Must be time to bomb Iran

[Oli]

Intelligence agencies say Tehran halted weapons programme in 2003

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Tuesday December 4, 2007
The Guardian

US intelligence agencies undercut the White House yesterday by disclosing for the first time that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the past four years. The secret report, which was declassified yesterday and published, marked a significant shift from previous estimates. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," it said.

The disclosure makes it harder for President George Bush, to justify a military strike against Iran before he leaves office next year. It also makes it more difficult to persuade Russia and China to join the US, Britain and France in imposing a new round of sanctions on Tehran.

Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney have been claiming without equivocation that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president warning in October of the risk of a third world war. They were briefed on the national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Wednesday.

The White House national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, at a press conference yesterday, denied there were echoes of the intelligence failure over Iraq's phantom weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iran was "one of a handful of the hardest intelligence targets going" and the new intelligence had only arrived in the past few months. As soon as it did, both the president and Congress had been briefed. He warned that there would be a tendency now to think "the problem is less bad than we thought, let's relax. Our view is that would be a mistake."

The NIE, which pulls together the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies, is entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It concluded: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme." It had not been restarted as of the middle of this year.

In a startling admission from an administration that regularly portrays Iran as the biggest threat to the Middle East and the world, the NIE said: "We do not know whether currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." That contradicts the assessment two years ago that baldly stated that Tehran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons".

The British government, which is planning to discuss the report with its US counterparts during the next few days, has also repeatedly said it suspects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government of seeking a nuclear weapons capability. It will claim that the weapons halt shows that diplomacy - in particular the threat of sanctions - can work.

The weapons halt roughly coincided with a visit by British, French and German foreign ministers to Tehran in October 2003.

The Iranian government has insisted throughout that it is only pursuing a civilian nuclear programme.

Although a halt to the nuclear weapons programme is significant, the NIE is far from a clean bill of health for Iran. Tehran is pushing ahead with its uranium enrichment programme, which has only limited civilian use and could be quickly converted to nuclear military use. The NIE warned that Iran could secure a nuclear weapon by 2010. The US state department's intelligence and research office, one of the agencies involved, said the more likely timescale would be 2013. All the agencies concede that Iran may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015.

The White House will continue to try to intensify international pressure on Iran. Russia and China, two of the permanent members of the UN security council, have scuppered attempts by the US over the past six months to impose tough new sanctions on Iran.

The decision to publish the NIE is aimed at trying to recover the public credibility lost when the agencies wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the years leading up to 2003.

Aren't these the guys who told us the Iraqis [i]had chemical weapons?

[Quinn]

Given how long Tehran hid its nuclear program from the world, and how much it spent, I'm not sure what to think (quitting doesn't make sense from a cost-benefit standpoint) I'm waiting to hear what, if anything, the Mossad has to say.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Well that's easy. Mossad says that anything that doesn't promote a zionist ideal is a threat to Israel. They're the ones who have been pushing this idea that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal all along.

They, along with US intelligence agencies & the US administration, knew about this Iranian policy before Ahmadinejad ever took office in 2005. Supreme leader Ali Khamenei is military commander in chief, & has been since '89.

It's no secret that they had the technology blueprint provided by Dr AQ Khan. So does everybody else in the Muslim world. Enrichment proceedures are the same no matter what you're trying to do with the uranium. It's their uranium. They're mining it out of their mountains. They're building 2 nuclear power plants simultaneously down on the gulf coast. Those plants are going to take a lot of fuel, & who can blame Iran for being skeptical of promises, especially by the US, to supply that fuel indefinitely.

Now that who knew way & when has been outed, it's kind of fun to watch all these doom sayers & war mongers dancing around like trout on a hook.

[Quinn]

Well that's easy. Mossad says that anything that doesn't promote a zionist ideal is a threat to Israel. They're the ones who have been pushing this idea that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal all along.

Apparently, it’s not that easy. It was the dissident group the National Council of Resistance of Iran that revealed the existence of the secret nuclear program and provided the details outlining the nature of the program, not the Mossad or the CIA. After this revelation, the IAEA started to examine the issue and found that the program had existed in secret – for 18 years.

Why would a nation with more oil than it knows what to do with – projections of distant oil production short-falls are a recent development – develop a nuclear program. The question becomes even more poignant when you consdier that the cost of the program passed the $10 billion mark over a decade ago, well before the prgram really expanded. It’s like eskimos spending tens of billions of dollars to develop refrigeration technology. Why use heavy water reactors? Why enrich the euranium past the point necessary for use it as fuel (specifically to the degree necessary to build nuclear weapons)? These things have been verified by organiztions other than the Mossad or CIA.

Look, I’m not saying that they haven’t stopped trying to build nuclear weapons. I am saying that I want confirmation from the organization that has, since the Iranian Revolution, provided most of the best intelligence on that nation’s internal developments. After all, it’s not like the Iranians are cooperating.

-Quinn

[hippifried]

Why would a nation with more oil than it knows what to do with – projections of distant oil production short-falls are a recent development – develop a nuclear program.
Why not? They have uranium. Lots of it. It's not like they can just sell it on the open market. Use that for power & free up the oil reserves for revenue.

Who made the nuclear program public is irrelevant because any weapons program, if one ever existed, was over before that happened. The whole world already knew about the deal with Russia to build the power plants. Dollars to donuts the Russians knew about the enrichment program & so did the CIA & Mossad.

All this saber-rattling has been nothing but a series of lies to keep the perpetual war going. The yokels in the pentagon are projecting 15 to 20 more years in Afghanistan alone. They won't even hazard a guess for Iraq. Iranians aren't stupid, despite all the hype to the contrary. They know that nuclear weapons make them a target. I'm thinking that the 2003 date is just as far back as these "intelligence" agencies can trace the Iranian policy, or as far back as they're willing to admit. I haven't seen anything yet that says this was a reversal.

Sorry if I seem cynical in regards to the administration's hype, but I've been lied to too many times to accept anything they have to say. President Bush lost my trust a long time ago. None of the others, Vice President Cheney especially, ever had it.

[Rogers]

Why would a nation with more oil than it knows what to do with – projections of distant oil production short-falls are a recent development – develop a nuclear program. The question becomes even more poignant when you consdier that the cost of the program passed the $10 billion mark over a decade ago, well before the prgram really expanded. It’s like eskimos spending tens of billions of dollars to develop refrigeration technology. Why use heavy water reactors? Why enrich the euranium past the point necessary for use it as fuel (specifically to the degree necessary to build nuclear weapons)? These things have been verified by organiztions other than the Mossad or CIA.

Why Nations Want Nuclear Weapons

Nations want nuclear weapons for one or more of seven reasons. First, great powers always counter the weapons of other great powers, usually by imitating those who have introduced new weapons. It was not surprising that the Soviet Union developed atomic and hydrogen bombs, but rather that we thought the Baruch-Lilienthal plan might persuade her not to.

Second, a state may want nuclear weapons for fear that its great-power ally will not retaliate if the other great power attacks. Although Britain when she became a nuclear power thought of herself as being a great one, her reasons for deciding later to maintain a nuclear force arose from doubts that the United States could be counted on to retaliate in response to an attack by the Soviet Union on Europe and from Britain's consequent desire to place a finger on our nuclear trigger. As soon as the Soviet Union was capable of making nuclear strikes at American cities, West Europeans began to worry that America's nuclear umbrella no longer ensured that her allies would stay dry if it rained. Hugh GaitskeIl, as Leader of the Opposition, could say what Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, dared not: 'I do not believe that when we speak of our having to have nuclear weapons of our own it is because we must make a contribution to the deterrent of the West'. As he indicated, no contribution of consequence was made. Instead, he remarked, the desire for a nuclear force derives in large part 'from doubts about the readiness of the United States Government and the American citizens to risk the destruction of their cities on behalf of Europe'. Similar doubts provided the strongest stimulus for France to become a nuclear power.

Third, a country without nuclear allies will want nuclear weapons all the more if some of its adversaries have them. So China and then India became nuclear powers, and Pakistan will probably follow.

Fourth, a country may want nuclear weapons because it lives in fear of its adversaries' present or future conventional strength. This is reason enough for Israel's nuclear weapons, which most authorities assume she either has at hand or can quickly assemble.

Fifth, some countries may find nuclear weapons a cheaper and safer alternative to running economically ruinous and militarily dangerous conventional arms races. Nuclear weapons may promise increased security and independence at an affordable price.

Sixth, countries may want nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. This, however, is an unlikely motivation for reasons given below.

Finally, by building nuclear weapons a country may hope to enhance its international standing. This is thought to be both a reason for and a consequence of developing nuclear weapons. One may enjoy the prestige that comes with nuclear weapons, and indeed a yearning for glory was not absent from de Gaulle's soul. But the nuclear military business is a serious one, and we may expect that deeper motives than desire for prestige lie behind the decision to enter it.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

One or more of the 4 reasons I have highlighted in bold apply to Iran. My money is on ## 3 + 4. Iran has never invaded anyone, but has been invaded by a former key ally of the West in its own region resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was meddled in prior to its revolution (that's what triggered its revolution imho) and is still being meddled in by foreign governments to this very day. I could be wrong, Quinn, but I stongly suspect that you have never been an underdog in the whole of your life. :wink: But to those who have been, who are intellectually honest and not hypocrites, Iran seeking a nuclear arsenal of its own is wholly understandable, if not appreciated. If Iran does ever become nuclear then the days of it being intimidated by Israeli bombing and U.S. gunboat diplomacy will end, or at the very least be severely curtailed. If you were a leader of Iran, Quinn, wouldn't these goals not be high on your shopping-list as well?

If Iran has stopped its nuclear program and hasn't let on about it, it is most likely for the very same reasons that Iraq hid the cessation of its W.M.D. program... fear of ravenous enemies.
New doubts over Iraq intelligence
3/20/07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6472935.stm

Just in case anyway is still in doubt, I despise the regime in Iran as much as many Iranians do. And I still say ya gotta love cats, trish. :wink:

[Quinn]

Why would a nation with more oil than it knows what to do with – projections of distant oil production short-falls are a recent development – develop a nuclear program.
Why not? They have uranium. Lots of it. It's not like they can just sell it on the open market. Use that for power & free up the oil reserves for revenue.

Who made the nuclear program public is irrelevant because any weapons program, if one ever existed, was over before that happened. The whole world already knew about the deal with Russia to build the power plants. Dollars to donuts the Russians knew about the enrichment program & so did the CIA & Mossad.

All this saber-rattling has been nothing but a series of lies to keep the perpetual war going. The yokels in the pentagon are projecting 15 to 20 more years in Afghanistan alone. They won't even hazard a guess for Iraq. Iranians aren't stupid, despite all the hype to the contrary. They know that nuclear weapons make them a target. I'm thinking that the 2003 date is just as far back as these "intelligence" agencies can trace the Iranian policy, or as far back as they're willing to admit. I haven't seen anything yet that says this was a reversal.

Sorry if I seem cynical in regards to the administration's hype, but I've been lied to too many times to accept anything they have to say. President Bush lost my trust a long time ago. None of the others, Vice President Cheney especially, ever had it.

Hippifried, so far as any degree of cynicism toward the Bush administration and its unremittingly incompetent policies are concerned, you’re preaching to the choir. I’m right there with you. That said, the issue of an ascendant, hegemonically oriented fundamentalist leadership (the Guardian Council) in Iran predates this lamentable administration.

I respectfully disagree as to the relevance of who made the program’s existence public. That this revelation came from internal sources, within Iran itself, makes it far more credible than if said revelation had come from US sources. Furthermore, the existence of this program has been verified by a range of credible and unlikely foreign sources (German BND, etc). That the program represented a means to build a nuclear weapon is, frankly, beyond reasonable contestation (the evidence is pretty damning). And, yes, the Russians definitely knew.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

Why would a nation with more oil than it knows what to do with – projections of distant oil production short-falls are a recent development – develop a nuclear program. The question becomes even more poignant when you consdier that the cost of the program passed the $10 billion mark over a decade ago, well before the prgram really expanded. It’s like eskimos spending tens of billions of dollars to develop refrigeration technology. Why use heavy water reactors? Why enrich the euranium past the point necessary for use it as fuel (specifically to the degree necessary to build nuclear weapons)? These things have been verified by organiztions other than the Mossad or CIA.

Why Nations Want Nuclear Weapons

Nations want nuclear weapons for one or more of seven reasons. First, great powers always counter the weapons of other great powers, usually by imitating those who have introduced new weapons. It was not surprising that the Soviet Union developed atomic and hydrogen bombs, but rather that we thought the Baruch-Lilienthal plan might persuade her not to.

Second, a state may want nuclear weapons for fear that its great-power ally will not retaliate if the other great power attacks. Although Britain when she became a nuclear power thought of herself as being a great one, her reasons for deciding later to maintain a nuclear force arose from doubts that the United States could be counted on to retaliate in response to an attack by the Soviet Union on Europe and from Britain's consequent desire to place a finger on our nuclear trigger. As soon as the Soviet Union was capable of making nuclear strikes at American cities, West Europeans began to worry that America's nuclear umbrella no longer ensured that her allies would stay dry if it rained. Hugh GaitskeIl, as Leader of the Opposition, could say what Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, dared not: 'I do not believe that when we speak of our having to have nuclear weapons of our own it is because we must make a contribution to the deterrent of the West'. As he indicated, no contribution of consequence was made. Instead, he remarked, the desire for a nuclear force derives in large part 'from doubts about the readiness of the United States Government and the American citizens to risk the destruction of their cities on behalf of Europe'. Similar doubts provided the strongest stimulus for France to become a nuclear power.

Third, a country without nuclear allies will want nuclear weapons all the more if some of its adversaries have them. So China and then India became nuclear powers, and Pakistan will probably follow.

Fourth, a country may want nuclear weapons because it lives in fear of its adversaries' present or future conventional strength. This is reason enough for Israel's nuclear weapons, which most authorities assume she either has at hand or can quickly assemble.

Fifth, some countries may find nuclear weapons a cheaper and safer alternative to running economically ruinous and militarily dangerous conventional arms races. Nuclear weapons may promise increased security and independence at an affordable price.

Sixth, countries may want nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. This, however, is an unlikely motivation for reasons given below.

Finally, by building nuclear weapons a country may hope to enhance its international standing. This is thought to be both a reason for and a consequence of developing nuclear weapons. One may enjoy the prestige that comes with nuclear weapons, and indeed a yearning for glory was not absent from de Gaulle's soul. But the nuclear military business is a serious one, and we may expect that deeper motives than desire for prestige lie behind the decision to enter it.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

One or more of the 4 reasons I have highlighted in bold apply to Iran. My money is on ## 3 + 4. Iran has never invaded anyone, but has been invaded by a former key ally of the West in its own region resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was meddled in prior to its revolution (that's what triggered its revolution imho) and is still being meddled in by foreign governments to this very day. I could be wrong, Quinn, but I stongly suspect that you have never been an underdog in the whole of your life. :wink: But to those who have been, who are intellectually honest and not hypocrites, Iran seeking a nuclear arsenal of its own is wholly understandable, if not appreciated. If Iran does ever become nuclear then the days of it being intimidated by Israeli bombing and U.S. gunboat diplomacy will end, or at the very least be severely curtailed. If you were a leader of Iran, Quinn, wouldn't these goals not be high on your shopping-list as well?

If Iran has stopped its nuclear program and hasn't let on about it, it is most likely for the very same reasons that Iraq hid the cessation of its W.M.D. program... fear of ravenous enemies.
New doubts over Iraq intelligence
3/20/07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6472935.stm

Just in case anyway is still in doubt, I despise the regime in Iran as much as many Iranians do. And I still say ya gotta love cats, trish. :wink:


Rogers, I can't believe you cited Kenneth Waltz. :claps Waltz, and that paper in particular, were required reading when I was working on my MA in international relations. Being a dedicated neorealist, I’m a huge fan of Waltz and agree with your arguments concerning the motivations of Iran's current leadership (it's important to note that Iran's pre-revolutionary regimes also pursued similar programs).

I am of the opinion that Iran was, prior to its potential cessation of nuclear weapons research, holding all of the cards:

1) If Iran’s leadership succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, they would be able to operate in the Gulf region with near impunity (in addition to regaining much of its lost domestic legitimacy). This matters as much, if not more, to the conservative, Sunni dominated Gulf monarchies than it does to Israel. Why? Intelligence agencies in the gulf (Bahrain’s SIS, etc.) have reported an alarming rise in activity among Iranian operatives with respect to their own, repressed Shiite populations – which is one of many reasons gulf monarchies gave back-channel support to Israel’s so-called Summer War (they wanted to contain Iranian adventurism).

2) If the US, or more likely Israel acting as our proxy, bombs Iran’s massive network of nuclear research facilities (at least two-dozen different sites), it will give the Guardian Council and Ahmadinejad exactly what they are looking for: an external event to distract Iran’s increasingly restive population from focusing on that state’s rapidly deteriorating economy.

3) They’re already winning in Iraq. They’re smart enough to know that we would need at least 300,000 men on the ground to even come close to sealing Iraq’s borders. The fact is that we can’t afford the men we have their now, let alone that many more. They can and will continue to provide operational assistance to the Shia population long after we leave.

4) The Russians and Chinese, pursuant to their own economic interests (gas, oil, and possibly weapons sales), will block any truly effective UN resolution from coming into effect no matter what the Iranians do – which makes a forced diplomatic resolution unlikely (the Europeans already tried paying them off).

If you recall, my original point was that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, it doesn't make sense for the Iranians to stop developing nuclear weapons. Such a development may not be good for Europe, Israel, the Middle East's Sunni dominated regimes (the Gulf monarchies in particular), or the US, but it's definitely in the interest of Iran’s current leadership. The questions I asked Hippifried were intended to address his doubt that the program had even existed.

-Quinn

P.S. Good posts, guys.

[trish]

great thread. thankyou all.

[Night Rider]

Good thread, if I wasn't so stupid I could contribute!

[tsafficianado]

never stopped you before.

[Night Rider]

never stopped you before.

welcome back bitch

214 posts (170 in bulges & filled underwear/ 26 in beef beyontes/ 18 stalking me)

[tsafficianado]

o.k. blowhard, quote one of my 170 posts in 'bulges & filled underwear' or one of the 26 in 'beef beyontes'. as far as stalking you, i'm on here once almost every day and for 2 months it has been impossible to go on this forum and not see 'nightloser' at almost every turn. you have nothing to say, ever, but it takes you 50 posts per day to say it. that makes you IMPOTENT, not important. you are a piece of shit. end of subject.

[Night Rider]

o.k. blowhard, quote one of my 170 posts in 'bulges & filled underwear' or one of the 26 in 'beef beyontes'. as far as stalking you, i'm on here once almost every day and for 2 months it has been impossible to go on this forum and not see 'nightloser' at almost every turn. you have nothing to say, ever, but it takes you 50 posts per day to say it. that makes you IMPOTENT, not important. you are a piece of shit. end of subject.

Oh did I strike a nerve. You basically camp in "bulges & filled underwear" so don't lie. I'm not in the thread but I see your name there more times than I've had sunday dinners. You're a crazy cock obsessed stalker. End of subject.

[tsafficianado]

one more time you useless piece of shit. i didn't lie, i said for you to quote ONE of my posts in either of those threads, which of course you can't do since i have never read either or posted in either. as far as you striking a nerve, absolutely, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being and the most aggravating and useless poster in the history of this forum. you are garbage. you are a lifeless troll who spends hours a day posting useless crap on this board. you have launched unsolicited attacks on valued members of this community, notably stillies, you have insulted and degraded several of the long-standing transsexual participants and for some unfathomable reason some of the regulars who should know better have cottoned up to your useless ass. you call other posters fags when they own you because that is your mental level. you have nothing to add, but you post incessantly like some retarded energizer bunny because you are lifeless trash. now carry on retard.

[Night Rider]

boo hoo stillies brought in on himself..if I was that worthless I'd be banned. Nobody has ever owned me on this forum, let's not bullshit. I owned you a couple of times and that's why you keep coming back like some lutatic seeking revenge. It bores me because I don't know that much about you, I can only own you so many times. The fsact that you're a No.1 lurker means it's hard for me to have any ammo. All I know is I've seen you're name on 'general forum' beside the "bulges" thread. Don't feel bad about it, if you like cock, you like cock. I'm certainly not going to enter that thread to look up your "oh I'd love to be shafted by that" quotes.

So just you carry on lurking and I'll carry on posting.

[Oli]

Boys, can we agree to confine the flame wars to General Discussion? Please?

[Rogers]

Clearly I don't have the same level of knowledge that you have on this subject, Quinn, but I suspect that the Intel IS RIGHT on this. Obviously there is more to be done by the Intelligence Agencies, but that's what they're paid for. But I reckon the Iranians got scared by the massive U.S. deployment of firepower on their doorstep and thought that they were next. They probably see Bush ("God told me to invade Iraq") as much of a religious fanatic (a Crusader if you like), as much as we view them as being so too. Let's face it, Iran's nuclear facilities would have already been bombed by now if it weren't for Mission Accomplished being a massive misnomer, and the U.S. currently having such a low standing in the International Community.

The reason I think that both you and Oli seem to have a low regard for the Intelligence Community is that the system has been abused and manipulated by the Bush and Blair Administrations. We all now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with W.M.D.'s or the War on Terror, but those were the only "legitimate" reasons that BushInc. could come up with to achieve their desired goal (which was most likely in the pipeline before 9/11 imho). Bush wanted the Brits to be there (to bolster the "Coalition"), and the only way Blair could get the go-ahead from the U.K. Parliament was to exaggerate and spin the limited Intel on W.M.D.'s... limited because the W.M.D.'s were simply not there.

The problem has not really been the Intel but the U.S./U.K. Administrations who have exaggerated it to suit their own purposes, just as it would seem they've been exaggerating the current threat that Iran poses. And when Iran restarts its nuclear weapons program, as I'm sure they will for the reasons I have given above, it will be all the harder for the U.S. (or Israel) to act unilaterally because of the chimp (and poodle) who cried wolf... but then that's maybe a good thing depending on where you stand. :wink:

I fully share hippifried's sentiment,

...it's kind of fun to watch all these doom sayers & war mongers dancing around like trout on a hook.

Tony Blair: ‘I wanted war – it was the right thing to do’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/the_blair_years/article2886547.ece

Lessons of Iraq Aided Intelligence On Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/02/LI2005040200260.html

[Quinn]

Let's face it, Iran's nuclear facilities would have already been bombed by now if it weren't for Mission Accomplished being a massive misnomer, and the U.S. currently having such a low standing in the International Community.

I thought the whole post was excellent, Rogers, but this part stood out more than any other. From my perspective, there's not doubt that Iran's nuclear infrastructure would have been hit by a sustained campaign of surgical strikes if it weren't for precisely what you're talking about: our currently low standing in the international community. That said, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Israelis – acting with the Bush administration's operational assistance (satellite photos, in-air refueling, the transfer of ground penetrating munitions, etc.) – launch 11th hours strikes in the final month of said administration.

IMO, no matter what happens, the political landscape of the Middle East is changing dramatically. The next large-scale, sustained conflict will be almost certainly be between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Saudis and other gulf monarchies (presumably with Egyptian assistance) have already made it clear that following any US withdrawal from Iraq, they intend to bolster the position of that nation's Sunni minority with billions in military aid – the goal being to prevent Iran from setting up a Shia dominated client state (like what they're attempting to do in Lebanon).

I don't want to side with the doomsayers on this, but whether we stay (and ruin our own economy in the process) or leave (opening the way for Iranian expansionism via proxies), things are going to get bad. Removing Saddam was a ruinous proposition – something Bush I actually understood.

-Quinn

P.S. Sorry for rambling on about this, guys and gals, but Iran has been something of a passion of mine since I was in my early teens (nerd alert).

[hippifried]

Well despite the animosities caused by silly stereotypical misunderstandings, I think people are pretty much the same all over. they want to live their lives with as little turmoil as possible, & turn the world over to their offspring just a little better than they found it. I've seen no reason to assume that it's any different in Iran. In pre-revolutionary years, we were touting them as some grand jewel of educated enlightenment in this dark mysterious land of the Levant. Now they're ignorant barbarians with diabolical plans for world domination. I didn't buy it then & I ain't buying it now. It's just silly to make assumptions about a nation's motivations based on inflamitory rhetoric.

Yes they have nuclear technology. They already know how to make a nuclear weapon if they wanted to. I'm sure the Iranian military wanted to. Generals are generals regardless of what language they speak or who signs their paychecks. They're always looking for a bigger gun, a bigger bomb, a faster jet, etc... So what's new? But the Iranian military is under civilian control, like any other civilized country & intellect won the day. Strategically, they're surrounded. It's not just us putzin' around in the gulf. Russia is to their north, Pakistan (nuclear armed) & Afghanistan to the east, Turkey (part of NATO) Iraq (occupied by the US) & Israel to the west. Iranians aren't stupid or insane & I'm sure they aren't anywhere near as fanatical as they've been painted in the press. Yet here we are with our "leadership" trying to convince us that Iran is hell bent on a self-destructive course of action that's completely contrary to their own self-interest. It makes no sense unless you're looking for any excuse to start another war, especially in light of the latest intelligence report.

By the way, here it is: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
Not all that much really, but enough to belie the rhetoric we've been hearing, especially since Ahmadinejad came to office 2 years after the implimentation of this Iranian policy.

Sorry, but Iran isn't my enemy. It's been nearly 27 years since the hostage incident came to a close. Most of the people I hear making all this noise about Iran were children or not yet born when all that went down. We still won't talk to them. We had better relations with the Soviet Union all through the cold war than we've had with Iran for the last quarter century. It has to stop. We can't solve all our disagreements by sticking a gun in someone's face. We already know that nobody can kick our ass, so what do we have to prove?

[hippifried]

Well despite the animosities caused by silly stereotypical misunderstandings, I think people are pretty much the same all over. they want to live their lives with as little turmoil as possible, & turn the world over to their offspring just a little better than they found it. I've seen no reason to assume that it's any different in Iran. In pre-revolutionary years, we were touting them as some grand jewel of educated enlightenment in this dark mysterious land of the Levant. Now they're ignorant barbarians with diabolical plans for world domination. I didn't buy it then & I ain't buying it now. It's just silly to make assumptions about a nation's motivations based on inflamitory rhetoric.

Yes they have nuclear technology. They already know how to make a nuclear weapon if they wanted to. I'm sure the Iranian military wanted to. Generals are generals regardless of what language they speak or who signs their paychecks. They're always looking for a bigger gun, a bigger bomb, a faster jet, etc... So what's new? But the Iranian military is under civilian control, like any other civilized country & intellect won the day. Strategically, they're surrounded. It's not just us putzin' around in the gulf. Russia is to their north, Pakistan (nuclear armed) & Afghanistan to the east, Turkey (part of NATO) Iraq (occupied by the US) & Israel to the west. Iranians aren't stupid or insane & I'm sure they aren't anywhere near as fanatical as they've been painted in the press. Yet here we are with our "leadership" trying to convince us that Iran is hell bent on a self-destructive course of action that's completely contrary to their own self-interest. It makes no sense unless you're looking for any excuse to start another war, especially in light of the latest intelligence report.

By the way, here it is: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
Not all that much really, but enough to belie the rhetoric we've been hearing, especially since Ahmadinejad came to office 2 years after the implimentation of this Iranian policy.

Sorry, but Iran isn't my enemy. It's been nearly 27 years since the hostage incident came to a close. Most of the people I hear making all this noise about Iran were children or not yet born when all that went down. We still won't talk to them. We had better relations with the Soviet Union all through the cold war than we've had with Iran for the last quarter century. It has to stop. We can't solve all our disagreements by sticking a gun in someone's face. We already know that nobody can kick our ass, so what do we have to prove?

[qeuqheeg222]

more bullshit sabre rattlin on both sides to distract the media and populace from the real problems within......

[g826665]

Saturday's news that Iran is no longer using the dollar for any of it's oil transactions is the surest sign the Bush Junta will bomb Iran. Iran is one of the last remaining sovereign nations that is not a member of the World Bank.

Follow the money.

[hippifried]

They're not the only OPEC member looking to get out from under the petro-dollar. What are they dealing in? Euros? Yuan?

[g826665]

Euros, I believe. China and Japan both get a large share of their oil from Iran. Because both are holding so many dollars to prop up our debt, this puts both in a bind.

[hippifried]

They're not holding actual dollars. It's all just numbers in a ledger, & the ledger's on a computer.