Why Iran? - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-12-2007, 05:24 PM   #166
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Bush says "World War III", Obama says "nuclear flashpoints". Essentially the samething.


no. it's not. just like an "imminent threat" isn't the same thing as a "regional threat."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:29 PM   #167
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel



All I want then is for the U.S., and the other big countries you mentioned, to continue to reduce their pile and agree to not make more. It's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that bothers me. So long as we continue to keep our weapons and make more, don't be surprised if other countries want to do the exact same thing, as they want to defend themselves as much as anybody else does. That's all I'm saying. If they are to disarm, so must we. And it seems Obama agrees with me in this regard:



And speaking of him, like the others have said, just because he mentioned keeping the military option there doesn't mean that he's going to run to that as his first choice. The way those quotes are worded, it sounds to me like he wants to use military force as his absolute last resort. He's much more interested in diplomacy, which is one reason why I like him. And his speech also said that if we ever are to use military force, we HAVE to have the support of the rest of our allies before we do it, lest we get into another Iraq debacle.

Kucinich's stand is definitely the best one, though-that guy and I are pretty much on the same wavelength about everything, it seems.

That's a pretty interesting speech Obama had there, by the way, thanks for sharing that.



We're in debt, though. People can pledge to increase things all they want, but we're in a serious debt now...how exactly can we do that?

And while some troops are better than none, at the same time, the fact that we may not be able to send some over because we can't afford it or whatever is kind of a problem.

Angela
Obama does not support unilateral nuclear disarmament for the United States.

The United States has had several dozen allies with it in Iraq, just as it did back in 1991. The war in Iraq was never a unilateral military intervention. But if you look at the Obama paper, you'll find that he does support unilateral military intervention by the United States if the situation warrents it.

The United States has been running a national debt since 1776. At the end of World War II, the national debt was 150% of GDP. Today its between 65% and 70% of GDP. So its not the serious problem everyone makes it out to be, and war and crises situations will always come first before reducing the national debt.

The only problem with military readiness is that equipment stocks around the country have been severely depleted and not replaced over the past few years. Its a problem now, but will be fixed in the next couple of years, by which time the United States military will be even larger than it is today, provided who ever is President pays attention to the military's request for more funding.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:32 PM   #168
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




no. it's not. just like an "imminent threat" isn't the same thing as a "regional threat."
Well, you may not consider the detonation of nuclear weapons over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and other countries in the region to be World War III, but most people in the foreign policy community would disagree.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:38 PM   #169
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Well, you may not consider the detonation of nuclear weapons over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and other countries in the region to be World War III, but most people in the foreign policy community would disagree.



why don't you go back and read the NIE, and then we can talk.

because hysteria doesn't usually make for the best foreign policy.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:54 PM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, you may not consider the detonation of nuclear weapons over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and other countries in the region to be World War III, but most people in the foreign policy community would disagree.


Who even suggested that?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:58 PM   #171
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





why don't you go back and read the NIE, and then we can talk.

because hysteria doesn't usually make for the best foreign policy.
Both Bush's and Obama's statements hint at a possible future, one we should try to prevent. If there is anyone who needs to go back and read the NIE, it is those who presume that Iran is no longer a problem because of this 2007 estimate. The hard part of getting nuclear weapons is not warhead design, but getting the fuel for such a weapon. Iran continues to enrich uranium, it says is for reactors it does not have. The 2007 NIE is no different from the 2005 NIE in when it believes the earliest point in time when Iran could have a nuclear weapon, that being the last half of 2009.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:00 PM   #172
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26




Who even suggested that?
Its the World War III or Nuclear Flashpoint that both Bush and Obama have discussed. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it does become a possiblity, even if its a remote one.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:13 PM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Both Bush's and Obama's statements hint at a possible future, one we should try to prevent. If there is anyone who needs to go back and read the NIE, it is those who presume that Iran is no longer a problem because of this 2007 estimate. The hard part of getting nuclear weapons is not warhead design, but getting the fuel for such a weapon. Iran continues to enrich uranium, it says is for reactors it does not have. The 2007 NIE is no different from the 2005 NIE in when it believes the earliest point in time when Iran could have a nuclear weapon, that being the last half of 2009.


i keep forgetting why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. it's either all or nothing.

either Iran is a threat, or it isn't.

wrong. there are gradations of threat, and not all threats are equal, and there are some threats that are made bigger than they actually are in order to score whatever political points or advance whatever sort of political agenda.

the 2007 NIE completely eviscerated the notion that Iran poses a nuclear threat and that it has an active nuclear weapons program. it doesn't. it could, yes, but so could a lot of places. what the NIE called for isn't invasion, isn't hysteria about WW3, isn't for the demonization of Iran's president. it called for continued diplomacy in order to ensure that Iran continues on it's present path, and that path is one where they are not developing nuclear weapons.

i understand that the NIE's conclusions about how Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program is inconvenient for you, and you can continue to talk around this fact and try to confuse people by equivocating between Bush and Obama. but facts stand in your way, again.

what's good is that the NIE has reigned in this unhinged administration. the system actually worked. the politicization of intelligence gathering that happed in 2002 has been stopped and Cheney has been isolated even further, and Gates probably had quite a hand in all of this.

and this is all part of the image they want to project. they want to talk big (and you certainly help), but they will probably continue to remain just short of weapons, and they're going to aggressively defend themselves no matter the charge.

the problem with you, and Bush, is that you retain your fundamentalist mindset. yes, Iran is a threat and must be dealt with, but it is a remarkably different threat than the one that has been characterized by the administration. it actually does matter if they are cooperating, or not. you can't just stand in a room and call people evil and then understand everything they do through that prism. empirical reality does matter. facts do matter. the present does matter. it seems that the Iranians responded rationally in 2003, and with this fact under our belts, there's no reason not to believe they will not continue to act rationally. they are open to sticks and carrots. nuance does matter.

faith-based foreign policy is very 2002. Condi has been vindicated. Gates has been vindicated. Bush and Cheney have been embarrassed. all that is good.

and Kyl-Lieberman remains very, very foolish.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:22 PM   #174
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i keep forgetting why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. it's either all or nothing.

either Iran is a threat, or it isn't.

wrong. there are gradations of threat, and not all threats are equal, and there are some threats that are made bigger than they actually are in order to score whatever political points or advance whatever sort of political agenda.

the 2007 NIE completely eviscerated the notion that Iran poses a nuclear threat and that it has an active nuclear weapons program. it doesn't. it could, yes, but so could a lot of places. what the NIE called for isn't invasion, isn't hysteria about WW3, isn't for the demonization of Iran's president. it called for continued diplomacy in order to ensure that Iran continues on it's present path, and that path is one where they are not developing nuclear weapons.

i understand that the NIE's conclusions about how Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program is inconvenient for you, and you can continue to talk around this fact and try to confuse people by equivocating between Bush and Obama. but facts stand in your way, again.

what's good is that the NIE has reigned in this unhinged administration. the system actually worked. the politicization of intelligence gathering that happed in 2002 has been stopped and Cheney has been isolated even further, and Gates probably had quite a hand in all of this.

and this is all part of the image they want to project. they want to talk big (and you certainly help), but they will probably continue to remain just short of weapons, and they're going to aggressively defend themselves no matter the charge.

the problem with you, and Bush, is that you retain your fundamentalist mindset. yes, Iran is a threat and must be dealt with, but it is a remarkably different threat than the one that has been characterized by the administration. it actually does matter if they are cooperating, or not. you can't just stand in a room and call people evil and then understand everything they do through that prism. empirical reality does matter. facts do matter. the present does matter. it seems that the Iranians responded rationally in 2003, and with this fact under our belts, there's no reason not to believe they will not continue to act rationally. they are open to sticks and carrots. nuance does matter.

faith-based foreign policy is very 2002. Condi has been vindicated. Gates has been vindicated. Bush and Cheney have been embarrassed. all that is good.

and Kyl-Lieberman remains very, very foolish.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:26 PM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 12:05 PM
I'll second that. Excellent post .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:57 PM   #176
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
No one has claimed that Iran poses the same threat that Saddam did. The Bush administration has not positioned any US forces for an invasion or a strike as it did in the fall of 2002 for Iraq.

But in order to score political points, Democrats want to feed the mistaken image of Bush as the mad cowboy.


Quote:
the 2007 NIE completely eviscerated the notion that Iran poses a nuclear threat and that it has an active nuclear weapons program. it doesn't. it could, yes, but so could a lot of places. what the NIE called for isn't invasion, isn't hysteria about WW3, isn't for the demonization of Iran's president. it called for continued diplomacy in order to ensure that Iran continues on it's present path, and that path is one where they are not developing nuclear weapons.
Thats wrong. Iran is currently enriching Uranium even though it has no peaceful use for it. As I stated before, the hard part of getting a Nuclear Weapon is not the warhead design but getting enough highly enriched fuel. The NIE still estimates that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in the last half of 2009.

Name another country that is enriching Uranium but does not even have a reactor built to use such fuel.

The NIE does not make policy. It provides an ESTIMATE on the threat based on the latest intelligence! Iran stopping warhead design in 2003 is an ESTIMATE. That could easily change next year.

Ironically, the only ones jumping to conclusions and presuming that Iran is nothing to worry about now are Democrats and many of the Presidents opponents. The real hysteria is generated by them, day after day. Its, yesterday Iran was a threat("because the president lied") and now their not. That absurd notion belongs to the Presidents opponents.

The reason that the NIE 2005 estimate of when Iran could have a bomb at the earliest has not changed with the 2007 estimate is because Iran continues to be engaged in the most vital requirement for a nuclear weapon, the successful enrichment of enough fuel for a bomb.

Quote:
what's good is that the NIE has reigned in this unhinged administration. the system actually worked. the politicization of intelligence gathering that happed in 2002 has been stopped and Cheney has been isolated even further, and Gates probably had quite a hand in all of this.
Thats all a wonderful fantasy, but the intelligence community still works the same way it did in 2002, 1997 or earlier. They don't make policy, they provide and estimate based on the intelligence they have at the time. Estimates are not facts though. George Tenet, CIA director under both Clinton and Bush has dismissed this notion that the intelligence for Iraq was "sexed up" in anyway.

Yes, empirical reality does matter. facts do matter. But your ignoring them because of your unrestrained opposition to the administration.

Taking sometime to understand what the NIE actually is, and is not, as well the basics for developing nuclear weapons would help to dispel this notion that everything is just wonderful and or that the presidents position on Iran has been "eviscerated" by the 2007 NIE.

Administration policy has not changed on Iran nor should it. There is no reason for Iran to be enriching Uranium, given they have no reactors, and another stiffer UN sanctions resolution is needed.


The type of division within the administration you constantly claim exist does not. Sure, there are differences from time to time, but Gates is not a radical 180 degree turn from Rumsfeld and has done things that are even less popular. At the end of the day, its Bush's decision.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 02:08 AM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:05 PM
The Return

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 11:29 AM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
[B]

Ironically, the only ones jumping to conclusions and presuming that Iran is nothing to worry about now are Democrats and many of the Presidents opponents.

i don't know how many times i can say this.

no serious person now thinks that Iran isn't a threat, or doesn't need to be dealt with.

all RATIONAL people are saying that Iran is quite a different threat and situation than the apocalyptic jihadist state bent on world domination and WW3 that the Bush administration has spent much of 2007 trying to characterize. the NIE *eviscerates* this notion. Iran is not the threat Bush and Cheney said it was. it is of a much different nature.

you make the most sweeping statements in regards to everyone but Bush. it's breathtaking.




[q]The real hysteria is generated by them, day after day. Its, yesterday Iran was a threat("because the president lied") and now their not. That absurd notion belongs to the Presidents opponents. [/q]


no one says this! no one! you make shit up! the leading Democratic presidential nominees ALL agree that Iran is a threat, just of a different sort! and Clinton has been just as embarrassed by the NIE as the Bushies! no one says that Iran is now Switzerland! where do you get your information?

oh, right, you don't. you fabricate quotes and intentions of people who disagree with you, and then present it as if it were fact.

and that's kind of appropriate. because that's how Bush does foreign policy. he decides on the "nature" of something or someone, and then fits everything into that prism. empirical facts be damned.




[q]Yes, empirical reality does matter. facts do matter. But your ignoring them because of your unrestrained opposition to the administration.[/q]




coming from you: priceless.




[q]Taking sometime to understand what the NIE actually is, and is not, as well the basics for developing nuclear weapons would help to dispel this notion that everything is just wonderful and or that the presidents position on Iran has been "eviscerated" by the 2007 NIE.[/q]


i will explain this to you one last time.

Iran is not the same threat as has been characterized by the Bush administration. their characterization has been based in politics and wishful thinking, not in reality or facts.

the NIE has *eviscerated* this characterization and revealed the threat from Tehran to be something quite DIFFERENT (not *nonexistent*) than the public has been told.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 01:31 PM   #179
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
all RATIONAL people are saying that Iran is quite a different threat and situation than the apocalyptic jihadist state bent on world domination and WW3 that the Bush administration has spent much of 2007 trying to characterize. the NIE *eviscerates* this notion. Iran is not the threat Bush and Cheney said it was. it is of a much different nature.
Quote:
you make the most sweeping statements in regards to everyone but Bush. it's breathtaking.
Bush makes a comment that "if your interested in preventing WW III, then you should be interested in preventing Iran from getting Nuclear Weapons". Its true that none of the leading Democratic candidates disagree with that, inlcuding Obama who is quoted saying essentially the same thing.

But, Democratic pundits like Chris Matthews have described the latest NIE as a "Christmas present", not only as a new political talking point, but he expressed that the United States no longer needs to be worried about Iran.

But instead of always fabricating what the Bush administration is doing or not doing based on certain statements, one should actually look at the ACTIONS of this administration in regards to Iran.

Administration policy on Iran as definied by their actions shows that they want a new UN resolution increasing sanctions on Iran because of their urarnium enrichment activities. That, and not fantasy's about the Bush administration, based on exagerated interpretations of certain statements, should be ones starting point for evaluating administration policy towards Iran.



Quote:
no one says this! no one! you make shit up! the leading Democratic presidential nominees ALL agree that Iran is a threat, just of a different sort! and Clinton has been just as embarrassed by the NIE as the Bushies! no one says that Iran is now Switzerland! where do you get your information?
Well, it may not be exactly the same thing, but when you earlier refered to questions about the threat from Iran as:

Quote:
in light of the NIE, it's all pretty moot now
It does suggest a lack of concern, which is certainly not expressed in the NIE.


In regards to factual statements, I've actually presented a few that are in the NIE, like the fact that they estimate Iran at the earliest could have a nuclear weapon by the last half of 2009, which is exactly what the 2005 NIE said as well. That is a FACT.

The following is an opinion:

Quote:
all RATIONAL people are saying that Iran is quite a different threat and situation than the apocalyptic jihadist state bent on world domination and WW3 that the Bush administration has spent much of 2007 trying to characterize. the NIE *eviscerates* this notion. Iran is not the threat Bush and Cheney said it was. it is of a much different nature.
It is also a fact that the most difficult part of making a nuclear weapon involves making the fuel, not warhead design. Not only has Iran not stopped nuclear enrichment, it has greatly sped up the process.

Take sometime to think about why the NIE has not changed their estimate of when Iran could have a nuclear weapon from the 2005 Estimate. Its still the last half of 2009 which is only 18 months away.

I've also quoted Obama's statements from his recent essay in Foreign Affairs which shows that he actually did have some things in common with Bush on several issues, including the threat posed by Iran. No wonder some "Neo-Cons" came out in support of some of Obama's speeches and essay's last spring.


I love facts and statistics, and actually have used a few in this thread unlike the rest of it which is mainly opinion.



As to whether Iran is the same as half dozen other countries in the Middle East, I'd loved to get into a detailed discussion of that especially the military balance as it now stands in the region.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 02:10 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

There is no reason for Iran to be enriching Uranium, given they have no reactors, and another stiffer UN sanctions resolution is needed.
How about Bushehr, and the three to four other reactors planned? Sure, it's not operational yet, but it's supposedly near completion.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com