Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=california-jewel;12218478]Oh good answer, that is their favorite quote, lets blame it on Bush.[/quote
Well, Iran did fight an 8 year war with Iraq, and that's a real war, with drafts and complete mobilization, and achieved nothing. Under Bush, we knocked off Saddam in a week. And the law of unintended consequences is that Iran definitely benefits. And for that, they have Bush to thank and we have Bush to blame.
I've read a bit of this mans writings and he is no doubt a brilliant man, but this by no means makes him the authoritative figure on the subject. Most of his background rests in Africa and the Caribbean. Also, his assertions pretty much contradict the findings of the most recent NIE on Iran. So given a choice between the CIA, the NSA, FBI and about a dozen or so other agencies as well as foreign intelligence and a man who is without a single doubt a true blue Neoconservative, I'll take the former.
There are those who oppose ANY action - sanctions, military, anything - against the Iranian regime to force it to end its march toward nuclear weaponization. There argument is, incredibly, that the regime's nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes! The oft-cited linchpin of that argument is the politically-motivated and debunked 2007 NIE report.
Well, the Obama administration and other Western governments have roundly rejected that report!
From today's NY TIMES:
"Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only is roundly rejected by Western officials and, in internal reports, by international nuclear inspectors.....
There are those who oppose ANY action - sanctions, military, anything - against the Iranian regime to force it to end its march toward nuclear weaponization. There argument is, incredibly, that the regime's nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes! The oft-cited linchpin of that argument is the politically-motivated and debunked 2007 NIE report.
Well, the Obama administration and other Western governments have roundly rejected that report!
From today's NY TIMES:
"Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only is roundly rejected by Western officials and, in internal reports, by international nuclear inspectors.....
So please, let's put that bullsh** to rest once and for all.
From the NY Times article, to which they actually published this...
Quote:
While outsiders have a limited view of Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration officials said they believed that the bomb-development effort was seriously derailed by the exposure three months ago of the country’s secret enrichment plant under construction near the holy city of Qum. Exposure of the site deprived Iran of its best chance of covertly producing the highly enriched uranium needed to make fuel for nuclear weapons.
HILARIOUS! The Obama administration didn't uncover anything, Iran came out and disclosed that they had this facility and by their agreement with the IAEA were required to disclose this. There was some argument over the timing, but in the end, Iran was in compliance.
Aside from all this, which is entirely based on Iran's signing of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which allows the IAEA to inspect their sites, they only have to cancel the treaty if they so wish.
If Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb, guess what, they have that right to do so and all that is required is that they drop the NNPT treaty, just like Israel, Pakistan and India and they can make all the bombs they want. Then they can tell the west to eat dirt as there is no legal recourse at that point.
However this thread started out with the following title, "Pentagon fears and prepares for Iranian nuclear missile attack on US", which is so ridiculously funny as it makes my sides hurt. You just posted a piece from the NY Times, suggesting that Iran WANTS and is covertly developing a nuclear weapons, even though there is no actual evidence of this. That is a far cry from Iran attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.
As stated earlier, part of the reason for the dispute on the 2007 NIE on Iran is entirely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. When they blamed the intelligence community for the debacle in Iraq, the intelligence community became much more conservative in its estimations and likely more reasoned. Now that it doesn't reflect the desires of this administration, it is bunk, much the same way the Bush administration called it bunk. It would be more believable to many if the NIE said Iran has interstellar star ships capable of blasting individual people on a NY subway. That is what is wanted after all.
From the NY Times article, to which they actually published this...
HILARIOUS! The Obama administration didn't uncover anything, Iran came out and disclosed that they had this facility and by their agreement with the IAEA were required to disclose this. There was some argument over the timing, but in the end, Iran was in compliance.
Aside from all this, which is entirely based on Iran's signing of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which allows the IAEA to inspect their sites, they only have to cancel the treaty if they so wish.
If Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb, guess what, they have that right to do so and all that is required is that they drop the NNPT treaty, just like Israel, Pakistan and India and they can make all the bombs they want. Then they can tell the west to eat dirt as there is no legal recourse at that point.
However this thread started out with the following title, "Pentagon fears and prepares for Iranian nuclear missile attack on US", which is so ridiculously funny as it makes my sides hurt. You just posted a piece from the NY Times, suggesting that Iran WANTS and is covertly developing a nuclear weapons, even though there is no actual evidence of this. That is a far cry from Iran attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.
As stated earlier, part of the reason for the dispute on the 2007 NIE on Iran is entirely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. When they blamed the intelligence community for the debacle in Iraq, the intelligence community became much more conservative in its estimations and likely more reasoned. Now that it doesn't reflect the desires of this administration, it is bunk, much the same way the Bush administration called it bunk. It would be more believable to many if the NIE said Iran has interstellar star ships capable of blasting individual people on a NY subway. That is what is wanted after all.
Thanks for the laugh though, its been a hoot!
Incredible!
You're still sticking to that report? You mean it's not the bunk that both the Bush and Obama administrations believe it is, as well as the major intel agencies across Europe? As long as you continue to base your arguments on that report, and you have repeatedly done so, your posts will continue to lack any credibility. The report has been "roundly" discredited. Get over it.
And the irony of ironies is that the same intel sources which were so wrong about Iraq are being cited by you as so right about Iran! Yes, they have suddenly seen the light of day! Of course if the report didn't suit your benevolent view of the Iranian regime then we would hear something like "Well, who can believe them? Look at the mess they made of the Iraq intel".
Talk about hoots
Incredible!
You're still sticking to that report? You mean it's not the bunk that both the Bush and Obama administrations believe it is, as well as the major intel agencies across Europe? As long as you continue to base your arguments on that report, and you have repeatedly done so, your posts will continue to lack any credibility. The report has been "roundly" discredited. Get over it.
And the irony of ironies is that the same intel sources which were so wrong about Iraq are being cited by you as so right about Iran! Yes, they have suddenly seen the light of day! Of course if the report didn't suit your benevolent view of the Iranian regime then we would hear something like "Well, who can believe them? Look at the mess they made of the Iraq intel".
Talk about hoots
Roundly discredited? By whom, by what sources in the intelligence community have roundly discredited it?
Back to the OP, are you suggesting that one man who claims Iran is going to nuke New York City is right because the current administration refutes portions of the 2007 NIE on Iran?
Again from the article you posted:
Quote:
After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr. Obama’s advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale — the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel.
So the key aspect of the NIE that the Obama administration disagrees with is that Iran is pursuing a smaller scale weapons development.
Ok, so how does pursuing a smaller scale weapons program equate to your original assertion that Iran is going to nuke NY City? You just cited evidence that they haven't developed a nuclear weapon but it is believed they wish to do so. Yet at the same time you are giving this as evidence that Iran is going to attack the United States... You have got to be kidding right?
What if we said back in 1956 that Israel's desire for nuclear weapons was indicative of Israel wanting to nuke Birmingham Alabama? Pretty absurd, right. Every bit as absurd as the evidence offered to base the claim that Iran wants to attack us with a nuclear weapon.
I remember when the US used another dissident from Iraq as "evidence" that Saddam had WMD's everywhere. His name was Ahmad Chalabi, and while this doesn't prove that Iranian dissidents lured to the US are giving as good of intel as Chalabi did, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
Very interesting article came out today. The pentagon is concerned about an Iranian missile attack. Not just on American bases and troops. Not just on American allies and interests in the mideast. Not just because Iranians nukes would set off a crazy nuclear arms race. Not just because Europe is already threatened. BUT BECAUSE IRANIAN NUKE-ARMED MISSILES WILL BE CAPABLE OF HITTING THE US! U.S. to test missile shield vs. Iran-style strike | Reuters
One minor flaw in this line of specualtion, the Iranians do not have a missile capable of reaching the US.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if we all HOPE for CHANGE. If that fails, it's all Bush's fault.
Iranian regime progressing toward intercontinental missiles
