Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 12-04-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Not that you're right or wrong, it shows that you probably have way more time on your hands to make your point.

So you're too busy to show your work? I'm interested too--what makes you think the things you claim to think? Because as far as I can tell, they're unsupportable by anything resembling fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Yes. Is it possible that the intervention in Iraq was really aimed at neutralizing Iran's growing dominance in the region all along?

No, that's not possible. Again, facts.

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

ottopilot · 12-04-2007, 01:46 PM

Rekna · 12-04-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Could you please support your opinion?

I'll support mine, please read the NIE.

Now support yours.

host · 12-05-2007, 12:48 AM

We are going to be subjected to this "theory", often in the coming days:

Quote:

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

...BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

....(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

Mr. Ambassador, welcome back.

BOLTON: Glad to be here.

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

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

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

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

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

And I assume that includes you, as well?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to what Dr. ElBaradei said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: The former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton speaking with me earlier...

Taken from the transcript above:

Quote:

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

-John Bolton

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

ratbastid · 12-05-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Could you please support your opinion?

Mine is supported by the NIE. Yours appears to be supported by a cloud of hot air.

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

Ustwo · 12-05-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Mine is supported by the NIE. Yours appears to be supported by a cloud of hot air.

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

Its amazing how democrats trust the intelligence agencies again

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

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

roachboy · 12-05-2007, 06:58 AM

nice, ustwo.

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

that's funny.

mixedmedia · 12-05-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nice, ustwo.

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

that's funny.

No shit.

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

ratbastid · 12-05-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

See, that sort of thing is so transparent, from those who have gleefully gulped the Republicans Will Protect You From Big Scary Terrorists Kool-Aid. If you actually LOOK, you'll see that line of rhetoric inevitably leads to the fabrication of Big Scary Terrorists. It's nothing new--we've always had an Evil Other built for us by those in control of the military purse-strings. But MOST Americans are starting to see through it. That's the difference 9/11 really made.

ottopilot · 12-05-2007, 08:43 AM

roachboy · 12-05-2007, 09:08 AM

topic coherence/maintenance intervention

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

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

ottopilot · 12-05-2007, 09:37 AM

Rekna · 12-05-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

Please provide a citation that they are enriching weapons grade uranium. Weapons grade is defined at 80% or higher which is needed for a real nuke. Also please let me know which physic you are seeing that told you that a democrat being elected means they will build a bomb. Cause my psychic told me that if a Republican gets elected the end of days will be coming....

ratbastid · 12-05-2007, 10:13 AM

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

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

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

Willravel · 12-05-2007, 01:54 PM

The bottom line is and has always been that the facts do not support the assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and yet the Bush administration continues to insist that Iran "disarm".

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

Skutch · 12-05-2007, 04:45 PM

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

Elphaba · 12-05-2007, 04:56 PM

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

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

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

Willravel · 12-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?

It's stream, and it's from a reactor. Why shout fire?

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

Skutch · 12-05-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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

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

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

I didn't know about Hersch, but I find it hard to believe (ie: impossible) that any countries' intelligence agencies would be allowed to make such public statements about Iran without Presidential approval. Plus, co-President Cheney was in the middle east 6 months ago.

Willravel · 12-05-2007, 05:34 PM

Could this be a part of a plan to finally establish a republican frontrunner? I'll be watching them each closely in the coming weeks.

Elphaba · 12-05-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skutch

I didn't know about Hersch, but I find it hard to believe (ie: impossible) that any countries' intelligence agencies would be allowed to make such public statements about Iran without Presidential approval. Plus, co-President Cheney was in the middle east 6 months ago.

(Thank you for the spelling correction on Hersch)

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Could this be a part of a plan to finally establish a republican frontrunner? I'll be watching them each closely in the coming weeks.

Given that none of the candidates have been given the nod by the GOP, I'll bet you a donut that another candidate is in the wings. Cheney's last heart event (and that he no longer has any supporters) might make it convenient for a new VP to serve out the last year of this administration and possibly become the heir to the throne. Of course a new 9/11 will be helpful to pull that one off.

Willravel · 12-06-2007, 07:22 PM

It's nice to be vindicated about Iran, though. I'm proud that my post history is a tale of how Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Others who were with me should also be proud.

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

Plan9 · 12-06-2007, 07:28 PM

*cries into hands*

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

rlbond86 · 12-08-2007, 12:03 PM

Olbermann had a terrific comment on the NIE: http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/index.php?p=215

Willravel · 12-08-2007, 12:08 PM

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

jorgelito · 12-08-2007, 01:52 PM

This is great news!! I have always believed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

Ustwo · 12-12-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shihab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometers that would enable it to hit much of Europe.

Just to remind some of you less military minded. There is absolutely no point to a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead. At best it would be a terror weapon.

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

Baraka_Guru · 12-12-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

At best it would be a terror weapon.

Just to remind some of you less propagandic-minded: This is called political bias.

Willravel · 12-12-2007, 06:39 PM

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

Ustwo · 12-12-2007, 07:50 PM

Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.

Iran has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel.

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

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

Thats a fine set of blinders.

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

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

ratbastid · 12-12-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.

No, he most certainly has not. That is a mistranslation. I can find you a citation if you need it.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Thats a fine set of blinders.

Are you implying that the 16 intelligence agencies are (gasp) liberals? Because they said Iran's NOT working on a nuclear weapon.

Baraka_Guru · 12-12-2007, 08:12 PM

How does the saying go?

Don't bring conventional missiles to a nuclear war?

jorgelito · 12-12-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

How does the saying go?

Don't bring conventional missiles to a nuclear war?

I thought it was "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"

Let's ask DK, he probably knows.

Willravel · 12-12-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map.

If only you knew the first thing about Iran. It's sad how people who lack the ability to see past partisan politics actually lack the ability to see truth even when it's stated to them repeatedly.

Ouch, eh?
Here is the actual farsi text from his speech:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iranian President

Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.

How's your farsi, doctor? Here's a clue. See rezhim-e? Does that remind you of anything? Like 'regime'? Well what do you know, we're learning farsi! Hmmm...so let's put that in. "I want the Israeli regime wiped off the map". Still kinda harsh, mostly because of the word 'map'. Of course if you were to ask someone who speaks farsi if they have a phrase "wipe off the map" they'd laugh and say of course not. Actually, the word for map "nagsheh", isn't even in there! Hmmm....

Here is the actual english translation:

Quote:

The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.

Wow. So you're totally wrong. I'll be waiting for your retraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Iran has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel.

And Israel has nukes capable of hitting Iran. You don't think having defenses is prudent? Oh, right, you want the Iranians to be wiped off the map. Or was that a mistranslation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

So we're going to ignore the conclusive report by the NIE? Which source more credible than the NIE are you getting your information from? Fox News, perhaps?

Enjoy those blinders, doctor.

ratbastid · 12-12-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahmadinejad

The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.

It wasn't for nothing I cited Khrushchev a few posts up.

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

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

Willravel · 12-12-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

I'd much rather have the Israeli government overthrown by the Israelis who are fed of with the ongoing civil war with the Palestinians.

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

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

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

ottopilot · 12-12-2007, 08:56 PM

ratbastid · 12-13-2007, 05:59 AM

I trust he defended what he actually said. It WASN'T "We will wipe Israel off the map", no matter how hard the Beeb or anybody else stands behind that mistranslation.

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

Willravel · 03-01-2008, 09:19 AM

Israeli Minister Vows Palestinian Holocaust

Baraka_Guru · 03-01-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Israeli Minister Vows Palestinian Holocaust

I'm hoping this was merely a slip of the tongue.

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

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

12-04-2007, 01:46 PM	#162 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:59 PM..

12-05-2007, 06:58 AM	#167 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice, ustwo. so you see the democratic party--the loyal opposition democratic party which has minimal ideological differences with moderate republicans (you have heard of them, i'm sure)---as a fifth column. that's funny. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-05-2007, 08:43 AM	#170 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:58 PM..

12-05-2007, 09:08 AM	#171 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	topic coherence/maintenance intervention at the risk of shamelessness, i put up a thread this morning about the press reactions to the nic report--lead stories in the washington post and ny times--that tried to get at questions that run parallel to otto's post above, but pitched in a different way (i foregrounded the role of the press in managing a political crisis rather than speculating about the maybe "agenda" that explains the bush people's actions)....i think the question of the report itself with respect to iran/us policy-warmongering relative to iran/management of the fallout from the iraq debacle fit here, but that other issues concerning political interpretation/consequences might be better either in the other thread or in a third that is framed in a way that makes it easier to talk broadly (your call, comrades)... this seems an interesting enough situation to merit some attempt to keep things from blurring into each other. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-05-2007 at 09:11 AM..

12-05-2007, 09:37 AM	#172 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 07:57 PM..

12-05-2007, 10:13 AM	#174 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Thanks for your elaboration, otto. I (and probably others) can now see where you're coming from, and we can now discuss that. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my request. It really was just a request, because your ideas are interesting and outside what I've heard others say, but from the small, fragmentary way you'd presented them, I couldn't get my hands around quite what you were saying. Now that you've laid it out, I can see where you're coming from and the questions you're asking, and we can now have an interesting conversation about it. So thanks. I actually think there's LESS going on than meets the eye. I think Bush is a cowboy who wanted to join the pantheon of war kings and who didn't have the brains or cross-aisle political savvy to accomplish it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Iranian weapons research ceased roughly the same time we invaded Iraq, but I'm not sold on the cause-and-effect you're speculating about. I think the Bush reaction to this "news" ("Well, I still see a threat there. Just because they haven't been building weapons for four years just like they've been saying, it changes nothing--war with Iran is still on the table!") shows that this isn't the master stroke of some grand global chess game. In my view, Bush is still a little boy playing toy soldiers. Last edited by ratbastid; 12-05-2007 at 10:15 AM..

12-05-2007, 01:54 PM	#175 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The bottom line is and has always been that the facts do not support the assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and yet the Bush administration continues to insist that Iran "disarm". It's beyond clear that the Bush administration is incapable of executing any kind of reasonable policy and considering the consistent work in opposition to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the good of the American people, they should all be impeached. I don't mean to shout from my soapbox here, but how many people have to die (current Iraq death poll lowest estimate: around 600,000) before we do something? I don't want this to be my legacy, and I sure as heck don't want to skirt my responsibility to running a decent government as a member of a democratic public.

12-05-2007, 04:45 PM	#176 (permalink)
Skutch Crazy	Not only do I wonder about the content of the nie report, but also the timing. What just happened, that the US intelligence services did a complete 180 with regard to Iran? Why wasn't this revealed a year ago? 2 years ago? I think something major must have happened behind the scenes for the US to back down so suddenly. It is almost Cuban Missile Crisis-esque.

12-05-2007, 04:56 PM	#177 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Skutch, the facts of this NIE was brought to public attention more than a year ago by Symore Hersh. Google and you will find his claims and how he was poo-poo'd by Bush. Once again, Hersh was correct. The timing of this report is an open question, but it is known that Cheney held up the report for a different result of the "facts". (Iraq, anyone?) "Faulty" intelligence took the blame for Iraq, and with the war drums pounding again, sixteen (I believe) intelligence agencies forced the publication of this NIE. If a pre-emptive strike against Iran has been avoided due to this, we owe the authors of the NIE that did not back down, the Presidential Medal of Honor that Tenant (and others) received and did not deserve. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 Last edited by Elphaba; 12-05-2007 at 05:05 PM..

12-05-2007, 05:34 PM	#180 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Could this be a part of a plan to finally establish a republican frontrunner? I'll be watching them each closely in the coming weeks.

12-06-2007, 07:22 PM	#182 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's nice to be vindicated about Iran, though. I'm proud that my post history is a tale of how Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Others who were with me should also be proud. I'd be a fool to take that donut bet, but considering I'm on Atkins you can have the donut.

12-06-2007, 07:28 PM	#183 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	*cries into hands* I don't wanna wear Velcro-closed pockets again! __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

12-08-2007, 12:03 PM	#184 (permalink)
rlbond86 Insane	Olbermann had a terrific comment on the NIE: http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/index.php?p=215

12-08-2007, 12:08 PM	#185 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yeah, I saw that. I like Olbermann, though I think a lot of it has to do with preaching to the crowd. I suspect that if I disagreed with him I'd find him obnoxious.

12-08-2007, 01:52 PM	#186 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	This is great news!! I have always believed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I couldn't care less who was wrong who was right. The petty bickering on this board is ridiculous. We're all winners here right? If you didn't think Iran was developing nukes then yay, you are apparently correct this time. Doesn't mean they aren't trying to or planning on it. If you thought they were, then yay, you win too, because ultimately, if you were concerned that they were developing nukes, then you should be happy to find our that they aren't or at the very least, not as far along as once thought. Sounds like a win-win to me. But my guess is that a few posters here simply can't let go of the whole "I-have-to-be-right-and-argue-endlessly-and-needlessly-and tell-everyone-how-smart-I-am-and-how-I am-perfect-or-how-other-posters are-boring-and-uninteresting-or-don't-contain-enough-links-and-proof-blah blah-fucking-blah" But if this latest report is accurate, then we still have sufficient time to deter them from doing so. My main concern was that their research had hit the point of no return. So as long as they allow IAEA or UN monitors and inspections, then their shouldn't be too much alarm. Some monitoring would still be prudent especially as long as hardliners like Ahdeminijad and and the Ayatollahs are in control. But yes, I am happy to see this report and can only wonder why we didn't see it sooner. Keith Olberman is a sports analyst. He was a pretty bad one too, I really felt sorry for Dan Patrick. Why anyone would listen to his politics is beyond me.

12-12-2007, 06:39 PM	#189 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Not only is it political bias, but it's not understanding that ballistic missiles would likely be the type of weapon used to counter a nuclear attack from the only other terrorist nation in the Middle East that's a nuclear threat to anyone: Israel. A barrage of land based ICBMs would be a decent deterrent for Iran to use to prevent Israel from attacking. Iran's missiles would have to get over Iraq and Jordan to strike Israel. That requires a long range ballistic missile. The mechanics may be rocket science, but the reasoning most certainly is not.

12-12-2007, 07:50 PM	#190 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Irans president has stated NUMEROUS times that they want Israel wiped off the map. Iran has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel. Iran is STILL enriching Uranium and will have enough for a bomb by 2011. Liberals still assume all is well and its just self defense and peaceful power. Thats a fine set of blinders. Edit: Iran is building conventional missiles to protect themselves from Israels nuclear arsenal? Thats not logic. I think will you do think Iran is working on nuclear weapons, my guess is you want them to have them. __________________ 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. Last edited by Ustwo; 12-12-2007 at 07:54 PM..

12-12-2007, 08:12 PM	#192 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	How does the saying go? Don't bring conventional missiles to a nuclear war? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-12-2007, 08:56 PM	#197 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 12:06 PM..

12-13-2007, 05:59 AM	#198 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I trust he defended what he actually said. It WASN'T "We will wipe Israel off the map", no matter how hard the Beeb or anybody else stands behind that mistranslation. Read Will's post above for what he ACTUALLY said--the sense of which is more like, "Israel is a temporary phenomenon."

03-01-2008, 09:19 AM	#199 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Israeli Minister Vows Palestinian Holocaust