Senior Member
See, you had to go, and ruin it now so I hope clarice bites you in the ass on that trip!Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
Much like Saddam, I think things would just be said and never happen. Indeed they can't be trusted as they have more in mind when it comes to control over the middle east.
Last edited by Sir Evil; 12-13-2007 at 05:33 PM.
Senior Member
I may be an idiot, but i have 3 questions.
#1 what if the report is wrong?, we got iraq wrong?
#2 if they are enriching uranium cant they make that into a bomb?
#3 Israel says they will have a bomb, do you trust their intelligence?
Senior Member
Doesn't matter if the report is dead on 100%, it still does nothing to ensure that they will not enrich for the wrong purposes.
left coast isolationist
too late........
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
~Albert Camus
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
If my self worth rested on what you think I would've killed myself a long time ago. You can continue on with the little conflict you've invented here for as long as you wish, however my advice to you would be to lose the chip on your shoulder. It's unbecoming a grown man.
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
Wow. I'll admit I had to look up "Clarice" because I didn't know who she was. Nice reference.See, you had to go, and ruin it now so I hope clarice bites you in the ass on that trip!
Much like Saddam, I think things would just be said and never happen. Indeed they can't be trusted as they have more in mind when it comes to control over the middle east.
Senior Member
So you actually believe little Adoph no longer is trying to acquire nukes? Moonbats like yiou have attacked the intel agencies over WMD's - yet you leap to embrace the intel they have on IranHaha. Bush has been railing Iran because of its "nukular" program and it hasn't even had one since 2003. Haha. This really makes him look like a dipsh*t huh? Well, this and a few other things.
Do you understand the many holes in the report? Or are you just interested in attacking Pres Bush and putting common sense and national security on the back burner like you have over Iraq?
Banned
I am curious, RSR...have you READ the latest NIE? yes or no?
Senior Member
Amazing homw the appeasers support the intel agancies now - after spending the last 4 years attacking them over their WMD reports
Last edited by red states rule; 12-13-2007 at 11:22 PM.
Banned
can't quite bring yourself to answer a simple question, can you?Aazing homw the appeasers support the intel agancies now - after spending the last 4 years attacking them over their WMD reports
You asked if he knew how many holes were in the report. It is a simple question...how do YOU know how many holes are in the report if you haven't read it? Shouldn't your question have been phrased. "Do you know how many holes the conservative websites I visit claim are in the NIE?"
That would have made more sense, wouldn't it?
Senior Member
Not that facts mean anything to you, but there are many flaws in the report
Misreading the Iran Report
By Henry Kissinger
The extraordinary spectacle of the president's national security adviser obliged to defend the president's Iran policy against a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) raises two core issues: How are we now to judge the nuclear threat posed by Iran? How are we to judge the intelligence community's relationship with the White House and the rest of the government?
The "Key Judgments" released by the intelligence community last week begin with a dramatic assertion: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." This sentence was widely interpreted as a challenge to the Bush administration policy of mobilizing international pressure against alleged Iranian nuclear programs. It was, in fact, qualified by a footnote whose complex phraseology obfuscated that the suspension really applied to only one aspect of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and not even the most significant one): the construction of warheads. That qualification was not restated in the rest of the document, which continued to refer to the "halt of the weapons program" repeatedly and without qualification.
The reality is that the concern about Iranian nuclear weapons has had three components: the production of fissile material, the development of missiles and the building of warheads. Heretofore, production of fissile material has been treated as by far the greatest danger, and the pace of Iranian production of fissile material has accelerated since 2006. So has the development of missiles of increasing range. What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads.
The NIE holds that Iran may be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 and, with increasing confidence, more warheads by the period 2010 to 2015. That is virtually the same timeline as was suggested in the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate. The new estimate does not assess how long it would take to build a warhead, though it treats the availability of fissile material as the principal limiting factor. If there is a significant gap between these two processes, it would be important to be told what it is. Nor are we told how close to developing a warhead Tehran was when it suspended its program or how confident the intelligence community is in its ability to learn when work on warheads has resumed. On the latter point, the new estimate expresses only "moderate" confidence that the suspension has not been lifted already.
It is therefore doubtful that the evidence supports the dramatic language of the summary and, even less so, the broad conclusions drawn in much of the public commentary. For the past three years, the international debate has concentrated on the Iranian effort to enrich uranium by centrifuges, some 3,000 of which are now in operation. The administration has asserted that this represents a decisive step toward Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and has urged a policy of maximum pressure. Every permanent member of the U.N. Security Council has supported the request that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program; the various countries differ on the urgency with which their recommendations should be pressed and in their willingness to impose penalties.
for the complete article
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...an_report.html
Banned
so....like I suspected, you haven't read the report, only editorials about the report.
Senior Member
Editorial that point out the flaws in the report. I know you could care less about those flaws since it would go against your war on reality and Pres Bush
Banned
I am curious. Do you even KNOW the difference between an "opinion" and a "fact"???
when someone says: "It is therefore doubtful that the evidence supports the dramatic language..."
that is what is called an OPINION.
Senior Member
Oh sure, the appeasers want to make nice with Little Adolph, thinking he is now a citizen of the world
So what if he has 3000 centrifuges up and running, it is for "peaceful" uses.
Posting Permissions
