Why Iran?

[phillyfan26]

Well, that depends how you define imninent threat, and thats also not actually the guiding factor in taking decisive military action in this particular case.

It wasn't just the guiding factor, it was pretty much the only factor until they realized there were no WMDs. Then they suddenly changed the gameplan.

 

[Strongbow]

It wasn't just the guiding factor, it was pretty much the only factor until they realized there were no WMDs. Then they suddenly changed the gameplan.

The guiding factor was preventing Saddam from reconstituting the capabilities he had, both conventional and non-conventional military assets, that he had in August of 1990. The only way to insure that proved to be regime change, given the failure of the containment regime. Once the regime was removed from power, the above objective had been achieved, and the focus obviously turned to the necessary rebuilding of the country after 24 years of Saddam.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You can read almost anything you want to when it comes to language. Did Jimmy's Carters statement that he was willing to use Nuclear Weapons to defend the Persian Gulf after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 mean that Jimmy Carter wanted to nuke the Soviet Union? Did Reagans comments during his administration mean he wanted to Nuke the Soviet Union? There were certainly politicians back then that attempted to make that arguement, but there was really no basis for it.

Was not alive during Carter's presidency, was just a toddler during the second term of Reagan's, so I cannot comment on those. I'd have to read up on/watch statements of theirs from those time periods to judge exactly what they said and how they said, figuring in the situation at the time as well.

The vast majority of countries in the world do not have Nuclear Weapons and most countries are not active sponsers of terrorist organizations like Iran is, so the concern over Iran's movement towards a nuclear weapon is warrented and countries like China, the Soviet Union, Germany, France, the United States and the United Kingdom all agree on that point.

Whether the amount of countries that have nuclear weapons is a minority or a majority, the fact is that there are some countries out there, again, the U.S. included, that have them. Forgive Iran for being a bit confused as to why it's wrong for them to have the same weapons other countries are allowed to have. The U.S. has no room to be talking about who should and shouldn't be owning weapons. As for the terrorist thing, ya know, given that we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, again, we really should shut up and stop making ourselves look so hypocritical.

I've not seen where Obama has ruled out using military force against Iran, and he even wrote a speech a while back that got the support of some people in the Neo-Conservative community.

I'd be interested to see that speech if possible. But from the stuff I've watched with him on TV, he seems to be pushing much more towards diplomacy. If he does happen to support military force, it's as an absolute LAST RESORT. But he's much more willing to try the diplomatic route first, unlike Bush, or unlike a lot of the Republican candidates out now.

In addition, while Hillary voted to name the Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, Obama while he did not vote for the measure, did not vote against it either.

That doesn't prove what his stance is, though. Maybe he wanted to learn more about them before determining whether or not to vote them as a terrorist organization, or maybe he didn't see a point in voting on something like that.

The Iraq conflict occupy's much of the US military's active US Army and US Marine Corp, but the US Navy and US Air Force have more than enough assets to strike Iran and a few other places as well, given that Iraq is now overwhelmingly a ground operation. In addition, the US Guard and Reserve is not fully mobilized and could be if there was a war with Iran. So it is not necessarily so, that the Bush administration or the next administration has no military options while the United States is involved in Iraq.

Don't forget, though, that we are also low on money and funding for supplies. So even if we did happen to have enough troops for Iran, they won't be properly protected, and we can't afford to send them there to begin with. Which is why it'd be really wise if we just sat this one out, at least in the military sense (in the diplomatic sense we can get involved), and cleaned up the mess in Iraq instead.

Angela

 

[BVS]

It all makes sense now...

 

[Strongbow]

Was not alive during Carter's presidency, was just a toddler during the second term of Reagan's, so I cannot comment on those. I'd have to read up on/watch statements of theirs from those time periods to judge exactly what they said and how they said, figuring in the situation at the time as well.



Whether the amount of countries that have nuclear weapons is a minority or a majority, the fact is that there are some countries out there, again, the U.S. included, that have them. Forgive Iran for being a bit confused as to why it's wrong for them to have the same weapons other countries are allowed to have. The U.S. has no room to be talking about who should and shouldn't be owning weapons. As for the terrorist thing, ya know, given that we're buddies with Saudi Arabia, again, we really should shut up and stop making ourselves look so hypocritical.



I'd be interested to see that speech if possible. But from the stuff I've watched with him on TV, he seems to be pushing much more towards diplomacy. If he does happen to support military force, it's as an absolute LAST RESORT. But he's much more willing to try the diplomatic route first, unlike Bush, or unlike a lot of the Republican candidates out now.



That doesn't prove what his stance is, though. Maybe he wanted to learn more about them before determining whether or not to vote them as a terrorist organization, or maybe he didn't see a point in voting on something like that.



Don't forget, though, that we are also low on money and funding for supplies. So even if we did happen to have enough troops for Iran, they won't be properly protected, and we can't afford to send them there to begin with. Which is why it'd be really wise if we just sat this one out, at least in the military sense (in the diplomatic sense we can get involved), and cleaned up the mess in Iraq instead.

Angela

Well, Iran did sign onto the NPT treaty and the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council has worked very hard to stop the spread of Nuclear Weapons as well as reducing its own Cold War stockpiles. Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons will only force countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to consider doing the same. If your interested in stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons around the world, then you should be very interested in trying to prevent rogue countries from trying to develop such weapons not simply because of the risk from such weapons in their hands, but because it forces other countries in the region to consider going the nuclear route as well.

There are 9 countries in the world today with Nuclear Weapons. The United States, France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel(undeclared). That leaves 183 countries that have not developed nuclear weapons and in order to keep it that way, the effort must be made to keep Iran from having such weapons and as well as getting North Korea to disarm.



Here are the statements by Obama that clearly show he is not ruling out using military force against Iran:

Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing.Although we must not rule out using military force , we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.

Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.

Here is the entire essay from Foreign Affairs whe the quotes come from:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Dennis Kucinich is your man if you want someone who is completely against the use of military force in regards to Iran.


In terms of funding for the military, this is being increased, but its still only amounts to 4.5% of annual GDP. During the peacetime of the 1980s, the United States was spending 6% of its GDP on the military, so the United States could be spending a lot more on defense before it would start to show signs of serious strain. While the United States is behind in funding and replacing equipment for many military units, this can be fixed and the leading Republican and Democratic candidates have all pledged to increase defense spending in order to do this as quickly as possible. As to the situation right now, while the United States may not be able to send all of its active and reserve ground combat brigades over seas, it could still send the vast majority of them if the situation required it.

 

[phillyfan26]

Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.

 

[Irvine511]

Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.

will you stop!

your nuances blur the ability to obfuscate the issue.

 

[Strongbow]

Making a guarantee that military force will not be used isn't smart: you don't know what events will transpire. But Obama is not like Giuliani, considering it a viable option RIGHT NOW.

Obama has never said that military force should be taken off the table right now, or during the next administration. The no military force option belongs to Kucinich and Gravel.

 

[phillyfan26]

I never said he was taking it off the table...

 

[Strongbow]

I never said he was taking it off the table...

You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.

 

[Irvine511]

You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.

but the bellicose, jingoist, "WW3" language used by the administration is worlds apart from the cautious level-headedness of Obama.

it's entirely disingenuous to say they have the same position.

 

[phillyfan26]

You implied that he did not consider it a viable option "RIGHT NOW" and that is not the case. It is an option, although both he and the Bush administration prefer to use economic and diplomatic options at the current time.

No, it is the case. Right now, being, like, today, or next month, without economic and diplomatic efforts first.

 

[Strongbow]

No, it is the case. Right now, being, like, today, or next month, without economic and diplomatic efforts first.

But the option to strike is not off the table even with him at the moment and all the candidates are for trying some form of economic and diplomatic efforts first. None of the candidates are criticizing Bush for not having started into a military option against Iran.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, Iran did sign onto the NPT treaty and the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council has worked very hard to stop the spread of Nuclear Weapons as well as reducing its own Cold War stockpiles.

Good. Glad to hear that.

Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons will only force countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to consider doing the same. If your interested in stopping the spread of Nuclear Weapons around the world, then you should be very interested in trying to prevent rogue countries from trying to develop such weapons not simply because of the risk from such weapons in their hands, but because it forces other countries in the region to consider going the nuclear route as well.

There are 9 countries in the world today with Nuclear Weapons. The United States, France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel(undeclared). That leaves 183 countries that have not developed nuclear weapons and in order to keep it that way, the effort must be made to keep Iran from having such weapons and as well as getting North Korea to disarm.

Once again, if we want these other countries to disarm or if we want to stop them from making weapons, fine. I'd be more than happy to have little to no amount of nuclear weapons left in the world.

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:

We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads.

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.

In terms of funding for the military, this is being increased, but its still only amounts to 4.5% of annual GDP. During the peacetime of the 1980s, the United States was spending 6% of its GDP on the military, so the United States could be spending a lot more on defense before it would start to show signs of serious strain. While the United States is behind in funding and replacing equipment for many military units, this can be fixed and the leading Republican and Democratic candidates have all pledged to increase defense spending in order to do this as quickly as possible. As to the situation right now, while the United States may not be able to send all of its active and reserve ground combat brigades over seas, it could still send the vast majority of them if the situation required it.

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

 

[Strongbow]

but the bellicose, jingoist, "WW3" language used by the administration is worlds apart from the cautious level-headedness of Obama.

it's entirely disingenuous to say they have the same position.

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

 

[Irvine511]

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."

 

[Strongbow]

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]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

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?

 

[Strongbow]

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]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'll second that. Excellent post .

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

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.

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.

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.

 

[U2DMfan]

The Return

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[Strongbow]

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

 

[ntalwar]

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.