Iran threat--where is the disconnect?

[Dieval]

Quote by: shawmutt Yes, and said the Iraq intelligence was shaky at best. This is why the first sentence of this report is "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"--to remove ambiguity and avoid the mistakes that got us into Iraq in the first place.

And only moderate confidence they haven't restarted it....yeah, I hold a lot of faith in that...

There's a nice article John Bolton wrote in regards the NIE....

Quote by: article First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout." .... Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments." John R. Bolton - The Flaws In the Iran Report - washingtonpost.com

[Chaossaber314]

I don't think the Bush administration is really that interested in attacking Iran anymore. At one point I definitely think they did. However, at this point it just looks like they're trying to save face and divert attention away from the NIE.

If I were them, I would be using the NIE to talk about the War in Iraq by saying "See! We scared Iran out of their Nuclear Program by attacking Iraq." If they simply dropped the nuclear rhetoric about Iran it would be admitting defeat on the issue. Staying the course is more than just a river in Egypt.

[shawmutt]

Thanks for the article Dieval. Unfortunately Bolton is known as a Bush hardliner, and has a history of spinning intelligence for an agenda. Wiki has a pretty good outline of this.

That brings me to my original point. Where is the disconnect in the administration? Why is the President saying one thing and the Secretary of Defense saying another? I have a personal feeling that Bush is incapable of admitting personal mistakes and this is his way of trying to scrub the egg off his face.

My second point--why is Saudi Arabia not held up to the same scrutiny as Iran? Is it purely economical, and if so, is that a responsible foreign policy?

[Dieval]

Quote by: shawmutt Thanks for the article Dieval. Unfortunately Bolton is known as a Bush hardliner, and has a history of spinning intelligence for an agenda. Wiki has a pretty good outline of this.

Well, if Wiki says he's an eeevil Bush suporter, obviously we can't trust anything he says...

[Stizzles]

A 3,000 word essay needs to be "poured through"? If you can't get things in nifty little quotes it is irrelevant? Whether or not Iran "needs" nuclear power was a red herring, and I dealt with it as such. If you want to debate that issue, start another thread.

Another red herring. This isn't about making other threads; this is about you bolstering your argument simply by providing a link without any kind of argumentation or support of your own. It's intellectually vapid.

More appeal to emotion, and an ad hom to wrap it up.

It's a serious question: Would there have to be American casualties before you would support investigating or even disabling Iran's nuclear capabilities? Evade that question all you like, but it will reflect poorly on you.

Hmm...I guess I need to spell that out for you too--Bush can't even try to make peace in the middle east without mentioning that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

...which I didn't dispute, and put into context by comparing Nazi Germany to modern Iran--both want to wipe Jews off the map, both developed technological innovations that would greatly aid them in time of war, and apparently you don't think that's anything to even be concerned about.

What the hell...yes, I have seen those photos. A person can't live in America and not be subject to that kind of propaganda. The problem is you present those as evidence of Iran's hate for America, and disregard podcasts dealing with folks who have actually been there and folks that live there--without even asking what the podcasts were--that makes no sense.

I didn't disregard podcasts; I disregarded your characterization of them, because I have no reason to trust you. Sorry for not falling neatly in line behind you, Mein Fuhrer.

Post #3.

How do you reconcile it with the 2005 NIE?

Clever? You weren't aware that Saudi Arabia is publicly going after nuclear power! Or maybe you were just testing me, eh?

What? This has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. This has to do with your complete reliance on others to make and support your arguments. Quit being a parrot and make your own case.

You don't read what I have written, as evidenced by your questions that I have already answered,

Saying that it incorporates data from 2007 is highly unspecific, first of all--what data? Census data? Who knows?--and the fact that I'm quoting you means that I have read what you've written. Or is that too logical for you?

...and the only rebuttal you seem to be able to provide is "links are dumb",

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a debate site, where members make and support their own claims, instead of just drawing a broad conclusion then dropping some links and calling it a day.

and "that's not true".

I haven't said "that's not true"; I've asked you to support your arguments, which you apparently find anathema, and I've disputed your unsupported conclusions about the best tack to use with Iran, but I guess actually disagreeing with you is somehow a mark against me.

Do you have anything of substance to bring to the table or are we just going to argue from here on out?

Isn't that the point of a debate site?

Or am I just supposed to shut up and agree with you?

[shawmutt]

Isn't that the point of a debate site? Or am I just supposed to shut up and agree with you?

You just added absolutely nothing of value to the debate, and basically repeated your "links are dumb" and "no it's not" rhetoric.

[Stizzles]

You just added absolutely nothing of value to the debate, and basically repeated your "links are dumb" and "no it's not" rhetoric.

You just added absolutely nothing of value to the debate, and basically repeated your "links are all I need" and "yes it is" rhetoric.

[Century 25]

Bush is merely the next puppet dancing to the MIC's music. He will (and did) dance to their tune. The "new world order's" next mission is the Mid East.. and we are all invited to that party.

If you are interested (or not) - take a peek at how old this SOS is:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process." -- President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961 "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." -- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953 "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954

He did warn Kennedy & the country too. Take a look at the Yale'ees item: The Avalon Project : Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

I'd say Kennedy didn't intend to follow the script.. he sure paid the price though.



.

[Stizzles]

I'd say Kennedy didn't intend to follow the script.. he sure paid the price though.

LOL

Look, just...stay away from the Kool-Aid, man.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles LOL Look, just...stay away from the Kool-Aid, man.

tell me how does it taste?

These links are to the audio files of the speech from President Dwight David Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, "Military/Industrial Complex", the second file cuts to
the chace....

YouTube - Eisenhower - Military/Industrial Complex - Part 1 of 2

YouTube - Eisenhower - Military/Industrial Complex - Part 2 of 2

[Century 25]

Quote by: Stizzles LOL Look, just...stay away from the Kool-Aid, man.

Nah.. not kool Stizzles.. wake up & smell the coffee.

[Stizzles]

tell me how does it taste? These links are to the audio files of the speech from President Dwight David Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, "Military/Industrial Complex", the second file cuts to the chace....

Wow, a guy who was President 50 years ago said some stuff.

That totally proves that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles Wow, a guy who was President 50 years ago said some stuff. That totally proves that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons.

"a guy", as you put it, was the head of the forces that defeated Hitler, I think we would know quite a bit about MIC.

[shrike]

Quote by: thx "a guy", as you put it, was the head of the forces that defeated Hitler, I think we would know quite a bit about MIC.

Take a history lesson it was Stalin on of the greatest tyrants of our time.

[Stizzles]

"a guy", as you put it, was the head of the forces that defeated Hitler, I think we would know quite a bit about MIC.

So because he defeated Hitler...we can apply his philosophy concerning MIC to Iran and the US today?

That's so blatantly illogical that it's almost brilliant.

You're voting for Ron Paul, right?

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles So because he defeated Hitler...we can apply his philosophy concerning MIC to Iran and the US today? That's so blatantly illogical that it's almost brilliant. You're voting for Ron Paul, right?

No, I'm not voting in the U.S. elections, I don't live in the U.S. and have nothing to do with the system there.

[gela]

"I believe that the intelligence professionals are very sincere in their analysis. That should not say to people that Iran is not a threat. In other words...I believe they want a weapon, and I believe that they're trying to gain the know-how as to how to make a weapon under the guise of a civilian nuclear program."

Does this sound like pure paranoia to anyone else?
Its a bit of a stretch...
Basicly his saying, these people say that there is no evidence that iran is a threat - but they are planning to build nuclear power stations (like half the world) - so they must be planning on making nuclear wepons. You can never be too careful.

Its a fear campaign. No matter what evidence contradics you, just say that the public are threatened somehow.

[thx1138]

Quote by: gela Does this sound like pure paranoia to anyone else? Its a bit of a stretch... Basicly his saying, these people say that there is no evidence that iran is a threat - but they are planning to build nuclear power stations (like half the world) - so they must be planning on making nuclear wepons. You can never be too careful. Its a fear campaign. No matter what evidence contradics you, just say that the public are threatened somehow.

Yes it is paranoia, that is how governments use the media to control people. This is based on Ivan Pavlov's study with dogs. By showing news stories over and over again the viewer's "conditional reflex" is trigered into believe the stories, even if there is no facts backing them up.

Ivan Pavlov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a very good BBC documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" which discusses this which you can watch on google video.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside - by Adam Curtis
The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory - by Adam Curtis
The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave - by Adam Curtis