Is Bush ok?

[FTDEEP]

people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by FTDEEP
people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.

Or comprehension shallow:

"Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new [U.S.] estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

Originally posted by FTDEEP
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.

" ...  a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”

The Democrats engineered this how?

[Tango]

Originally posted by FTDEEP
people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.

They won't believe it even when Tel Aviv or New York gets nuked.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Tango
They won't believe it even when Tel Aviv or New York gets nuked [by Iran].

I know I live in constant fear of that happening any day now.

[Tango]

Originally posted by Arlo
I know I live in constant fear of that happening any day now.

And if it ever does happen you will crawl off into the shadows pretty much the same way the nay sayers did after Chamberlain's meeting the Adolf.

[TheDudeDVant]

What was that saying?? something about not knowing the past will cause you to?  And just to think this past was only what, 5years and some 3,000 dead soldiers ago? Damn...

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Tango
And if it ever does happen you will crawl off into the shadows pretty much the same way the nay sayers did after Chamberlain's meeting the Adolf.

Well until that day happens (I'd like to think neither of us eagerly await such), I'll stick with international law (as the U.S. helped establish) and concrete evidence (as nations like Nazi Germany didn't require to go against international law).

So much for bogus rationalization pretending to support historical precident.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Arlo
So much for bogus rationalization pretending to support historical precident.

historical precident is established by faux news  

[bj229r]

Irregardless of whether it (the report)was 'engineered' or not, Iran already has the  hardest parts about building a nuke completed---GETTING uranium/plutonium, and converting it to weapons-grade form, ("3000 centrifuges", spinning 24/7)  and having missiles to carry a warhead to a perspective target. Once they have enough fissile material, It takes at most a couple years from the point of STARTING the weapons program anew to having a city-killer. (Iran HAD a nuke program from 1988, until 2003. and that acquired knowledge is stored away SOMEwhere) The part they are credited with stopping was the easiest part. NOW, China/Russia will have nothing to do with sanctions, which was the best method of manipulating Iran to begin with.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed.
   
"Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence. Yet within hours of the report's release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if "intensified."

link

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
Irregardless of whether it (the report)was 'engineered' or not, Iran already has the  hardest parts about building a nuke completed---GETTING uranium/plutonium, and converting it to weapons-grade form, ("3000 centrifuges", spinning 24/7)  and having missiles to carry a warhead to a perspective target. Once they have enough fissile material, It takes at most a couple years from the point of STARTING the weapons program anew to having a city-killer.  

One may conclude based on presumption that they have weapons grade fissionable material regarding the circumstantial evidence you've highlighted. It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).

A couple of years is some breathing room .... unless someone is just eager to invade .... for ulterior motive. And since the biggest threat is to countries next to Iran it makes perfect sense to get those neighboring countries to join in applying political and economic pressure to deter Iran from making a crucial mistake regarding it's own survival. One relatively archaic nuclear "scud" launched from it would earn instant reprisal on a grander scale. Cooperation in avoiding such a stupid agenda may well yeild an economic and technological boon (versus a radioctive boom).

Another invasion and occupation based on questionable intel that further alienates international allies, stretches military logistics and impacts readiness (without taking preemptive measures to lessen the impact) based on ..... nothing but suspician ..... does not a brilliant move for the GWOT cause make.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
One relatively archaic nuclear "scud" launched from it would earn instant reprisal on a grander scale.  

yes, the UN would pass a non-binding resolution.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
yes, the UN would pass a non-binding resolution.

Mnoooo, john. They would likely send in you to depress them with your brilliant repartee. Because that's how nuclear reprisal works.

[bj229r]

One may conclude based on presumption that they have weapons grade fissionable material regarding the circumstantial evidence you've highlighted. It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).

 Yah, that occurred to me too...easy to make em, HARD to make em small, though I'd imagine there are many ways to get something the size of a Volkswagen  into Tel Aviv. Whats a drag is that if military force was a veiled threat to be used to get Iran to submit to international will, it's surely gone now. WHY would Iran give a flyin f&&& what the UN or anyone else says NOW? (Esp since Russia and China now have reason to blow off sanctions)

HERE's a conspiratorial look at the situation from a former CIA field officer:

Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?
Bombing Iran, it seems, is now off the table. There’s no other reasonable take on the latest National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But there is also no doubt that the Bush White House was behind this NIE and that a 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the president.

…. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi’a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq.

… Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they’re not going to help the U.S. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don’t even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the U.S. can’t do. So how far is Iran from a nuke? The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it’s entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn’t know until they tested it...

link
Of course, all this would presume MUCH more brains in the Bush admin. than most on this board are willing to grant:rofl

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Arlo
Other than the above, eh? Not like you covered much other than justifying fear and loathing in the M.E., yerownself. I gotcha. Well you just don't think on that, then.

You are reading way too freaking much into what I wrote. You might have asked if I even had any fear mongering in mind there. Perhaps you should step back from the keyboard there and try to focus on something other than your editorializing.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Maverick
You are reading way too freaking much into what I wrote. You might have asked if I even had any fear mongering in mind there. Perhaps you should step back from the keyboard there and try to focus on something other than your editorializing.

"Problem is, how long is 'our time' going to last?" (That's what you wrote, right?)

Ahem.

Besides: "I'm not going to waste time speculating on whatever thought you might have had at that time." (You wrote that too, right? )