U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
blackredyellow
Posts: 5,889
U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
blackredyellow wrote:U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
I know our government keeps speculating on what Iran is doing but at the sametime this issue would be put to bed if Iran would just be completely transparent about their nuclear program. That way the US government would have absolutely no way of pushing for a war/invasion of Iran."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
blackredyellow wrote:
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
i certainly hope that's not enough proof...again.make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need0 -
mammasan wrote:I know our government keeps speculating on what Iran is doing but at the sametime this issue would be put to bed if Iran would just be completely transparent about their nuclear program. That way the US government would have absolutely no way of pushing for a war/invasion of Iran.
I think No matter how transparent, the US would still find a way for pushing a war.
Think about it, the US would just find another reason, they've done it in the past, they'll do it in the future.
What the US wants, it gets.0 -
MrBrian wrote:I think No matter how transparent, the US would still find a way for pushing a war.
Think about it, the US would just find another reason, they've done it in the past, they'll do it in the future.
What the US wants, it gets.
Well I think after Iraq it will be a bit harder for any administration to push a needless senseless war. I'm not saying that they will not try I just think it will be a lot harder for them to win over approval. If Iran was being completely transparent it would be obvious to the public that there is no threat there. The administration would have to try to cook up some half-baked reason that would not be swallow as easily as a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands. As stupid as some Americans may be we where fooled once resently so it will not be that easy to fool us again."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
welll ... everyone seems to believe what the US officials are reporting ...0
-
mammasan wrote:Well I think after Iraq it will be a bit harder for any administration to push a needless senseless war. I'm not saying that they will not try I just think it will be a lot harder for them to win over approval. If Iran was being completely transparent it would be obvious to the public that there is no threat there. The administration would have to try to cook up some half-baked reason that would not be swallow as easily as a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands. As stupid as some Americans may be we where fooled once resently so it will not be that easy to fool us again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on... me? You? Can't be fooled by the fooler. Won't be fooled again. What George? Ha ha.
This is great news and personally makes me very happy! This gives us more breathing space, and most importantly - this report means that GW Bush will most likely not be the one to have to make a decision to use force against Iran.
Hopefully Mamoud Ackingmydinijad will be voted out of office by then, and we'll see a more reformist leader/regime emerge that is more in tune with the will of the people.0 -
NCfan wrote:Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on... me? You? Can't be fooled by the fooler. Won't be fooled again. What George? Ha ha.
This is great news and personally makes me very happy! This gives us more breathing space, and most importantly - this report means that GW Bush will most likely not be the one to have to make a decision to use force against Iran.
Hopefully Mamoud Ackingmydinijad will be voted out of office by then, and we'll see a more reformist leader/regime emerge that is more in tune with the will of the people.
Like you I am equally pleased by this. As you stated it will postpone any decision being made about Iran and hopefully new administration will take office that will not be as childish and utter flawed as Bush's and Ahmedinajad's."When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul0 -
mammasan wrote:Well I think after Iraq it will be a bit harder for any administration to push a needless senseless war. I'm not saying that they will not try I just think it will be a lot harder for them to win over approval. If Iran was being completely transparent it would be obvious to the public that there is no threat there. The administration would have to try to cook up some half-baked reason that would not be swallow as easily as a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands. As stupid as some Americans may be we where fooled once resently so it will not be that easy to fool us again.
yeah. I see your point, but here is the thing,I don't think the american public was really fooled by the Iraq war build up or the reasons for it. I mean almost the entire planet knew that going into iraq was a bad idea and just...wrong. The american public is just well....apathetic. they just don't care enough about anything other than fast food and television.
The truth about iraq was never really hidden from the american public, it was the american public who chose not to look at the truth. that is very dangerous and I don't see that "american way" changing anytime soon.
A good example is israel/lebanon. Israel messed up, then america sent them huge amounts of weapons, israel killed countless number of people and americans stood by and did'nt care. after iraq one would think the american public would not allow such a thing to happen so soon right? but they did.
of course american troops were not really directly involved so it was even less for americans to worry about, but the point is americans just don't care. obvioulsy not all,but a number far greater than the people in this country who do.0 -
MrBrian wrote:yeah. I see your point, but here is the thing,I don't think the american public was really fooled by the Iraq war build up or the reasons for it. I mean almost the entire planet knew that going into iraq was a bad idea and just...wrong. The american public is just well....apathetic. they just don't care enough about anything other than fast food and television.
The truth about iraq was never really hidden from the american public, it was the american public who chose not to look at the truth. that is very dangerous and I don't see that "american way" changing anytime soon.
A good example is israel/lebanon. Israel messed up, then america sent them huge amounts of weapons, israel killed countless number of people and americans stood by and did'nt care. after iraq one would think the american public would not allow such a thing to happen so soon right? but they did.
of course american troops were not really directly involved so it was even less for americans to worry about, but the point is americans just don't care. obvioulsy not all,but a number far greater than the people in this country who do.
I disagree. Americans care deeply, they are just mostly ignorant. Never-the-less, the "truth" about Iraq that you speak of was basically impossible to find.
Some of the brightest, non-partisan minds in this country blessed the war. It had overwhelming support in our congress among Democrats and Republicans.
The ironic thing to me is that even if the reasons to go to war were wrong, and I'll grant you that. The potential benefits of a peaceful, democratic government in Iraq will far outweigh the lives and money spent to achieve it. We are talking about peace, stability and opportunity for one of the most oppressed populations on Earth.
Maybe 200,000 people were killed, who knows. But that is to save the future of 25 million, and the ripple effect of a Democratic Iraq could save millions more.
Can you not acknowledge that?0 -
...NCfan wrote:I disagree. Americans care deeply, they are just mostly ignorant. Never-the-less, the "truth" about Iraq that you speak of was basically impossible to find.
Some of the brightest, non-partisan minds in this country blessed the war. It had overwhelming support in our congress among Democrats and Republicans.
The ironic thing to me is that even if the reasons to go to war were wrong, and I'll grant you that. The potential benefits of a peaceful, democratic government in Iraq will far outweigh the lives and money spent to achieve it. We are talking about peace, stability and opportunity for one of the most oppressed populations on Earth.
Maybe 200,000 people were killed, who knows. But that is to save the future of 25 million, and the ripple effect of a Democratic Iraq could save millions more.
Can you not acknowledge that?
I don't know about Non-partisan minds... but, for a politician to go against a War after September 11th (at that time) looked like political suicide. There was no certainty that we would rout the Iraqi military... and we were "Not in the business of Nation building". We we sold a bill of goods (that we pass on to our kids and their kids) based upon the glory of war and visions of Paris, 1944. No one questioned. To question... you were labled Un-Patriotic, a Terroist Sympathiser and told to go live in Iraq by, what turned out to be, some of the stupidest minds in the country.
And yeah... a peaceful Democratic Iraq "looks" like a good thing... only if they vote in people who like us. They voted in people loyal to Muqtada al Sadr... people who hate us. They voted in people who align themselves (religiously) with Iran. Under that later of sugar we call 'Democracy' is a steaming pile of shit for us to eat. and no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on shit... it's still shit.
All anyone had to do was question the reasoning and the timing. Afghanistan was half-baked and needed to be completed. There was a looming election in 2004 that the neo-conservatives wanted to win. all we had to do was step back... look at what we were getting into and come up with a worst case scenarios instead of relying only best case. Had we done that... we would have forseen the problems with the ensuing occupation.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
NCfan wrote:I disagree. Americans care deeply, they are just mostly ignorant. Never-the-less, the "truth" about Iraq that you speak of was basically impossible to find.
Some of the brightest, non-partisan minds in this country blessed the war. It had overwhelming support in our congress among Democrats and Republicans.
The ironic thing to me is that even if the reasons to go to war were wrong, and I'll grant you that. The potential benefits of a peaceful, democratic government in Iraq will far outweigh the lives and money spent to achieve it. We are talking about peace, stability and opportunity for one of the most oppressed populations on Earth.
Maybe 200,000 people were killed, who knows. But that is to save the future of 25 million, and the ripple effect of a Democratic Iraq could save millions more.
Can you not acknowledge that?
How bright could those minds really be if they thought invading,bombing,destroying and killing was the best way to bring peace,stability and opportunity to a people?
support in congress also doesn't mean much to me, all those politicians are corrupt tools.0 -
...MrBrian wrote:How bright could those minds really be if they thought invading,bombing,destroying and killing was the best way to bring peace,stability and opportunity to a people?
support in congress also doesn't mean much to me, all those politicians are corrupt tools.
That was my thinking. I'm no genius, but I looked at this thing and came to the logical conclusion that the only way to make Iraq a success would be to model the coalition after the 1991 Gulf War's coalition and make sure the Arab nations were onboard. We needed them to act as a go-between and buffer our alien troops to their indigenous customs, culture, religion and language.
We needed the U.N. on board to do the nation building because we are NOT in the business of nation-building.
And most of all... we needed our (European) allies onboard to toss in the additional forces required to occupy a country. Sealing off the borders, protecting the oil assets, overall security so the rebuilding effort could immediately kick in.
...
An idiot as myself can out think the brightest minds in America? If so.. then we are doomed.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
has there been some statement saying that bold sentence is enough to attack iran over? seems to me the CIA is challenging Bush's assertions because they know they will be the fall guy when the truth comes out.
Bush can't wipe his own ass without permission. he's a lame duck.0 -
...MrSmith wrote:has there been some statement saying that bold sentence is enough to attack iran over? seems to me the CIA is challenging Bush's assertions because they know they will be the fall guy when the truth comes out.
Bush can't wipe his own ass without permission. he's a lame duck.
and how fitting is that adjective... "LAME"?Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
Whoever you got on board would not matter too much I believe as the real reason of chaos in Iraq is the ethnic and religion diversity of its people: Sheas, sunnis and kurds were being forced to live in peace(!) together by Saddam's ruthless dictatorial. USA rushed into it like an elephant running in a glassware shop and broke down the very fragile balance between these ethnicities and religion differences. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve the method of Saddam to sustain the balance, I an just analyzing it.Cosmo wrote:...
That was my thinking. I'm no genius, but I looked at this thing and came to the logical conclusion that the only way to make Iraq a success would be to model the coalition after the 1991 Gulf War's coalition and make sure the Arab nations were onboard. We needed them to act as a go-between and buffer our alien troops to their indigenous customs, culture, religion and language.
We needed the U.N. on board to do the nation building because we are NOT in the business of nation-building.
And most of all... we needed our (European) allies onboard to toss in the additional forces required to occupy a country. Sealing off the borders, protecting the oil assets, overall security so the rebuilding effort could immediately kick in.
...
An idiot as myself can out think the brightest minds in America? If so.. then we are doomed.
In this situation, it may lead to Iraq's split to three independent countries which can only bring more chaos to the middle east.
Remember that Al Qaida was not even present in Iraq before the war but just used the opportunity to settle there using the chaos there.
With regards to Iran, I think USA is just preparing the excuse not to attack there, not that USA can attack Iran after all these but at least history books can say USA did not try the weapons because bullying did the job."when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." Robert Pirsig0 -
Looking back at Iraq, they were doing everything they were asked and disarming, and No WMD's. When the US realized their plan was going to backfire under compliance Bush ordered everyone out, and told Saddam ok....now you have to like ummm...leave the country too, or now we're going to bomb you.
Talk about ridiculous.Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")0 -
...malabogia wrote:Whoever you got on board would not matter too much I believe as the real reason of chaos in Iraq is the ethnic and religion diversity of its people: Sheas, sunnis and kurds were being forced to live in peace(!) together by Saddam's ruthless dictatorial. USA rushed into it like an elephant running in a glassware shop and broke down the very fragile balance between these ethnicities and religion differences. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve the method of Saddam to sustain the balance, I an just analyzing it.
In this situation, it may lead to Iraq's split to three independent countries which can only bring more chaos to the middle east.
Remember that Al Qaida was not even present in Iraq before the war but just used the opportunity to settle there using the chaos there.
With regards to Iran, I think USA is just preparing the excuse not to attack there, not that USA can attack Iran after all these but at least history books can say USA did not try the weapons because bullying did the job.
Oh.. I agree with you, 100%. What I was trying to say, that in my personal opinion, our greatest probability of of succeeding in Iraq would be to get all of those factors in line. The most important factor being, the inclusion of the Arab nations. Trainning/re-trainning of Iraqi forces could be held in neighboring countries, such as Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Also, the rebuilding would NOT be all American... it would be mostly Iraqi. Loaning Iraqi businesses the money to hire Iraqis to rebuild their own nation.
...
But, i'm not claiming they would end up being pro-American. The bottom line is that 60% of the 2003 Iraqi population is Shi'ite... the same Shi'ites that gave us Ayatollah Khomeni, Hezbollah and Muqtada al Sadr. give the people who hate us the power to choose who they want to lead them and guess who they vote for? If you said, 'Other people who hate us'... you get a gold star.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0 -
bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...
oops, guess they missed the memo :rolleyes:0 -
doesn't anyone get the fact they DID have a nuke program, thereby proving the concern for this is real?
esp with adjraghead spouting all the shit he does?i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat0 -
...810wmb wrote:doesn't anyone get the fact they DID have a nuke program, thereby proving the concern for this is real?
esp with adjraghead spouting all the shit he does?
No. They never had a nuclear program. They wanted one, but the 1991 Gulf War pretty much killed off any of their abilities to even start one. The ensuing army of Weapons Inspectors (mostly from the U.S.) located and destroyed thousands of munitions and delivery systems... right down to artillery shells. That was the condition of the surrender.
If you believe Iraq was able to restart a full blown nuclear program, under tight economic sanctions... under the watchful eye of U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. Marine Recon teams on the ground in Iraq and U.S. Air Force surveillance crews and fighter pilots patrolling the airspace... all in the short period of 4 years... then, you also must believe that the guy they found curled up in a spider hole, eating Snickers bars for dinner was a genius and his military... that mounted anti-aircraft batteries to carts pulled along by donkeys... was smarter than all of our military and technology.Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help