Iran NOT building nukes

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well you're talking about the future of America and what will happen after Bush. The reality is the Democrats are leading in the polls and most of them don't want to do much of anything about Iran. So the implication is the problem will go away on its own or was made up by the Bush administration.

The article clearly states that they believe Iran could have the uranium by 2010 to 2015. Whoever is elected will be president from 2008-2012, right in line with when they believe it's possible. So this problem won't simply go away with Bush. Something needs to be done by the next president if we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons relatively soon.

Also keep in mind the NIE report does not match what some other countries believe.

JaJae you should no better, there is no guarantee who will get elected - not even which party (we are still almost a year from the general election) - and the topic of the thread is about Iran not building nukes which makes the Bush administration wrong yet again. Talking about Hillary in this thread is just a cheap shot when even her nomination as a Democrat is far from secure.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Also keep in mind the NIE report does not match what some other countries believe.

Like who?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

JaJae you should no better, there is no guarantee who will get elected - not even which party (we are still almost a year from the general election) - and the topic of the thread is about Iran not building nukes which makes the Bush administration wrong yet again. Talking about Hillary in this thread is just a cheap shot when even her nomination as a Democrat is far from secure.

[JaJae]

There are some people who commonly discuss Hillary and there are some people who discuss Paul. If someone is a known supporter of a particular candidate and then discusses what would happen with a new president it's not so far fetched to discuss the issue from that perspective. We see it quite often on this forum of people asking what "Ron Paul" would think or do about certain issues. It's far more common than Hillary and people don't take offense to it.

The reality is there are many people running from the Democratic camp, people are attacking Bush and Co for their handling of Iran in this thread and talking about a change in the upcoming election. That brings the Democratic candidates into question, especially the frontrunner and the candidate of choice for the person bringing up such ideas.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Like who?

Israel for one.
Israel parts with U.S. on Iran assessment - International Herald Tribune

Israeli officials Tuesday took a darker view of Iran's nuclear ambitions than the U.S. intelligence assessment released Monday, saying that they were convinced that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weaponization program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.

[7960]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

JaJae you should no better, there is no guarantee who will get elected - not even which party (we are still almost a year from the general election) - and the topic of the thread is about Iran not building nukes which makes the Bush administration wrong yet again. Talking about Hillary in this thread is just a cheap shot when even her nomination as a Democrat is far from secure.

Holy christ...........it was not a cheap shot at hillary. In another thread Dinky said hillary's his top choice. In this thread he said the election will get rid of this IRAN issue. It's wrong of me to connect his "I'll vote for hillary" with his "after the election it'll all be better" and draw the conclusion he thinks hillary is going to take care of the problem?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Israel for one.
Israel parts with U.S. on Iran assessment - International Herald Tribune

How did I know that would be the answer before I even asked?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

How did I know that would be the answer before I even asked?

You trust our intelligence moreso than Israel's? How about the UK who are calling to keep up or increase pressure on Iran despite this report? This report is not all-inclusive to the world. They tend to trust our intelligence about as much as the liberals of this country used to trust it before this report.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You trust our intelligence moreso than Israel's? How about the UK?

How about the IAEA?

Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate on Iran

4 December 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.

The Director General believes that this new assessment by the U.S. should help to defuse the current crisis. At the same time, it should prompt Iran to work actively with the IAEA to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program as outlined in the work plan and through the implementation of the additional protocol. This would allow the Agency to provide the required assurances regarding the nature of the program.


While calling on Iran to accelerate its cooperation with the Agency, in view of the new U.S. Estimate, the Director General urges all parties concerned to enter without delay into negotiations. Such negotiations are needed to build confidence about the future direction of Iran´s nuclear program - concern about which has been repeatedly expressed by the Security Council. They are also needed to bring about a comprehensive and durable solution that would normalise the relationship between Iran and the international community.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Like who?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

There remain significant such open question related to Iran's enrichment program. The 26 August 2003 IAEA report provides information making clear Iran has consistently misled the Agency about its enrichment program. First, as paragraph 30 reveals, Iran's centrifuge enrichment program did not begin in 1997, as Iran initially told the Agency, but in 1985, i.e., almost 20 year ago. Second, Iran's centrifuge program is not entirely indigenous, as Iran initially told the Agency and as AEOI President Agazadeh assured an informal meeting of the IAEA Board on 06 May 2003. Iran later said it received centrifuge drawings in 1987 from a still unnamed foreign intermediary and, in addition, Iran said it imported components for centrifuges and a cascade design. Third, the Kalaye Electric Company -- which Iran originally told the IAEA only produced centrifuge components -- now is said to have been a central part of its centrifuge testing program for five years (1997-2002); but Iran still claims, implausibly, that it never introduced nuclear material into centrifuges.

Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors to take environmental samples at a key laser research site - whose existence it had previously not acknowledged - and did not let them visit the site until after some equipment, including a large imported vacuum vessel that could have applications for laser uranium enrichment, had been moved to another location.

There were also "open questions" in June 2003 about the Kalaye Electric Company site. After months of repeated requests, the Agency was finally allowed to take environmental samples there in August 2003, but the 26 August 2003 report noted that Iran had used the intervening months to make "considerable modifications" to the site that "may impact on the accuracy of the environmental sampling and the Agency's ability to verify Iran's declarations about the types of activities previously carried out here."

So let's see...in 2003 they lied about how long they'd been working on nukes. They lied about what facilities they had. They lied about what was going on at those facilities. They lied about where they got equipment. They lied about who they were working with.......I'm sure there are more lies I'm leaving off but people should get the point.

Now we get a report that says in 2005 they stopped working on nukes. Really? With all the lying what are we supposed to believe?

[RMNIXON]

NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)

So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

• Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?

• Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?

• Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?

Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)

The Weekly Standard


And I just heard this new turn about on Iran is do to a high level Iranian defector. I might remind you that much of our WMD Intelligence on Iraq came from such defectors. Perhaps some within the CIA with a partisan axe to grind have done some of their own Cherry Picking?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)

So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

• Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?

• Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?

• Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?

Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)

The Weekly Standard


And I just heard this new turn about on Iran is do to a high level Iranian defector. I might remind you that much of our WMD Intelligence on Iraq came from such defectors. Perhaps some within the CIA with a partisan axe to grind have done some of their own Cherry Picking?

I wonder how worried the Weekly Standard was about the Iraq WMD intel?

It goes both ways. Politics influencing factual reports is a bad thing, and while there is no evidence that that is the case right now, if it does turn out to be so it should be dealt with.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

Holy christ...........it was not a cheap shot at hillary. In another thread Dinky said hillary's his top choice. In this thread he said the election will get rid of this IRAN issue. It's wrong of me to connect his "I'll vote for hillary" with his "after the election it'll all be better" and draw the conclusion he thinks hillary is going to take care of the problem?

Yes it was. It was a cheap shot at me and Hillary. First off, I said "at this time, Hillary is my top choice" that doesn't mean she still is. Second, my comment "Man I wish the elections would get here already. He's a complete idiot and a fucking tool." It is CLEAR that I am talking about getting Bush out of office and NOT "getting rid of the Iran issue." I said no such thing. So in recap:

1: I have not decided who I am voting for
2: I did not say Hillary would come in and solve the Iran issue.
3: Bringing her up was a complete and total attempt to derail thread, try to get to me and insult her.

Nice try though.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well you're talking about the future of America and what will happen after Bush. The reality is the Democrats are leading in the polls and most of them don't want to do much of anything about Iran. So the implication is the problem will go away on its own or was made up by the Bush administration.

No, that is not the implication at all. Also, "most of them don't want to do much of anything about Iran" is completely false. They all have a stance on Iran that is out there for all to see. Maybe you should read what they really would do instead of this broad and incomplete statement? The REAL implication was that Bush is a complete faggot when it comes to dealing with Iran. When there is NO evidence of anything, he threatens them. When there is a report by his own intelligence people saying Iran is NOT building nukes, he STILL keeps up the attacks. It's pathetic. I don't care WHO comes in, it is better than this shit.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The article clearly states that they believe Iran could have the uranium by 2010 to 2015. Whoever is elected will be president from 2008-2012, right in line with when they believe it's possible. So this problem won't simply go away with Bush. Something needs to be done by the next president if we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons relatively soon.

That's funny. You claim the problem won't just go away with Bush going away...yet most people that look at this situation think the Iran problem would vanish if Ahmadinejad went away. Or how about the Iraq problem going away when Saddam goes away? How come it can work that way and not in reverse? Bush CLEARLY exacerbates the situation. He doesn't help it one bit.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Also keep in mind the NIE report does not match what some other countries believe.

Sigh...let me guess, Israel. How about you show me some of these countries you believe say Iran has or wants nukes that continually poke and prod Iranian leadership at every change?

[6SpeedTA95]

This same report that says they're not trying to build a bomb does say they CONTINUE to enrich uranium. It puts them 3 to 7 years away from having weapons grade uranium.

The hardest part of any nuclear program is getting your hands on the material. Once that is done buildinig the bomb takes little to no time.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This same report that says they're not trying to build a bomb does say they CONTINUE to enrich uranium. It puts them 3 to 7 years away from having weapons grade uranium.

The hardest part of any nuclear program is getting your hands on the material. Once that is done buildinig the bomb takes little to no time.

Enriching uranium does NOT mean they are trying to make a bomb. And until YOU (or anyone else) have solid proof that they are, we should assume they are doing it for beneficial (not destructive) purposes like nuclear power, which ALSO requires enriched uranium.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Enriching uranium does NOT mean they are trying to make a bomb. And until YOU (or anyone else) have solid proof that they are, we should assume they are doing it for beneficial (not destructive) purposes like nuclear power, which ALSO requires enriched uranium.

I never said it did prove they were trying to make a bomb. However, weapons grade uranium requires far more time to develop than simply using it for power.

Furthermore, as I stated above, the hardest part of getting the bomb is getting the weapons grade material. NOT the bomb itself. Getting/building a bomb is easy. Syria, N Korea or maybe even Russia would sell them one. Within a few months time they have a bomb and "No program" and the world is caught off guard when they do wind up with the bomb.

Ignoring the other half of this report which CLEARLY states they are continuing to enrich uranium is simply irresponsible PERIOD>