05 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84Well, nobody's questioning US intelligence here.
Suddenly everyone trusts American intelligence without a doubt? They were bang on about Iraq after all...
If they're wrong about this the implications are a lot worse.
If Iran had stopped developing Nuclear arms 4 years then how come Ahminadinjab was so adamant about refusing to stop?
Especially considering all the economic sanctions against I ...[text shortened]... e fact that they had nothing? I don't know, but I think there's more explaining to be done...
*ahum*
However, who do you trust more? Georgie boy who's started two wars, who's every advisor is corrupt to the core of their rotten little hearts, which pump oil and civilian blood?
Or Ame.. Ama... Achme... The Iranian guy who's like something out of Sesame street?
Well there you go. It's perfectly simple when you look it logically.
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by EsotericI think where the Bush administration has you beat is here, they read the report for what it says, not what they want it to say and understand that just because a nation puts their bomb program on hold doesn't mean they are not going to build a bomb. It doesn't even mean they're not still planning on building a bomb, they're just waiting for the proper time. I.E. North Korea.
Are you admitting the intelligence agencies of the most powerful and dangerous country in the world can't be trusted at all?
My gripe is this: These same intelligence agencies are what Bush was supposedly basing his "Iran is going to cause World War III and we should strike with our military" stance on. And now they produce a report which pretty much dis ...[text shortened]... o another war, or you have monkeys running your country that are incapable of communication.
They're announcement the other day that they have built a longer range missile than anything else they have adds further to the thought that they're just buying time until the pressure is off.
Also, do you really think the administration hasn't been told anything in this report before now? If you genuinely think the intelligence agencies haven't spoken to the Whitehouse about this anytime in the last 4 years....
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree. When incapable of rational thought, all decisions become easier.
Well, nobody's questioning US intelligence here.
*ahum*
However, who do you trust more? Georgie boy who's started two wars, who's every advisor is corrupt to the core of their rotten little hearts, which pump oil and civilian blood?
Or Ame.. Ama... Achme... The Iranian guy who's like something out of Sesame street?
Well there you go. It's perfectly simple when you look it logically.
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwhat do you make of the British/CIA overthrow of Mossadeq back in 53? Does that event have any connection to the Islamic Revolution in 79?
We should attack them because they've been waging war on us ever since they took the hostages.
edit- also, what do you mean by "we"? like you and me, RHP? Will you be signing up for the military?
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by Merkthe desperation I refer to is the constant drum beat that Bush is pounding on louder and louder to attack Iran- last month Bush was saying that if Iran doesn't stop developing a nuclear weapon, then we'll have WWIII. This is very much the same propaganda line they used to attack Iraq- (recall that Bush said that if we didn't attack Iraq, we risked a mushroom cloud over an American city). And now that Bush's own intel contradicts his propaganda, his admin is increasingly desperate to keep the drum beat going, so they spin this report as a "confirmation" of what they have been saying, rather than addressing the contradiction and working towards real and honest diplomacy. The Bush admin wants to attack Iran, and they are almost out of time, so it's open season for spin and lies. And the Bush admin is counting on the public to buy their spin- again, just like last time. (if the intelligence report contradicts Bush, where is Bush getting his intel?)
And how might I ask did you measure Bush/Cheney desperation? And what previous level of Bush/Cheney desperation are you comparing it against?
Just admit it, you have both BDS and the Cheney variant.
Watch out, Cheney might send Haliburton over with a rocket launcher to kill your pets.
and seriously, "BDS"?? dude, grow up.
05 Dec 07
It looks like there's a conflict of intelligence here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7129307.stm
"US President George W Bush has demanded that Iran "come clean" about the full extent of its nuclear programme, or risk further international isolation."
So, who's intelligence could be right here? The US intelligence service's or that of Bush???
It's like a Greek tragedy or one of those problems that just can't be solved!!
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkI think both the lefties and the Bush nuthuggers are doing exactly that.
The very same people that have insulted U.S. Intelligence every time they have gotten a chance are now going to accept this piece of U.S. Intelligence as fact simply because they can interpret it in a way that they think supports their position. It must be nice to go through life without principles.
Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2003 that made Iran decide to hold off on developement?
They just take the opposite stance on every situation.
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by Darth SpongeAgain I ask you, How is it worse than ever? Is the stance against Iran more aggressive than it was against Iraq?
the desperation I refer to is the constant drum beat that Bush is pounding on louder and louder to attack Iran- last month Bush was saying that if Iran doesn't stop developing a nuclear weapon, then we'll have WWIII. This is very much the same propaganda line they used to attack Iraq- (recall that Bush said that if we didn't attack Iraq, we risked a mu ...[text shortened]... dicts Bush, where is Bush getting his intel?)
and seriously, "BDS"?? dude, grow up.
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by telerionI agree with that completely. I personally am of the opinion that this report means absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't support either side much. Lost in this whole thing is the fact that NIEs are not facts. They're best guesses that also include hedges. The other thing is, assuming they did stop the weapons program in '03, we don't know why of if they will restart it.
I think both the lefties and the Bush nuthuggers are doing exactly that.
They just take the opposite stance on every situation.
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by EsotericPlease, it is easy to 2nd guess when you are not making the choices
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7127198.stm
Rival contender Senator Barack Obama said that Mr Bush "will not let facts get in the way of his ideology... and that's been the problem with their [the Republicans] foreign policy generally."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the current American administration have any credibility left at all?
with the best available information todate, since the best available
informaiton is only as good as a new cycle. If Obama gets to make
choices on how to handle something and live with it, then we can
talk about about letting facts get in the way of his ideology, otherwise
it is just blowing smoke.
Kelly
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by Merkit doesn't seem all that different from the propaganda in the lead up to attacking Iraq. perhaps the difference so far is that Bush's claims have been discredited before an attack.
Again I ask you, How is it worse than ever? Is the stance against Iran more aggressive than it was against Iraq?
My quantification of Bushco's desperation, once again, stems from the steadily increasing stream of negative information that has been appearing more and more over the past year until recently. It's not an exact study, mind you, and it's based on my own feelings, so please disregard it.
The issue at hand is that the Bush admin's past, present and ongoing position on Iran is not based on anything provided by US intelligence- so based on what information does Bushco keep insisting that Iran is a threat to the world?
and if you agree with him- what justification swayed you?