Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eits
all pabster is is a troll... just hit him with a stick and tell him to get back under his bridge.
Would you like a troll? :laugh:
Now get back under your covers.
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Fern's assertions wrt "enriched uranium" are erroneous- according to the IAEA, the Iranians are only producing LEU, which is not weaponizable, and are not currently producing HEU, which is...
See comments regarding enrichment below:
When intelligence types talk of Iran's weapons programme, what they mean is work to design a nuclear warhead, master the mechanics to make it go bang and covertly produce the highly-enriched uranium or plutonium for its explosive core. In 2002 much of Iran's hitherto-secret uranium work, including its centrifuge-enrichment plant at Natanz, was exposed by an opposition group. Iran then came under mounting pressure to suspend such work and let in inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intense scrutiny, the intelligence analysts think, caused Iran to halt its other nefarious activities too.
Yet, as a leaked speech by a senior Iranian nuclear official later made clear, Iran was not abandoning enrichment, only ducking and weaving to get the world off its back. Uranium and plutonium work, it insists, are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?for peaceful purposes. The enrichment go-slow ended abruptly in 2006, however, with the election of Mr Ahmadinejad. Iran now has 3,000 centrifuge machines up and running at Natanz.
Does that matter if all the other work has stopped? Producing enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium (power reactors use the low-enriched sort, but this can be enriched to weapons grade by running it through the centrifuges a few more times) is the chief obstacle to building a bomb. Halting the obviously illegal work, while pressing ahead with enrichment in plain sight would still leave Iran with a weapons option, argued George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think-tank, back in 2005. The new NIE assessment comes to a similar conclusion.
link
Nor has any credible evidence been presented that the Iranians have ever produced HEU in weaponizable quantities.
With the IAEA monitoring the Iranians' every move, it seems highly unlikely that nuclear material could be created or diverted for weapons purposes.
The Iranian inspections by the IAEA have been frozen are not expected to resume until 03/27/08 linky. We don't know what they have going on.
Wrt claims that the Bush Admin has used anything other than threats and indirect promises to arrive at some resolution other than military, they're bullshit. Yeh, sure, they haven't used the military option, nor have they really offered any others...
Any deal between the Iranians and the EU can be denounced by the Bushistas at any time, because they weren't a party to it in the first place... It's a false bargain, and the Iranians recognize that.
What the new report does is to cut off the impetus to attack right at the knees. How the report came to be issued at all is an interesting question I think it was requested by Harry Reid, that's what I've heard. - perhaps it's the Admin's way of backing away w/o losing face- they can't do what they want because the rest of the weak sisters won't go along with 'em... they're right but nobody believes 'em... so they get to rave on w/o obligation to follow it up with action...
See above bolded comments.
Fern
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If anything, what is missing is any evidence that the "left" is spinning the recent NIE.
O'rly? You sure arn't looking very hard.
See below. This is exactly the spin we see now in news regarding this report.
Originally posted by: eits
? how so? i already knew the intelligence showed iran wasn't trying to make nukes... that's why i said "old news" earlier in this thread.
So, there are claims that this report proved Iran wasn't trying to make nukes?
Here's what the report actually said:
But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded:<< "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
How does "we do not know" morph into we know that they aren't?
It doesn't because "currently intends" is not the same as doing it. If I say I currently intend on being a Billionaire that doesn't mean it will happen or even that I'm currently doing anything to reach that goal.Moreover, the report also says:
But the new assessment found <<Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
Fern
Again they fudge their words saying "would likely". You are the one spinning the report by reading into it what you want to see, not the left.
Of course people will buy into because we all know that everyone wants to rule the world and in order to do that it would help to be recoginized as a nuclear power.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If anything, what is missing is any evidence that the "left" is spinning the recent NIE.
O'rly? You sure arn't looking very hard.
See below. This is exactly the spin we see now in news regarding this report.
Originally posted by: eits
? how so? i already knew the intelligence showed iran wasn't trying to make nukes... that's why i said "old news" earlier in this thread.
So, there are claims that this report proved Iran wasn't trying to make nukes?
Here's what the report actually said:
But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded:<<< "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
How does "we do not know" morph into we know that they aren't?
It doesn't because "currently intends" is not the same as doing it. If I say I currently intend on being a Billionaire that doesn't mean it will happen or even that I'm currently doing anything to reach that goal.Moreover, the report also says:
But the new assessment found <<<Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
Fern
Again they fudge their words saying "would likely". You are the one spinning the report by reading into it what you want to see, not the left.
Of course people will buy into because we all know that everyone wants to rule the world and in order to do that it would help to be recoginized as a nuclear power.
Look, the real issue here is about how to read the report. How to accurately determine what it does say, and what it doesn't say.
In spite of my direct quotations of parts of the report contradicting your assertions, you and others continue to insist on language (and conclusions) that simply isn't there.
Fern
Originally posted by: Fern
Another fact-filled deeply analytical posts ^
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Fern
Another fact-filled deeply analytical posts ^
Keep it simple stupid. You are violating occham's razor by keeping it stupid instead.
Let it go my child.
Originally posted by: Fern
^ How about actually reading the available portions of the report and quoting the language that supports your position on its iterpretation?
Fern
Link to congress siteIran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States? concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran?s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
Oh do you think it's a conspiracy by the Intellegence Community???:roll:Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^^ Add this to your list. Testimony by Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar who said the follow in front of congress in July:
Link to congress siteIran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States? concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran?s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
He is, according to reports, one of the three main authors of the report.
Maybe this is the guy who briefed Bush a 'few' months ago?
Amazing how these guys changed their mind in just a few months.
Something strange is going on here.
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.
1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.
2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.
3. Bush says that he did not know this.
4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.
5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.
Do I have the story right on this one?
This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.
13 months until he is out of power.
Is there any basis for Impeachment?
BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.
:roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.
1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.
2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.
3. Bush says that he did not know this.
4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.
5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.
Do I have the story right on this one?
This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.
13 months until he is out of power.
Is there any basis for Impeachment?
BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.
Blah, blah, blah ,apologize for Bush, blame Liberals, call Liberals names, blah, blah, blah, rinse and repeat.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.
1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.
2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.
3. Bush says that he did not know this.
4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.
5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.
Do I have the story right on this one?
This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.
13 months until he is out of power.
Is there any basis for Impeachment?
BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.
Your # 4. is wrong. Bush was not told the "status" months ago. He was told that there was a new assessment under way but was not provided any specifics. Even if he had been given specifics, until the final report came out it would be ridiculous for him to make statements based on preliminary information. And right around the same time that Bush was, according to you, told the status, one of the report's main authors was claiming that Iran was still a nuclear threat. If anyone should have known differently shouldn't it have been one of those involved in the actual report and who had been working on it for over a year at that point?
This entire ordeal on the Iran report has firmly convinced me that not only do BDSers love to spin, misinterpret, misquote, and generally make shit up, but that timelines seem to confuse the hell out of them as well.
I didn't blame liberals, I blamed the BDSers. There's a difference. Some liberals actually have brains and can put forth a coherent argument that relies on facts instead of distorsions. BDSers can't.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
:roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.
1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.
2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.
3. Bush says that he did not know this.
4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.
5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.
Do I have the story right on this one?
This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.
13 months until he is out of power.
Is there any basis for Impeachment?
BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.
Blah, blah, blah ,apologize for Bush, blame Liberals, call Liberals names, blah, blah, blah, rinse and repeat.
That's Limbaughtista for those who criticize Bush. All the Apologist use itOriginally posted by: Siddhartha
What is a BDSer?
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What is a BDSer?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What is a BDSer?
It's a political version of a Mac devotee where Bush = MS Windows.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Fern
^ How about actually reading the available portions of the report and quoting the language that supports your position on its iterpretation?
Fern
It's very simple for me: Is there adequate proof to bomb iran? Answer? FUCK NO.
now move on with your life.
When it's deserved, of course not. But monkeys flinging crap != criticism. They are nothing more than crap-flinging monkeys.Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What is a BDSer?
It's a political version of a Mac devotee where Bush = MS Windows.
Are you saying that Mr Bush is above criticism?
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Fern
^ How about actually reading the available portions of the report and quoting the language that supports your position on its iterpretation?
Fern
It's very simple for me: Is there adequate proof to bomb iran? Answer? FUCK NO.
now move on with your life.
Your illogic is persistant.
Beofre one gets to the question of whether to bomb (or continue sanctions, or pursue diplomacy - diplomacy to what end?), one needs to understand what the report says.
You seem to wish to ignore what the report actually says and jump right into the types of questions that can only begin to be addressed AFTER understanding the report.
Fern
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.
1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop. Seems right to me
2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago. Not quite. Nearly every aspect of continueing a program exists - delivery systems & enrichment. Contrary to others assertions here, the IAEA is not "all over Iran" they are not there now. Previous inspections have been limited by Iran. Negotiations recently named a new start in March '08 for resumpion of inspections, IMO too early to tell how much Iran will really co-operate.
The report say "only moderate confidence" that they've stopped the "weaponization" part and haven't resumed. However, we know Iran already has the info on shaping the uranium etc into hemipherical shape for a bomb. Moreover, there is no real to continue iwth that aspect until they get enough enriched uranium - which is the real key aspect to developing a nuke. And they are continuing with that.
3. Bush says that he did not know this.
4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.
5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.
Do I have the story right on this one?
This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.
Before getting to what GWB says, I think one needs to understand what the report says. Basically, it says the same thing as the '05 report. However, the sole and primary difference seems to me the report's statement that they do NOT know if Iran intendes to make a weapon (this is being spun as knowing that they are not. Two different things). Yet, they acknowlege all the pieces are there, and being pursued, for a weapon.
13 months until he is out of power.
Yeah, and the Dems need to be more careful about their spin here. The 2010 timeframe is well wiythin the first term of the next President. I expect that to be a Dem admin. If Iran does develop a nuke within the time frame this report estimates there may well NOT be a second Dem Pres term.
Although GWB is not running in '08, Dem politicking so far has been a lot GWB bashing for some reason. But here, not only are they bashing GWB, but causing HRC some problems as well (because of her vote). Obama, is benefiting. Kind of curious to me.
Is there any basis for Impeachment?
Unlikley unless he goes ahead and bombs Iran and can't prove a good reason.
BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.
Me neither. Although IMO he should be careful what he says because of HRC's campaign.