[goMac]

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work - New York Times

It seems that American intelligence has determined that Iran is not working on nukes. Seems like more justification for taking a more diplomatic approach with Iran.

[tie]

We had better attack now, before this report gets widely circulated.

[Sourbook]

Originally Posted by tie 

We had better attack now, before this report gets widely circulated.

In the Bush White House, that would be considered rational thinking.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Sourbook 

In the Bush White House, that would be considered rational thinking.

Yeah that's why we bombed Iran and North Korea back to the stone age under Bush.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

We had better attack now, before this report gets widely circulated.

Don't worry, King George will try to convince everyone that it's wrong. Besides, he doesn't care what anyone else thinks; he's The Decider Guy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Don't worry, King George will try to convince everyone that it's wrong. Besides, he doesn't care what anyone else thinks; he's The Decider Guy.

Here's the intro to the White House statement on this:

"Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen."

[Face Ache]

This means war!

Iran has officially categorised rap music as "illegal." According to Breibart.com, the Islamic country's hardline officials have declared rap a "cultural invasion" by "decadent" western music, complaining it diminishes Islamic values and traditions.

Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry Mohammad Dashtgoli made a statement saying, "There is nothing wrong with this type of music in itself, but due to the use of obscene words by its singers this music has been categorised as illegal. In coordination with the police, illegal studios producing this type of music will be sealed and the singers in this genre will be confronted."

Speaking from the Whitehouse lawn today, President Bush told reporters "Yo a real nigga neva runs from problems. He steps up like a man an' solves 'em. Don't know bout Ahmadinejad but I gets mine. Stay fresh like this **** ass rhyme. So I bringin the tension lightin' up the tension. Niggas did I forget to mention, who's da king step on the mic? GWB yea that's right."

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the intro to the White House statement on this:

"Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons."

They suppressed the report for a year while GWB talked about WWIII.

"Yo, I'm GWB bringin' 'ya World War Three..."

[tie]

Well, the report says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. WHO KNOWS what they might be doing today? Colin Powell heard from a friend of a friend's cousin's girlfriend's hairdresser that they are in fact after nuclear weapons at this minute; he'll report to the UN shortly. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

But the new 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.”

Gee, you mean scrutiny and pressure brought about by actually calling Iran out, not buying their bullshit?


How Iran entered the Axis

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, relations between the United States and Iran seemed -- remarkably -- to be warming up, as Iran quietly offered support for the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. In November, Secretary of State Colin Powell shook hands with the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City -- a simple yet historic gesture that seemed the most tantalizing hint of rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran since the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979.

But on Jan. 29, 2002, in his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush branded Iran and its "terrorist allies" as part of "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." And on Jan. 31, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice summed up the administration's position on Iran. "Iran's direct support of regional and global terrorism," she said, "and its aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, belie any good intentions it displayed in the days after the world's worst terrorist attacks in history."

Rice and Powell have since clarified that the administration's blunt language does not mean that the U.S. is opposed to holding direct talks with Iran. In March, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) made a speech in which he invited members of the Iranian Parliament to meet with members of the U.S. Congress. And on April 30, the Financial Times reported that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, "has quietly authorised the Supreme National Security Council to assess the merits of starting talks with the U.S."

But in a Labor Day speech on May 1, Khamenei denounced the U.S. and dismissed the idea of negotiations. "The Islamic Republic of Iran will never succumb to America's bullying. ... Negotiations will not solve any problem. Negotiations with America are beneficial to the American government."

In a report released on Jan. 30, the CIA found that "Iran remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire" technology from abroad -- primarily from Russia, China, and North Korea -- that can be used to develop weapons of mass destruction. "In doing so," the report said, "Tehran is attempting to develop a domestic capability to produce various types of weapons -- chemical, biological, and nuclear -- and their delivery systems."

Iran denies that it is seeking nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear energy program at Bushehr, which is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is strictly for peaceful energy-producing purposes

So let's see here.

Negotiations, talks, singing Kum By Yah- no dice.

Iran insists it isn't making nukes, just energy (a line parroted ad nauseam by EVERY leftist tool on the planet).

Seems Bush was right, and all those that cried bloody murder when he originally called Iran out for acquiring WMDs were dead wrong. Kind of hard to halt something, unless you were first doing it.

The leftist tool method of "let's just talk while we look the other way" didn't, and wouldn't have halted ****, yet pressure brought about largely by Bush calling Iran out apparently did.

[hyteckit]

I can see why Pres. Bush foreign policy is so horrible. Lack of manners really.

So US pretends to be friends with Iran after 9/11. Then 2 months after Colin Powell shocks hand with Iran's foreign minister, we label Iran as part of the axis of evil? Nice going.

In order words, US pretends to be buddies with Iran. Then 2 months later US calls Iran's mom a bitch. US then says "Okay Iran. Your mom might be bitch, but we can talk about why your mom's a bitch, and what your mom can do to be less bitchy." I can see why Iran is offended and don't want to talk to the US about it.

It's like China labeling US a terrorist state and then wants to talk to the US about decreasing its army and its occupation of Iraq.

[Shaddim]

You mean the US called Iran a bitch, and then they stopped trying to make nukes?

Hell, sounds like a great tactic to me, it's much less expensive.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You mean the US called Iran a bitch, and then they stopped trying to make nukes?

Hell, sounds like a great tactic to me, it's much less expensive.

Yeah, cause no one wants to play with Iran, cause Iran's mom's a bitch. Iran felt very lonely.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah, cause no one wants to play with Iran, cause Iran's mom's a bitch. Iran felt very lonely.

Careful now, you're only one step away from naming your stuffed pig "Mohammad". If you end up spending the rest of your life in a Sudanese prison, you'll only have yourself to blame.

[HackManDan]

Bush says pressure on Iran should continue

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Is anyone else thinking that if Iran actually did stop its attempt to develop nuclear weapons because of "US/International Pressure" ... then should we truly be worried that if they actually ever get those weapons (which after all seems very, very likely), they will somehow not bow to that same pressure and start shooting them off all over the place?

I don't know. Whether this information is true or not is one thing; all it seems to confirm to me is that, contrary to a popular opinion around this place, Iran may actually be as reasonable as any other country when it comes to what it should/should not do.

If true, I think that's a very positive sign.

greg

[besson3c]

I have no clue what Iran is up to or wants to do, and perhaps this is exactly what both the US and Iran want.

The US wants us to be fearful enough to be easy manipulated and accepting of whatever they decide to do in the name of our well-being. Iran wants us to live in fear and in a sea of FUD surrounding their actual intentions for strategic reasons (draining us of resources, making us live on edge, causing instability upon provocation, etc.)

Don't be manipulated. Don't trust your (US) government carte blanche.

[peeb]

Actually, both Iran and the US want their populations to be so afraid of each other that they think they need oppressive governments to protect them. It's the same brand, different label.

[peeb]

"What's to say they couldn't start another, covert nuclear weapons program in the future?"
Duh.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Set your faces to stunned:

[stevesnj]

ehh Bush and his Storm Troopers will find some way to wage war against someone else before they leave office

[tie]

And CRASH HARDDRIVE will follow him off that cliff, too.

[tie]

Reporters pressed the president to explain why as recently as October, he was saying that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose a risk of a “World War III.” But Bush said he had learned of the new intelligence findings on Iran, which have been in the works for months, only last week. When a reporter asked whether anyone in the intelligence community had urged him to step back from his tough warnings about Iran, he said, “No.”

(from the NY Times story)

Interesting. Sounds like Bush's access to the intelligence community is just as dysfunctional as ever.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sounds like Bush's access to the intelligence community is just as dysfunctional as ever.

You can have access to the lesbian community without being a lesbian.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

You can have access to the lesbian community without being a lesbian.

That's what the internet is for. You see, it's a series of tubes...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's what the internet is for. You see, it's a series of tubes...

I thought it was like a dump truck?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Iran insists it isn't making nukes, just energy (a line parroted ad nauseam by EVERY leftist tool on the planet).

Seems Bush was right, and all those that cried bloody murder when he originally called Iran out for acquiring WMDs were dead wrong. Kind of hard to halt something, unless you were first doing it.

The leftist tool method of "let's just talk while we look the other way" didn't, and wouldn't have halted ****, yet pressure brought about largely by Bush calling Iran out apparently did.

Did you call Iran a leftist tool? Huh? You do realize that they're an arch-conservative regime, right?

Ok, I won't even question your argument about Bush, just so long as we both agree--since it worked--that Iran is not a threat anymore.

Problem solved, no need for another bloody war.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

You can have access to the lesbian community without being a lesbian.

Like Dick Cheyney, you mean?

[smacintush]

So, the report says that Iran stopped it's "nucular" program in 2003 due to "increasing international pressure".

Anyone care to tell me exactly what kind if pressure Iran was under in and before 2003?

It's OK, we know. You can say it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Like Dick Cheyney, you mean?

That's a low blow. You can't blame Cheney for raising a lesbian. God works in mysterious ways.

[Buckaroo]

Hmmmmm . . . is this the same department that determined that Sadam did have nukes? I wonder if we should accept it with a grain of salt. I wonder if they could be wrong again.

[hyteckit]

We can't rely on CIA or NIE intelligence. We can only rely on Bush intelligence, where-ever he gets it from. God told Bush maybe?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So, the report says that Iran stopped it's "nucular" program in 2003 due to "increasing international pressure".

Anyone care to tell me exactly what kind if pressure Iran was under in and before 2003?

It's OK, we know. You can say it.

That's exactly what I was thinking. About the only thing I can think of was labeling Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". Though, I'm certain the apologists will be able to dig up with all sorts of obscure references and that websites all over are being rewritten as we speak to provide them.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Hmmmmm . . . is this the same department that determined that Sadam did have nukes? I wonder if we should accept it with a grain of salt. I wonder if they could be wrong again.

Clearly you like to be wrong over and over. Where are you getting this from?

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I don't know. Whether this information is true or not is one thing; all it seems to confirm to me is that, contrary to a popular opinion around this place, Iran may actually be as reasonable as any other country when it comes to what it should/should not do.

The proof of the pudding is in action rather than flowery rhetoric. Iran has not waged an aggressive war on anyone in 250 years. Their violent coup in 79 was to overthrow a brutal and unpopular dictator instilled by a foreign power (US). So, yes, despite the theocracy, despite the sometimes provocative statements of their president (read, NOT the true leader of the country anyway), Iran's actual track record is almost docile.

Side note not directed an anyone in particular: It never ceases to amaze me how both the right and left fanboys try to personify political positions in terms of good and evil complete with a raft of villain and hero characters. Cold hard reality is that there are big geopolitical moves and positioning underway. Iraq was outside of our influence due to UN sanctions/management during the Oil-for-food years. Iran is aligning in a block with Russia, China, and Venezuela which poses a real threat in the energy grab that will ensue as demand for energy begins eclipsing supply globally. Our strategy is to keep those two key countries (and Venezuela as well) in our sphere and out of the other guys'. All this yippity yap about "evil" characters like Saddam or Chavez, WMDs, "democracy", etc. is just emotional fodder for mass consumption to get people riled up behind what is essentially some very cold, strategic decisions. Key figures high up in the pro-war faction (Wolfowitz, Greenspan, and many others) have already made the "big picture" on what we are actually up to very clear.
Mainstream Democrats are on board with this project as well (and have been since it became official policy back in the 90s) .... they were just hung up on "following the rules" a little more closely than Bush and the neocons (e.g. no large scale invasions without UN blessing, no bending traditional rules around detention, torture, surveillance that BushCo don't seem to be terribly concerned about). Make no mistake, the front runners in both parties are selling the same basic strategy with regards to policy towards both Iraq and Iran. The main difference being that Democrats would probably be a little nicer and give out food and band aids to the people they f#ck up the people of those countries.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

The proof of the pudding is in action rather than flowery rhetoric. Iran has not waged an aggressive war on anyone in 250 years. Their violent coup in 79 was to overthrow a brutal and unpopular dictator instilled by a foreign power (US). So, yes, despite the theocracy, despite the sometimes provocative statements of their president (read, NOT the true leader of the country anyway), Iran's actual track record is almost docile.

You seem to be forgetting the little issue of the Iran-Iraq war. 1 million dead, that kinda thing. Yeah I know Saddam started it, but Iran was just as responsible for the final results.

The main difference being that Democrats would probably be a little nicer and give out food and band aids to the people they f#ck up the people of those countries.

Heh. And even that's iffy.

[peeb]

Iraq attacked Iran in a pretty unprovoked opportunistic land-grab - Iran was not really responsible, except that they acted in self defense.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Look it up. It was an 8-year war. Both sides were responsible.

greg

[peeb]

Not for starting it.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Look it up. It was an 8-year war. Both sides were responsible.

greg

That's a strange position to take. As though Iran should have just rolled over and quit fighting or something ?? But you are correct that there were a couple of opportunities for peace where Iran could have been a little more accommodating but instead they stuck hard-line to specific demands that prolonged the war -- most specifically that Saddam abdicate power (funny, same demand President Bush made directly before invading Iraq). I did say "almost" docile, not "completely" docile

But as long as we're extending blame to entities that did not do enough to stop the war, go ahead and throw the US in there since we were egging on both sides, selling them both weapons and doing what we could to perpetuate the conflict (Iran-Contra anyone?). By the way, in 2000, the US officially admitted that we were behind the 1953 coup. Again, based on actual track record, the US has been much more aggressive toward Iran -- repeatedly -- than they have ever been to US. The honest to God chances that Iran will spontaneously attack us are next to zero while our leaders are apparently weighing the pros and cons of attacking Iran as I write this. I'm not saying Iran is harmless, but it doesn't appear to be very interested in war unless foreign troops and bombs actually start spilling over its borders.

Anyway ... my 2 cents. Take it for what its worth.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, I certainly agree with you. It was more of a technical point.

greg

[medicineman]

I question the accuracy of our intelligence. Two articles worth reading:

OpinionJournal - Featured Article and
The Weekly Standard

It would even be better if all the components of our government worked in concert. I imagine that's a problem for all presidents. But this administration, particularly, has had its share of 'saboteurs'.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I question the accuracy of our intelligence..

you're right to question it. not because of these articles but because we're being fed loads of shiit on a daily basis. have been for decades.

if you're a reader, try the following:

'legacy of ashes. history of the cia' by tim weiner

'confessions of an economic hitman' by john perkins


then, if so inclined, google 'robert steele' -- he's a former intelligence officer who has come out and called the intel community on their fact finding and such. i know he's spoken at several HOPE conferences and MP3s are available for free download.

if every american read those two books we'd have a different country today.