better when not threatened.



Even if this were true, which I don't believe is the case, are you suggesting that irrational people respond well to threats?

Barring some statisitcal evidence i think irrational people will behave behave in an unpredictable manner regardless of the circumstances.

We agree. As for intelligence much of it is interpretative. It's like putting a jigsaw together where all the pieces are one color. It's nothing like 24.

I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV. :)


That i'm not convinced of. I find it hard to make sense of why iran would threaten israel. The US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE... yes. Israel?

I think it was grandstanding on the part of Amhadinejad.


Because it enhances support for sanctions.

In what way? With who?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV. :)



Can't bee.
Nobody doesn't NOT watch TV.
You musta just got up from a nappy.
Care to restate that opine.?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV. :)



Can't bee.
Nobody doesn't NOT watch TV.
You musta just got up from a nappy.
Care to restate that opine.?

Correction...I watch whatever my SO has on the TV when we're eating, usually The Simpsons or The Family Guy, and I watch whatever he has on when I go to bed...which is usually...err...The Simpsons or The Family Guy. ;)

I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV. :)



I think it was grandstanding on the part of Amhadinejad.



In what way? With who?

If it was just ahdmidinejad you might have a point but when we have ahdmidinejad quoting the original Ayatollah to the same effect and then have rafsanjani say "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. and the head of the Revolutionary Guards "Today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region. Thus, if the enemies show stupidity and make any mistake towards Iran, [Iran] will certainly use all the means and capabilities at its disposal.

I'd say it's more than one guy. It seems to be a pretty consistent theme of the iranian regime.

In what way. Sanctions are far more palatable to many than the thought of war. With who You might want to review the recent UN list of nations, UNSC....