IRAN "close" to getting Nukes...

[revelarts]

There are conflicting reports but the as far as i've read this guy sums up the open source facts.
the "word on the street" might be different but there's no way to confirm it. the IAEA and other officials are the legit sources everything else is conspiracy theory, hearsay and propaganda about secret programs etc




<tbody>


</tbody>

<tbody>


</tbody>
Iran Propaganda Debunked in Less Than 7 Minutes
Are you afraid of getting nuked in your jammies?

Video

There's a scary, dangerous nuclear weapons threat from Iran?


Transcript
The Fellow panelist just said that the Iranians have admitted that they have a nuclear weapons program, and that they are making nuclear weapons. Well that couldn't be further from the truth.

They've denied that they're seeking nuclear weapons over and over again.
What they have is a civilian nuclear program, which is "Safeguarded" by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) under their Safeguards Agreement.

Any non-nuclear weapons state, such as Iran, which is a member of Non-Proliferation Treaty, must have a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which allows the IAEA inspectors to monitor their nuclear facilities and verify the "non-diversion" – as the IAEA has, in the case of the Iranians, more then a dozen times over the years, including just late last year – they have "continued to verify the non-diversion of any nuclear material to a military or other special purpose," so what they basically saying to you is "we have proved the negative" we have proved what they have not done, they have not diverted any of their nuclear material away. ...

No one is accusing the Iranians of producing plutonium or having any plutonium. They are being accused of enriching uranium, but they are enriching uranium to a measly 3.6 % industrial grade for use in their electricity program, and then beginning only a couple of weeks ago, when... after they accepted Obama's proposal, and he refused to accept their acceptance of it, they went ahead and began to enrich a very small amount of this uranium, to 20% uranium-235, which still is a far sight from weapons grade uranium, and it is to be used in their American-built medical isotope reactor in Tehran.

However, if you turn it to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News or any other of the rest of them – the FOX guys and David Shuster over at the liberal channel MSNBC, will all agree that there is "scary, dangerous nuclear weapons threat" from Iran.

And they just figure, you don't know about a Safeguards Agreement, you don' t know about the Non-Proliferation Treaty, you don't know the difference between 3.6% and 90% uranium 235 and therefore if you're afraid of getting nuked in your jammies in the middle of the night, you'll let them go ahead and have their war. ...

Last September Mark Hosenball reported in a "web-only exclusive" for Newsweek magazine that the CIA, and in fact the rest of the intelligence community, including the other 16 American intelligence that we know about, that they all agreed and put paper work on President Obama's desk – a new report – on his desk saying that they stand by their conclusion of November 2007 that the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program and they have not made the political decision to start one.

On February the 15th the director of national intelligence Dennis Blair and I forget the other gentleman's name, but he's the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and they both sat there sworn under oath before the U.S. Imperial Senate and said "We still stand by the conclusion of the unanimous National Intelligence Council, representatives of all 16 intelligence agencies, from November of 2007, and that is the Iranians have not made the decision to begin to make nuclear weapons."

And no, the ability to take a couple of hundred pounds of uranium enriched to 3.6% 235 and turning that into above 90%, 94% pure U-235 to make a weapon is not the same as flipping a light switch and taking one day, you're talking still about years and years. Plus you've got to have the metallurgists machine it into the actual pieces and then you actually would have to have the... I'm not so certain about the terminology. People quibble, they do quibble about, "What is a delivery vehicle? What's a warhead?"

A warhead is the bomb. The delivery is vehicle is what you put that in. Well, they don't have the delivery vehicles, and they don't have warheads, so I'm not sure how these things are supposed to hurt any of us.

It's just nonsense. ...

Another thing I would like to mention, or try to hit off of something that Mr. Erlich said in his talk there, is that a war with Iran would be a disaster. That's the way he put it.

The way I put it is that a war with Iran will mean the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan. Four thousand soldiers have died in the Iraq war in order to install the Iranians' puppets from the Dawa Party and the Mahdi Army, and the Supreme Islamic Council in power in Baghdad.

And both Abdul Aziz al-Hakim from the Supreme Islamic Council, who is now dead, but his son is in charge, and Moqtada al-Sadr, the big king-maker from the election a couple of weeks ago, have promised that they will go to war with the American occupation, with the United States.

These are the people who did not fight, these are the people who gained when America overthrew Saddam Hussein, and have waited this whole time. And they have said "if you bomb Iran you have to start the war with us all over again."

Not to mention the fact that our soldiers are right there within missile range. It's also perfectly within the capability of the Iranians to close the Straits of Hormuz at the gates of the Persian Gulf, and drive the cost of oil up over 200 dollars a barrel, which will probably destroy what's left of the global economy and the division of labor and global trade. ...


Listen to Scott Horton on antiwar radio
www.antiwar.com/radio (http://www.antiwar.com/radio)
From August 2010

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3dXyD8rHmq4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[revelarts]

Quick History of Iran/us relation 1953- present..

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fy3KDYE5KQE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[jimnyc]

Last I saw they were still blocking full access to the IAEA. Without that, I guess we won't know for sure right now what they have and don't have. They have listed their latest visit to Iran as a "failure".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/22/iran-nuclear-talks-failure-iaea?newsfeed=true

[revelarts]

Last I saw they were still blocking full access to the IAEA. Without that, I guess we won't know for sure right now what they have and don't have. They have listed their latest visit to Iran as a "failure".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/22/iran-nuclear-talks-failure-iaea?newsfeed=true

Well If you were Iran and had been agreeing with the IAEA for Years, and Now had sanctions put against you for basically nothing, had some of your scientist killed, had you sites hacked, had myterious bombings, and U.S. Aircraft carriers off you shores and more threats everyday .
you might say why the heck should I let the IAEA crawl up my Rear if they won't leave us alone anyway.

from the story you posted.

...
The communiqué said that Iran did not grant requests by the IAEA mission to visit Parchin, a military site thought to be used for explosives testing related to triggering a nuclear weapon. Amano called the decision "disappointing". No agreement was reached on how to begin "clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions", the statement said.
The fact that the statement was issued early Wednesday, shortly after midnight and just after the IAEA experts left Tehran, reflected the urgency the agency attached to announcing the failed outcome. The language of the statement clearly, if indirectly, blamed Tehran for the lack of progress.
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency had earlier quoted the deputy head of the Islamic republic's armed forces, Mohammad Hejazi, as saying: "Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.

"[We will] not wait for enemies to take action against us."...



SO they are saying "we've got to fight them over there before they strike us over here" where have i heard that before?

[Nukeman]

Rev, one question... Are you comfortable with the leaders of Iran having nukes??

[Nukeman]

If they aren't seeking weapons grade Ur than why are they making uranium based nuclear power sites at all. Why don't they make Thorium reactors for electricity and non weapons programs. A very simple question and it is one that should be asked of the Iranian leadership, why spend the money on enrichment of Uranium when it is unnecessary for Thorium and the Thorium is more readily available and safer to handle....???

[jimnyc]

Rev, one question... Are you comfortable with the leaders of Iran having nukes??

He's already stated many times that he doesn't see a problem with them having nukes. But thinks our government is guilty of just about every crime in the books and cannot be trusted. Except for Ron Paul. He'll debate you over the innocence of most countries while telling you how guilty the USA is for everything else.

[jimnyc]

SO they are saying "we've got to fight them over there before they strike us over here" where have i heard that before?

So you made your case before and think it was wrong of the US to act in such a manner, but don't have an issue when Iran states the same?

[revelarts]

Rev, one question... Are you comfortable with the leaders of Iran having nukes??

comfortable?, I'm not comfortable anyone having nukes. But Turkey Germany India, Pakistan, Israel, and crazy A N Korea have them, Iran is just the lastest.

But i'm having DejaVu here,
"the 1st sign of IraQ having a nuke is a mushroom cloud".. "we can't allow that."
Condie Rice and GW Bush


another Bush Quote
"Fool me once shame you. Fool me twice.. uh um ..uh... you won't fool me again."

[Nukeman]

comfortable?, I'm not comfortable anyone having nukes. But Turkey Germany India, Pakistan, Israel, and crazy A N Korea have them, Iran is just the lastest.

But i'm having DejaVu here,
"the 1st sign of IraQ having a nuke is a mushroom cloud".. "we can't allow that."
Condie Rice and GW Bush


another Bush Quote
"Fool me once shame you. Fool me twice.. uh um ..uh... you won't fool me again."
Like you have pointed out we already have a bunch of crazies with the bomb, now do we really need one more who may... just may be crazier, and willing to actually use it in a terrorist or preemptive attack??.

Personally I am not afraid of them using it on a city, I am afraid of them getting it 50-100 miles up in the air off our cost and setting the damn thing off, In the eye of the world they didn't "nuke anyone" they just destroyed or electronic society for a decade or two, if it ever where to recover, not to mention the loss of probably 200 million Americans...

[revelarts]

If they aren't seeking weapons grade Ur than why are they making uranium based nuclear power sites at all. Why don't they make Thorium reactors for electricity and non weapons programs. A very simple question and it is one that should be asked of the Iranian leadership, why spend the money on enrichment of Uranium when it is unnecessary for Thorium and the Thorium is more readily available and safer to handle....???

That is a good question.
But apparently they are only making 3.X enriched or 20.X enriched when they need 95.X+ enriched to have nuke grade material. so they still are way off the weapons mark.

But I wonder How the Iranians got started on this path. As I've said before If I were them I'd Want nuke capability as well, but if all they REALLY wanted was nuke energy ... while they sitting on tons of oil,... thorium makes a whole lot more sense.

I'd never heard of it until recently from you and others. Does any country in the world have thorium energy plants up and running?

[Nukeman]

That is a good question.
But apparently they are only making 3.X enriched or 20.X enriched when they need 95.X+ enriched to have nuke grade material. so they still are way off the weapons mark.

But I wonder How the Iranians got started on this path. As I've said before If I were them I'd Want nuke capability as well, but if all they REALLY wanted was nuke energy ... while they sitting on tons of oil,... thorium makes a whole lot more sense.

I'd never heard of it until recently from you and others. Does any country in the world have thorium energy plants up and running?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/11/the_20_percent_solution



This means that Iran's entire uranium-enrichment program is now being devoted to producing 20 percent enriched uranium. At current production rates, Iran can expect to have a stock of 20 percent enriched uranium of around 250 kg UF6 by the end of 2012, as well as more than 4 tons of 3.5 percent enriched UF6. (These estimates are based on the use of IR-1 centrifuges, which are now also operating at Fordow.) Iran will not likely be able to commission a large number of more advanced and powerful centrifuges before 2013. But if that happens, it will be an altogether different scenario.
If Iran decides to produce weapons-grade uranium from 20 percent enriched uranium, it has already technically undertaken 90 percent of the enrichment effort required. What remains to be done is the feeding of 20 percent uranium through existing additional cascades to achieve weapons-grade enrichment (more than 90 percent uranium). This step is much faster than the earlier ones. Growing the stockpile of 3.5 percent and 20 percent enriched uranium, as Iran is now doing, provides the basic material needed to produce four to five nuclear weapons. With IR-1 centrifuges, it would take half a year to go from 3.5 percent enriched uranium to weapons-grade material for the first nuclear device. More advanced centrifuges would cut the time required in half. If, however, IR-1s are using 20 percent enriched uranium as a feed, 250 kg UF6 with that level of enrichment can be turned to weapons-grade material in a month's time. This does not automatically mean Iran will be able to build a nuclear weapon in one month -- building an atomic bomb is a complex endeavor that requires precision engineering capabilities that Iran may lack -- but it does mean that the country would be able to "break out" of its international obligations very quickly should it decide to do so

Rev that my friend is a VERY short time frame to go from the 3.5 to the 90& enrichment needed for weapons grade, in reality it only take 20% or higher to get fissionable material for weapons, not good weapons but it will work.

[revelarts]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/11/the_20_percent_solution

Rev that my friend is a VERY short time frame to go from the 3.5 to the 90& enrichment needed for weapons grade, in reality it only take 20% or higher to get fissionable material for weapons, not good weapons but it will work.

That is Short but has you point out in your quote they still are far from making a working weapon. It's still closer than I'd like. But I'm still not as concern about them being sucidial and many people who are extremely familer with the Iranians don't think they have plans to nuke anyone. period.
even the head of the mosad doesn't think they are an existentail threat.

a few here say "they don't care" what the head of the mosad says "publicly " somehow they are SURE they KNOW that IF or WHEN Iran gets 1 or 2 or 12 nukes THEY WILL STRIKE. but they never post anything to back it up, except a 1 misquote from years ago about "wiping israel off the map" and a what seems to be a Clear and comprohensive knowledge of the personal muslim faith of the Iranian Dictatorship. Nothing else matters but those 2 issues .OH and Hezbollah. Iran has helped Helbolah which OF COURSE MEANS they want to Nuke America and Israel and risk the complete destruction of there country.



.....
Personally I am not afraid of them using it on a city, I am afraid of them getting it 50-100 miles up in the air off our cost and setting the damn thing off, In the eye of the world they didn't "nuke anyone" they just destroyed or electronic society for a decade or two, if it ever where to recover, not to mention the loss of probably 200 million Americans...

I suppose that a possibility in theory but from what i've posted before there's no factual reasons presented why the Iranians would do that. Only "what if's" and speculations based on fears blown up from Hezbolah activity, gun running and preceptions of Islam.

And I've mentioned this several times, they have no record of attacking any other nations, except in small ways by proxy. Which we are the masters of and have done much worse just lately in Lybia to name 1 aggressive action.

Iran is not a threat based on the facts we have, just as Saddam wasn't a threat. Even having a weapon does not mean your going to use it, just like personal gun ownership. We probably would have continued to give Saddam chem WMD's if he had played ball with us. It seems a Crazy leader with WMDs is only a major concern if we don't like the nation.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xat-C4SpBl4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

even Z. B. thinks it will be a disaster. And makes Zero sense to attack Iran , even if they have nukes, which they don't.

[Black Diamond]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="360">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xat-C4SpBl4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

even Z. B. thinks it will be a disaster. And makes Zero sense to attack Iran , even if they have nukes, which they don't.
ZB is the guy who helped create Bin Laden.

[jimnyc]

Rev, I honestly do have a bit of a growing migraine tonight, so it is possible I heard/read wrong. But did this ZB guy just state that not only is it a bad idea if the US gets involved in Iran, that it's bad for us if Israel does AND that we should use our Air Force to go after Israel should they try an attack through "our" airspace in Iraq? We should perhaps attack Israel's military, but avoid Iran at all costs?

One might be able to convince me that it's not time for the US to get militarily involved in Iran, that we need more proof and more time. I can go for that. But to say it's our responsibility to "fight" an ally of ours if they do something they think is in the best interest of their country is asinine. Try and talk with both sides? Maybe. Go the extra mile to talk with Israel if we feel they are on the edge of attacking? Perhaps. Shoot down allies planes or intervene with them militarily? No way.

[OCA]

Why can Amerika have nukes and not Iran?

Why can Russia have nukes and not Iran?

Why can Pakistan have nukes and not Iran?

Why can France have nukes and not Iran?

[jimnyc]

Why can Amerika have nukes and not Iran?

Why can Russia have nukes and not Iran?

Why can Pakistan have nukes and not Iran?

Why can France have nukes and not Iran?

You forgot about North Korea. And Syria. Hell, Iraq should be ready for them now too. And the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are getting ready probably after that. Once you already know that a country supports terrorism and terror groups, I have an uneasy feeling about them and what they might do with large or small scale nukes. I'm not thrilled with Pakistan having them either, but I'm not very knowledgeable about their history and how their program came about. But if they didn't have them, and just wanted them now, I'd say the same about them. Same story with NK. It's just common sense that you try and keep the terror supporting states from acquiring them, unless the chance of them sharing even a small piece with terror groups doesn't alarm you.

[revelarts]

ZB is the guy who helped create Bin Laden.

Your exactly right, I'm not a fan. but he makes sense here, frankly I'm surprised.

[avatar4321]

They've been "close" for years. Im not saying they aren't. It's just I am not sure how this is going to change anything.

I dont think people will be serious about preventing Iran from getting nukes until it's too late.

[revelarts]

Rev, I honestly do have a bit of a growing migraine tonight, so it is possible I heard/read wrong. But did this ZB guy just state that not only is it a bad idea if the US gets involved in Iran, that it's bad for us if Israel does AND that we should use our Air Force to go after Israel should they try an attack through "our" airspace in Iraq? We should perhaps attack Israel's military, but avoid Iran at all costs?

One might be able to convince me that it's not time for the US to get militarily involved in Iran, that we need more proof and more time. I can go for that. But to say it's our responsibility to "fight" an ally of ours if they do something they think is in the best interest of their country is asinine. Try and talk with both sides? Maybe. Go the extra mile to talk with Israel if we feel they are on the edge of attacking? Perhaps. Shoot down allies planes or intervene with them militarily? No way.

I've never gone that far, It's not a position i promote, but it emphasis the point huh, -Cough-. It's a horrible idea to Attack Iran. I don't think that it'd take shots to convince Israel that the U.S. is not in this fght. That if they start it they're on they're own completely, no aid no trade. We'd have to make it crystal clear to them and the world. In the unlikey event (but increasing morso with the bombing and killings in Iran) that Israel is attacked that's another story IMO.

[Gunny]

comfortable?, I'm not comfortable anyone having nukes. But Turkey Germany India, Pakistan, Israel, and crazy A N Korea have them, Iran is just the lastest.

But i'm having DejaVu here,
"the 1st sign of IraQ having a nuke is a mushroom cloud".. "we can't allow that."
Condie Rice and GW Bush


another Bush Quote
"Fool me once shame you. Fool me twice.. uh um ..uh... you won't fool me again."

Aside from N Korea, pick ONE of those countries you listed that has a religion for government. A religion that if it can't have its way, is more than willing to take everyone else with them to the grave. I see a BIG difference in allowing ANY suicide-by-religion country as opposed to people who really don't want to throw a first strike because they don't want to die having nukes.

What's lost on you, and people who think like you is the simplicity of the argument. There's good and bad, and there's right and wrong. Iran is both bad and wrong. They'll be holding the world hostage soon enough because of the inaction of those that should act. For reference see: http://www.debito.org/?p=2889

[revelarts]

Aside from N Korea, pick ONE of those countries you listed that has a religion for government. A religion that if it can't have its way, is more than willing to take everyone else with them to the grave. I see a BIG difference in allowing ANY suicide-by-religion country as opposed to people who really don't want to throw a first strike because they don't want to die having nukes.

What's lost on you, and people who think like you is the simplicity of the argument. There's good and bad, and there's right and wrong. Iran is both bad and wrong. They'll be holding the world hostage soon enough because of the inaction of those that should act. For reference see: http://www.debito.org/?p=2889

that's a good cartoon (i'd have picked different turning points many of those were pretty benign and internal) , show me where Iran has rolled troops and tanks into Austria, Poland, Chekosolvokia and has tanks at the boarders of France or ANY neighboring M.E. country then we've got something to discuss. Show me something other than your speculation/estimation on their religion and Gov't.

And Pakistan says it's secular but break shria law there you want, I wouldn't advise it. India's suppose to be secular too but Hindu Police kill Christians and the Gov't turns a half blind eye. koraens where/are? taught that KIM J Ill was god. Kinda Crazy religion huh? AND they've Got NUKES. I don't like any of it but there's no need to attack any of them. Iran is not as "crazy as many make out. They are very shrewd politicians , they are religious but like many in the roman chotholic church leadership i think the political power and position is more important than the religious. One fuels the other but for many only to the degree that it brings them into advantage. You better believe that theirs political cut throat things going on in Iran that are never approved in the Koran or by the 12th Iman. And Like many in our country many of the leadership would be willing to send OTHERS to do a suicide mission, but they won't go near it. the type RE-IRANIAN MULAH-MF that are not going to do jack to put themselves in danger if they can help it. But if u back anyone against a wall and your probably going to get a fight.

[OCA]

Who can name the only country in history to use offensive atomic\nuclear weapons?

[jimnyc]

Who can name the only country in history to use offensive atomic\nuclear weapons?

Lame fucking argument for allowing Iran to attain nuclear weapons. I guess the IAEA should come here next and monitor us, and the UN should hand out sanctions against us for having them. You might want to go back to the steel cage where your words have a little more "bite", as your debating skills leave a lot to be desired anymore and are mostly comprised of one sentence-one liners.

[Gunny]

that's a good cartoon (i'd have picked different turning points many of those were pretty benign and internal) , show me where Iran has rolled troops and tanks into Austria, Poland, Chekosolvokia and has tanks at the boarders of France or ANY neighboring M.E. country then we've got something to discuss. Show me something other than your speculation/estimation on their religion and Gov't.

And Pakistan says it's secular but break shria law there you want, I wouldn't advise it. India's suppose to be secular too but Hindu Police kill Christians and the Gov't turns a half blind eye. koraens where/are? taught that KIM J Ill was god. Kinda Crazy religion huh? AND they've Got NUKES. I don't like any of it but there's no need to attack any of them. Iran is not as "crazy as many make out. They are very shrewd politicians , they are religious but like many in the roman chotholic church leadership i think the political power and position is more important than the religious. One fuels the other but for many only to the degree that it brings them into advantage. You better believe that theirs political cut throat things going on in Iran that are never approved in the Koran or by the 12th Iman. And Like many in our country many of the leadership would be willing to send OTHERS to do a suicide mission, but they won't go near it. the type RE-IRANIAN MULAH-MF that are not going to do jack to put themselves in danger if they can help it. But if u back anyone against a wall and your probably going to get a fight.

Simple answer. The Government of Iran openly supports Hezbollah. A terrorist organization bent on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation. That isn't speculation, now is it?

[Nukeman]

Who can name the only country in history to use offensive atomic\nuclear weapons?And what exactly is YOUR point. Are you telling all of us that because we (the USA) used a atomic bomb 70 years ago we shouldn't tell anyone else they cant have one?? I think that puts us in the PERFECT spot to tell others they should not have or get them, since after all we have the experience to see thier distructive power and its effects on not only the people being bombed but also the ones doing the bombing..

Get a life OCA and come up with a real argument for a change ..... PLEASE!!!!!!!!

[revelarts]

Simple answer. The Government of Iran openly supports Hezbollah. A terrorist organization bent on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation. That isn't speculation, now is it?

The U.S. has used more Surrogates terrorist or "freedom fighters" than Iran can hope to ever use. And whenever the Soviets or Chinese have used surrogates some how we've never attacked them directly and CERTAINLY NOT PREEMPTIVELY.
preemptive military action is just plane invasion, which is still a war crime.

what about Junndullah
we secretly support them, a terrorist org bent on the complete over throw of a sovereign nation, does that mean we deserve to be attacked too?

...A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials....There is still more. In the fall of 2005, there was a series of bombings in Iran's oil-rich province of Khuzestan, which borders southern Iraq, which was occupied by British forces. The bombings killed many innocent people....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=jundullah

Iran is corrupt and dark but we stand to lose more than gain by attacking them and it's wrong. they haven't attacked us.

Ronald Reagan ...
U.S. Defense Policy The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. ...

former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: "Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today's neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?"


I wish.

[Gunny]

The U.S. has used more Surrogates terrorist or "freedom fighters" than Iran can hope to ever use. And whenever the Soviets or Chinese have used surrogates some how we've never attacked them directly and CERTAINLY NOT PREEMPTIVELY.
preemptive military action is just plane invasion, which is still a war crime.

what about Junndullah
we secretly support them, a terrorist org bent on the complete over throw of a sovereign nation, does that mean we deserve to be attacked too?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=jundullah

Iran is corrupt and dark but we stand to lose more than gain by attacking them and it's wrong. they haven't attacked us.

Ronald Reagan ...
U.S. Defense Policy The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. ...

former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: "Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today's neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?"


I wish.

In other words, you ignore the obvious. If you don't meet force with MORE force, you lose. Hope you have your copy of the Koran and your bedsheets ready.

[jimnyc]

Iran is corrupt and dark but we stand to lose more than gain by attacking them and it's wrong. they haven't attacked us.

You've started MANY threads about Iran in the past 6 months, and mostly "defending" them. You yourself posted a quote earlier in this thread where Iran stated they would attack Israel without being attacked themselves. How come you aren't attacking THEM as you do your own country?

[Gunny]

You've started MANY threads about Iran in the past 6 months, and mostly "defending" them. You yourself posted a quote earlier in this thread where Iran stated they would attack Israel without being attacked themselves. How come you aren't attacking THEM as you do your own country?

"apologista" comes to mind.

[OCA]

Lame fucking argument for allowing Iran to attain nuclear weapons. I guess the IAEA should come here next and monitor us, and the UN should hand out sanctions against us for having them. You might want to go back to the steel cage where your words have a little more "bite", as your debating skills leave a lot to be desired anymore and are mostly comprised of one sentence-one liners.

Why is it lame Jimmy, is it not true?

If we are the only ones to actually use the weapons shouldn't logically the world be concerned with us having them?

When you resort to a personal diatribe such as that I know hit bullseye.

[OCA]

And what exactly is YOUR point. Are you telling all of us that because we (the USA) used a atomic bomb 70 years ago we shouldn't tell anyone else they cant have one?? I think that puts us in the PERFECT spot to tell others they should not have or get them, since after all we have the experience to see thier distructive power and its effects on not only the people being bombed but also the ones doing the bombing..

Get a life OCA and come up with a real argument for a change ..... PLEASE!!!!!!!!

Bullseye, two birds with one stone.

We are the only atomic/nuclear guilty nation on earth, we have no right to tell other countries what they can and cannot have.

[OCA]

The U.S. has used more Surrogates terrorist or "freedom fighters" than Iran can hope to ever use. And whenever the Soviets or Chinese have used surrogates some how we've never attacked them directly and CERTAINLY NOT PREEMPTIVELY.
preemptive military action is just plane invasion, which is still a war crime.

what about Junndullah
we secretly support them, a terrorist org bent on the complete over throw of a sovereign nation, does that mean we deserve to be attacked too?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=jundullah

Iran is corrupt and dark but we stand to lose more than gain by attacking them and it's wrong. they haven't attacked us.

Ronald Reagan ...
U.S. Defense Policy The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. ...

former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: "Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today's neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?"


I wish.

We openly supported the Shah Of Iran who murdered his own citizens, we supported Sadaam who murdered his own citizens and we supported Pinochet in Chile who murdered millions of his own and thats just off the top of my head..

We have so much blood on our hands its sickening.

[jimnyc]

Why is it lame Jimmy, is it not true?

If we are the only ones to actually use the weapons shouldn't logically the world be concerned with us having them?

When you resort to a personal diatribe such as that I know hit bullseye.

YOU talking about diatribe? LOL

Your discussing apples and oranges here. Us having used a nuclear weapon in the past has NOTHING to do with what Iran would or would not do NOW. I don't even see how your post relates to this thread, other than to deflect away from the original subject, which is Iran perhaps getting nuclear weapons. Come back to the present, and reality.

[Abbey Marie]

Bullseye, two birds with one stone.

We are the only atomic/nuclear guilty nation on earth, we have no right to tell other countries what they can and cannot have.

Some would say might equals right. Since the Stone Age, anyway.

[OCA]

YOU talking about diatribe? LOL

Your discussing apples and oranges here. Us having used a nuclear weapon in the past has NOTHING to do with what Iran would or would not do NOW. I don't even see how your post relates to this thread, other than to deflect away from the original subject, which is Iran perhaps getting nuclear weapons. Come back to the present, and reality.

I don't give a fuck about Iran getting a nuke, they have never in their modern history shown any propensity for encroaching on their neighbours, in fact they only engaged in an actual war once, a war brought on by Sadaam. Maybe they would like to have a little insurance against Israel, the same Israel who without our NUKES, our military hardware and our money wouldn't be jackshit.

Yes diatribe, you didn't see me going personal in this thread, did ya? I won't be sucked in.

Our past use has EVERYTHING to do with our credibility.

[OCA]

Some would say might equals right. Since the Stone Age, anyway.

Sure but there are such things as overkill. Trinidad And Tobago, we got them squashed in the strength dept, right? If they pissed us off and we turned the island into glass would we be justified because we had "the capability and the might?"

[Nukeman]

Bullseye, two birds with one stone.

We are the only atomic/nuclear guilty nation on earth, we have no right to tell other countries what they can and cannot have.

Actually it gives us MUCH more right to say what we will about nuclear weapons, think of it as the older brother telling the younger to not do certain things, yaa he did them and LEARNED from his mistakes or actions (dont feel the use was a mistake due to it saving close to a millions lives in the long run). You and others like you that like to scream from the mountain tops "only the USA has ever used nukes" are stuck on stupid going on 70 years now.

AS for us being the only "guilty" nation, you're OK with others having nukes solely on that premis?? Wow .. Talk about a ignorant stance so lets have them proliferate around the world with even more unstable govt and lunatic leaders. You really haven't thought that through very far have you????

[Nukeman]

Sure but there are such things as overkill. Trinidad And Tobago, we got them squashed in the strength dept, right? If they pissed us off and we turned the island into glass would we be justified because we had "the capability and the might?"What the F**K are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????

[revelarts]

....
Iran is corrupt and dark
....




You've started MANY threads about Iran in the past 6 months, and mostly "defending" them. You yourself posted a quote earlier in this thread where Iran stated they would attack Israel without being attacked themselves. How come you aren't attacking THEM as you do your own country?
I think in this thread i've said somthing about the mullahs not being as devout as they claim. You want to start a thread about how bad the iranian gov't i'll jion you but they weren't the 1st of the 2 countries to threathen the other with war. Or the 1st to start sanctions, or sitby/assist when Scientist get killed and facilities get hacked, or blown up.
We are suppose to be the good guys, the example of freedom and justice. that's waht we advertise and teach our kids anyway. Telling everyone we are better than them.

But crazy Shria Law, oppression of other religions, oppression of women, torture, overly strict laws, political corruption and repression is what the the Iranian gov't is about. But it's their country Jim.
When they try to export that crap I've got a problem, but them getting a WMD is not freaking me out. And fixing that problem doesn't mean war.

Sorry if my desire for America to live up it's talk of freedom, truth, justice and Christian values
instead of international bloodshed, lies and war threats if we don't get our way bugs you Jim.

well Maybe I'll just blame Obama and Clinton for everything how about that.

Ahem,
I don't have a problem with America, I Luuuvs America!, but with the Demon-crats that want to ruin are bankrupt the country by going to war for no Fricking reason, misusing the troops for political gain Arrrr ! There Anti Gun/weapons BS position, don't you see, they want to export it around the world so that WHOLE Countires are disarmed! there Nanny STATE mentality that not only wants to tell AMERICANS what to do In there own house BUT tell FORIEGN COUNTRIES WHAT TO DO or they'll send troops in. Liberal CONTROL FREAKS!! OBAMA Is Lying out of his cigarette stained teeth about Iranian threats!!! Remember LBJ (democrat) and the gulf of tonkin, I wouldn't put it past another democrat to do the same. But a Demoncrat don't need a real excuse. they just havta feeeeel the "HATE" of others and try to protect themselves. He'll end up making Oil cost $10
a gallon and FORCE us all to buy Electric Cars!! WHAT Kind of 2 face HEALTH RIGHTS are the Demoncrats talkin about when they talk about SANCTIONS that will BUST the Health of a whole country like they did when CLINTON used them on IRAQ. OBAMA and Warmongering Hillery and the rest must be stopped!!!
Don't be FOOLED by this Left Propaganda, Brave Men and women have fought and Died for OUR PEACE and Freedom, we've won the cold WAR, there are no where near any comparable military threats on the horizon, the Podunk no navy, pitiful airforce, no rockets, having ONE nuke wanting Iranians sure isn't one.
God bless America!!!

[jimnyc]

Rev, don't you find it odd that you are "defending" Iran and Nukes, and that they never attacked anyone before, and pointing out how the US shouldn't attack unless attacked - while Iran is claiming they will attack before they are attacked? I don't see you starting threads pointing out your worries, or dismay, about Iran strengthening their nuclear position while stating that they would perform a preemptive attack perhaps.

[revelarts]

Rev, don't you find it odd that you are "defending" Iran and Nukes, and that they never attacked anyone before, and pointing out how the US shouldn't attack unless attacked - while Iran is claiming they will attack before they are attacked? I don't see you starting threads pointing out your worries, or dismay, about Iran strengthening their nuclear position while stating that they would perform a preemptive attack perhaps.
Jim Guns don't kill people People kill people.
Everyman and country armed makes good neighbors. The U.N shouldn't disarm us or them. And as i pointed out in the article the Iranian didn't threaten anyone UNTIL threaten themselves by I say again SANCTIONS, INSPECTIONS, "NOTHINGS OFF THE TABLE", An AIR CRAFT CARRIER OF THERE COAST, BOMBING OF FACILITIES, HACKING oF FACILITIES, KILLING OF SCIentiST,

that's called provocation if it happens to us, you want to ignore that and assume that other countries should do what we say if we feeeel scared of them.

I'll defend THAT part of the Iranian position.
I can't find a reason to defend our position in this.

I'm not sure what you find unclear.
let put it in another context on the play ground when a fights about to break out the teacher wants to know "who's starting it" the BIG one with a bat and a pocket full of rocks explains, "well he's a satanist and he picked up a rock so i told him to put it down, He didn't, I told him to show me the rock, he did, i took his lunch, I pinched his arm, and told him to stay away from the rock pile, he didn't so I pushed him and HE SIAD!!! "I'm going to hit you", like i knew he wanted to anyway, SO I knew I had to hit him 1st."

[jimnyc]

Jim Guns don't kill people People kill people.
Everyman and country armed makes good neighbors. The U.N shouldn't disarm us or them. And as i pointed out in the article the Iranian didn't threaten anyone UNTIL threaten themselves by I say again SANCTIONS, INSPECTIONS, "NOTHINGS OFF THE TABLE", An AIR CRAFT CARRIER OF THERE COAST, BOMBING OF FACILITIES, HACKING oF FACILITIES, KILLING OF SCIentiST,

that's called provocation if it happens to us, you want to ignore that and assume that other countries should do what we say if we feeeel scared of them.

I'll defend THAT part of the Iranian position.
I can't find a reason to defend our position in this.

I'm not sure what you find unclear.
let put it in another context on the play ground when a fights about to break out the teacher wants to know "who's starting it" the BIG one with a bat and a pocket full of rocks explains, "well he's a satanist and he picked up a rock so i told him to put it down, He didn't, I told him to show me the rock, he did, i took his lunch, I pinched his arm, and told him to stay away from the rock pile, he didn't so I pushed him and HE SIAD!!! "I'm going to hit you", like i knew he wanted to anyway, SO I knew I had to hit him 1st."

Wow, you even find a way to make excuses for Iran if they make a preemptive attack on an ally, while always stating that we should never do such a thing. I've never met someone who bitches so damn much about their own government, while finding any excuse you can to support other governments.

[revelarts]

Wow, you even find a way to make excuses for Iran if they make a preemptive attack on an ally, while always stating that we should never do such a thing. I've never met someone who bitches so damn much about their own government, while finding any excuse you can to support other governments.

Wow you manage to define Premptive as someone striking after being bombed, killed, economically starved and an air craft carrier pointing guns pointed at you face.
I've never seen someone who whines so much about a threat someone MIGHT pose but that's never happened, who doesn't understand when others get a attacked with people killed for real think think it's an attack worthy of retaliation.

[jimnyc]

Wow you manage to define Premptive as someone striking after being bombed, killed, economically starved and an air craft carrier pointing guns pointed at you face.
I've never seen someone who whines so much about a threat someone MIGHT pose but that's never happened, who doesn't understand when others get a attacked with people killed for real think think it's an attack worthy of retaliation.

Yep, you're a full blown nutter alright. I should have known better. Have a good evening, Rev.

[OCA]

Yep, you're a full blown nutter alright. I should have known better. Have a good evening, Rev.

So Jimmy in your estimation we are currently not provoking Iran?

[jimnyc]

So Jimmy in your estimation we are currently not provoking Iran?

You 2 are so hypocritical.

Was Iraq "provoking" us when shooting at our planes in the no fly zones? I would imagine actually using your military to strike at your enemy is far more provactive tham UN sanctions or placing ships in the Arabian Sea. But the former, with a billion other reasons, weren't good enough reason for us to strike at Iraq, but for Iran it'll be ok if they perform a preemptive strike, because in YOUR opinion, the provocation they are receiving is now good enough in your eyes.

[revelarts]

You 2 are so hypocritical.

Was Iraq "provoking" us when shooting at our planes in the no fly zones? I would imagine actually using your military to strike at your enemy is far more provactive tham UN sanctions or placing ships in the Arabian Sea. But the former, with a billion other reasons, weren't good enough reason for us to strike at Iraq, but for Iran it'll be ok if they perform a preemptive strike, because in YOUR opinion, the provocation they are receiving is now good enough in your eyes.

If they did all of that to us would we think it's a provacation?

If Iran had and Aircraft carrier and put it in the Chesapeake bay and killed scientist at MiT and Hacked our nuke plants and Our nuke plants were myteriously being destoryed by um... Hezbolah, and Iran pettitioned and got the U.N. to put sanction on us until we did as Iran said.
I think rightly Your head would be exploding and Gunny would be flying over the ocean on his own gases shooting out of his ears to destroy Iran.
You know it but for some reason you won't admit it.

[jimnyc]

You know it but for some reason you won't admit it.

Please don't claim to know me, what I know or don't know, or what I would do or not do. Outside of that, have a good night.

[revelarts]

Please don't claim to know me, what I know or don't know, or what I would do or not do. Outside of that, have a good night.

no problem, good night Jim.

[revelarts]

Hans Blix on Iran, IAEA and Intel.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-pN0MNo_pE?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-pN0MNo_pE?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[OCA]

You 2 are so hypocritical.

Was Iraq "provoking" us when shooting at our planes in the no fly zones? I would imagine actually using your military to strike at your enemy is far more provactive tham UN sanctions or placing ships in the Arabian Sea. But the former, with a billion other reasons, weren't good enough reason for us to strike at Iraq, but for Iran it'll be ok if they perform a preemptive strike, because in YOUR opinion, the provocation they are receiving is now good enough in your eyes.

Sure they were, would've been nice though if we had actually did something about it at the time instead of 2003 where it looks suspiciously like w was gonna"get him for daddy".

[Gaffer]

Gee rev I'm just beside myself with awe at your complete foolishness. You actually believe the tripe you are trying to sell here. For one, everything your listing as fact is pure speculation. There were explosions in iran at two sites. A missile site and a nuke site. The iranians haven't said what the cause was, and no one has taken credit for the blasts. So to say the US bombed them is wrong. The nuke computers weren't hacked. There was a virus released in their system which crippled their work for weeks or months. They still don't know how the virus was introduced. Of course everything that goes wrong in iran is the fault of the US or Israel. And you, like ron paul, agree.

Your rooting for iran to get a nuke. You have the silly idea that if they do they will then follow all the old MAD rules and everything will be hunky dory. Silly you. Did you know they successfully put a satellite into orbit a few months ago. That means they have rockets that they can make ICBM capable. That means they can launch nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. But at the same time they can also put them on medium range missiles and send them into the Atlantic aboard fishing trawlers or other ships. They could even put some in Venezuela (think 1962). The iranians are the soviets on steroids. And they won't back down.

According to the president of iran a 90% destruction of his country is a small price to pay for the return of the mahdi and islamic domination of the world. That is the mentality we are dealing with. Iran with nukes will not bring peace. It would bring the most devastating war ever fought in the history of the world. That would be the legacy of you and ron paul.

Now I have a prediction for you. Based on what I see going on both here and with iran. It's your worst nightmare.

There will be a war with iran sometime in the next three to six months. No matter who starts it. It will play into the dark lords hands tho. Iran cannot stand up to the might of the US. We will take the country down in a few months with only a percentage of our military. But iran controls hezbollah. Hezbollah has been slipping people into this country for many years through our border with Mexico. There are multiple hezbo cells scattered throughout this country and even in high govt positions.

Now when war breaks out with iran these cells will go into action. There will be terror strikes throughout the country. Some attacks so big that local police will not be able to handle it. National Guard forces will have to be called into action and then zero will act. Posse Comitatus (sp) will be revoked and federal troops will be allowed to quell civilian demonstrations and used against the terrorists. Martial law will be declared and the Constitution will be suspended pending the end of hostilities. Congress will be shut down eventually. All for our security and protection. Then the big O will move to take complete and supreme control. And he has the media to report everything favorably and censor anything that looks bad for the govt. He can't let a crisis go to waste.

[Gunny]

Gee rev I'm just beside myself with awe at your complete foolishness. You actually believe the tripe you are trying to sell here. For one, everything your listing as fact is pure speculation. There were explosions in iran at two sites. A missile site and a nuke site. The iranians haven't said what the cause was, and no one has taken credit for the blasts. So to say the US bombed them is wrong. The nuke computers weren't hacked. There was a virus released in their system which crippled their work for weeks or months. They still don't know how the virus was introduced. Of course everything that goes wrong in iran is the fault of the US or Israel. And you, like ron paul, agree.

Your rooting for iran to get a nuke. You have the silly idea that if they do they will then follow all the old MAD rules and everything will be hunky dory. Silly you. Did you know they successfully put a satellite into orbit a few months ago. That means they have rockets that they can make ICBM capable. That means they can launch nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. But at the same time they can also put them on medium range missiles and send them into the Atlantic aboard fishing trawlers or other ships. They could even put some in Venezuela (think 1962). The iranians are the soviets on steroids. And they won't back down.

According to the president of iran a 90% destruction of his country is a small price to pay for the return of the mahdi and islamic domination of the world. That is the mentality we are dealing with. Iran with nukes will not bring peace. It would bring the most devastating war ever fought in the history of the world. That would be the legacy of you and ron paul.

Now I have a prediction for you. Based on what I see going on both here and with iran. It's your worst nightmare.

There will be a war with iran sometime in the next three to six months. No matter who starts it. It will play into the dark lords hands tho. Iran cannot stand up to the might of the US. We will take the country down in a few months with only a percentage of our military. But iran controls hezbollah. Hezbollah has been slipping people into this country for many years through our border with Mexico. There are multiple hezbo cells scattered throughout this country and even in high govt positions.

Now when war breaks out with iran these cells will go into action. There will be terror strikes throughout the country. Some attacks so big that local police will not be able to handle it. National Guard forces will have to be called into action and then zero will act. Posse Comitatus (sp) will be revoked and federal troops will be allowed to quell civilian demonstrations and used against the terrorists. Martial law will be declared and the Constitution will be suspended pending the end of hostilities. Congress will be shut down eventually. All for our security and protection. Then the big O will move to take complete and supreme control. And he has the media to report everything favorably and censor anything that looks bad for the govt. He can't let a crisis go to waste.

Think the Battle of Thermopylae. Persians are Persian. and always have been. Twice as arrogant as we have ever been ... and THAT takes some doing.

[OCA]

Hezbollah has been slipping people into this country for many years through our border with Mexico. There are multiple hezbo cells scattered throughout this country and even in high govt positions.

Now when war breaks out with iran these cells will go into action. There will be terror strikes throughout the country. Some attacks so big that local police will not be able to handle it. National Guard forces will have to be called into action and then zero will act. Posse Comitatus (sp) will be revoked and federal troops will be allowed to quell civilian demonstrations and used against the terrorists. Martial law will be declared and the Constitution will be suspended pending the end of hostilities. Congress will be shut down eventually. All for our security and protection. Then the big O will move to take complete and supreme control. And he has the media to report everything favorably and censor anything that looks bad for the govt. He can't let a crisis go to waste.


:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2:

:tinfoil:

OMG! HAHAHAHA!

[Gunny]

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2:

:tinfoil:

OMG! HAHAHAHA!

I'd think as a Greek, YOU would understand this better than anyone else.

[OCA]

I'd think as a Greek, YOU would understand this better than anyone else.

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2:


Which part?:laugh2:

The Hezbollah cells in Amerika?:laugh2:

Or the suspension of COTUS?:laugh2:

[OCA]

Here is the funny thing, if a lib had uttered that nonsense that Laffer just did he/she would've been ridiculed as a fucking nutter but Laffer who is as neocon as they come says it and the kool aid gets drank faster than they did at Jonestown.:laugh:

[Gaffer]

Think the Battle of Thermopylae. Persians are Persian. and always have been. Twice as arrogant as we have ever been ... and THAT takes some doing.

Maybe after we defeat them we can out law islam and rename the country Persia. There's been too much arab influence there.

[Gunny]

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2:


Which part?:laugh2:

The Hezbollah cells in Amerika?:laugh2:

Or the suspension of COTUS?:laugh2:

Lasty I checked, neither are the topic. I was referring to that Persian Empire you anti-Americans (don't let our milk and honey dribble TOO far down your chin) choose to ignore.

[Gunny]

Maybe after we defeat them we can out law islam and rename the country Persia. There's been too much arab influence there.

Arab influence my rear end. Been too much Islam infuence there. Sorry, but those people are 'tards.

[Gunny]

Here is the funny thing, if a lib had uttered that nonsense that Laffer just did he/she would've been ridiculed as a fucking nutter but Laffer who is as neocon as they come says it and the kool aid gets drank faster than they did at Jonestown.:laugh:

So? I'm a conservative. Tht makes me a bigot, right?

[revelarts]

...For one, everything your listing as fact is pure speculation. There were explosions in iran at two sites. A missile site and a nuke site. The iranians haven't said what the cause was, and no one has taken credit for the blasts. So to say the US bombed them is wrong. The nuke computers weren't hacked. There was a virus released in their system which crippled their work for weeks or months. They still don't know how the virus was introduced. Of course everything that goes wrong in iran is the fault of the US or Israel. And you, like ron paul, agree.

Who do think hit there missle and Nuke sites When it happened many here "speculated" it was US or Israel and CHEERED. I'm not sure when Why when I say it I'm out in left field.

Virus/Hack sorry for the missed wording, but most experts think it was Israel or another nation state. Which nation state do you suppose?
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=199475

But you Don't mention the sanctions or the AirCraft Carriers off the shores or the Assassinated Iranian Scientist.
That's quite a package of provocation.
What would you call it? I can't get an answer to that. your trying to dodge it by saying it wasn't us when many cheered at every step and called each "covert ops".
NOW all of a sudden it wasn't us or Israel. just Coincidences... Riiiight

If this had happened to us we'd be screaming Bloodly murder. And We'd probably point the finger in some specific direction based on the evidence at hand.






Your rooting for iran to get a nuke.
Since I don't want to attack I'm rooting for them, Jezze lousie.


You have the silly idea that if they do they will then follow all the old MAD rules and everything will be hunky dory. Silly you. Did you know they successfully put a satellite into orbit a few months ago. That means they have rockets that they can make ICBM capable. That means they can launch nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. But at the same time they can also put them on medium range missiles and send them into the Atlantic aboard fishing trawlers or other ships. They could even put some in Venezuela (think 1962). The iranians are the soviets on steroids. And they won't back down.
Many thought the soviets were soviets on steroids and wouldn't back down. If it were up to many in the military during the cuban crisis we would have had a nuke war with the Soviets, Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.



According to the president of iran a 90% destruction of his country is a small price to pay for the return of the mahdi and islamic domination of the world. That is the mentality we are dealing with. Iran with nukes will not bring peace. It would bring the most devastating war ever fought in the history of the world. That would be the legacy of you and ron paul.
If Iran gets a Nuke it's my and Ron Paul's fault? lol. If it was that bad it seems it would be really GWBUSH's and Obama's fault if it's as bad as you say , but have little to prove it, Bush should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq. Saddam never worked with terrorist, (acording to the Cia head of the bein laden unit) he hated terrorist and had No plans to attack the U.S.. He was an Ally. Since the revolution in Iran they've been our enemies (except when we sell them arms to get money for Drugs and the Contras). But it's My Fault when the nuke tech is at the door -supposedly- becuase i didn't want to start WW3 that will come anyway if your assessment of them is right.
If what your saying is Right the Iranians Could have used the AQKhan network and bought what they needed for nuke info, or black market soviets, maybe Chinese or possibly India. They have the tech and smarts to go ofshore in some remote country and produce chem weapons or Bio weapons. If all their minds are FIXED on attacking the U.S. they could do it and there's nothing we could do to seriously stop it and the War you describe would be on us. heck A group of 50 Suicide iranian Guad could Paralye the U.S. in an attack on the east and west coast. No Nukes NoCHem No Bio just 50 guys Walking into buildings over a 3 day period Shooting and blowing up would make most of America lose their freaking minds. the "saftey" mindset is so entrenched now.





Now I have a prediction (Specultion )for you. Based on what I see going on both here and with iran. It's your worst nightmare.

There will be a war with iran sometime in the next three to six months. No matter who starts it. It will play into the dark lords hands tho.
(Agreed )

Iran cannot stand up to the might of the US. We will take the country down in a few months with only a percentage of our military. But iran controls hezbollah. Hezbollah has been slipping people into this country for many years through our border with Mexico. There are multiple hezbo cells scattered throughout this country and even in high govt positions.

Now when war breaks out with iran these cells will go into action. There will be terror strikes throughout the country. Some attacks so big that local police will not be able to handle it. National Guard forces will have to be called into action and then zero will act. Posse Comitatus (sp) will be revoked and federal troops will be allowed to quell civilian demonstrations and used against the terrorists. Martial law will be declared and the Constitution will be suspended pending the end of hostilities. Congress will be shut down eventually. All for our security and protection. Then the big O will move to take complete and supreme control. And he has the media to report everything favorably and censor anything that looks bad for the govt. He can't let a crisis go to waste.


That's not as far fetched as it sounds, it's on the broader of very unlikely though. However.
it seems to me that being the case we need to DEFUSE tension rather than push Iran into a corner that they will eventuall break out from. Your SURE they will attack IF/WHEN they get a nuke/s Other Disagree. you say it doesn't matter who Strikes 1st. Well If we don't strike 1st we know it wasn't us who started it. And Maybe just maybe your wrong and the same M.E. experts that thought we were wrong about Saddam are Right here as well that Iran REALLY Doesn't want a war with Israel or the U.S. (as well as current CIA and Millitary Brass, Former CiC advisors ETC)... then we've Averted the horrors your describing by stepping back and giving each other room. At the very least we've given each other a few more month.. years... decades of peace. India and Pakistan have been on the VERGE of war for about 20+ years , may we be a fourtunate. I suspect that they each think the others are unreasoning murders that can't wait to destroy the other too but by some miracle MAD has worked.

[Gaffer]

Who do think hit there missle and Nuke sites When it happened many here "speculated" it was US or Israel and CHEERED. I'm not sure when Why when I say it I'm out in left field.

Virus/Hack sorry for the missed wording, but most experts think it was Israel or another nation state. Which nation state do you suppose?
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=199475


As I said, it's speculation as to who did it. Was it a good thing and worth cheering about? Yes. Could have been local anti govt types for all we know.


But you Don't mention the sanctions or the AirCraft Carriers off the shores or the Assassinated Iranian Scientist.
That's quite a package of provocation.
What would you call it? I can't get an answer to that. your trying to dodge it by saying it wasn't us when many cheered at every step and called each "covert ops".
NOW all of a sudden it wasn't us or Israel. just Coincidences... Riiiight

If this had happened to us we'd be screaming Bloodly murder. And We'd probably point the finger in some specific direction based on the evidence at hand.

Ah the poor assassinated iranian scientist, who, according to his wife, was working on the destruction of Israel. His dream of mushroom clouds over Israel was cut short. Not too mention the revolutionary guard general at the missile site whose career was ended while inspecting the facility. Who did it? My educated guess would be Israel. But until they say they did, it could be anyone.

A country that threatens us and our allies. Threatens to shut down the Straits of Hormuz to all shipping and attack our forces in the region, and we shouldn't have a carrier force there? It's not provocation, it's common sense.






Since I don't want to attack I'm rooting for them, Jezze lousie.


You want to leave them be and let them have their nukes, in spite of the facts they will use them, as they have said repeatedly.


Many thought the soviets were soviets on steroids and wouldn't back down. If it were up to many in the military during the cuban crisis we would have had a nuke war with the Soviets, Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.

We didn't have a nuke war with the soviets because Khrushchev finally backed down. MAD prevailed. He wasn't a religious fanatic.



If Iran gets a Nuke it's my and Ron Paul's fault? lol. If it was that bad it seems it would be really GWBUSH's and Obama's fault if it's as bad as you say , but have little to prove it, Bush should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq. Saddam never worked with terrorist, (acording to the Cia head of the bein laden unit) he hated terrorist and had No plans to attack the U.S.. He was an Ally. Since the revolution in Iran they've been our enemies (except when we sell them arms to get money for Drugs and the Contras). But it's My Fault when the nuke tech is at the door -supposedly- becuase i didn't want to start WW3 that will come anyway if your assessment of them is right.
If what your saying is Right the Iranians Could have used the AQKhan network and bought what they needed for nuke info, or black market soviets, maybe Chinese or possibly India. They have the tech and smarts to go ofshore in some remote country and produce chem weapons or Bio weapons. If all their minds are FIXED on attacking the U.S. they could do it and there's nothing we could do to seriously stop it and the War you describe would be on us. heck A group of 50 Suicide iranian Guad could Paralye the U.S. in an attack on the east and west coast. No Nukes NoCHem No Bio just 50 guys Walking into buildings over a 3 day period Shooting and blowing up would make most of America lose their freaking minds. the "saftey" mindset is so entrenched now.

Iran will have nukes within the next six months. Paul if elected would just insure they used them that much quicker and it would be his legacy. You would stand proudly at his side. Saddam gave money to many terrorist organizations including hamas and al queda. He gave sanctuary to terrorists and even had an al queda training camp in his country containing over 200 operatives.

I only see small pieces of the huge picture, but my assessment is accurate. The iranians do use al queda. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an old arab saying. They use each other as benefits them. They will give what can be used against their enemies and nothing more. They don't want it being used on themselves later.

As I stated before. Iran controls hezbollah. They have many cells in this country. They have been coming in for years from Mexico. Imagine your 50 gunmen in every major city in the country and many small towns. Iran wants an apocalyptic war for the return of the mahdi, our administration wants a reason to suspend the constitution and take complete control of the country.





That's not as far fetched as it sounds, it's on the broader of very unlikely though. However.
it seems to me that being the case we need to DEFUSE tension rather than push Iran into a corner that they will eventuall break out from. Your SURE they will attack IF/WHEN they get a nuke/s Other Disagree. you say it doesn't matter who Strikes 1st. Well If we don't strike 1st we know it wasn't us who started it. And Maybe just maybe your wrong and the same M.E. experts that thought we were wrong about Saddam are Right here as well that Iran REALLY Doesn't want a war with Israel or the U.S. (as well as current CIA and Millitary Brass, Former CiC advisors ETC)... then we've Averted the horrors your describing by stepping back and giving each other room. At the very least we've given each other a few more month.. years... decades of peace. India and Pakistan have been on the VERGE of war for about 20+ years , may we be a fourtunate. I suspect that they each think the others are unreasoning murders that can't wait to destroy the other too but by some miracle MAD has worked.

If iran got a nuke they would want to wait until they have many more nukes. They want to threaten and control the region and establish a caliphate. The arab hatred for Israel is important for them and as soon as they feel they are strong enough they will attack Israel. But for now Israel gives them all something to hate besides their own miserable existence.

MAD has worked with India and pakistan because the religious fanatics in pak have not gained control of the govt there. If the taliban types ever get control there all bets on MAD are off.

They weren't wrong about saddam's WMD's, they were shipped out of the country to syria and russia. Convoys and plane loads were going out of the country for three months before the invasion. The stuff was traceable and they had to get rid of the evidence.

[OCA]

Iran will have nukes within the next six months. Paul if elected would just insure they used them that much quicker and it would be his legacy. You would stand proudly at his side. Saddam gave money to many terrorist organizations including hamas and al queda. He gave sanctuary to terrorists and even had an al queda training camp in his country containing over 200 operatives.


As I stated before. Iran controls hezbollah. They have many cells in this country. They have been coming in for years from Mexico. Imagine your 50 gunmen in every major city in the country and many small towns. Iran wants an apocalyptic war for the return of the mahdi, our administration wants a reason to suspend the constitution and take complete control of the country.






If iran got a nuke they would want to wait until they have many more nukes. They want to threaten and control the region and establish a caliphate. The arab hatred for Israel is important for them and as soon as they feel they are strong enough they will attack Israel. But for now Israel gives them all something to hate besides their own miserable existence.

MAD has worked with India and pakistan because the religious fanatics in pak have not gained control of the govt there. If the taliban types ever get control there all bets on MAD are off.

They weren't wrong about saddam's WMD's, they were shipped out of the country to syria and russia. Convoys and plane loads were going out of the country for three months before the invasion. The stuff was traceable and they had to get rid of the evidence.

I would like to see links to all the unbelievable claims you make:

1. a link proving the Al Qaeda training camp in Iraq pre invasion

2. a link proving that Hezbollah operatives have been coming in through Mexico

3. a link proving the shipments of WMD to Syria and Russia

the black helicopters are just on the horizon!:laugh2:




You won't respond because you have me on ignore.........which proves you fear me.

[jimnyc]

Maybe he has you on ignore because you disgust him? :poke:

[OCA]

Maybe he has you on ignore because you disgust him? :poke:

No, he's scared.

[Nukeman]

I would like to see links to all the unbelievable claims you make:

1. a link proving the Al Qaeda training camp in Iraq pre invasion.

heres the first..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/23/alqaida.iraq


A radical armed Islamist group with ties to Tehran and Baghdad has helped al-Qaida establish an international terrorist training camp in northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say. Intelligence officers in the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq told the Guardian that the Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam) group is harbouring up to 150 al-Qaida members in a string of villages it controls along the Iraq-Iran border.



2. a link proving that Hezbollah operatives have been coming in through Mexico

I know you wont take any sites out there but here ya go just one of thousands!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/hezbollah-uses-mexican-drug-routes-into-us/?page=all

“They work together,” said Mr. Braun. “They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected.

“They’ll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling].”
His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic.
While Hezbollah appears to view the U.S. primarily as a source of cash - and there have been no confirmed Hezbollah attacks within the U.S. - the group’s growing ties with Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrisome at a time when a war



3. a link proving the shipments of WMD to Syria and Russia

I'm not real up on this one but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/?page=all


He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.







You won't respond because you have me on ignore.........which proves you fear me. I doubt it's fear more like loath!!!! NO ONE on here "fears" you!! most just think your a prick!!!!!!!!!!

[OCA]

heres the first..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/23/alqaida.iraq




I know you wont take any sites out there but here ya go just one of thousands!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/hezbollah-uses-mexican-drug-routes-into-us/?page=all





I'm not real up on this one but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/?page=all








I doubt it's fear more like loath!!!! NO ONE on here "fears" you!! most just think your a prick!!!!!!!!!!

You'll understand if I only accept "hard" evidence, right?

I relish being the "prick" here, I wear it like a badge of honor. Its much better than the communal blowing of one another that goes on.

[jimnyc]

You'll understand if I only accept "hard" evidence, right?

I relish being the "prick" here, I wear it like a badge of honor. Its much better than the communal blowing of one another that goes on.

That's what I blame it on too. Anyone can do an advanced search here, put in OCA as the user name and "Iraq" as the search term. They would get 4 pages of replies. Start from the beginning and watch OCA and his stances evolve. It's like watching waffles cooking at the Waffle House!

[OCA]

That's what I blame it on too. Anyone can do an advanced search here, put in OCA as the user name and "Iraq" as the search term. They would get 4 pages of replies. Start from the beginning and watch OCA and his stances evolve. It's like watching waffles cooking at the Waffle House!

Blame what?

[jimnyc]

Blame what?

Your changing stance on various topics, as can be seen via simply following a few search terms. Once a "gung ho, who gives a fuck, turn them into glass, remove saddam" guy, has now turned into "it was for oil, bush and his daddy, lies.."

And I blame that on you relishing being a dick. :lol:

[OCA]

Your changing stance on various topics, as can be seen via simply following a few search terms. Once a "gung ho, who gives a fuck, turn them into glass, remove saddam" guy, has now turned into "it was for oil, bush and his daddy, lies.."

And I blame that on you relishing being a dick. :lol:

Nope, realized my stance was wrong and am man enough to admit it.

Still like being a fucking asshole though, its liberating.

[revelarts]

Helbolah Mexico
I know you wont take any sites out there but here ya go just one of thousands!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/hezbollah-uses-mexican-drug-routes-into-us/?page=all


Sure We've had iranian cells in the USA, as far as I know at least since the oklahoma city bombing. ANd lot of terrorist comes into the US through Mexico . Except AlQuida who we brought in and trained ourselves during the 80's and 90's.

And I've got to mention, If Helboalh is working with the drug cartels that are CIA is On top of that, you better believe it.




1. a link proving the Al Qaeda training camp in Iraq pre invasion.
heres the first..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002...3/alqaida.iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/23/alqaida.iraq)
A radical armed Islamist group with ties to Tehran and Baghdad has helped al-Qaida establish an international terrorist training camp in northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say. Intelligence officers in the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq told the Guardian that the Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam) group is harbouring up to 150 al-Qaida members in a string of villages it controls along the Iraq-Iran border.






Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer) is a former CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA) counter terrorism expert who headed the unit tasked to capture or kill Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden). Scheuer is currently a news analyst for CBS News.
"


The test of an intelligence officer is not so much the ability to accumulate information; it's to judge between different pieces of information, and not to take a piece of information and use it in a piece of analysis simply because it fits your case, but to use it because it either comes from a reliable source like signals intercepts, from a human source that has been vetted over time as a reliable person, or it comes from documentary information -- papers you've stolen from another government or some other organization. The work that came out of Feith's shop that I saw, especially on Al Qaeda and Iraq, was simply ... finding pieces of information in the world of intelligence information that fit the argument they wanted to make. Tenet, to his credit, had us go back 10 years in the agency's records and look and see what we knew about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was available at the time, and I led the effort. We went back 10 years. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the line of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam."

"The Dark Side (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/scheuer.html), PBS Frontline Interview, (22 June 2006).



Chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council). Under President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush),

"Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-607356.html


Another CFormer CIA Anylyst Ray McGovern, he was the CIA breifer for G Bush I, here's talking to Rumsfeld and then to Amy Goodman about the details of AlQaeda in Iraq pre-9-11.




RAY McGOVERN: We’re talking about lies and your allegation that there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie or were you misled?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

RAY McGOVERN: Zarqawi, he was in the north of Iraq, in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s where he was.

DONALD RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

.....

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ray, let’s go through the questions and how the secretary responded to you. The issue — the last one, of Zarqawi, saying that there is a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, that’s the best they could come up with after all of this misinformation, with Cheney saying there were contacts between Iraqis and people in Prague and so forth. Zarqawi was up in the north part of the country. He had no contact with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was not ruling that part of the area.
AMY GOODMAN: Wasn’t the U.S.?
RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, the U.S. and the Kurds were up there. They could have got Zarqawi in an eyelash, in a moment, but they chose not to. So it was completely disingenuous, and for the people not to be able to listen to that, to hear it, but simply join in the applause for Rumsfeld was a bit disquieting....


Finally on this point

"But Zarqawi's pre-war links to either Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are dubious (Washington Post, 2/13/03), and subsequent investigations have done little to bolster Rumsfeld's line. In fact, at times Rumsfeld has acknowledged as much; as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted (5/8/06), Rumsfeld once said of the linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda (10/4/04), "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.""

Bush Rumfeld and Cheney lied, lied and lied somemore to get their war.



3. a link proving the shipments of WMD to Syria and Russia.

I'm not real up on this one but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...667r/?page=all (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/?page=all)


He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.




this is The Best I've seen of this story. ANd frankly if this is proof then the PAGES of testimony I've posted about Bush Lying should not be questioned in the slightest.
if a maybe so report that "has merit" "possibly" and needs further investigation is good enough proof for the transfer of TONS of Chemical WMDS.

My question always on this idea is : If Syria has them Why aren't we in Syria getting them from that crazy dictator. If that's what we were concern about so much. If we can't leave them in the hands of Muslims. Bush should have followed them there. At Least Sent the IAEA of Somebody to inspect, but no nothing like that every. not another peep about those DEADLY Unaccounted for, but MUST BE accounted for or ELSE WMDs. Syria was a part of the Axis of evil at one point , except when we sent people there for torture rendition of course.

This part of the Iraq story is pretty pitiful and shouldn't even be brought up, it's not your strongest point.

[Gaffer]

Sure We've had iranian cells in the USA, as far as I know at least since the oklahoma city bombing. ANd lot of terrorist comes into the US through Mexico . Except AlQuida who we brought in and trained ourselves during the 80's and 90's.

And I've got to mention, If Helboalh is working with the drug cartels that are CIA is On top of that, you better believe it.






Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer) is a former CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA) counter terrorism expert who headed the unit tasked to capture or kill Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden). Scheuer is currently a news analyst for CBS News.
"


The test of an intelligence officer is not so much the ability to accumulate information; it's to judge between different pieces of information, and not to take a piece of information and use it in a piece of analysis simply because it fits your case, but to use it because it either comes from a reliable source like signals intercepts, from a human source that has been vetted over time as a reliable person, or it comes from documentary information -- papers you've stolen from another government or some other organization. The work that came out of Feith's shop that I saw, especially on Al Qaeda and Iraq, was simply ... finding pieces of information in the world of intelligence information that fit the argument they wanted to make. Tenet, to his credit, had us go back 10 years in the agency's records and look and see what we knew about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was available at the time, and I led the effort. We went back 10 years. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the line of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam."
"The Dark Side (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/scheuer.html), PBS Frontline Interview, (22 June 2006).



Chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council). Under President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush),

"Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-607356.html


Another CFormer CIA Anylyst Ray McGovern, he was the CIA breifer for G Bush I, here's talking to Rumsfeld and then to Amy Goodman about the details of AlQaeda in Iraq pre-9-11.


Finally on this point

"But Zarqawi's pre-war links to either Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are dubious (Washington Post, 2/13/03), and subsequent investigations have done little to bolster Rumsfeld's line. In fact, at times Rumsfeld has acknowledged as much; as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted (5/8/06), Rumsfeld once said of the linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda (10/4/04), "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.""

Bush Rumfeld and Cheney lied, lied and lied somemore to get their war.



this is The Best I've seen of this story. ANd frankly if this is proof then the PAGES of testimony I've posted about Bush Lying should not be questioned in the slightest.
if a maybe so report that "has merit" "possibly" and needs further investigation is good enough proof for the transfer of TONS of Chemical WMDS.

My question always on this idea is : If Syria has them Why aren't we in Syria getting them from that crazy dictator. If that's what we were concern about so much. If we can't leave them in the hands of Muslims. Bush should have followed them there. At Least Sent the IAEA of Somebody to inspect, but no nothing like that every. not another peep about those DEADLY Unaccounted for, but MUST BE accounted for or ELSE WMDs. Syria was a part of the Axis of evil at one point , except when we sent people there for torture rendition of course.

This part of the Iraq story is pretty pitiful and shouldn't even be brought up, it's not your strongest point.

Quick answer to your last question. It was stock piled. There was a raid by Israeli fighter jets and the whole site was blown up. You might remember the reports from a few years ago of a mysterious explosion in syria, and then a report of Israeli planes accidentally wandering into syrian air space. Then a report of a nuclear site exploding. There were a number of various stories that came out over the months and then it was just dropped.

For everyone elses info, yes oca is on ignore. To say I loath the man is putting it nicely.

[Gunny]

Quick answer to your last question. It was stock piled. There was a raid by Israeli fighter jets and the whole site was blown up. You might remember the reports from a few years ago of a mysterious explosion in syria, and then a report of Israeli planes accidentally wandering into syrian air space. Then a report of a nuclear site exploding. There were a number of various stories that came out over the months and then it was just dropped.

For everyone elses info, yes oca is on ignore. To say I loath the man is putting it nicely.

Is it just me? Or wouldn't these anti-everything-US types look a LOT less like hypocrites in they weren't living IN the US, sucking off what's left of our economy? I'm sure Tehran has a red carpent and everything ready to roll out for their arriving flight.

[Wind Song]

What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Isn't it hypocritical for nuclear weapons rich countries to tell other countries they can't have nukes, when we do?

What I don't want to see happen, is another war in the Middle East just as we are leaving Iraq and still committed in Afghanistan.

We can't afford it financially or diplomatically.

[OCA]

Is it just me? Or wouldn't these anti-everything-US types look a LOT less like hypocrites in they weren't living IN the US, sucking off what's left of our economy? I'm sure Tehran has a red carpent and everything ready to roll out for their arriving flight.

I figure about 10-12 more years of squirelling away unreported us dollars in greek banks and im outta here!

[revelarts]

Is it just me? Or wouldn't these anti-everything-US types look a LOT less like hypocrites in they weren't living IN the US, sucking off what's left of our economy? I'm sure Tehran has a red carpent and everything ready to roll out for their arriving flight.

Probably won't convince you but I'm a pro constitution, anti war, anti corruption type. Maybe soft totalitarianism, BS Wars and a gov't full of corruption is fine with you as long as its strong and prosperous Gunny, i don't know. Maybe your that type. the type that turns a blind eye to stuff as long a we come out on top?
And America's my Country not my Mamma, sucking in any form is not part of what i do.

[jimnyc]

What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? I

Did you read the news today? North Korea is talking about dropping their nukes, and allowing the IAEA back in for inspections, in return for aid from us, starting with food. Do you NOT think this is good, if it comes to fruition? Or is it nonsensical, because those playing a part in perhaps getting them to dismantle is the USA?

[Wind Song]

Did you read the news today? North Korea is talking about dropping their nukes, and allowing the IAEA back in for inspections, in return for aid from us, starting with food. Do you NOT think this is good, if it comes to fruition? Or is it nonsensical, because those playing a part in perhaps getting them to dismantle is the USA?


That's right. I didn't read the news today. If North Korea drops it's nukes that is definitely a good thing. There is a world of difference between Iran and North Korea.

Stop making assumptions.

[jimnyc]

That's right. I didn't read the news today. If North Korea drops it's nukes that is definitely a good thing. There is a world of difference between Iran and North Korea.

Stop making assumptions.

It's YOU making assumptions. You're asking "What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" - and I pointed out a good example, talking with them and having the IAEA involved and perhaps getting them to drop their ambitions. Is it not ok to try the same with Iran, and hope that us and the international community can get them to change their minds?

[Wind Song]

It's YOU making assumptions. You're asking "What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" - and I pointed out a good example, talking with them and having the IAEA involved and perhaps getting them to drop their ambitions. Is it not ok to try the same with Iran, and hope that us and the international community can get them to change their minds?

Of course, less nukes is better than more nukes. I'm just saying its hypocritical to support Israel's nuclear capabilities and object to Iran's.

[jimnyc]

Of course, less nukes is better than more nukes. I'm just saying its hypocritical to support Israel's nuclear capabilities and object to Iran's.

Israel isn't known for supporting and working with terrorists. It makes sense to be more wary of countries that have terrorist ties. Common sense if you ask me.

[logroller]

What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Diplomacy and internationally supported economic sanctions are quite effective. Why else do you think Iran has been getting so irate of late?


Isn't it hypocritical for nuclear weapons rich countries to tell other countries they can't have nukes, when we do?
Well, yes. I suppose it is hypocritical; destroying our nuclear arsenal would give us a moral high-ground, but in so doing, would remove MAD as an alternative to other states blowing the shit out of us. Politically it just makes sense for us keep ours and prevent/discourage others from getting them.


What I don't want to see happen, is another war in the Middle East just as we are leaving Iraq and still committed in Afghanistan.

We can't afford it financially or diplomatically.

I don't want to see that happen either; save warmongers, I don't believe many do. However, it is necessary to protect the people in the free world from weapons of mass destruction. I know, I know-- heard that one before, me too! But in all sincerity, it is a real risk, and there are a host of countries in the world with the power and intent to destroy the freedom so many others have worked, fought and died to preserve, protect and spread. Isolationism functionally died a century ago, we're becoming more and more interconnected into a worldwide society-- the genie's out of the bottle and there's no going back, only forward.

[OCA]

Probably won't convince you but I'm a pro constitution, anti war, anti corruption type. Maybe soft totalitarianism, BS Wars and a gov't full of corruption is fine with you as long as its strong and prosperous Gunny, i don't know. Maybe your that type. the type that turns a blind eye to stuff as long a we come out on top?
And America's my Country not my Mamma, sucking in any form is not part of what i do.

Gunny would have nothing in common with the American founding fathers who did not buy into the "England first, England forever" monarch bullshit, they did not buy every government line and propoganda and that is what makes this country great.

Gunny likes to tout his "anti-government" stance but in reality he swallows everything just like a largemouth bass hitting a deep diving rapala.

[OCA]

Did you read the news today? North Korea is talking about dropping their nukes, and allowing the IAEA back in for inspections, in return for aid from us, starting with food. Do you NOT think this is good, if it comes to fruition? Or is it nonsensical, because those playing a part in perhaps getting them to dismantle is the USA?

Jimmy don't fool yourself, they don't want to dismantle just to dismantle, they are dirt fucking poor and have zero food. They would take rice from Zimbabwe if it was offered, we have zero to do with it other than being a source of food.

[OCA]

It's YOU making assumptions. You're asking "What is it we think we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" - and I pointed out a good example, talking with them and having the IAEA involved and perhaps getting them to drop their ambitions. Is it not ok to try the same with Iran, and hope that us and the international community can get them to change their minds?

Ok, how about detante, we offer to dismantle our nukes in exchange for them dropping their weapons program? Or is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

[OCA]

Quick answer to your last question. It was stock piled. There was a raid by Israeli fighter jets and the whole site was blown up. You might remember the reports from a few years ago of a mysterious explosion in syria, and then a report of Israeli planes accidentally wandering into syrian air space. Then a report of a nuclear site exploding. There were a number of various stories that came out over the months and then it was just dropped.

For everyone elses info, yes oca is on ignore. To say I loath the man is putting it nicely.

If Laffer were having a heart attack i'd stuff a sock down his throat and then drop a 45lb weight plate on his chest.............thats how I feel, and no I don't think he's a man.

[jimnyc]

Ok, how about detante, we offer to dismantle our nukes in exchange for them dropping their weapons program? Or is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

Have we worked on non-proliferation? Have we disarmed any of our nukes? Do we work with the international community on these issues? Yes to all. And as other nations are working to dismantle, a few of the more hardcore aka terrorist friendly countries are working in the opposite direction.

[OCA]

Have we worked on non-proliferation? Have we disarmed any of our nukes? Do we work with the international community on these issues? Yes to all. And as other nations are working to dismantle, a few of the more hardcore aka terrorist friendly countries are working in the opposite direction.

How about we disarm them all? Are they really useful in any way? MAD is a thing of the past so don't start.

If we are going to talk the talk then we should walk the walk.

[jimnyc]

How about we disarm them all? Are they really useful in any way? MAD is a thing of the past so don't start.

If we are going to talk the talk then we should walk the walk.

The fact of the matter is, the world is looking to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and whether you like it or not, the likelier targets are going to be the terrorist supporting countries. You can keep derailing the topic and deflecting it back to the USA based on your morals, but it does nothing to address the issue in Iran, or possible hostilities between Iran and Israel.

At one point you thought we should use weapons in the ME to turn a few of the countries into glass. Your opinions flutter as does your ability to stay on topic.

[Gunny]

Of course, less nukes is better than more nukes. I'm just saying its hypocritical to support Israel's nuclear capabilities and object to Iran's.

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone. Iran, on the other hand, funds and supplies an international terrorist organization based solely on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation, and is run by fundamentalist Muslims who have PROVEN they are willing to commit suicide to try and get their way.

I'd say there's a BIGH difference between the two. All anyone has to do is look.

So no, there is no hypocisy on that score. Responsible people have. Irresponsible don't. End of story.

[revelarts]

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone. Iran, on the other hand, funds and supplies an international terrorist organization based solely on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation, and is run by fundamentalist Muslims who have PROVEN they are willing to commit suicide to try and get their way.

I'd say there's a BIGH difference between the two. All anyone has to do is look.

So no, there is no hypocisy on that score. Responsible people have. Irresponsible don't. End of story.

I'd have to agree, israel, U.S. Britian, Russia and China are probably the least likley to end up using full blown nukes next.
everyone ese is skether than that group and Helbolh is terrible. but Israel is no choir boy. they've got ot defend themselves and they've been "preemptive striking for years. in stratigic ways.
On the terrorist end probably the worse i know of is that they help create Hamas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
that kinda back fired -talk about your blow back.

[OCA]

The fact of the matter is, the world is looking to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and whether you like it or not, the likelier targets are going to be the terrorist supporting countries. You can keep derailing the topic and deflecting it back to the USA based on your morals, but it does nothing to address the issue in Iran, or possible hostilities between Iran and Israel.

At one point you thought we should use weapons in the ME to turn a few of the countries into glass. Your opinions flutter as does your ability to stay on topic.

Nope Jimmy, wrong.

My opinion changed when I saw that America lacked the balls to win the war, I felt at that time that all those soldier's lives were wasted because we "half assed" it. Then I did some research and everything adds up to "useless war" and "twistedintel".

Anyway back on topic since you've tried to lead me astray..........I don't give a fuck about Israel, what do they do for us? Why should I give a shit about a country that practices apartheid. Its always about them and our giving of "aid" to them, let them stand on their own two feet for once. But we won't because in a straight shooting war Iran would fucking rout them. Yeah we'd save Israel and gain absolutely nothing for it.

When we give up our own nukes then we can counsel others, until then we should just shut the fuck up.

[OCA]

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone. Iran, on the other hand, funds and supplies an international terrorist organization based solely on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation, and is run by fundamentalist Muslims who have PROVEN they are willing to commit suicide to try and get their way.

I'd say there's a BIGH difference between the two. All anyone has to do is look.

So no, there is no hypocisy on that score. Responsible people have. Irresponsible don't. End of story.

Hey dumbass, there would be no Israel without the meddling of other countries.

[gabosaurus]

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/not-another-dumbass.jpg

[Wind Song]

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone. Iran, on the other hand, funds and supplies an international terrorist organization based solely on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation, and is run by fundamentalist Muslims who have PROVEN they are willing to commit suicide to try and get their way.

I'd say there's a BIGH difference between the two. All anyone has to do is look.

So no, there is no hypocisy on that score. Responsible people have. Irresponsible don't. End of story.

End of story? Sure. If everyone agrees with you. I don't.

[SassyLady]

Incorrect. Israel has never shown ANY aggressiveness towards others so long as they were left alone. Iran, on the other hand, funds and supplies an international terrorist organization based solely on the complete destruction of another sovereign nation, and is run by fundamentalist Muslims who have PROVEN they are willing to commit suicide to try and get their way.

I'd say there's a BIGH difference between the two. All anyone has to do is look.

So no, there is no hypocisy on that score. Responsible people have. Irresponsible don't. End of story.

Good Post.

[revelarts]

Few more facts and positions from our intel services, to bad they haven't talk to Santorum and others to tell them how evil Iran is,

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

By JAMES RISEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/james_risen/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: February 24, 2012


Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20071203_release.pdf) that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/us_intelligence_community/national_intelligence_estimates/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.
At the center of the debate is the murky question of the ultimate ambitions of the leaders in Tehran. There is no dispute among American, Israeli and European intelligence officials that Iran has been enriching nuclear fuel and developing some necessary infrastructure to become a nuclear power. But the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and other intelligence agencies believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to resume a parallel program to design a nuclear warhead — a program they believe was essentially halted in 2003 and which would be necessary for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) is for civilian purposes.
In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/world/intelligence-chief-sees-al-qaeda-likely-to-continue-fragmenting.html), but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.
“They are certainly moving on that path, but we don’t believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (http://intelligence.senate.gov/).
Critics of the American assessment in Jerusalem and some European capitals point out that Iran has made great strides in the most difficult step toward building a nuclear weapon, enriching uranium. That has also been the conclusion of a series of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors, who on Friday presented new evidence that the Iranians have begun enriching uranium in an underground facility.
Once Iran takes further steps to actually enrich weapons grade fuel — a feat that the United States does not believe Iran has yet accomplished — the critics believe that it would be relatively easy for Iran to engineer a warhead and then have a bomb in short order. They also criticize the C.I.A. for being overly cautious in its assessments of Iran, suggesting that it is perhaps overcompensating for its faulty intelligence assessments in 2002 about Iraq’s purported weapons programs, which turned out not to exist. In addition, Israeli officials have challenged the very premise of the 2007 intelligence assessment, saying they do not believe that Iran ever fully halted its work on a weapons program.
Yet some intelligence officials and outside analysts believe there is another possible explanation for Iran’s enrichment activity, besides a headlong race to build a bomb as quickly as possible. They say that Iran could be seeking to enhance its influence in the region by creating what some analysts call “strategic ambiguity.” Rather than building a bomb now, Iran may want to increase its power by sowing doubt among other nations about its nuclear ambitions. Some point to the examples of Pakistan and India, both of which had clandestine nuclear weapons programs for decades before they actually decided to build bombs and test their weapons in 1998.
“I think the Iranians want the capability, but not a stockpile,” said Kenneth C. Brill, a former United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who also served as director of the intelligence community’s National Counterproliferation Center (http://www.counterwmd.gov/) from 2005 until 2009. Added a former intelligence official: “The Indians were a screwdriver turn away from having a bomb for many years. The Iranians are not that close.” ...



more
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=2

[jimnyc]

Sorry, I can't believe what the intel services tell us. I've been told they are full of liars and are incompetent. I couldn't very well think that way one minute and then use them as a source for my beliefs in the next breath.

[Gunny]

I'd have to agree, israel, U.S. Britian, Russia and China are probably the least likley to end up using full blown nukes next.
everyone ese is skether than that group and Helbolh is terrible. but Israel is no choir boy. they've got ot defend themselves and they've been "preemptive striking for years. in stratigic ways.
On the terrorist end probably the worse i know of is that they help create Hamas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
that kinda back fired -talk about your blow back.

*yawn* Want to address what I sais with something other than BS?

My statement stands. You have YET to refute it.

[Gunny]

Few more facts and positions from our intel services, to bad they haven't talk to Santorum and others to tell them how evil Iran is,


more
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=2

Try speaking for yourself. All you do is quote BS articles/links. I got one that says "Gunny has Hair". Except Gunny doesn't.

[revelarts]

Sorry, I can't believe what the intel services tell us. I've been told they are full of liars and are incompetent. I couldn't very well think that way one minute and then use them as a source for my beliefs in the next breath.

your finally getting it. almost.

so at this point you just make up your info. I suspected as much.

Or is it what the party believes and promotes , or what.


I've Always pointed to Intel sources, and when Isay they've been lying I point to intel sources, eyewittness, evidence and history what have you got?

[jimnyc]

your finally getting it. almost.

so at this point you just make up your info. I suspected as much.

Or is it what the party believes and promotes , or what.


I've Always pointed to Intel sources, and when Isay they've been lying I point to intel sources, eyewittness, evidence and history what have you got?

I've got hundred of posts from you pointing out the myriad issues with the CIA and FBI, that they are no good, and lie, and were in cahoots with others to window dress intel in order to go to war. If that be the case, I just have trouble believing what they say now. Makes sense to me not to trust what they say if they have been involved in so much lying in the not so distant past.

[revelarts]

I've got hundred of posts from you pointing out the myriad issues with the CIA and FBI, that they are no good, and lie, and were in cahoots with others to window dress intel in order to go to war. If that be the case, I just have trouble believing what they say now. Makes sense to me not to trust what they say if they have been involved in so much lying in the not so distant past.

I've posted info from military intel, CiA head in germany, State dept chief of Staff, UN inspectors reports, and you BLOW THEM ALL OFF becuase of some of them wrote a BOOK. Or might write one. NOW all of these reporting to congress ARE NOT CREDIBLE to you? Are they writing a book to?
Or are you just attacking me becuase you don't like what they are saying Jim, what's up with that man?


Counter the Intel Services in the rport with BETTER intel since you repspect the intel services. Don't take my owrd for it. Intel services always tell the truth and never do any wrong ever ever.
you know better than me.

So you accept their assement i assume , My POV doesn't matter , Their's DO. I'm not making nukes. address the report not me.

[jimnyc]

I'm simply pointing out that you're a hypocrite, a cherry picker. You condemn the CIA forever, but the minute you read something from them that backs up your POV, now they're OK to believe. Funny actually.

[revelarts]

I'm simply pointing out that you're a hypocrite, a cherry picker. You condemn the CIA forever, but the minute you read something from them that backs up your POV, now they're OK to believe. Funny actually.

:laugh: Attack me and Iran for no good reason. I see. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[gabosaurus]

What does the CIA have to do with Iran having nukes? Silly boys... :slap:

[jimnyc]

What does the CIA have to do with Iran having nukes? Silly boys... :slap:

It depends on the information they are releasing, and whether or not it agrees with your POV, apparently.

[Wind Song]

Here are the number of nuclear bombs that the Federation of American Scientists says are currently held (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html) by these countries:<NOTCH><WEB-FRAGMENT><!-- line: 3 -->•Russia: 11,000

•USA: 8,500
•France: 300
•China: 240
•United Kingdom: 225
•Pakistan: 90-110
•India: 80-100
•Israel: 80
•North Korea: 1 to 10
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-17/iran-nuclear-program-weapons/53122548/1



The only country who ever used nuclear bombs was the US, killing nearly 400,000 Japanese people.

[jimnyc]

Here are the number of nuclear bombs that the Federation of American Scientists says are currently held (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html) by these countries:<notch><web-fragment><!-- line: 3 -->•Russia: 11,000



•USA: 8,500
•France: 300
•China: 240
•United Kingdom: 225
•Pakistan: 90-110
•India: 80-100
•Israel: 80
•North Korea: 1 to 10
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-17/iran-nuclear-program-weapons/53122548/1



The only country who ever used nuclear bombs was the US, killing nearly 400,000 Japanese people.

An argument for allowing Iran to have them, or not to have them? Kind of hard for me to figure out since you never mention them. Wouldn't that argument be better served while focusing on Iran themselves? </web-fragment></notch>:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Here are the number of nuclear bombs that the Federation of American Scientists says are currently held (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html) by these countries:<notch><web-fragment><!-- line: 3 -->•Russia: 11,000



•USA: 8,500
•France: 300
•China: 240
•United Kingdom: 225
•Pakistan: 90-110
•India: 80-100
•Israel: 80
•North Korea: 1 to 10
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-17/iran-nuclear-program-weapons/53122548/1



The only country who ever used nuclear bombs was the US, killing nearly 400,000 Japanese people.

Israel now admits to 200+

Some think 300
</web-fragment></notch>
including Nukes on Subs


The Type 800 Dolphin class is a diesel-electric submarine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_submarine) developed and constructed by Howaldtswerke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howaldtswerke)-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) for the Israeli Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Navy). It is based on the export-only German 209 class submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_209_submarine), but modified and reduced and is thus not designated as a member of the 209 family. The Dolphin boats are the most expensive single vehicle in the Israel Defense Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) and are considered among the most sophisticated and capable conventionally powered submarines in the world. The Dolphins replaced the aging Gal class submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal_class_submarine), which had served in the Israeli navy since the late 1970s. Each Dolphin submarine is capable of carrying a combined total of up to 16 torpedoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedoes) and SLCMs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_cruise_missile).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-3) The cruise missiles are believed to have a range of 1500km[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-4) and may be equipped with conventional warheads or, some believe, a 200kg nuclear warhead.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-6) The latter, if true, would provide Israel with an offshore second strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike) capability.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-wapo-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-janes-20091001-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine#cite_note-times-20100530-10)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/I.n.s._dolfin-03.JPG/300px-I.n.s._dolfin-03.JPG

[jimnyc]

Israel now admits to 200+

Some think 300


Who gives a crap. 5 or less would probably be enough to destroy any other nation, or at least cripple it. If 2 bombs in the 40's did that much destruction, what do you think a nuclear bomb now would do? And if one were worrying about it, they should probably worry the most about JUST ONE ending up in the hands of terrorists.

[Gaffer]

Here are the number of nuclear bombs that the Federation of American Scientists says are currently held (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html) by these countries:<notch><web-fragment><!-- line: 3 -->•Russia: 11,000



•USA: 8,500
•France: 300
•China: 240
•United Kingdom: 225
•Pakistan: 90-110
•India: 80-100
•Israel: 80
•North Korea: 1 to 10
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-17/iran-nuclear-program-weapons/53122548/1



The only country who ever used nuclear bombs was the US, killing nearly 400,000 Japanese people.

So maybe you should start your demands for disarmament with Russia. Everyone wants to blame and denigrate the US for having the nukes but no one ever goes after the Russians or demands the other countries disarm arm completely.

You should be thankful the US was the only one in history to use the bomb. Anyone else that did would mean you would not be getting on here spouting your anti American bullshit. Your one of the blame America first crowd. You love to point fingers, cry racist and make accusations about things you have no knowledge of, even trying to dig up historical events, which again you have no actual knowledge of what happened.

There will NEVER be peace in the world. There are only pauses in conflict. Your liberal Utopian dream is just that, a dream. And to make it worse, people like you instigate hatred and violence in the name of peace and justice.




</web-fragment></notch>

[logroller]

Here are the number of nuclear bombs that the Federation of American Scientists says are currently held (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html) by these countries:<notch><web-fragment><!-- line: 3 -->•Russia: 11,000



•USA: 8,500
•France: 300
•China: 240
•United Kingdom: 225
•Pakistan: 90-110
•India: 80-100
•Israel: 80
•North Korea: 1 to 10
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-17/iran-nuclear-program-weapons/53122548/1



The only country who ever used nuclear bombs was the US, killing nearly 400,000 Japanese people.
Well, having had this debate before, (as I'm quite certain Truman did), such was justifiable because it saved millions of Japanese and American lives which would have perished in a full-scale invasion. Again, there are no perfect solutions, one has to reason the best alternative.

</web-fragment></notch>

[revelarts]

great list of articles about Iran's -gonna get us on day maybe with- nuke program, and all of the U.S.'s and Israels coverts and overt real ongoing attacks on Iran. even our use of evil terrorist groups. :confused::eek:! Aiding and Abetting murder? This means we harbor terrorist and now have to bomb/attack ourselves... right?



[1] Iran's Nuclear Program (Nuclear Talks, 2012) (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html), The New York Times, April 9, 2012
[2] Six-party talks ‘encouraging’ after 15-month break (http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-talks-turkey-069/), Russia Today, April 14, 2012
[3] Iran, world powers agree to further nuclear talks (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20120415,0,25395.story), Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2012
[4] Barak doubts sanctions will halt Iran's nuke drive (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=265214), The Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2012
[5] U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1), The New York Times, February 24, 2012
[6] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents (http://www.isssource.com/stuxnet-loaded-by-iran-double-agents/), ISSSource, April 11, 2012
[7] Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Bureau of Counterterrorism (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm), U.S. Department of State, Janurary 27, 2012
[8] Moqtada Sadr Reiterates Iraqis' Demand for Expulsion of MKO Terrorists (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9006280031), Fars News Agency, September 19, 2011
[9] About the National Council of Resistance of Iran (http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/about-ncri), The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 2010
[10] Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy (http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/112/tak070711.pdf), Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 7, 2011
[11] Iran vows capture of officers’ killers (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_N5LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_YoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6162%2C3059031), The Free Lance-Star, May 22, 1975
[12] Our Men in Iran? (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html%20Our) The New Yorker, April 6, 2012
[13] Former U.S. base opened to Iranian terrorist group (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/07/former_us_base_opened_to_iranian_terrorist_group), Foreign Policy, February 7, 2012
[14] Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies? (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/are_the_mek_s_us_friends_its_worst_enemies) Foreign Policy, March 8, 2012
[15] Iran nuclear leaks 'linked to Israel' (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF05Ak01.html), Asia Times, June 5, 2009
[16] Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy (http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/112/tak070711.pdf), Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 7, 2011
[17] Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/mek-lobbying_n_913233.html) Huffington Post, August 8, 2011
[18] The Cult of Rajavi (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/the-cult-of-rajavi.html), The New York Times, July 13, 2003
[19] EU ministers drop Iran group from terror list (http://euobserver.com/24/27472), EUobserver, Janurary 26, 2009
[20] SPECIAL REPORT-Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/iran-usa-nuclear-idUSL2E8EGEKT20120323), Reuters, March 23, 2012
[21] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents (http://www.isssource.com/stuxnet-loaded-by-iran-double-agents/), ISSSource, April 11, 2012
[22] Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant? (http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/stuxnet_FEP_22Dec2010.pdf) Institute for Science and International Security, December 22, 2010
[23] Report: U.S. Officials Tie Controversial Iranian Exile Group To Scientist Assassinations (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/02/09/421888/report-mek-iran-assassination-scientists/), Center for American Progress Action Fund, February 9, 2012
[24] Triple Blast at Secret Iranian Military Installation (http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=1121), Virtual Jerusalem, October 15, 2010
[25] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News (http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news), MSNBC, February 9, 2012
[26] U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?scp=1&sq=january%202009%20sanger%20bush%20natanz&st=cse), The New York Times, Janurary 10, 2009
[27] Stuxnet worm is the 'work of a national government agency' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/sep/24/stuxnet-worm-national-agency), The Guardian, September 24, 2010
[28] US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12633240), BBC, March 4, 2011
[29] Code clues point to Stuxnet maker (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11795076), BBC, November 19, 2010
[30] Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=2&hp), The New York Times, Janurary 15, 2011
[31] Ibid
[32] Ibid
[33] Blix: US, Israel source most of IAEA allegations (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/233091.html), PressTV, March 25, 2012
[34] Iran has a Nuclear Power, Not a Weapons Program (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Bastin_Interview.pdf), 21st Century & Technology, December 2, 2011
[35] Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran (http://larouchepac.com/node/21190), LaRouche Pac, February 25, 2012
[36] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons (http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx), Brookings Institute, August 1998
[37] Nuclear Weapons - Israel (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/), Federation of American Scientists, January 8, 2007
[38] Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-we-do-not-want-nuclear-weapons/2012/04/12/gIQAjMNnDT_story.html), The Washington Post, April 13, 2012
[39] Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Bureau of Counterterrorism (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm), U.S. Department of State, Janurary 27, 2012
[40] Iran exile group MEK seeks US terror de-listing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14533756), BBC, September 25, 2011
[41] UPDATE 2-Cyber attack appears to target Iran-tech firms (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/24/security-cyber-iran-idUSLDE68N1OI20100924), Reuters, September 24, 2010
[42] Stuxnet, Duqu Link Grows Stronger (http://www.isssource.com/stuxnet-duqu-link-grows-stronger/), ISSSource, January 3, 2012
[43] Ibid
[44] The Day of the Golden Jackal – The Next Tale in the Stuxnet Files: Duqu Updated (http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/the-day-of-the-golden-jackal-%E2%80%93-further-tales-of-the-stuxnet-files), McAfee, October 18, 2011
[45] W32.Duqu – The precursor to the next Stuxnet (Version 1.4) (http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/w32_duqu_the_precursor_to_the_next_stuxnet.pdf), Symantec, November 23, 2011


Nile Bowie (http://nilebowie.blogspot.com/) is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Tony Cartalucci's Land Destroyer Report (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/) and Professor Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/)

[revelarts]

very interesting comments,


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9_jRTMFjwEo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>