|
Notices |
View Poll Results: Is Iran actively developing nuclear weapons? | |||
Yes (and it worries me) | 43 | 51.19% | |
Yes (and I don't care) | 13 | 15.48% | |
No (and I'd be worried if they did) | 5 | 5.95% | |
No (and I don't care) | 6 | 7.14% | |
Not sure (and I am worried they would) | 9 | 10.71% | |
Not sure (and I don't care) | 8 | 9.52% | |
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
12-03-2007, 07:43 PM | #121 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
Post #7 on <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103954">this thread:</a>
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-03-2007 at 07:57 PM.. |
||||
12-03-2007, 09:00 PM | #122 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
So Iran continues to enrich uranium at the same rate as before but demilitarized the project.
I have the same prediction as they had before, Iran will have a working bomb next decade. And host, why oh why didn't the shadow government of lies stop the intelligence agencies from making this report? Does it only work against obscure AP reporters but not at the CIA? Seems sort of silly don't you think? Quote:
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-03-2007, 09:09 PM | #123 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
It's too bad that your conclusion is baseless. They are enriching uranium to 4% (instead of 90% necessary for weapons grade). Did you already forget that they allowed UN weapons inspectors to do their inspecting back in 2006.
|
12-03-2007, 09:22 PM | #124 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Ustwo, that NIE has been held back for over a year by the Bush administration. No one, outside of the Bush/Cheney fear machine, claims that Iran is actively building a nuclear bomb. Frankly, isn't this just another Iraq redux, mushroom clouds and all that?
Shouldn't our real concerns be directed toward our great "friends" in Pakistan? They have multiple bombs and have spread the technology to other countries. They harbor the mastermind of 9/11 and his Taliban buddies. Pakistan is in political crisis and you believe our greatest threat is from Iran?! Willful ignorance makes my head hurt.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 |
12-03-2007, 09:50 PM | #126 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
<i>"Key Judgments A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program 1"</i> and: <i>"2007 National Intelligence Estimate Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."</i> Then, add this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 12:29 AM.. |
||||||
12-04-2007, 12:31 AM | #128 (permalink) | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mojo, PLEASE read all of my two prior (see below) posts referencing Timmerman, and William Rivers Pitt's January, 2006 description of Timmerman and the agenda of he and his "colleagues": Quote:
Tiimmerman is viewed as legitimate...."mainstream" in the sphere of influence you allow into your thinking....so is "Powerline Blog" Time's 2004 <a href="http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1009851,00.html">BLOG OF THE YEAR!</a> Sheesh!! I don't know if your opinions and the influences on them that you embrace is the scariest thing about all of this, or the fact that you support the US military killing huge numbers of people and your reasons for doing it are so flawed. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 12:43 AM.. |
|||||
12-04-2007, 06:01 AM | #130 (permalink) | |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
|
12-04-2007, 06:39 AM | #131 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
The most dangerous thing about Iran?
Just how powerful it has become in regional politics since the US et al. wrecked Iraq. This is not because of nuclear weapons - Iran is effectively running large swaths of Iraq and Afghanistan and the small nations in the area are crapping themselves as a result.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum. |
12-04-2007, 07:23 AM | #132 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
What is scary is 66% of the people on this forum voted yes to this poll and now we can all see that BushCo duped us again. Fool me once shame on you.....
Here is a list of the people that voted yes and were worried about Iran: Aladdin Sane, BigBen, Bodyhammer86, CandleInTheDark, Carno, CSflim, cyrnel, Daoust, Daval, dksuddeth, Dragonlich, FlatLand Flyer, flstf, forseti-6, Gabbyness, Humanitarismus, iccky, irateplatypus, jbauer2485, jorgelito, Karby, Lebell, Locke7, Locobot, loquitur, Lucarelli, Medusa, MojoRisin, Mojo_PeiPei, politicophile, powerclown, Redlemon, Seaver, SirLance, sprocket, SteelyLoins, stevo, stingc, The_Jazz, Ustwo, Xazy, zfleebin, Zodijackyl Here is a list of the people that voted yes but were not worried: Arc101, Charlatan, Elphaba, filtherton, Gatorade Frost, highthief, Incosian, MexicanOnABike, samcol, scout, Stick, Uncle Pony, Unright My question for you people is with the NIE have your views changed? What are your views on the Bush admin holding back evidence so that they could further put us in a fear bubble? Last edited by Rekna; 12-04-2007 at 07:25 AM.. |
12-04-2007, 07:26 AM | #133 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Wait, Iran isn't making nuclear weapons and hasn't been since 2003? Oh fuck--who are we going to bomb now??
Kinda makes you wonder who's steering this boat, doesn't it? The cynical among us will see politically-motivated scare tactics in this. The fair-minded among us will merely see incompetence. The self-blinded among us will claim the new NIE is politically biased, or that we need to stop them from making those dangerous nuclear power plants... Last edited by ratbastid; 12-04-2007 at 07:28 AM.. |
12-04-2007, 07:54 AM | #135 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Lets see they stopped working on making a bomb in 2003, which in itself shows they had the desire to do so, they are still making the materials that could make said bomb at the same pace as always. The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-04-2007, 07:58 AM | #136 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
12-04-2007, 08:00 AM | #137 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
at what point is enough enough?
it seems to me that, functionally speaking, in the united states of late 2007, six years into a brave new world of neo-fascism american-style, three or four (i repress) years into being mired in a war based on false premises, managed with breathtaking ineptness, 7 years into the campaign to stack the judiciary in order to institutionalize neo-fascism american style and protect the administration itself from the consequences of its own idiocy and disengenuousness, there is no point at which enough is enough, there is no limit on the magnitude of the disinformation, no limit at all. i think in political terms we, the people, are in serious trouble in the states. this latest concession of the obvious fraud that was the bush administration's line simply demonstrates it. the administration has to spin this report in a way that maintains a veneer of legitimacy--whence the surreal line that ustwo dutifully repeats and which no doubt will be repeated by others who confuse the line of the moment from the bush people, and its echo within the shambles that is the conservative media apparatus, with something legitimate. but this is no more than spin. this newest bit of pathetic theater from those specialists in self-serving disinformation wrapped up as bromides about national security represents is a very sobering lesson in the extent to which we, the people, are irrelevant, the extent to which we, the people, who allegedly "are sovereign" in a democratic system, have allowed ourselves to be herded first here, then there---we are as cheney once said we are--a management problem. so this bunch of disengenuous neo-fascists are still able to operate. so this bunch maintains some veneer of legitimacy. personally, i think that if this administration had even the slightest bit of integrity and cared at all about the integrity of the system they have done so much to damage, that they would be talking about resignation. call new elections for the good of the system. it would be unprecedented--but so is their disengenous incompetence. conservatives talk about checks and balances as if they were abstract mechanisms...concretely it seems that there are no checks, there are no balances. that is why i find this report sobering and depressing and alarming.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
12-04-2007, 08:00 AM | #138 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
I imagine some voted the way they did because they always agree with Bush, some voted because they automatically disagree with Bush, and some voted because they did a little independant investigation.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum. |
|
12-04-2007, 08:15 AM | #139 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
I voted no myself because I did not see any real evidence presented by anyone to suggest the program was still running. History has shown us that this administration wont hesitate to show us evidence when it has some (even if the evidence is dubious). The administration didn't show us any evidence and instead used fear and talking points to drum up support which to me seemed like an admission that they had no evidence. Which is this case has turned out to be correct. |
|
12-04-2007, 08:26 AM | #140 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Does anyone remember what happened in 2003 which may have changed their plans?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-04-2007, 08:32 AM | #141 (permalink) | ||
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
what does it matter, ustwo?
seriously. seems to me that you are clutching at straws. you need to advance to the higher level of denial that obviously fills the head of the dear leader...this from todays washington post: Quote:
see, the administration is saying this morning that the fact that their entire line on iran of the last 2 years has been bullshit is not a problem because once upon a time there was a nuclear program which means that there could, at some future date, be maybe another nuclear program. reality be damned. Quote:
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
||
12-04-2007, 08:48 AM | #142 (permalink) |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
It might be worth bearing in mind that we still don't actually know what's going on over there. This NIE may be wrong as well. I'm not putting all viewpoints on equal ground here, but I don't think that we should accept this most recent report as the gospel truth.
Intelligence represents things that we think to be true, not things that we know to be true. Confusing what we think and what we know is a good way to make rash decisions.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
12-04-2007, 08:52 AM | #143 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
2003 US invades Iraq, with WMD's being the key reason given.
2003 Iran demilitarizes their nuclear program but keeps making enriched Uranium despite having basically free energy underneath them and having far more important uses for state money. By approximately 2011-2015 they should have enough nuclear material for a bomb, this has not changed. 2008 we should have a democrat as president. They need a Carter again, not a Reagan. I'm not sure what has changed here? They are not actively trying to build a bomb, a bomb they can't build until 2010+ no matter what. Building the bomb is not the rate limiting step here.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-04-2007, 08:55 AM | #144 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
12-04-2007, 09:02 AM | #145 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
you know, i'm not naive enough to imagine that there are no significant geopolitical problems that the bush people, in their fumbling and bumbling way, were trying to work out how to confront, and that they confronted them in the way that worked best for them, by distorting information, creating a fradulent threat and floating it out there in order to soften up consent for whatever fumbling and bumbling direction they chose to take.
but the idea that there was ever a serious possibility of invading iran seems absurd. invading iran would have made iraq look like a walk in the park on a peaceful sunday afternoon, like something from a seurat painting. they knew it. so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there was never any serious intent to "do something" about iran. there is a problem. the bush administration created it when they chose to invade iraq. they have no idea what to do. not wanting to concede regional power status to iran is probably one of the main geopolitical rationales for continuing the grind in iraq, talking about an endless presence blah blah blah. fine. its horrifying when you think about what this actually means, but fine. but they also had a legitimacy problem to handle domestically, not only because they invaded iraq, but all the more because of the false grounds that they chose to float--for expediency's sake (remember wolfowitz's explanation?)----the theater of the "iranian threat" seems to me to have mostly been about maintaining a veneer of legitimacy internally by creating another Enemy. if there had been a nuclear program, if there had been targets to bomb, i expect these clowns would have done it and justified it later. but there werent any targets. because there was no program. rationalize this as you like, but this interpretation seems hard to get around.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
12-04-2007, 09:16 AM | #146 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
If the President of Iran can stupidly lie - publicly - about his country not being populated by a single homosexual, why should anyone believe his assertions about peaceful nuclear energy. With alll that oil they have, why is it even necessary for them to have nuclear energy? Shouldn't they be thinking about rebuilding infrastructure so 60,000+ people don't die in routine earthquakes and other natural disasters because they live in prehistoric collapsable mud huts? Anyway, it won't be the US who bombs Iran's nuclear weapons factories, it'll be Israel (as they did to Syria a few months ago).
|
12-04-2007, 09:55 AM | #147 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
I was proud of the way the media have headlined this as the US opinion. "US Says Iran Not Working on Nukes" is the prevailing headline. Just underscores again that Bush Industries, Inc. is DISTINCT from the United States of America. |
|
12-04-2007, 09:58 AM | #148 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is the rational explanation for discontinuing their nuclear weapons program, if they ever had one of any significant nature operating in the first place. US intelligence was corrupted by Cheney during that period. You cannot see that the unnecessary invasion of Iraq made the ME more dangerous for the US, not less, and at a cost of 4000 US military lives, another thousand dead US paid "contractors", at least 20000 seriously wounded US troops, a trillion plus dollars in short and long term costs, 3 million Iraqis driven from their homes, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, and a ground down US military land force....hobbled in it's entirety, right down to the 50 individual state militias....and you still don't see it. You have one thing right, the republican "leadership" you show such high regard for, is about one thing only, making it appear that they are "the answer" to dealing with the greatest threats to our nation. What you don't recognize is that they have been, since 9/11 themselves the greatest threat. Their rhetoric, plans, and policies are killing our military, our reputationin the world, our treasury, and our fellowship with one another here at home. You are what you read, Ustwo. Read the first page of this thread to see the stark differences between what each of us posted, and our posted supporting sources. If you read Ken Timmerman et al, as "serious" sources, you buy the BS. You spout your parisan "blather" about "manly man" "republican daddy" we'll keep you safe from "the other" and those sissy weak kneed democrats....it's hard to tell the difference between the two, isn't it....BULLSHIT. You read the obvious propaganda from sources like Ken Timmerman and PowerlineBlog, and who knows how many CNP/SCIAFE/COORS/MELLON financed "sources", AEI & HERITAGE-ized, tomes with Bozell's ridiculous agenda all over them....and, miracle of miracles, they all reinforce your POV, and nothing else EVER gets through: Quote:
The problem is, you're wrong, always wrong, and lotsa people who didn't have to die, are killed by the empty, senseless policies your so heartily embrace. Look at the two leading candidates of your "party of protection". Giuliani, 9/11 shill and corrupt joke, at this point. He was so committed to "keeping our nation safe", that he appointed an NYPD police commissioner...the head of a 45,000 officers dept., who he knew had mob ties, and avoided a full background check for, as a condition of appointment to that key security position. He then pushed Bush to appoint Kerik as first chief of the new DHS, and Bush did! Giuliani insisted on building his new NYC "disaster command center", within walking distance of his city hall office" <h3>Ustwo, you recited it....but you don't understand it. Understand that you've bought a line of political lies intended no the "keep us safe", but to keep republicans in office. They don't believe their own bullshit, but you obviously have bought it:</h3> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 10:13 AM.. |
||||||
12-04-2007, 09:59 AM | #149 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Also, the homosexual thing was a mistranslation (one of many mistranslations of the Iranian leader). According to a friend of mine who actually speaks arabic, what he said was more like, "Homosexuality isn't a problem here.", not "There are no homosexuals here."
|
12-04-2007, 10:27 AM | #150 (permalink) | ||
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
||
12-04-2007, 10:30 AM | #151 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 10:49 AM.. |
||||
12-04-2007, 10:43 AM | #152 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
12-04-2007, 10:54 AM | #153 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
That makes more sense, as Farsi is the predominant language in Iran -- which, incidentally, is not considered to be an arabic nation or culture.
ustwo, this bit's for you: Quote:
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
12-04-2007, 10:56 AM | #154 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
Quote:
retreating into categories of intent---relying on speculation as to motive and/or desire--is the weakest possible form of argument, given the evidence presented in the nic report--which i would advise you to read. all this seems to be about is avoiding dissonance: avoiding a confrontation with the simple fact that the premises for the position you, ustwo, as dutiful repetition machine for the conservative meme-of-the-moment, have been falsified. while such a move has been from the outset a basic pattern within american populist conservative ideology for a very long time, and seems to me part of such appeal as it has for those who subscribe to it, there really has to come a point where this move simply does not operate any longer. this seems to me to be such a point. so deal with the situation, ustwo, and stop shucking and jiving. there has been no nuclear weapons program in iran since 2003. so the entirety of the bush administration's marketing campaign--stoking the flame of jingoism by providing it with yet another abstract bogeyman that conservatives can be afraid of on the one hand and posture as manly about on the other--has been false. it is self-evident that iran stands to be the principal beneficiary of american fumbling in iraq. it is self-evident that in geo-political terms, the american right can't but see this as a yet another disaster brought about by the disaster that is iraq. worse than the cholera epidemic that reports over the weekend outlined as a very real possibility in baghdad in the coming months as a function of the collapse of the sewage system and the coming rainy season because it affects conservative credibility--which apparently folk like you imagine that you still have--and not only expendable brown people far away. if you accept that an iran as beneficiary is not in american interests--thanks in large part to the history of american involvement in iran around the person of that lovely guy the shah, whose policies were responsible for the revolution and so was (along with the americans) responsible for the possibility that the americans now fear---is you accept this premise (which i am not entirely sure about but putting that aside for the moment) NOTHING could be more counter-productive than creating a needless legitimacy problem for the administration itself as a function of choosing expediency over reason, ease over deliberation, in their idiot choices as to how to address this strategic situation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
12-04-2007, 11:01 AM | #156 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
|
|
12-04-2007, 11:02 AM | #157 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-04-2007, 11:51 AM | #158 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Doesn't that aid in making my opinion more coherent than yours? With the removal by the US of Saddam's regime, isn't it logical that Iraq's next door neighbor, a petroleum rich nation of 70 million, would be the dominant country in that region? Who was primarily responsible for Iran's new "dominance", Iran, or the US? Can you name another reasonable contender for that descritpion? Doesn't "dominant" have something to do with number of square miles, population, wealth, and alliances? Can you show us how Iran has been more of an aggressor nation in it's own region, than, say...the US, a nation from the other side of the globe has been? What country has made more threats, invaded other countries, filled the gulf and the skies above it with menacing military hardware, Iran, or the US? How would you react if Iran placed a series of naval task forces in Puget or in Long Island sound? Would you be as comparatively measured in your reaction, as Iran has been to US military presence on it's borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, and along it's shores? Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 12:01 PM.. |
|
12-04-2007, 12:55 PM | #160 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Tags |
developing, iran, nuclear, weapons |
|
|