The Irish Doggy Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Is anyone not worried that the current report is not wrong and not accurate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Is anyone not worried that the current report is not wrong and not accurate? Our intelligence is flawless! Our style is impetuous! Our defense is inpregingagabeble! Praise be... (actually, not going there.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Our intelligence is flawless!Our style is impetuous! Our defense is inpregingagabeble! Praise be... (actually, not going there.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Our intelligence is flawless!Our style is impetuous! Our defense is inpregingagabeble! Praise be... (actually, not going there.) We're gonna F Iran until they love us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 We're gonna F Iran until they love us! 2 questions.... did George Bush say that? also...do you think it will work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 We're gonna F Iran until they love us! This could get out of hand in a hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 2 questions.... did George Bush say that? also...do you think it will work? George "Not Tyson" Bush And only in an Indianapolis notel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I could not not tell you about what I did or did not not hear on or not before 2003. Are you preparing for a congressional hearing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 ok, my best guess as to what grunt is mysteriously driving at...we should be a little more hesitant to criticize our leaders in a knee-jerk fashion, when something like this shows yet again how a certain policy may be bearing fruit even if it takes joe public 5 years to see and understand it. i dunno, i guess this report is good news if true. but even if true, it seems pretty clear iran is still intent on being a thorn in our diplomatic side, still doing everything it can without pissing the whole world off to prepare the technology to move in the nuclear direction when they think it is advantageous for them. it's funny that neither side seems to know quite how to spin this. a lot on the left seem to want to spin it with the whole "bush has been telling us iran is such a problem, that is a LIIEEEIIIEIIEEEE!!!!" they want to ignore the fact that the timing of this (2003) would appear to make this development a direct result of the bush/blair stance toward iran's next door neighbor, but it's kinda hard not to notice the correlation. on the other side, bush wants to keep pressure on iran whether this report is true or not, so it's not really in his interest to go around saying "look how we already scared these guys into rolling over and playing nice". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 ok, my best guess as to what grunt is mysteriously driving at...we should be a little more hesitant to criticize our leaders in a knee-jerk fashion, when something like this shows yet again how a certain policy may be bearing fruit even if it takes joe public 5 years to see and understand it. i dunno, i guess this report is good news if true. but even if true, it seems pretty clear iran is still intent on being a thorn in our diplomatic side, still doing everything it can without pissing the whole world off to prepare the technology to move in the nuclear direction when they think it is advantageous for them. it's funny that neither side seems to know quite how to spin this. a lot on the left seem to want to spin it with the whole "bush has been telling us iran is such a problem, that is a LIIEEEIIIEIIEEEE!!!!" they want to ignore the fact that the timing of this (2003) would appear to make this development a direct result of the bush/blair stance toward iran's next door neighbor, but it's kinda hard not to notice the correlation. on the other side, bush wants to keep pressure on iran whether this report is true or not, so it's not really in his interest to go around saying "look how we already scared these guys into rolling over and playing nice". I guess that's why I'm just going to be happy with the fact that it appears they don't have nukes. I'm not so against the US having gone into Iraq that I'm incapable of seeing that any good at all could come of it (assuming this Iran deal is a result of that which is certainly not a stretch at all). I can believe that the results are not worth the cost and still realize that some good results came of it. That's pretty much been my beef with most of the policies that Bush has tried out. Not that they were without positive results, rather that they were misguided, poorly thought out, and didn't have a positive effect that remotely justified the costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why build them when Saddam shipped all of his nukes to Iran before the US invaded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why build them when Saddam shipped all of his nukes to Iran before the US invaded? very interesting!! is your last name clancy? have brother named tom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) Well, that's what one would think. I mean, that's what I think. If it's because Iran was scared crapless after we went into Iraq, bully for us. Perhaps this war wasn't such a waste after all. Of course, it could also be the result of the same International pressure we seemed unwilling to have the patience for to stop Suddam...oh wait, he wasn't...never mind. At any rate, I would have to think that his is good news to anyone. Which is why I'm rather puzzled by this comment...Now, that statement could mean a number of things and with a number of different intentions. However, it would not be the first time someone used "challenging information" to define something they were hoping not to hear. As in, this information sort of messes up our plans. Before you jump all over this as pessimism, what else could he mean? I mean, assuming our objective is to see to it that Iran is not developing nukes, why would you consider finding out that they're not as "challenging information". You've been trying to find your lost dog. Your wife calls you to say that she just found her. That she must have come home while you were out looking for her because she's in the back yard. Is this "challenging information"? I don't know. Perhaps the fact that it runs contrary to what they thought was going on is "challenging". Exactly! I suppose it would be "challenging information" if it was 5pm, and she knew the dog had come back home around 12pm - the time you left to go hunt for her. Then, to make challenge of this information, around 3pm you called your wife to see if she had any new information about the dog and she tells you to fear for the worst. The dog might be gone forever. That would definitely make this information a bit of a challenge. My understanding was that our actions in Iraq were what caused Iran to suspend their nuclear program. This is how I received the information five years ago, and how I interpreted the information I was given. But I can't seem to figure out exactly what the motive would be to withhold this information from the average American citizen. It doesn't make sense. I'm hoping one can imagine how confusing this is for me, especially when I am positive the information was known five years ago. Heck, I knew it. However, I don't know if I was supposed to know or not. If not, luckily I didn't go around telling everyone this information before it became public knowledge five flippin' years later. For the sake of everyone who reads this thread, I probably sound incredibly confused on what exactly I am trying to suggest, ponder, or think about... and as weird as this might seem, Savage Beatings is also on the right track for what I considered to be one possible theory as to what the hell happened to the correct information, from when I received it all the way to when you guys, the ordinary citizen received it: I think he is saying that the U.S. Gov't knowingly fed us incorrect information about Iran, in order to keep us more afraid of them so that we would want to support our continued military presence in the region. Edited December 4, 2007 by TheGrunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 ok, my best guess as to what grunt is mysteriously driving at...we should be a little more hesitant to criticize our leaders in a knee-jerk fashion, when something like this shows yet again how a certain policy may be bearing fruit even if it takes joe public 5 years to see and understand it. i dunno, i guess this report is good news if true. but even if true, it seems pretty clear iran is still intent on being a thorn in our diplomatic side, still doing everything it can without pissing the whole world off to prepare the technology to move in the nuclear direction when they think it is advantageous for them. That is very important to also consider, given the news, we're reminded that Iran is in fact 'dangerous' only to the extent that they would want to develop Nukes if they weren't so scared of us. They did, after all, watch as their supposedly more powerful neighbor got dismantled in under a month by US-led forces. it's funny that neither side seems to know quite how to spin this. a lot on the left seem to want to spin it with the whole "bush has been telling us iran is such a problem, that is a LIIEEEIIIEIIEEEE!!!!" they want to ignore the fact that the timing of this (2003) would appear to make this development a direct result of the bush/blair stance toward iran's next door neighbor, but it's kinda hard not to notice the correlation. on the other side, bush wants to keep pressure on iran whether this report is true or not, so it's not really in his interest to go around saying "look how we already scared these guys into rolling over and playing nice". Good observation! I don't even know what to think of this information yet, other than, of course, that it IS good news; it's good news no matter how you spin it, but it's also very important to understand this news when assessing the threat level of Iran. I also know how odd it is to learn that nobody else knew Iran backed down back when they did, besides those who were directly involved and around to hear the news when it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Bush was floundering over this issue today at a press conference. He was clearly running away from questions and answering with vague nothings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Bush was floundering over this issue today at a press conference. He was clearly running away from questions and answering with vague nothings. and that is new how??? jebus that is all the current admin does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Bush was floundering over this issue today at a press conference. He was clearly running away from questions and answering with vague nothings. and that is new how??? jebus that is all the current admin does If anything, I think it's possible President Bush didn't even know Iran stopped their nuclear facilities five years ago. However, this is unlikely. At some point you have to wonder whether our government withholds information from the general public for reason's in which they don't even know themselves. But given the "good news" nature of this information, it's also possible that President Bush is simply taking the most extreme defensive stance on our foreign policy regarding nuclear capabilities. Which is a good thing, in my opinion, when a government like Iran openly admits to wanting to Nuke another country. Similar to that of "Baghdad Bob", I sense that Iran won't admit fear of repercussions from the United States because it might weaken their authoritative rule in their own country. In Iran's case, they probably believed 'perception is better than reality', so why not try and put fear into our enemy's by claiming we are still researching nuclear power, when in reality they were not. At this point, maybe President Bush just thought, "OK, fine, if you want to play it that way we'll continue our extremely defensive stance against you until either you admit to the world you halted your nuclear program, or until someone else finds out you already did." In which case, the latter of the two scenario's unfolded and this is what we are confronted with today. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 and that is new how??? jebus that is all the current admin does The questions were rough. "Mr. President, you implied that Iraq was a nuclear threat and said that they had stockpiles of WMDs when they weren't to rally the country for war, and you said Iran was a nuclear threat when they weren't to rally the world against them. How can you expect the world to give you any credibility when you talk about intelligence?" No holds barred. His answer was basically that Iran had the potential to become a nuclear threat, so we need to stop them now. I could imagine the mouth-breathing inbred illiterate morons who actually listened to that answer and said... "Makes sense to me! Durf!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 "Mr. President, you implied that Iraq was a nuclear threat and said that they had stockpiles of WMDs when they weren't to rally the country for war, and you said Iran was a nuclear threat when they weren't to rally the world against them. How can you expect the world to give you any credibility when you talk about intelligence?" See, that's what I'm so confused about. I can't imagine why the Bush administration would decide not to reveal the information that Iran is halting their nuclear program back when it actually happened five years ago. Because having this information revealed five years later only makes President Bush appear even more ill-advised than many already think he is on foreign policy. Which makes me wonder if I was given, in pure irony, "wrong" information in Iraq about Iran halting their nuclear program - only to find out five years later that it was the right information presumed to be wrong. Wow... this probably makes no sense at all to anyone, so I apologize for writing this personal revelation of my own for all of you to read about. I'm simply confused at how or why I already knew Iran backed down, and I'm not exactly sure if this is at all significant to what is going on today in related news. If anything, it's interesting to me in my own weird way. No holds barred. His answer was basically that Iran had the potential to become a nuclear threat, so we need to stop them now. I could imagine the mouth-breathing inbred illiterate morons who actually listened to that answer and said... "Makes sense to me! Durf!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 No holds barred. His answer was basically that Iran had the potential to become a nuclear threat, so we need to stop them now. I could imagine the mouth-breathing inbred illiterate morons who actually listened to that answer and said... "Makes sense to me! Durf!" Well, every country can potentially become nuclear. Some simply have more potential than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 So now our justification for invading, occupying and bearing the military and financial cost of nation building in Iraq was to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons, or is that just a happy accident? Maybe the invasion of Iraq did slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons and I don't mind that but if that's the only way we can prevent nuclear proliferation, why even bother fighting it anymore? We certainly can't fiscally afford to do that each time someone starts playing with neutrons. You'd think they could figure out a better way to pursue an anti-pro.fliferation foreign policy than that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 So now our justification for invading, occupying and bearing the military and financial cost of nation building in Iraq was to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons, or is that just a happy accident? Maybe the invasion of Iraq did slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons and I don't mind that but if that's the only way we can prevent nuclear proliferation, why even bother fighting it anymore? We certainly can't fiscally afford to do that each time someone starts playing with neutrons. You'd think they could figure out a better way to pursue an anti-pro.fliferation foreign policy than that... A happy accident, yes. But one could also argue that Iran halting their nuclear program after watching us invade and topple Saddam's regime in Iraq is foreseeable. Honestly, however, apparently this wasn't foreseeable until five years after it happened. although, I could be wrong on that too. I agree, why bother if things will always lead to war--but, as a "human" we are everything that goes along with human qualities: the good and the bad. Using the theme of human qualities, here's some interesting "Call of Duty 3" quotes I've compiled: ==== "War remains the decisive human failure." -John Kenneth Galbraith Humans can't help it, so can we blame Bush? ==== "Politics is the womb in which war develops." -Karl Von Clausewitz +1 In bold ==== "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu [no comment] ==== "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." -Martin Luther King Jr. I believe time will be the ultimate measurer of where Bush stands in moments of challenge and controversy. It's difficult to imagine the overwhelming political pressure he was under after 9/11, it's impossible to deny that. It's likely his tough defensive-minded stance was a good thing, politically speaking. Who knows for sure... ==== "All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them." -Admiral Sir John Fisher ==== "I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war... suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own." -Philip Caputo ==== "The statesman who yields to war fever... is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” -Sir Winston Churchill "Yeah" Bush says, "I've got a fever! I can't help it!" ==== "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." -Robert Lynd ==== "I hope... that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats..." -Benjamin Franklin ==== "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." Thomas Paine ==== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 When Iran halted their nuclear facilities immediately after the collapse of Saddam's regime--were you all, the ordinary American receiving news from some form of media source, not informed when this happened? I suppose I'm only curious, considering how surprised the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) agency is upon receiving knowledge of this happening, were you guys not informed when this did occur back in 2003 (during or immediately after our invasion of Iraq)--? I'm skeptic this information wasn't already known by the vast majority of you guys right as it occurred. By this, I mean getting some sort of news related update --how, after watching the U.S. and British forces completely topple Saddam's "powerful" regime in just under a month, Iran, probably out of fear, decided to halt their nuclear facilities. You guys already knew this, right? And you are a philosphy major...or at least take the classes. How very Machiavellian of you to post this tripe....and I call what you posted tripe...not you. I figure you know better than what you posted and are prepared to argue the moral consequences of this on its merits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) The Thin Line Between Civilian and Military Nuclear Programs By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: December 5, 2007 For years, American intelligence agencies contended that Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program. But even as Tehran continues to enrich uranium, which could fuel a bomb, the agencies have reversed themselves, saying the Iranians halted their weapons program in 2003. All of this raises the question: When is a nuclear program a nuclear weapons program? The open secret of the nuclear age is that the line between civilian and military programs is extraordinarily thin. That is why the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has teams of inspectors constantly sweeping through nuclear centers around the globe, looking for cheaters. But thin as it may be, there is a line. One threshold is enriched uranium. Enriched to low levels, uranium can fuel a reactor that produces electrical power — which is what Tehran says it wants to do. But if uranium is purified in spinning centrifuges long enough, and becomes highly enriched, it can fuel an atom bomb. Another boundary between civilian and military programs is weapons design. Designing a nuclear weapon involves sophisticated mathematical and engineering work to figure out how to squeeze the bomb fuel in a way that creates the nuclear blast. The new intelligence assessment released Monday, which is known as a National Intelligence Estimate, drew a distinction between Iran’s “declared civil work” on uranium enrichment and “nuclear weapon design and weaponization work.” The document states “with high confidence” that Iran is now hewing to the civilian side of the line. The history of the atomic age, however, suggests that for a country with an advanced civil nuclear program, crossing the line into bomb work is relatively easy. After the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain became the first three countries with atom bombs, all the rest hid their military programs to one extent or another behind the mask of peaceful nuclear power. That includes France, China, Israel, India, South Africa and Pakistan. Indeed, the most difficult part of building a bomb is not doing the secret military design work but rather the part of the process that is also crucial to civilian nuclear power — producing the fuel. History illustrates the point. During World War II, scientists working secretly at Los Alamos in the mountains of New Mexico were so sure of the reliability of their simple design that they gave it no explosive test before the bomb was made and dropped on Hiroshima. It worked to devastating effect. But making the bomb’s highly enriched fuel required a vast industrial effort clouded by great uncertainty. In a race, three huge factories were built in the Tennessee wilds, each pursuing a different way of enriching uranium. One had literally millions of miles of pipes. In the end, no technique worked well enough to be relied upon exclusively. So engineers blended the outputs. “All three methods contributed to Hiroshima,” said Robert S. Norris, author of “Racing for the Bomb” (Steerforth, 2002), a biography of the project’s military chief. That history cast light on the question of whether Iran’s enrichment work today could represent a future military threat. The new American intelligence assessment says Iran is “continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons,” including “its civilian uranium enrichment program.” And the enrichment effort, the assessment says, could give Iran enough fuel for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015 — a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates. The report also disclosed that American agencies have accumulated a “growing amount of intelligence” showing that Iran engaged in covert uranium enrichment, adding that it “probably” was halted after 2003 and “probably” has remained frozen through the middle of this year. For some, that uncertainty undercuts the assessment’s “high confidence” that Iran ended its weapons program in 2003 and will continue to stay on the peaceful side of the line. “The danger,” President Bush said at the White House on Tuesday, “is that they can enrich, play like they got a civilian program — or have a civilian program, or claim it’s a civilian program — and pass the knowledge to a covert military program.” A senior federal specialist with long experience in nuclear proliferation said it was quite possible that Iran made so much progress in 18 years of secret work that the halt in 2003 might have little practical effect in restricting it from getting a weapon. That is, if Tehran wants one, and if it can keep working openly to produce fuel. But the intelligence agencies steered clear of assessing Tehran’s intentions, saying, “We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Edited December 5, 2007 by jackshi17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 And you are a philosphy major...or at least take the classes. How very Machiavellian of you to post this tripe....and I call what you posted tripe...not you. I figure you know better than what you posted and are prepared to argue the moral consequences of this on its merits. I'm not really prepared to argue against the moral consequences, however, I'm also not quite sure exactly what you are referring to. I'm not trying to be deceiving with anything that I say, and I'm definitely not anti-government. A lot this has nothing to do with my personal opinion, it's only me trying to interpret what I know at this given time. I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread or not but I have been openly questioning my own words too, about things I said. I could be wrong about some of it or I could be wrong about a lot of it, but if wrong, which parts of what I wrote are assuredly false? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.