Is Bush ok?

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Yeager
they have far more to fear of us invading them than we do of them.
====
Invasion is not the scenario most thinking people are worried about.  Nuclear proliferation is the threat.  The kind of nuclear proliferation that escapes the boundry of nations and is passed on, either by design or fault, to terror organizations.  At least thats my take on the situation.

Oh they are worried very much of an invasion by us, after all we've proven that we'll invade a sovereign nation based on what turns out to be false pretenses.

We've labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" even though they actually have been quite peaceful. Their history proves that. However, since then,  the propaganda machine has been in full force that just keeps feeding the hate.
That just makes invasion that much more palatable.

Keep in mind that the members that make up Al Quaida are mainly Sunni which are Iran's Shia majority's historical enemies.

So Iran makes a bomb to give it to an unstable historical enemy that might just turn around and use it back on Iran?

If Iran makes a bomb, it'll be to ensure that we don't invade them.

Bombing us will only hurt us but will ensure the destruction of all of Iran.

They have so much more to fear of us than we of them.

[sgt203]

Just foor for thought...

If Iran did have a nuclear weapons program that stopped in (was it 2003) the question I would have to ask is "how far did they get".

If they got to the point of merely needing weapons grade plutionium to have a viable weapon are they not still a threat??

They are still enriching urainium are they not, or have they indicated they will cease this??

The fact they stopped active work towards having a nuclear weapon does that make them less of a threat??

Where is the information/ research they gained from the prior program?? I would think only a moron would believe they just "threw it all away".

How much time would it take for them to put together a functional device once they have enough enriched urainum for a bomb??

I believe we have offered them material (fuel) for their nuclear reactors which would not provide them with the ability to refine this into weapons grade material and this was refused (light water). Why ??

I am happy to hear about this intellegence report indicating they have cease their program ( I hope this one is correct).

However in my opinion there are way to many unanswered questions about Iran and their intentions with nuclear material to sit back and say they no longer pose any threat in the region.

I further believe we cannot be wrong on this one the stakes are way to high.

I am not sure any of the western powers and for that matter most Arab States,(with maybe the exception of Syria) and edefinately Isreal, beleive that a nuclear armed Iran is something that can be tolerated or allowed.

So though the news, if true, is encouraging lets not all break out our tye-dye shirts, sandels and sheet music for "Kumbya" and "Give Peace a Chance" just yet .    

BTW: If George Bush said that above quote that has to be one of the stupidest things any President has ever said  or at least since "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"....

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Iran is a strict Islamic Theocracy.



THE GOAL OF JIHAD IS WORLD DOMINATION --> http://www.scribd.com/doc/505609/THE-GOAL-OF-JIHAD-IS-WORLD-DOMINATION



That is whole the point of the Hydra thread --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217926&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

TIGERESS

Propaganda.
Helping the Shah regain power and our trying to help keep him in power was not the work of supporting a "viable democracy" as the Shah was a brutal dictator.
Is Suleiman Abu Gheith Iranian? Is he Sunni or Shia?
There's also a quote from a Saudi and I'll bet he's Sunni.
Don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to say that because they are Sunni, that makes them bad.
Taking those quotes and using those as somehow related to Iran is wrong.

[1K3]

A stream of bad news for the Boosh admin.

Now USA is going to have a hard time convincing Eastern European (and the world) to let USA install missile shield to protect them from Iranian missiles:noid

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am wondering...  This whole thread, people have been arguing between two Bush/CIA reports about the nuclear programs of a foreign nation.

What makes you pick one report over the other?

The one that's the latest one from the same agency under the same administration where said agency says the other one was wrong and current/more data proved it?

Not seeing rocket science required here.

[KgB]

Can anyone remind me why they hate USA plz,i forgot.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Eagler
so to the lefties, this intel report is creditable even after similar intel reports about wmds in Iraq seemed to be not so accurate & have given them a political battlecry ( imo they were moved or buried) ... who would have thunk it...

What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?

Oh yeah. Politics.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?

What did Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Oh, yeah....same answer.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?

Oh yeah. Politics.

CIA didn't write the report, 3 guys from State did---Boosh hasn't many fans there. On reflection, absent any ground-breaking info that's made itself known since last summer, they prolly crafted this report to defang Bush, as they are afraid he'll start a war with Iran before he leaves office. As far as Iran goes, if you have enough enriched uranium, how hard is it to make an unsophisticated bomb, considering they've put 20+ years into research alREADY?

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?

Oh yeah. Politics.

the 'lefties' hate the USA as it is , they want to turn it into the Peoples Republic of North America.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Propaganda.
Helping the Shah regain power and our trying to help keep him in power was not the work of supporting a "viable democracy" as the Shah was a brutal dictator.
Is Suleiman Abu Gheith Iranian? Is he Sunni or Shia?
There's also a quote from a Saudi and I'll bet he's Sunni.
Don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to say that because they are Sunni, that makes them bad.
Taking those quotes and using those as somehow related to Iran is wrong.

What country is Osama Bin Laden from? Saudi Arabia? right?

The issue goes beyond the borders of a single middle east country; Iran is simply more vocal about world domination in the name of Islam.

TIGERESS

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?

Oh yeah. Politics.

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected[/b] it position.

I ask a question(s) again:

Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?

What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other?

[bj229r]

Evil right-wingers not the only ones who are dubious of the new report:
link

Sharon Squassoni, a former government nuclear safeguards expert now with the generally liberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, noted that the intelligence report said Iran suspended its enrichment program in 2003 and later signed an agreement allowing U.N. inspections.

But, she said, the portion of the report made public was silent on the fact that the Iranians reversed both actions in 2006.

The ability to develop fissile materials is the most important element of a nuclear weapons program, she told reporters.

Gary Samore, who was a top arms control official in the Clinton White House, agreed that the National Intelligence Estimate did not adequately emphasize Iran's continuing efforts to enrich uranium and build missiles.

"The halting of the weaponization program in 2003 is less important from a proliferation standpoint than resumption of the enrichment program in 2006," said Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Samore said the report undermined Bush's warnings about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons and left Tehran in a strong position, allowing it to develop its enrichment capacity without a substantial challenge from the United States and its allies. The secret weaponization program is "on ice," he said, but Iran preserves the option to resume that when it wishes..

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected it position.

I ask a question(s) again:

Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?

What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other? [/B]

Excuse me, "Mr. Facts Not In Evidence" while blaming "the lefties" over this.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Arlo
Excuse me, "Mr. Facts Not In Evidence" while blaming "the lefties" over this.

Where do I blame lefties?  I can't remember a time I said one or the other report was definitive.

Any righty who assumes the most recent report is wrong is making the same mistake as well.

When I do a bunch of math and the second check comes up with a different answer, I do it a third time, and even then I need to do some heavy checking to determine which is correct.

Has anyone in this thread some independant verification?