'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'

Kev_ps3

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1204/iran.html

Cant believe that there hasnt been a thread opened on this yet.

This is massive news. How can the US go to war with Iran after this?
Im sure they will make something up that the stupid public will buy.

Hobbes

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

This is massive news. How can the US go to war with Iran after this?
Im sure they will make something up that the stupid public will buy.

It will be about freeing the Iran population from their evil dictator, and not WMD.

donaghs

Probably stretching it too much if they attempted another 9/11 linkage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

InFront

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1204/iran.html

Cant believe that there hasnt been a thread opened on this yet.

This is massive news.

Afraid not, it would be massive news if the report found that Iran was a great or immediate threat (well, rightly so).

However, for those who like to screech every time Ahmadinejad's name is mentioned, or how he wants to blow Israel (then probably Dublin) off the map, this is far less exciting than the notion of a rabid nation state coming to get them. Personally.

SpAcEd OuT

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

You were the one ready to go to war a few months ago based on rock solid information about Iran?

SpAcEd OuT

still am.

Its a fact that they now have the know how to build one [as admitted by the Pakistani scientist who was responsible for developing Pakistan's bomb] all they are doing is waiting for America to become complacent so that they can build one.



Apparently North Korea had stopped their ambitions to build Nuclear weapons after the American aid package.....

oh wait

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The US report, a consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said Iran appeared 'less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005'.

It concluded that 'the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure (which) suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously'.

The assessment said US agencies had 'moderate confidence' that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

---

still seems like a threat to me

Why not wait until closer to this time and they can get concrete intelligence that they are on the brink of creating one?

The US army is over-stretched as it is, no way they will attack Iran, fullscale, in the near future. Given all the lies that the administration touted about Iraq, Congress won't authorise any incursion anyway.

SpAcEd OuT

I think the idea of a nuclearly armed Iran will certainly make Congress think twice about that, Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

I don't appreciate their constant threats to Israel either. If America are to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria then it can only mean good things for the region. The reason they are struggling right now in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Iran and Syria are supplying the militants. Iran and Syria have essentially engaged in acts of war against America and America should justly be able to retaliate with a full scale strike against these rogue states.

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

And the United states hasn't?

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

Neither. That isn't the choice we have to make, whatever the United States would like us to think.

Tipsy Mac

This helps bring the price of oil down, helps the US economy.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I think the idea of a nuclearly armed Iran will certainly make Congress think twice about that, Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

What sort of action are you talking about. Be specific.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Besides the Iranian government should be taken out, it's been supplying terrorists who target civilians [Thats not US propaganda thats fact by the way] and is destabalizing the entire region.

Hmm: Nicaragua, Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq (early 1980's) and Afghanistan.

Ooh, let's not forget about Iran in late 70's; that worked a charm and has led to the situation we have today.

The US has plenty of experience in funding terrorists. Stop being a hypocrite.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I don't appreciate their constant threats to Israel either. If America are to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria then it can only mean good things for the region. The reason they are struggling right now in Afghanistan and Iraq is because Iran and Syria are supplying the militants. Iran and Syria have essentially engaged in acts of war against America and America should justly be able to retaliate with a full scale strike against these rogue states.

If the US do as you say it will be an unmitigated disaster, just like the two disasters that are currently occurring.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

What would you prefer

to live under the Taliban/Sadaam Hussein/Opressive regime

or to live under the US government

A ludicrous, preposterous and ridiculous question.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What sort of action are you talking about. Be specific.

Regime change be it by political [unlikely] or military means.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Hmm: Nicaragua, Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq (early 1980's) and Afghanistan.

Ooh, let's not forget about Iran in late 70's; that worked a charm and has led to the situation we have today.

The US has plenty of experience in funding terrorists. Stop being a hypocrite.

All bets are off during the cold war.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

If the US do as you say it will be an unmitigated disaster, just like the two disasters that are currently occurring.

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

All bets are off during the cold war.



The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

Cold war, wtf?

I asked you to be specific. It is clear you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Are you trying to imply that US democracy as it currently stands, with two recently rigged presidential elections, is the pinnacle that "we" should strive to enforce on sovereign states? Stop making me laugh.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that US democracy as it currently stands, with two recently rigged presidential elections, is the pinnacle that "we" should strive to enforce on sovereign states? Stop making me laugh.

That has not been proved.

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Cold war, wtf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

there you go.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

That has not been proved.

It has been proven everywhere, except in court, because it was not tried.

I could give you hundreds of links, to reputable sites/agencies, but I know that a blinkered individual like you would not read them, showing the interference in the electoral process in the US. Hell, even the international watchdog, that recently criticised the Russian elections, had serious misgivings about both elections.

kaiser sauze

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

there you go.

You do realise that this ended almost twenty years ago?

Reagan is actually dead. There have been three presidents since he.

Dirk Gently

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

Over 40% (by far the biggest number) of foreign fighters in Iraq come from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia actually. And the main reason they are disasters is not because of insurgents, it is because insurgency wasn't planned for. Iraq was always going to be a magnet for proxy warfare and the Americans complete failure to plan for it, disbanding the Iraqi army and corporate corruption during the re-building process is the reason it was a disaster. Annoucing Iraq as a stepping stone to take out the "Axis of evil" (lol) is hardly a constructive way of avoiding proxy warfare either. I'm assuming you don't care about the 100's of thousands who died horrible deaths and the millions who have been displaced and had their lives ruined so I didn't mention that as a reason why terrorising Iraq was a disaster.

The neocon project to privatise Iraq was the disaster and blaming the insurgents is like blaming vultures for picking away at a corpse. The neocons created and engineered through stupidity an environment for insurgency to take place. They sent out invitations and recruited insurgents by turning it into an ideological war (after their wmd lie was exposed), picking a fight with Islam and coining the phrase islamofascist. Like a big fight night on sky sports, they announced the clash of civilisations at the pre fight press conference. The neocons are the hi tec terrorists who invited other low tech terrorists to join their terror play ground. Bin Laden, the terrorist they groomed, trained and recruited into the CIA now supposedly turned on them and with the help of American stupidity, together they helped create an Al queda franchise to rival the growth of the mc Donalds franchise.

Obviously the intelligence community has learned their lesson from Iraq and has chosen not to publish and spin only what they are told by the neo con extremist government. They appear no longer willing to compile a report which supports war regardless of the real situation. Perhaps they see the neo-cons as a dead duck and no longer feel the need to selectively spin reports for them. Maybe they see it as their duty to protect the US from another disastrous adventure in the Middle East. Maybe they realise how isolated they are in the World and are wary of stretching themselves while Russia and China sit back ready to become the next super powers. What ever the reason it appears the neocon project for a new American centaury is a failure, less than a decade into its implementation and in fact it has rapidly fueled the demise of American dominance.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It has been proven everywhere, except in court, because it was not tried.

I could give you hundreds of links, to reputable sites/agencies.

I'll settle for a dozen.

The usual arguments over the unfairness of the elections usually revolve about voter disenfrachisement, voting by those not authorised to do so including dead persons (Or double-voting), and claims that had a proper recount been carried out the election would have gone the other way.

Nationwide, the transgressions have been generally balanced between the two factions (Indeed, the Congressional investigation after 2000 indicated more shennanigans by Democrats) and the media-sponsored recount after the Court said to forget it resulted in no change in the result.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll settle for a dozen.

The usual arguments over the unfairness of the elections usually revolve about voter disenfrachisement, voting by those not authorised to do so including dead persons (Or double-voting), and claims that had a proper recount been carried out the election would have gone the other way.

Nationwide, the transgressions have been generally balanced between the two factions (Indeed, the Congressional investigation after 2000 indicated more shennanigans by Democrats) and the media-sponsored recount after the Court said to forget it resulted in no change in the result.

NTM

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

The Congressional investigation you refer to was a token committee setup by a Republican run Congress in collusion with the administration. Nothing more than a smokescreen, which threw up a few jibes to try and deflect the spotlight from the majority party's indiscretions.

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Regime change be it by political [unlikely] or military means.

Those who advocate military means are so rarely ever on the frontlines.

The main reason they are disasters is because of the support the insurgents are receiving from Iran and Syria.

The main reasons they are disasters is because of bad planning, bad execution of both wars. US troops are trained to kill and break stuff not peace keep. A large number of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

An American-ized Democratic Middle East seems like a far safer middle east than the one currently in place.

Nope the Middle East is a lot less safe than it was 6 or 7 years ago. Many, many more people are dying than 6 or 7 years ago. Extremism has sky-rocketed. The remote tiny chances of you dying in a terrorist attack have now increased not diminished.

The Neo Con era is practically dead anyway, their experiment failed miserably, at the cost of untold misery and death. Saddam couldn't even come close.

Kev_ps3

Iran could have the ability to develop weapons withhin 24 months, pre emptive action should be taken now before its too late.

What is your problem with Iran? I would love to get into that head of yours. Iran has done nothing to this counrty and you want to bomb it and kill thousands of its citizans.
You sound like a modern day NAZI.

purple'n'gold

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What is your problem with Iran? I would love to get into that head of yours. Iran has done nothing to this counrty and you want to bomb it and kill thousands of its citizans.
You sound like a modern day NAZI.

I wouldn’t worry too much about this character, I have read his posts on this subject and he is either a complete fool or he is taking the p1ss. I suspect the latter.

oscarBravo

The last two posts have earned infractions for personal abuse. The next person to do so gets a one-month ban.

moe_sizlak

clown bag wrote: »

Over 40% (by far the biggest number) of foreign fighters in Iraq come from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia actually. And the main reason they are disasters is not because of insurgents, it is because insurgency wasn't planned for. Iraq was always going to be a magnet for proxy warfare and the Americans complete failure to plan for it, disbanding the Iraqi army and corporate corruption during the re-building process is the reason it was a disaster. Annoucing Iraq as a stepping stone to take out the "Axis of evil" (lol) is hardly a constructive way of avoiding proxy warfare either. I'm assuming you don't care about the 100's of thousands who died horrible deaths and the millions who have been displaced and had their lives ruined so I didn't mention that as a reason why terrorising Iraq was a disaster.

The neocon project to privatise Iraq was the disaster and blaming the insurgents is like blaming vultures for picking away at a corpse. The neocons created and engineered through stupidity an environment for insurgency to take place. They sent out invitations and recruited insurgents by turning it into an ideological war (after their wmd lie was exposed), picking a fight with Islam and coining the phrase islamofascist. Like a big fight night on sky sports, they announced the clash of civilisations at the pre fight press conference. The neocons are the hi tec terrorists who invited other low tech terrorists to join their terror play ground. Bin Laden, the terrorist they groomed, trained and recruited into the CIA now supposedly turned on them and with the help of American stupidity, together they helped create an Al queda franchise to rival the growth of the mc Donalds franchise.

Obviously the intelligence community has learned their lesson from Iraq and has chosen not to publish and spin only what they are told by the neo con extremist government. They appear no longer willing to compile a report which supports war regardless of the real situation. Perhaps they see the neo-cons as a dead duck and no longer feel the need to selectively spin reports for them. Maybe they see it as their duty to protect the US from another disastrous adventure in the Middle East. Maybe they realise how isolated they are in the World and are wary of stretching themselves while Russia and China sit back ready to become the next super powers. What ever the reason it appears the neocon project for a new American centaury is a failure, less than a decade into its implementation and in fact it has rapidly fueled the demise of American dominance.

extremly well written if i may say so

purple'n'gold

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last two posts have earned infractions for personal abuse. The next person to do so gets a one-month ban.

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Kev_ps3

purplengold wrote: »

My apologies if I overstepped the mark, but by nature I find it difficult to hold my mouth when I read what I consider is absolute rubbish.

Likewise.

SpAcEd OuT

jonny72 wrote: »

Those who advocate military means are so rarely ever on the frontlines.

Most of the US soldiers are happy to be rebuilding Iraq and don't want to pull out till the job is done. I'm also sure those same soldiers would have no problem invading Iran seeing as they can see first hand the damage Iranian training and weapons is doing to civilians in Iraq everyday.

Iran is more or less directly responsible for supporting the intentional mass murdering of civilians and as such the government should not be allowed remain in power let alone have nuclear weapons.

America has never intentionally supported the killing of civilians and has never intentionally killed civilians, America has made mistakes but has NEVER intentionally supported the mass murdering of civilians like Iran is doing right now.

jonny72 wrote: »

The main reasons they are disasters is because of bad planning, bad execution of both wars. US troops are trained to kill and break stuff not peace keep. A large number of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

So tell me why British troops are struggling as well they have plenty of experience of peacekeeping from Northern Ireland the intensity of this insurgency is not caused from American mistakes [though I'm sure that plays a part] or from how the troops act but is from Iranian financial and military support[training] and yes a lot of these insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but where are they getting the vast majority of the arms and training........IRAN.

jonny72 wrote: »

Nope the Middle East is a lot less safe than it was 6 or 7 years ago. Many, many more people are dying than 6 or 7 years ago. Extremism has sky-rocketed. The remote tiny chances of you dying in a terrorist attack have now increased not diminished.

Once America is allowed to finish it's job we will see a much more stable Middle East. The Balkans was once a warzone until America came in and stabilized the region I don't see why the same won't happen with the Middle East.

SpAcEd OuT

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

You sound like a modern day NAZI.

You are aware that the whole idea of neoconservatism was started by a group of Jewish Scholars so your statement calling me a Nazi is ridiculous furthermore I fully support Israel so I am clearly not a nazi.

Maybe your unsure of what a nazi is
here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

And from your response it would seem you are not capable of debating the matter so if you don't want to argue the points then don't bother replying.

thank you

SpAcEd OuT

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And the question must be asked then: why was there so many disenfranchised voters? Interference, perhaps?

The Congressional investigation you refer to was a token committee setup by a Republican run Congress in collusion with the administration. Nothing more than a smokescreen, which threw up a few jibes to try and deflect the spotlight from the majority party's indiscretions.

In fairness there is no way you know that for certain at all.

Lets admit what this really is

Your uninformed theory of what happened.

Conspiracy theory forum for those kind of replies please.