Iran says U.S. report vindicates nuclear program

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius You clearly don't even watch your own news, which is exactly where I got my information that this document was available for Bush to review back in August I believe they said. I originally heard about it on CNN live on TV, but this web link to ABC news will have to do for now: Political Radar: White House: Bush Knew in August Iran Had Halted Nuclear Weapons Program Perhaps instead of claiming everything I say is a lie, how about you guys get off your sorry asses for once and do some actual reading for once in your lives and stop wasting my time in trying to provide you with all the answers and leading you by the hand? As you can see, I don't lie or throw out wild acusations/assumptions unless I have "Evidence" for what I am saying.... something you guys don't seem to know anything about. Educate yourselves for once.... his own henchmen confirmed the details and hince, contradicted what Bush said himself..... the only one lieing here is Bush, like it always has been and always will be. Once again as I stated above: And I still stand by this.

Your wording is still off. According to your latest link, he didn't HAVE the report in August, as you claimed. He had it "last week". It sounds like he was given some of the information in the report earlier, but that doesn't mean he had all of the information you suggest.

Quote by: Prax This report is actually a few months old now

That point aside, the report also shows how Iran broke their agreement to not work on nuclear weapons. Because they have halted their program now in no way prevents them from starting it back up.

On balance, the estimate is good news. On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen. But it also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem. ... In 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged never to seek to acquire nuclear weapons. That's what Iran undertook to do. It signed what is called a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, under which it was to declare all its nuclear-related activities and open itself up to inspections by the IAEA. In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of a secret uranium enrichment plant in Iran at a place called Natans. The plant was secret. It had not been declared, as required, to the IAEA. Iran at that time had no operational nuclear power reactors, so why did it need a uranium enrichment plant?

Iran is still a threat. They have lied in the past and they could easily lie again, if they haven't already.

The report also concludes that

And they have moderate confidence that it had not restarted that program as of mid-2007.

"modarate confidence"??? That's not a big confidence builder...

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley

[grandpa]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i115908S90.DTL

(12-06) 15:56 PST BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won support from European allies Thursday for new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. NATO foreign ministers agreed to stay the course in seeking fresh measures at the United Nations to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment and reprocessing despite a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded the country halted it nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

I wonder when in 2003 Iran ended their program in relation to the start of the Iraq War in March of that same year. That would be quite interesting.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I wonder when in 2003 Iran ended their program in relation to the start of the Iraq War in March of that same year. That would be quite interesting.

They almost certainly did stop the program as the war started. It probably would have been foolish of them not to have contingency plans for, "just such an emergency", as Foghorn Leghorn would say.


Although that does not confirm what the Neocons will contend, but only that they have a justifiable fear of foreign meddling, and Iraq is/was the perfect launchpad for such an endeavor. Contingency planning, just like G.W.'s recent example of being "unwilling to take the nuclear strike off the table".


The difference being that they actually had to implement their contingency plans because their neighbor was invaded by a foreign power.

[Chaossaber314]

Well, if that is true, it's an unintended positive for the Iraq War.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Although that does not confirm what the Neocons will contend, but only that they have a justifiable fear of foreign meddling, and Iraq is/was the perfect launchpad for such an endeavor. Contingency planning, just like G.W.'s recent example of being "unwilling to take the nuclear strike off the table".

And that basically explains and justifies any assistence any insurgents are getting from Iran.... keeping Iraq destabalized, means the US can not easily just start a new invasion in Iran.....

What is the US's reponse? "How dare they try and destabalize Iraq and our efforts to secure their oil and have a better opportunity for invading Iran, what are they thinking?"

[Praxius]

Update:



CTV.ca | Rice seeks Russian backing on Iran

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Armed with support from NATO allies, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will try to convince a skeptical Russia that it should back U.S. plans to step up pressure on Iran to suspend its nuclear activities. Having won NATO endorsement to stay the course despite a new U.S. intelligence assessment that concludes Iran stopped its atomic weapons development program in 2003, Rice was to meet Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who has become the public face of opposition to new UN sanctions. On the sidelines of a NATO meeting already beset by alliance differences with Russia over U.S. plans for European missile defense and troop deployments in Europe, Rice and Lavrov were to discuss Washington's surprising revision of its view of Iranian nuclear intentions. The National Intelligence Estimate, released Monday, credited intense diplomatic activity for Iran's decision on weapons. "The point that I'm emphasizing to people is that it was international pressure that got the Iranians to halt their program," Rice said. "This suggests that you ought to keep up that international pressure," she told reporters on her way to Belgium for her first face-to-face talks on the matter with foreign officials since the intelligence report became public. NATO members agreed. "We ... take the opportunity of our meeting today to again urge Iran to comply" with existing UN Security Council sanctions resolutions that demand its compliance on the nuclear issue, alliance foreign ministers said. "There was unanimity around the table that there is a clear choice for Iran," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters, noting offers of nuclear cooperation with Iran if it stops enriching and reprocessing uranium. "Iran can see the outstretched hand from the international community if they are willing to join the drive against proliferation," he said. "But if Iran persists on defying the will of the United Nations Security Council, then there must be further sanctions." But Lavrov on Wednesday said Moscow had not seen any evidence that Iran had, in fact, ever had a nuclear weapons program, not even one that it had given up on four years ago. He also criticized the United States for its missile defense plans. Still, along with China, which also has opposed new UN sanctions, Russia appeared isolated on Iran, which long has denied it is seeking nuclear weapons and crowed that the U.S. intelligence report was a total "victory" for the country. Rice said she saw no reason for major policy moves. "I don't see that the NIE changes the course that we're on," she said. "In fact, I would think given the assessment that Iran is indeed susceptible to coordinated international pressure that (this) is the right approach," she said. The U.S. has been successful in leading two rounds of UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and is pushing for a third set of economic sanctions if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. Ahead of formal alliance meetings on Friday, Rice met Thursday with the foreign ministers of Italy, Belgium and Britain, as well as European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. On Friday she sees German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, as well as Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Israel believes Iran is still working aggressively to build nuclear arms, despite the new U.S. conclusions and on Friday, a senior Israeli defense official said the Jewish state supported diplomacy but suggested it would still consider a military strike against Iran. The Islamic regime in Tehran strongly opposes Israel's existence and frequently boasts of its ability to strike the Jewish state with long-range missiles. Bush administration officials had worried that the findings of the new intelligence estimate could hurt their efforts to impose more sanctions on Iran to increase pressure for it to cease uranium enrichment and reprocessing, which could produce the ingredients for a bomb. Discussions on that point, between the U.S. and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, France, Russia and China -- plus Germany in the "P5 plus one" grouping had been on hold pending consideration of the new intelligence. Ahead of the NATO decision, Rice said she would impress on her counterparts the need for Iran to disclose the nature of its alleged secret nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, returning to a theme addressed Wednesday by President Bush. "We should also start to look at ways for Iran to account for what was happening before 2003," she said, without elaboration on what type of mechanism she had in mind, if any. Bush on Wednesday demanded that Tehran detail its previous program to develop nuclear weapons -- "which the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge."

Gee, even Russia is skeptical of there ever actually being any nuclear weapons program that they discontinued to begin with. Considdering they were a former super power who spied equally on the US as the US did on them, I would considder their intelligence capabilities are at least just as good, if not better then the US's at this point.

It didn't say whether Canada went along with these NATO sanctions, but it sounds like Canada did, which I personally oppose. Russia and China seem to have their heads on their shoulders in this matter (For the time being.)

I hope they continue opposing.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius Gee, even Russia is skeptical of there ever actually being any nuclear weapons program that they discontinued to begin with. Considdering they were a former super power who spied equally on the US as the US did on them, I would considder their intelligence capabilities are at least just as good, if not better then the US's at this point. It didn't say whether Canada went along with these NATO sanctions, but it sounds like Canada did, which I personally oppose. Russia and China seem to have their heads on their shoulders in this matter (For the time being.) I hope they continue opposing.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and China were making money off supplying Iran with technology and equipment for their nuclear program.....France, Russia, and China were all making money off of Saddam, prior to our invasion, and they opposed us there as well.. big surprise...

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and China were making money off supplying Iran with technology and equipment for their nuclear program.....France, Russia, and China were all making money off of Saddam, prior to our invasion, and they opposed us there as well.. big surprise...

Lol, and the good ol USA boys never made any money off saddam right?

Delusion of truth leads to war. That's one thing you one eyed hyper-nationalistic right wingers always share. Your sides always right eh? Can you for one minute, step back, and see the two sides of every story? Can you even admit that your country could do the slightest bit of wrong?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: another day Delusion of truth leads to war. That's one thing you one eyed hyper-nationalistic right wingers always share. Your sides always right eh? Can you for one minute, step back, and see the two sides of every story? Can you even admit that your country could do the slightest bit of wrong?

We're like a sociopathic nation state.


George Farrah wrote a great article about how the US is "clinically insane".

[xyzer]

Are you serious?

Lol, and the good ol USA boys never made any money off saddam right?

The ones who made money off the whole deal were the UN and Russia, even France. The US(thats you and I) spent money on stopping the madman,,?Saddam. Then we stood by and watched the UN et al, siphon off oil revenuses for themselves rather that the children of Iraq?

Next thing I'll read is Haliburton and Cheney made money off Saddam? Thats the usual mad dog liberal twist to events...It's part of the love my country ploy offered as an excuse by mad dog liberals as they display their patriotism by expressing hate for the country that shelters them. They blame Bush for all that went on, ignoring the fact that in the 1990s Billy Boy Clinton was in charge?

[Chaossaber314]

Xyzer, we actually did make money off of Saddam, it just wasn't recent.

Though why current administrations have to be responsible for the actions of other administrations over 20 years ago is beyond me. Referring to the US as "Insane" or a "Sociopath" imply that the US is of one mind.

For all the things to criticize the US about, it's one of the lamest.

[grandpa]

Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

Senior Israeli officials warned today they were still considering the option of a military strike against Iran, despite a fresh US intelligence report that concluded Tehran was no longer developing nuclear weapons. Although Israel argues that it wants to see strong diplomatic pressure put on Iran, it is reluctant to rule out the threat of a unilateral military attack.

Military attacks, nuclear weapons, idiocy.
Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

You gotta love the drunk deputies of the world police going around shooting their guns when they feel like it..... great role models they have to look up to when you think about it... they even got the whole "Ignoring Information that doesn't suit the Plan" attitude down.

Shoot first and ask questions later.... and if you ask first and you don't like the answers then shoot anyways.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius You gotta love the drunk deputies of the world police going around shooting their guns when they feel like it..... great role models they have to look up to when you think about it...

Exactly, and that's been a major point of mine. If all ordinary people acted like states, we'd all be in jail. But so many of us don't think about it. That's the problem.
They may not share an interest with a given policy, but they'll still give the policy (and therefore the policymakers) the benefit of the doubt. There are some who always do that, like it's some kind of unforgivable sin to see things simply as they are.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report | Iran | Guardian Unlimited Military attacks, nuclear weapons, idiocy. Grandpa h.

The US's National Intelligence Estimate is not the final word on what's happening in Iran. It's our ESTIMATE! Our report says that we have moderate confidence they haven't restarted their program.. To solely rely on this single report, when Iran obviously had an illegal nuclear program and continues to enrich uranium, despite the condemnation of the world, is idiocy.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval The US's National Intelligence Estimate is not the final word on what's happening in Iran. It's our ESTIMATE! Our report says that we have moderate confidence they haven't restarted their program.. To solely rely on this single report, when Iran obviously had an illegal nuclear program and continues to enrich uranium, despite the condemnation of the world, is idiocy.

No, you just don't understand the entire situation at hand. CNN actually had a somewhat decent Fact & Fiction report on Iran yesterday which I watched. I would recomend watching it if you can get a chance to do so someday, as I really don't feel like unloading all that information at this time, just to end up repeating it again and again down the road

I find it comical that you will dismiss this report which they claim to be the most accurate to date, because it's an "ESTIMATE" as you put it.... yet you're still all gun ho about all the previous "ESTIMATES" which were wrong.

And their Nuclear program is not illegal, as under the treaty they signed, they are doing everything within their own rights. There is supposed to be transparency for this, but considdering they never got help from any of these countries who are trying to sanction them in the first place, they have been known to attack them as well as interfeer with their internal affairs, why would they scounge up any shred of trust to become that transparent in the first place, when these countries in the past used that information against them?

That's like North Korea telling the US to give them all their information on their studies and technology or face sanctions..... the US doesn't trust NK, and the US would most likly tell them to goto hell... much as Iran is doing now in return.

I don't see anything at this stage that raises any flags. The only flags I see are on the US side of things and the continual banter on starting WWIII over nothing..... or starting over something they have legal rights to do.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval The US's National Intelligence Estimate is not the final word on what's happening in Iran. It's our ESTIMATE!

Of cours eit's not the final word. I don't recall saying that. In fact, it'd be pure folly to let teh Us have the final word on this, if Iraq is any kind of guide.

Certainly, it's possible that Iran (or virtually any other reasonably modern state) may produce nuclear weapons, or have "knowledge" of how to make them. But if we launch a war based on this possibility, it will be a calamity.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa But if we launch a war based on this possibility, it will be a calamity. Grandpa h.

Iran having nuclear weapons will be worse than any calamity this may cause. I don't want to go to war, again, and I do hope that it can be solved diplomatically, but we can't just go by this report and dismiss the problem.

[jose]

Quote by: Dieval Iran having nuclear weapons will be worse than any calamity this may cause. I don't want to go to war, again, and I do hope that it can be solved diplomatically, but we can't just go by this report and dismiss the problem.

why would Iran having a nuclear device be any worse than say India, Pakistan or Israel who already have them? and as you may remember uncle sam was all about ready to clean N. korea´s clock..until they proved they did indeed have a nuclear weapon