Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 24): And again, I asked for a reference, and you give me none.

You won't get one. Tira la piedra y esconde la mano (throws the rock, but hides his hand).

Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): Better known as the cricket?

Chirp-chirp-chirp???

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 42): Enriched uranium is a basic part of any civilian use.

But there are several grades of enrichment. Reactor grade to run a reactor has the lowest degree of enrichment. I believe Fuel grade is next followed by weapon and super grade. Going past fuel grade has no legitimate civilian use. Iran is not happy with just having reactor grade. That coupled with their threats to "wipe Israel off of the map" would have rational people worried about their threats and they are building the capacity to make good on such threats.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 50): their threats to "wipe Israel off of the map"

They did NOT threaten to wipe Israel off the map themselves, their president only said that Israel OUGHT to be wiped off, and this means that it is just rethorics. --- if the Israelis one day believe that this president ought to be wiped off and do so, they will have my personal understanding for such strong emotions !

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 50): Going past fuel grade has no legitimate civilian use. Iran is not happy with just having reactor grade.

I think you missed out the table with the analyses of the samples. Could you fix that up please?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 52): Could you fix that up please?

That's is why I said "I believe."

What I listed in my post was for Pu.

Uranium grades:

SEU

LEU

and

HEU

Happy?

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 53): Quoting Baroque (Reply 52): Could you fix that up please? That's is why I said "I believe."

Al list of grades does not make me happy. Why should it? Isotopic analyses of Iranian samples would make me happy.

The odds are that the enriched U that Iran has produced is nowhere past probably 5%, maybe 10 %. Until we get a table showing the isotopic composition of a set of samples from Iran, it is all guesswork.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_04/iranmurky.asp

Suggests that the uranium gases made by Iran are not of suitable purity for high levels of enrichment and that most of the cascades have not been used on U.

It also indicates that some plutonium appears to have been prepared and that Iran provided some disks containing plutonium to the UN inspectors.

Isotopic analyses - I do not see.

http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=12019
Suggests that contamination with DU in Iran is small or non-existent, whereas it is known to be prominent in soil samples from Iraq.

President Bush is getting grilled Tuesday am at a press conference that is mainly about the recent Iran nuke report (he was on as I typed it). The press is very concerned and asked questions about Bush's views of this report and how it affects our policies as to Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic/Middle East world. He seemed to muddle through it, saying the info was better analysed and so on.
Still I don't trust the info either way or of the policies of Iran. Who knows how much they know of their possible development of a nuke bomb and surely they cannot be able to do that. They are still continuing to process uranium, mainly they say to supply power plants but could be used to make a nuke bomb. They have access to and have enough well trained people to make a bomb and the missiles to deliver one. They as a government support terrorists against the USA, the EC and Israel. Unlike the Soviet Union/Russia and China as to the USA and nukes, they have no incentive such as MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction if they used a bomb or 2, especially against Israel. Ironically, destroying Israel could destroy major places of important to the Islamic faith.
Until some way is developed where the controlling oversight of their full nuclear industry and research is in the hands of a sufficiently strong international organization or they change their polices as to continuing nuke bomb research or as to Israel and the USA, then nothing will change. Bush will still consider an attack on Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke bomb and he will have strong support of the whipped American public if it occurs.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 35): Which task was that exactly? I think you might find that Gorbachev thinks he took the decisions that ended the USSR for reasons other than Ronnie breathing down his neck.

I certainly understand that the pressure exerted on the USSR by President Reagans policies were at the very least a large factor in proving their economic unviability. And the idea that it was a no win proposition certainly led Premier Gorbachev to explore other options.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 35): As for Russian expansion, someone should check exactly what happened and why in the aftermath of WWII. Who was occupying most of Austria at the end of hostilities and did they stay there. Was there a zone of influence that Stalin had set out and that FDR had accepted.

Seriously...FDR accepted something he probably wouldn't have had he been healthy at Yalta. Churchill was shocked by what FDR took, and didn't have to take. All the talk about how the Russians won the war is crap. They'd have been overrun if we hadn't supplied them and funded them and kept the Japanese off their backs. They didn't fight the Japanese until the war was over (and I guess that's a good thing for us considering their history with them).

Quoting Baroque (Reply 35): Was Curtis Le May a normal balanced human?

Who are you to say he wasn't? He was a military man determined to win the same way the second world war was won....completely. He was willing to take casualties, as were all the generals and admirals of that war. I don't agree with everything, but he was never given the opportunity to prove his theories. He would have bombed the Vietnamese completely to the Stone Age had the Air Force not been restrained.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 37): In the absence of clear evidence of hanky panky, yes, give them the benefit of the doubt.

I respectfully disagree with you. I think that when it comes to nuclear weapons the only thing to do is be transparent.
If the Iranians won't do that then there's reason for suspicion and fear. If they refuse to open up then there's a problem and I don't want to take the chance that they're working on what they say that they want to do....which is destroy Israel and the US.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 37): The consensus of, what was it, 16 intelligence agencies is that they stopped the weapons program. Explain to me, in view of that, how you can justify taking any kind of military action against them.

Their consensus, again, is that they don't want to assign intent if they can't prove it in a court of law. The capabilities are there, and the potential is there, and the motivations aren't clear.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 37): Why? because without that and the equally-discredited WMDs line, they couldn't propagate the climate of fear in America needed to get the buy-in for their war.

The WMDs were there at one time, and there are still plenty missing. There were more than a few found afterwards, along with evidence of programs and program preservation. People want to prove things in a court of law...it's hard to do that. It's akin to having to wait until the crazy man threatening you actually attacks you to get the police to do something. I'm not interested in taking that chance with nuclear material.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 37): Now we're supposed to believe they are being honest and forthright about Iran? Don't make me laugh

Stop being polarizing by insisting that anything they say is a lie. It's not helping the exchange of ideas here.

I've not advocated attacking them...unless they refuse to open up their program to international review and inspection, like every other nuclear program out there. You don't hear the Brazilians or the Japanese bitching about inspections...do you? Why should we tolerate them not accepting review and inspections the way they have been?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 38): There is also a devastating (US) documentary on him.

Oh yes....the documentaries...which are more often then not hit pieces that skew whatever records their are toward the viewpoint of the documentarian. Michael Moore is a documentarian...isn't he?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 39): before the actual nuclear development program started and this in fact means that there NEVER WAS a nuclear WEAPONS program,

Dude.,...that makes no sense.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41): I'm interested in knowing what some of you would do to deal with Iran?

Tell them that they can have a nuclear program as long as it fits in the IAEA framework and is open to inspections and the fuel is controlled. As long as they're threatening their neighbors and funding/training/exporting terrorists they shouldn't be allowed to process their own fuel.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 44): Secondly, work the psychological angle with the overwhelmingly large population of youth in the country to sway them away from hardcore islamic beliefs -- after all they are the ones who'll be in-charge when the damn place actually does come into range of developing WMDs.

This I agree with one hundred percent. The youth of Iran are not happy about their restrictions they experience, and want more freedom.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 50): Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): Better known as the cricket? Chirp-chirp-chirp???

I didn't think it was just me.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): before the actual nuclear development program started and this in fact means that there NEVER WAS a nuclear WEAPONS program, Dude.,...that makes no sense.

whatever makes sense or not, there simply never was a nuclear weapons program in Iran
-

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): The youth of Iran are not happy about their restrictions they experience, and want more freedom.

-
Sure. But not related to the topic. Also modern minded young Iranians use the infrastructure of their country

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 14): When was the last time we were attacked by a nuke? Which was the last country to use a nuclear weapon on people?

It only takes once and I would not want to chance it

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16): The time to rail against FDR's 'illegal' war is loooooooong past. Though I am still writing to congress to investigate whether FDRs actions were justified. At least right now we don't have another Democrat with itchy fingers ready to press the button.

     

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 28): Pakistan tested their first nuclear weapon in 1998. Tell us this, who was president then?

It had to a Bush

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 51): Quoting Miamiair (Reply 50): their threats to "wipe Israel off of the map" They did NOT threaten to wipe Israel off the map themselves, their president only said that Israel OUGHT to be wiped off, and this means that it is just rethorics.

Ah the Islamic apologist is at it again. You must do PR for CAIR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bomb Iran

http://www.jibjab.com/view/31771#login_popup

I guess this would be a good time for us to offer to build one for them. I think we should role in thier and build a couple reactors for them. Go ahead and give them a couple B61's and let them put a additional fin on them and call them the XX-X . Make a friend of your enemy , its much easier to defeat them if needed.

If all of the China worriers are correct , then we should make Iran our "friend". At the same time offer to buy their oil at a inflated price , now that's carrot and stick.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 58): They did NOT threaten to wipe Israel off the map themselves, their president only said that Israel OUGHT to be wiped off, and this means that it is just rethorics.

The Iranian leadership would love somebody else doing this, and know quite well that this is not so easy

-

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): Stop being polarizing by insisting that anything they say is a lie. It's not helping the exchange of ideas here.

OK -- good point. I'll tone it down somewhat. But the issue still revolves around trust. These guys bamboozled the world into thinking Iraq was a much bigger threat than it turned out to be. And it's not that the intelligence was so far out of whack, it's that they cherry-picked the little bits that supported their already-decided policy to institute regime-change in Iraq, and ignored all the contrary stuff. Cheney and Rumsfeld got the message through to all of their spooks that they weren't interested in any intelligence that might give them -- or the American people -- pause. They were on a mission. As a result of that, if indeed they are telling the truth this time around, I can't accept it.

So here we are again. How long have Bush/Cheney known that the weapons program was stopped years ago? Do you think they learned that yesterday along with the rest of us? Here's a line from today's NYT: "Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week." Common sense tells me that's BS, and it's only a matter of time before some enterprising reporter digs out a memo from six months ago, or maybe even a year ago, indicating otherwise. They've probably been arguing for at least a year about whether or not to make it all public. See how cynical you can get when politicians pull the wool over your eyes?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): I've not advocated attacking them...unless they refuse to open up their program to international review and inspection, like every other nuclear program out there.

Another NYT quote (from Bush's press conference today): "On Iran, Bush said the report's finding would not prompt him to take a U.S. military option against Tehran off the table." So much for diplomacy. Has it ever occurred to these guys that no one likes to negotiate with a gun to his head, and no one likes to be told what they can and can't do by the world's only super power. What amazes me, frankly, is that they actually shut the weapons program down while the US was invading Iraq.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 40): The NIE have been shown to be incredible wrong before, but this time you believe them?

That's the whole point. The NIE's record, combined with the penchant for cherry-picking bits and pieces of their intelligence, doesn't give much confidence in anything they say now -- in either direction. Given that state of affairs, how can you argue that a military intervention should still be "on the table.," as Bush himself said.

The good news in all of this is that this latest consensus view -- right or wrong -- will make it hard even for Bush/Cheney to make a military strike palatable to anyone else in the world, and probably for a majority of Americans too. Maybe this is the beginning of the end for their disastrous foreign policy moves.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 45): Looking at pictures the Israelis presented, the thing looked like a warehouse for agricultural machinery, and was so easily visible that it is rather hard to imagine that it was really important

Then why has Syria been so quiet as to why the site was destroyed? And why was the site leveled before any investigation was made by other parties?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 61): These guys bamboozled the world into thinking Iraq was a much bigger threat than it turned out to be.

Did you read about this guy, A.Q. Khan, the nice man who was already convicted of selling nuclear technology to who knows who? Throughout this whole Iraq deal, I was more than surprised that the FACT, not allegations, that the FACT that someone who had already developed a successful nuclear weapon admitted to having sold these secrets.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 31): Let the guy go, terminate aid, and set him loose on the world market selling his technology

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 62): Then why has Syria been so quiet as to why the site was destroyed?

Syria has not been quiet but right from the beginning has said that Israel attacked a warehouse. The Syrian leadership however did not make much ado about the matter as the damage in reality was rather minor on one side and as the Israelis have proven that the Syrian defence organisation has as many holes as an Emmentaler Cheese.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 62): And why was the site leveled before any investigation was made by other parties?

as it was a dilapidated warehouse, to level the damaged building was a sensible move
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63): as it was a dilapidated warehouse, to level the damaged building was a sensible move

  

Dispose of evidence more like it. By wouldn't expect anything less from you MAF.

It is amusing to see some of the US critical and Israeli critical persons in here, suddenly and wholeheartedly trust one US intelligence report.
In fact some in here sweep all earlier comments off the table, just to make room for this "media bomb-shell".

To many other people, these international tensions are not simply a question of wishful thinking, hopes, dreams or mongering. It is real life issues that needs to be dealt with, so that the future we all step into, will be a better and safer one.

Israel does not agree with the report, and their intelligence will work hard to gain more knowledge about Iran's intentions.

''There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right," Ehud Barak

Boaz.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 64): Dispose of evidence more like it.

you suffer of a vivid imagination

Quoting Arrow (Reply 61): What amazes me, frankly, is that they actually shut the weapons program down while the US was invading Iraq.

So you're saying that invading Iraq may have convinced the Iranians to discontinue their nuclear weapons program? It seemed to work that way in Libya with their chemical program.....

Quoting Arrow (Reply 61): How long have Bush/Cheney known that the weapons program was stopped years ago?

I think the point was that the program was thought to have been re-started in 2005, which the intel types now retract. It was acknowledged to have been stopped in 2003. It was the intelligence led thinking that it had been restarted in 05 that got everyone agitated.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63): Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 62): And why was the site leveled before any investigation was made by other parties? as it was a dilapidated warehouse, to level the damaged building was a sensible move

Yeah....are you serious? Dude...they would be hollering to high heaven if it was just a warehouse. They're hoping the whole thing goes away since they see that we're serious about dealing with WMD programs.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 65): It is amusing to see some of the US critical and Israeli critical persons in here, suddenly and wholeheartedly trust one US intelligence report.

Yes it is.....and not a tiny bit (intentionally or not) hypocritical on the parts of some who've lambasted the intelligence community.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 65): ''There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right," Ehud Barak

There's sometihng you can take to the bank.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 28): It only refers to when it was said, not the actual facts that occurred way before 2001.

There won't be any facts, and I apologize if I can't give you a source, let me demote my posting to a simple opinion based on references the same as baroque showed. Now if you add 2+2 is always going to give you 4. If Pakistan was building a nuclear arsenal the US government under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and who else went ahead and allowt that, because apparently they found it convinient at that time (the same as was being friends with Saddam). As I have always said our foreign policy is at fault for most of the things that get back to us, in this case of Khan being the US complicit in letting Pakistan have their nuclear weapons programme.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): Yeah...you're deluded and I'm not....I apologize if I seem insulting...but I'm being literal. You are suffering under several delusions, including the idea that offering a quote after your post as a valid reference is acceptable as a proof.

An opinion is a opinion, and you are not offending me but perhaps yourself. If one let's another brainwash another and not dispute nor question anything that has been told since the 1945, one becomes simple minded individuals. I at least have the intent of further reading history and analyzing current events with an independent mind.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): God almight, son...when you do want to take the chance?

I am willing to take a chance in redefining the role as citizens that we play today, if we let the government govern us, we will become subjects of them thus our reasoning will be dependent of what they think is best for us and for everyone. It appears you have been set to believe everything you are told by them, that the soviets are coming, that the Cubans are coming, that all of them are coming... if we rethink and see how conflictual one becomes in this world and then in this society based on constant warfare, one doesn't find peace within itself, rather a conflict loving individual.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): You are not really well versed in history. The expansionist tendencies of the USSR were fairly well documented (look up Comintern) and their tactics and strategies required opposition in strength. I guess I'm officially old, since I find myself wondering what we're teaching the kids today.....shit, I'm only 40.

I haven't said the contrary, what happens now is that we haven't an USSR, now the only one left with expansionist tendencies is the US of A. And that my friend could be seen plainly from outside and from inside (my vantage point). You are being fooled into thinking that our liberty is better to be defended outside our borders or by stalling an unconfirmed threat, when clearly our boys have been sent as mercenaries of a quasi-roman style expansionist agenda.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 68): I am willing to take a chance in redefining the role as citizens that we play today, if we let the government govern us, we will become subjects of them thus our reasoning will be dependent of what they think is best for us and for everyone. It appears you have been set to believe everything you are told by them, that the soviets are coming, that the Cubans are coming, that all of them are coming... if we rethink and see how conflictual one becomes in this world and then in this society based on constant warfare, one doesn't find peace within itself, rather a conflict loving individual.

  

If Kennedy would have dared to find a true and meaningful dialogue with Fidel,things might look a little different today in Cuba..
Most politicians focus on evil facts on any of their "opponents" rather than working the complementarity.
Conflicts have never been solved by war but usually situations aggravated .
That's why Rabin had to die....

Quoting DL021 (Reply 67): with WMD programs.

a military production facility would have been hidden but that warehouse was NOT hidden in any way
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 63): Syria has not been quiet but right from the beginning has said that Israel attacked a warehouse.

Really??

"It appears that the Israeli planes were on a reconnaissance mission when they got caught by Syrian defenses and were forced to drop their bombs and extra fuel tanks," said a Western diplomat in Syria's capital Damascus. He declined to be named."

Another Syrian official said: "They dropped bombs on an empty area while our air defenses were firing heavily at them."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0620459420070906

After a cursory search, I cannot find a reference to Syria stating that Israel hit a warehouse.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 68): As I have always said our foreign policy is at fault for most of the things that get back to us, in this case of Khan being the US complicit in letting Pakistan have their nuclear weapons programme.

There was no proof for a long time of a Pakistani nuclear program, and as stated above, as soon as the hint came, sanctions were placed. This also occurred after the 1998 detonation.

I can imagine B52, that if A.Q. Khan were happening today, you would take the same attitude as you do now with Iran, and later place blame on the US for allowing it to happen. As your words above prove.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 68): expansionist tendencies is the US of A

You win the prize.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 69): If Kennedy would have dared to find a true and meaningful dialogue with Fidel,things might look a little different today in Cuba..

Yes, we would have had nuclear missiles in Cuba...

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 71): Syria stating that Israel hit a warehouse.

That was on the WEBsite of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) a day after the empty space and disappeared a day later again

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 73): Yes, we would have had nuclear missiles in Cuba...

Again, US propaganda at work. Didn't the US install missiles in Turkey? Yes and as a retaliation the USSR placed missiles in Cuba.

What happened?

Both sides agreed to remove missiles from both places, thus the conflict ended.

Who installed them first? The US.

Who installed them second? The USSR.

Quote: In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at Ä°zmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile (2,410 km) range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance. Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offense from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment â€" the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR â€" was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

"For every action there comes a reaction".

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 74): That was on the WEBsite of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) a day after the empty space and disappeared a day later again

I've been wondering where he went:

New York Times: Israel Unconvinced Iran Has Dropped Nuclear Program [link]

"It is apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time" Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio."But in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."

Mr. Barak also said the apparent source of the new American assessment on the weapons program was no longer functioning. "We are talking about a specific track connected with their weapons building program, to which the American connection, and maybe that of others, was severed." Mr. Barak said cryptically.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 55): The press is very concerned and asked questions about Bush's views of this report and how it affects our policies as to Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic/Middle East world. He seemed to muddle through it, saying the info was better analysed and so on.

Leave Barak and analysis abroad aside for a moment.

Question for all Bush defenders as of the latest comments from the administration:

How is it possible that the President can claim he didn't know details of changes to information reported in the NIE before it was released? What the hell kind of administration is this? Doesn't a competent person ask pointed questions of his staff? Doesn't a competent person faced with persistent national security concerns demand only the best and most up to date information?   

Say what you will about the state of the American intelligence infrastructure but they have an extraordinarily difficult job to do and employ a lot of talented people who care deeply about the country and put their best efforts forward on a daily basis. That said, when they make mistakes or report things inaccurately, it can be very costly. In lieu of that single point, it is imperative that the President demand the best information and then articulate his response to it. This President has shown of late, more than ever before, that he is unable to do either.

The Japanese press was showing reactions to this from around Asia on the news this morning - the PotUS has been categorized as "confused" in almost every case.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): Quoting Baroque (Reply 35): Was Curtis Le May a normal balanced human? Who are you to say he wasn't? He was a military man determined to win the same way the second world war was won....completely.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): Quoting Baroque (Reply 38): There is also a devastating (US) documentary on him. Oh yes....the documentaries...which are more often then not hit pieces that skew whatever records their are toward the viewpoint of the documentarian. Michael Moore is a documentarian...isn't he?

Are you the persons who asked for:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 61): Quoting DL021 (Reply 56): Stop being polarizing by insisting that anything they say is a lie. It's not helping the exchange of ideas here.

Oh yes you are. QED would be enough I suppose.

If you run a Google search for Madness of Curtis Le May you get 44,400 hits which is not bad. Among those are of course a huge number about Dr Strangelove where Le May is probably spread across two characters, Turgidson and Ripper.

http://yarchive.net/mil/vietnam_bombing.html
Has a rather tortuous critique of the cases both for and against Le May's actions in relation to Vietnam.

It might be relevant to note that Laos still has a UXB problem generated by the Le May actions.

By the way, even if you were to demonstrate the following:
1. Michael Moore is a maker of documentaries.
2. All M Moores films contain no information of value,

it does not follow that all documentaries are a bunch of lies.

Try:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
noting that Monty Python defines an argument as "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

Pip Pip

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 78): Question for all Bush defenders as of the latest comments from the administration:

How they can look at themselves in a mirror and admit that they are is astonishing to say the least...

..if anyone can support this First Class Fool after all we've seen over the last 7 years..they really need to check-out before they hurt themselves, or someone they care for.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 78): What the hell kind of administration is this?

To the public (foreign & Domestic), one that has gone down in flames... and to Corporate Conglomerate Inc, 'the greatest president/admin' that has ever been installed-

BN747

Quoting BN747 (Reply 80): they really need to check-out before they hurt themselves, or someone they care for.

Gee, that's big of you   

Looking for a little more substance and less knee-jerk than that...

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 81): Gee, that's big of you butthead Looking for a little more substance and less knee-jerk than that...

Why? You act as if there's remaining 'credibility' of this administration worthy of any debate...if so, you're as delusional as they are-

BN747

Quoting B752fanatic (Thread starter): The American People ought to consider to question more of our politicians and not permit them to do as they wish by taking us to wars that only serve corporate agendas.

I don't trust Bush, but I wouldn't put him just yet in the same class as someone like Lyndon Johnson about something like that.

Quoting B752fanatic (Thread starter): Shall we consider the Iran war business over?

Apart from the jabs people have taken, I understand what you meant by that. But I disagree that we should consider backing off from them. I'm sure you've read UH60's 1st-hand reports in this forum about Iran supplying insurgents against us in Iraq. They're our enemy, whether it's pronounced or

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4): The military doesn't refine the uranium, they have a civilian agency do it. But how do you know that in some back office they aren't working out the engineering details to bring a bomb factory into production?

I wouldn't put it past them. But considering our intelligence mishaps and/or the President's misuse of intelligence reports, I'm not sure if we would find out much about them or if Bush would rightly apply counter-measures if we did find out about them. Basically, and this would swing the discussion a whole other direction, I don't trust Bush's application of the war over there until he closes the backdoor on illegal immigration over here.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9): sponsors terrorist (unless you think Hamas ain't terrorists).

I think it's Hez that Iran supports.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12): Anyone hear anything out of Iran in months?

Not so much as a peep (at least on my end).

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12): Anyone hear anything about a war with Iran from our Government in months?

Apparently, Bush has kept Iran in the light . . .

"The Bush administration has spent years warning that Iran's development of nuclear power plants and enriched uranium masked an effort to produce an atomic bomb. Top officials have called the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable."

In an October 17 news conference, Bush said 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."

Prevention sounds like instigating some sort of conflict, which is akin to sounding like "anything about a war". Iran may not be making noise, but Bush is always storming about it. He has "considered military options" against Iran and he's been talking about them for months.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/bush.iran/index.html

Quoting DL021 (Reply 34): are you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt where nuclear power is concerned

Not a bit.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 44): they're not a threat.

Naivete.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 67): It was the intelligence led thinking that it had been restarted in 05 that got everyone agitated.

This is another reason I don't trust Bush - he doesn't have material like that ready to dish back to the press when they bring the full-court press. That makes me think that he's not so much into doing his homework on the subject - he has enough information, in his opinion, to support what he does when he does it, but not the full picture.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 78): How is it possible that the President can claim he didn't know details of changes to information reported in the NIE before it was released?

He, IM(humble - and unproveable in this, I admit)O, he probably did. We have superb resources - I'm reading a few things about them now in "Reagan's Diaries". The reason I offer that opinion about Bush is, like said, I don't trust the man about our security since he cares little to nothing about securing our borders, thus, I don't trust him about our security in general - he has us over there for reasons we do know and some we probably for sure do not. Do we just go Blackbird and think it's a conspiracy? Of course not, but the answer lies more in keeping a realistic attitude not just about Iran, but Bush too.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 83): Quoting BN747 (Reply 44): they're not a threat. Naivete.

Oh?

Bush (now on an ABC News clip tonight airing now 6:35PST)...' Regardless (of the report), I still feel Iran is dangerous..'


So you (Allstarflyer) and Bush 'feel, they are a threat/dangerous)

Okay...who isn't dangerous in that region? Syria? Pakistan, Afghanistan (in soon to beheld Tally hands again), Saudi Arabian (shades away from wahabi rule)... danger is everywhere in the region, yet it's blatantly obvious that their are far greater dangers than Iran. Iran is not...I repeat.. not a threat. The biggest threat is and will come from the nations we are so certain that are 'on our side (aka regime change)..and we're currently arming them to the teeth -- just like we did with Saddam Hussein years ago (..when he was 'one of our guys/allies') -- we've learned nothing from our mistakes of the past. We're repeating them step-by-step..as if we're following a blue print -- for failure....now who's naive?


BN747

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 83): I'm sure you've read UH60's 1st-hand reports in this forum about Iran supplying insurgents against us in Iraq.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84): now who's naive?

'Nuff said.

Hey....I just noticed.....

"wahabi" rhymes with "wasabi"


too bad only one of them is worth a shit.

moment of stream-of-consciousness

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 85): Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 83): I'm sure you've read UH60's 1st-hand reports in this forum about Iran supplying insurgents against us in Iraq. Quoting BN747 (Reply 84): now who's naive? 'Nuff said.

That 1st reply just handed you the Oscar for Naivety...UH60's report means absolutely squat to me, given my own brother has just finished his 2nd tour in Iraq--on the ground among the troops...not in a chopper. And that you'd stake your 'beliefs' on some A.netters report says it all.


Iran supplying insurgents in Iraq. People like you really -- just don't get it. Why am I not surprised...Americans just always think they have it all nailed down.

Two problems here, 1st all Mideast nations (Saudis a possible exception) are very uneasy about US troops on their turf -- even if they are enemies among each other..they close ranks when an interloper intrudes...and that's just what the American forces represent to ALL Arab nations in this current state of events. The Iranians aren't the only ones backing 'insurgents -- and I use the term loosely-- Insurgents are getting huge support from various Saudi factions (but your local news won't tell you that) as well as many of there nation in the region. There is a very vast, quiet and loose coalition of interest aligning against perceived 'long-term' US presence there. In other words, to all of them, "You (US) do not belong here" ... Iran and everyone else over there will chip-in and bond together in one way or another to 'get the US' out-

Hell, Israel's been busted selling the Palestinians weapons... would it shock you to find some Israeli operation selling arms to Iran too (during Iran Contra--who do you think handled all the dirty work? yep...the Israelis) and you think those long standing ties disappeared just because you wish it so? In the world of arms dealing there are no enemies..just customers-

And for people like you to follow Bush and lock on Iran is pure tom-foolery. Because you don't know any better and listening/trusting anything Bush says is sure to lead you down the wrong path....just like it already has-

The second point is what you've gone on record as a 'perceive and as a thread from Iran' ... you're clearly not up to snuff to see the other threats in the region, so I'll simply point out that 'when you do recognize them...' also have the cognizance realize you're dollar short and a day late-

Quoting DL021 (Reply 86): Hey....I just noticed..... "wahabi" rhymes with "wasabi" too bad only one of them is worth a shit.

Score!



BN747

[Edited 2007-12-04 19:19:39]

[Edited 2007-12-04 19:21:42]

Quoting BN747 (Reply 87):

Congrats on your brother making it back - but have you asked him about this in particular? You haven't shared anything he has or may have said on it. And given the quality of posts (and previous threads with previous findings) by UH60 on the matter compared to you and yours, yes, I give him 10 out of 10 benefits of any doubt on this compared to you.

First . . .

Quoting BN747 (Reply 87): And for people like you to follow Bush

. . . whoops, you didn't read my post thoroughly . . .

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 83): I don't trust Bush

. . . and I mentioned that 3x in that post. If you passively or actively ignored what I said, how should one trust your reasoning?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 87): you're clearly not up to snuff to see the other threats in the region

That's a stretch to say I (nor perhaps others here) aren't aware of other threats in the region simply because nobody even brought up the subject of other potential threats in the area against the US, compared to that of Iran, until you did.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84): Iran is not...I repeat.. not a threat.

If you think they're not a threat, then why do countries like France and Britain still think they are? What do you know that they don't?

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 88): And given the quality of posts (and previous threads with previous findings) by UH60 on the matter compared to you and yours, yes, I give him 10 out of 10 benefits of any doubt on this compared to you.

Well you won't be the 1st on A.net to 'line up' behind certain personalities here to suck up for some unforeseen 'points'.. but bully for you for whatever it's worth--

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 88): Quoting BN747 (Reply 84): Iran is not...I repeat.. not a threat. If you think they're not a threat, then why do countries like France and Britain still think they are? What do you know that they don't?

Britain and France???? Haven't you learned anything from from the last 7 years? Britain has followed the Bush cue from Day 1, politically they are one and the same..while the british people are a lot like their American counterparts -- very disappointed with their respective leaderships. France, a change of tune with the very recent election..now suddenly they has credibilty on this issue with you -- have you been following the saga of this lout since he's been in office? Sorry Allstar..but no 'gold star' on the because of the 'but France and Britain think so' card. Britain particularly has a history of handling the world 'the screw up job that is the Middle East' from it's days of dominance. And France, their bungling landed us squarely into what you now know as Vietnam. You see, history is the best teacher-

Perhaps instead of listening to Britain and France..perhaps we should pay attention to our own missteps with history itself-


BN747

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9): sponsors terrorist (unless you think Hamas ain't terrorists).

Hamas is sponsored by Saudi Arabia, the Levantine organisation sponsored by Iran is Hizbullah in Lebanon. Iran however sells stuff to the Saudis and delivers it to Hamas. And whenever Hamas and Hizbullah are basically political parties, their involvement in terrorist methods is fact.
-
That an end to the theocracy in Tehran would be a fine thing is obvious as well, but NOT with a US-American attack
-

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 76): I've been wondering where he went:

pure speculation ! but you may be right !            
-

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89): Britain has followed the Bush cue from Day 1, politically they are one and the same..while the British people are a lot like their American counterparts -- very disappointed with their respective leaderships. France, a change of tune with the very recent election..now suddenly they has credibility on this issue with you -- have you been following the saga of this lout since he's been in office?

Good point and nice posts BN.

It has to be London to a brick that the locals are unhappy with a mass of foreign troops on "their" soil. The worst thing about it is that it will make it so much more difficult for western troops to do anything else there, even if (cannot think what mind you) it would be a worthwhile activity.

Petraeus might be having some successes, but it seems very doubtful that he will be able to turn around Iraqi and neighbouring views on the desirability of the occupation.

Has anyone read Curveball?

"Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War by Bob Drogin "

I heard a review on it and from the review, it seems relevant to this discussion. From the review it appears that there were plenty of signs that the material from Curveball was not valid and apparently the Germans had advised the US that they no longer believed that intelligence. It also appear that at least one Australian agency was not very believing of the Curveball material from reading it second or third hand.

In view of those doubts, the question has to be asked, how firm were the US agencies on the Curveball stuff and if they were firm why. If they were not (and they must have reported the German doubts) why was the administration so fixed?

Bearing in mind what Powell presented to the UN based on Curveball information, one has to wonder how long it will be before Bush catches up this time with this bunch of intelligence.

Is the change in the appraisal of Iran due to new information? Or is it that the US intelligence agencies have recovered an ability to say what the think rather than what they know their master wants? The odds seem to be on the second explanation. This is especially so when you see that Bush is continuing on with the same bellicose noises.

Just remember, the last time the Bush administration brushed off the CIA like this, it resulted in 9-11.

There appears to be some problems with the NIE, notably who wrote it. According to this article:

http://newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html

A highly controversial, 150 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear programs was coordinated and written by former State Department political and intelligence analysts — not by more seasoned members of the U.S. intelligence community, Newsmax has learned.


Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

...

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 93): A highly controversial, 150 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran?s nuclear programs was coordinated and written by former State Department political and intelligence analysts ? not by more seasoned members of the U.S. intelligence community, Newsmax has learned. Its most dramatic conclusion ? that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure ? is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

Sounds like they can't find their collective asses with a flashlight and a road map. Where is the accountability?

Gee, this guy wouldn't be trying to drum up sales for his book, would he? Just before Christmas? Nah -- that's unfair.

There are two ways to look at this.

1. This guy has a huge axe to grind and his comments should be taken with that in mind. The NIE report is legitimate and basically accurate.

2. This guy is right on the money -- in which case the US should be banned from having any relations with anyone outside its own territory, its WMD's should all be removed, and the whole country put on probation for at least 20 years.

What's Newsmax anyway? I don't recognize it.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 21): Pakistan's establishment of its own uranium enrichment capability was so rapid that international suspicion was raised as to whether there was outside assistance to this program. It was reported that Chinese technicians had been at the facility in the early 1980s, but suspicions soon fell on Khan's activities at URENCO

You don't believe that the ISI knew that do you  
regds
MEL

Quoting Arrow (Reply 95): The NIE report is legitimate and basically accurate.

The accusation is that the NIE was written by three former State Department employees. The State department is not known for its ability to collect or interpret intelligence information - indeed quite the opposite. Do you dispute this?

The three former employees in question are claimed to have a history of being rather outspoken in tendency to refuse to believe anything bad about another country, which questions their objectivity. Do you dispute these claims? Why?

The key information is claimed to come from a single source - one which also apparently scared the bejezus out of the French enough to make them threaten Iran. Some serious issues seem to circulate around this guy... Do you dispute this?

These are pretty specific objections that the article is raised. If you have no dispute with any of the above points, how can you claim that the report is legitimate and accurate unless you are a personal friend of the Iranian Clergy or otherwise know something we don't? It may be accurate, but the more I look into it, the more untrustworthy it seems to become.

But I won't completely discount it. here is a speech Fingar gave in 2001 which appears to be fairly good. Note that he believed, back then, that Iran was indeed going after nuclear weapons.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/t_0031.htm

One more question:

The NIE says that in the summer of 2003, Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program. That is only a few months after the U.S. overran Iraq in a 3-week campaign. To me, that would be an event that would encourage Iran to put the nuke program on crash status, not stop it. Doesn't anyone see a logical gap here?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 97): hese are pretty specific objections that the article is raised. If you have no dispute with any of the above points, how can you claim that the report is legitimate and accurate unless you are a personal friend of the Iranian Clergy or otherwise know something we don't? It may be accurate, but the more I look into it, the more untrustworthy it seems to become.

You took my comment far too seriously. I was trying to chart two possible scenarios. I don't necessarily believe either one of them, I certainly don't have the knowledge to comment on the veracity one way or the other. I was just being a smart-ass, for which I've long been qualified.

Does anyone like me feel disillusioned about the whole thing? I dont know who to trust . I dont trust the intelligence from the USA after what was done in Iraq and I dont trust Tehran in charge of Nuclear weapons either !!!