Iran threat--where is the disconnect?

[shawmutt]

Bush seems intent on getting us into war in Iran. Repeating "all options are on the table" with the fervency of his "stay the course" strategy that worked so well years ago, he seems to ignore and outright deny evidence contrary to his opinion, such as the most recent NIE report and stories such as this:

NPR : Gates: No Immediate Military Threat from Iran

In an interview with FOX news, Bush was asked if he believed the NIE, he replied "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." ( FOXNews.com - President Bush Goes 'On the Record' - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta )

Basically if shaky intelligence, like what got us into Iraq, agrees with Bush's world view, it is taken as gospel and hammered into the minds of Americans--but if well researched and documented intelligence disagrees with Bush's agenda, it is to be dismissed.

I wonder if the American public will let happen to Iran what happened to Iraq.

[Dieval]

Quote by: shawmutt Basically if shaky intelligence, like what got us into Iraq, agrees with Bush's world view, it is taken as gospel and hammered into the minds of Americans--but if well researched and documented intelligence disagrees with Bush's agenda, it is to be dismissed.

"well researched"? Isn't it the same people who analyzed the Iraq intel giving us the Iran report?
The NIE on Iran said that they were moderately confident that they had halted their program. Not 100% sure. Not dismantled, but moderately confident it had been halted, using essentially the same data they had from years earlier.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Dieval Isn't it the same people who analyzed the Iraq intel giving us the Iran report?

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.

From the 2003 NIE:

Low Confidence--Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland. Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.

Meanwhile, Bush is stating that the declassified portion of the report is taken out of context, while the classified portion contains the full scoop and proves his rhetoric right. Of course, that portion will remain classified.

Quote by: Dieval The NIE on Iran said that they were moderately confident that they had halted their program. Not 100% sure.

I'm sorry, that's not true. The document explicitly stated "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work."

From the document:

High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.

In contrast to the low confidence report that got us into Iraq, again from the document:

Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

Quote by: Dieval using essentially the same data they had from years earlier.

Do you have a cite for that? I find it hard to believe that they would not get any new data after all these years.

From the report:

This Estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31 October 2007.

http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

[Whatssnew]

#1 Iran hates America, and its people chant Death to America daily.
#2 Iran has been involved in attacks on our military in Iraq.
#3 Iran being rich in oil, dose not need Nuclear energy.
#4 Iran hates America, Iran does not need Nuclear energy, so what do you think there motive for researching it is? As a terrorist run government, do you not think they will not use a Nuclear bomb if given the chance?

If someone called you and told you he/she want to kill you and they were 50 miles away would it bother you? Then you get a call when he/she is 40, then 30, then 20 miles away. When do you start to worry? Same is true with Iran, they want to kill us, they have killed some soldiers, and they keep on getting closer and closer to building a Nuclear weapon.

Lastly, many years back the Democratic party had the same idea, let Europe take care of European affairs and keep us out of it. As a result millons of people died in both war and consentration camps. So will history repeat itself? Are we bound to repeat our mistakes? Personally I don't think we will as long as a republican is in the White House.

[shawmutt]

#1 Are we now attacking countries and killing people because they don't like us?

#2 Iran the country, the government, or some of the people on the border? Saudi Arabians make up the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq, yet there's no mention of bombing that country.

#3 Here is an excellent article for nuclear energy in Iran-- Iran's Nuclear Program. Part II: Are Nuclear Reactors Necessary?.

Lastly, many years back the Democratic party had the same idea, let Europe take care of European affairs and keep us out of it. As a result millons of people died in both war and consentration camps.

Why is it that when talking against war in Iraq, comparisons to other wars are called foolish. Yet when making the case for war, comparisons to other wars are necessary? I made none of the assertions in your last paragraph, but it leads to #1--do we attack a country because they hate us?

[Stizzles]

#1 Are we now attacking countries and killing people because they don't like us?

I don't think so, otherwise France would have been destroyed a while ago.

The point is that this is exactly the kind of nation we don't want holding nukes.

#2 Iran the country, the government, or some of the people on the border? Saudi Arabians make up the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq, yet there's no mention of bombing that country.

Has Saudi Arabia been publicly pursuing nuclear power?

#3 Here is an excellent article for nuclear energy in Iran--

Make your own arguments, please. I have google for looking up what other people said.

Why is it that when talking against war in Iraq, comparisons to other wars are called foolish. Yet when making the case for war, comparisons to other wars are necessary? I made none of the assertions in your last paragraph, but it leads to #1--do we attack a country because they hate us?

Do you understand the theory of preemption?

You don't ever need to preempt nations that won't attack you. You'll only ever need to preempt nations that will attack you--and Iran is certainly willing to attack the U.S.

Imagine that you're in a room filled with people. A group in the corner starts shouting for people to kill you. Then they start asking around about getting some guns. "No need to get excited", you say, "They probably just want to use the weapons legitimately, for hunting. No reason to suspect anything of them just because they hate me."

Guess what happens next?

[shawmutt]

Has Saudi Arabia been publicly pursuing nuclear power?

UPDATE 1-France's Sarkozy offers Saudi Arabia nuclear help | Markets | Reuters

Make your own arguments, please.

Don't patronize me, please. I don't have the in depth knowledge to "make my own arguments" on Iran's need for nuclear power. I was simply stating that there are valid opinions and linked to one.

My own opinion on the matter is that if a sovereign country wants nuclear power it should be able to acquire it.

Do you understand the theory of preemption?

I understand the theory of preemption, but I also understand this administration's method of preemption: stack propaganda in their favor, ignore or discredit the naysayers through dirty politics and stonewalling, and once we are at war state "it doesn't matter that we were wrong, we're stuck there now!"

There's a major problem with preemption--what if, like in Iraq, we are wrong?

I don't want to see that happen again; hopefully there's enough people in power to prevent Bush et al from making it happen again.

[Stizzles]

Don't patronize me, please. I don't have the in depth knowledge to "make my own arguments" on Iran's need for nuclear power. I was simply stating that there are valid opinions and linked to one.

Why link to one, except to provide a red herring to distract people from the fact that you have a complete lack of knowledge?

My own opinion on the matter is that if a sovereign country wants nuclear power it should be able to acquire it.

Brilliant. Don't do anything until they have the nuke pointed right at you.

How many Americans are gonna have to die for you to want to stop Iran?

I understand the theory of preemption, but I also understand this administration's method of preemption: stack propaganda in their favor, ignore or discredit the naysayers through dirty politics and stonewalling, and once we are at war state "it doesn't matter that we were wrong, we're stuck there now!" There's a major problem with preemption--what if, like in Iraq, we are wrong? I don't want to see that happen again; hopefully there's enough people in power to prevent Bush et al from making it happen again.

What evidence do you have that "we are wrong" about Iran? The assurances of Ahmadinejad? Where is the propaganda? What "dirty politics" and "stonewalling" have occured vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear intentions?

So far, I think you're full of spit (you know what I mean).

[thx1138]

#1 Iran hates America, and its people chant Death to America daily.

That seems to be the mode of thinking of most pro-war pundits running of at the mouth on this topic.

I don't want to see that happen again; hopefully there's enough people in power to prevent Bush et al from making it happen again.

That's what the founding fathers of the United States meant Congress to do, but that hasn't been happening for the last hundred years.

If you have not seen this before you might find it interesting, and will give you some insight on why these pro-war pundits think the way they do..
The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside - by Adam Curtis

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles Why link to one, except to provide a red herring to distract people from the fact that you have a complete lack of knowledge? Brilliant. Don't do anything until they have the nuke pointed right at you. How many Americans are gonna have to die for you to want to stop Iran? What evidence do you have that "we are wrong" about Iran? The assurances of Ahmadinejad? Where is the propaganda? What "dirty politics" and "stonewalling" have occured vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear intentions? So far, I think you're full of spit (you know what I mean).

Oh my we are paranoid aren't we..:zoomshock

[Stizzles]

Quote by: thx Oh my we are paranoid aren't we..:zoomshock

Paranoid that a guy who wants to wipe another nation off the map would perhaps misuse his newfound nuclear power? Absolutely. I'd rather be paranoid, and treat violent fascists as violent fascists, than be naive, and treat violent fascists as level-headed peacemakers.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles Paranoid that a guy who wants to wipe another nation off the map would perhaps misuse his newfound nuclear power? Absolutely. I'd rather be paranoid, and treat violent fascists as violent fascists, than be naive, and treat violent fascists as level-headed peacemakers.

Well the next few decades should be pretty rough for you, because there is a whole line of nations that are going to develop nuclear power.

What are you going to do, attack each country that's not in line with the U.S.?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Stizzles Why link to one, except to provide a red herring to distract people from the fact that you have a complete lack of knowledge?

Since when is a legitimate opinion a red herring? I've already said I don't know much about the why, and linked to someone who did. I know what my government did to get us into Iraq and I'm seeing the same thing in the push to get us into Iran.

Through different podcasts I listen to, I also know there's more to Iran and her people besides "chants of Death to America" daily. Do you know what Iran's government tells its people? That Americans chant "Death to Iran" every day. Sorry, but that's just a juvenile and bigoted way of looking at a different culture and people.

Brilliant. Don't do anything until they have the nuke pointed right at you. How many Americans are gonna have to die for you to want to stop Iran?

Appeal to emotion doesn't do much in the way of convincing me--in fact it does quite the opposite.

Since you don't want to be linked to folks that know more about the issue than you or I do, do a Google search on the path from nuclear power to nuclear weapons. It's not *poof* "oh shit how did they get that"! It's not a magic trick.

If it were really that simple, people who really want us dead would have got a nuke in the country a long time ago.

What evidence do you have that "we are wrong" about Iran?

I don't know what "we" you are referring to. The evidence that Bush is wrong about Iran is in the NIE report linked in post #3.

Where is the propaganda? What "dirty politics" and "stonewalling" have occured vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear intentions?

So far? How about daily reminders of how "dangerous" Iran is? Bush can't even try to make peace in the middle east without mentioning Iran. How about Bush and his hard line buddies trying to spin the crap out of the NIE report (as in post #1)? Many of the same tactics used to get us into Iraq are being used to get us into Iran.

[shrike]

Quote by: thx Well the next few decades should be pretty rough for you, because there is a whole line of nations that are going to develop nuclear power

Do all those countries are Islamic theocracies?

[Stizzles]

Since when is a legitimate opinion a red herring? I've already said I don't know much about the why, and linked to someone who did.

See, that's the BS move. You're outsourcing your thinking, and your arguments.

I know what my government did to get us into Iraq and I'm seeing the same thing in the push to get us into Iran.

As I said, please provide some evidence of this.

Through different podcasts I listen to, I also know there's more to Iran and her people besides "chants of Death to America" daily. Do you know what Iran's government tells its people? That Americans chant "Death to Iran" every day. Sorry, but that's just a juvenile and bigoted way of looking at a different culture and people.

I guess all the photos of children with AK47s and crowds burning American flags with "Death to those who insult Islam" signs were all photoshopped?

Oh, and "I heard it in a podcast" is not convincing evidence.

Appeal to emotion doesn't do much in the way of convincing me--in fact it does quite the opposite.

It wasn't an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to arithmetic.

Since you don't want to be linked to folks that know more about the issue than you or I do, do a Google search on the path from nuclear power to nuclear weapons. It's not *poof* "oh shit how did they get that"! It's not a magic trick.

Yes, and unless there's a good deal of oversight, they can do it clandestinely. I'm saying we should be concerned, not that we should attack. You, on the other hand, are saying "Let's turn a blind eye, nothing could possibly be going wrong here!"

And don't be so intellectually dishonest. It isn't that I don't want to be linked to good information; it's that I don't come here to get that. I come here to have discussions with other people.

I don't know what "we" you are referring to. The evidence that Bush is wrong about Iran is in the NIE report linked in post #3.

From 2003? 5 years ago? Yeah, that's great intel. Let's stick with that.

[Stizzles]

So far? How about daily reminders of how "dangerous" Iran is? Bush can't even try to make peace in the middle east without mentioning Iran.

DER.

And FDR couldn't talk about peace in Europe without mentioning Germany. Big surprise.

How about Bush and his hard line buddies trying to spin the crap out of the NIE report (as in post #1)? Many of the same tactics used to get us into Iraq are being used to get us into Iran.

Is that how it works in your world? All you have to do is state your conclusion and it magically is true? No need for support, or evidence?

[thx1138]

Quote by: shrike Do all those countries are Islamic theocracies?

You think the only threat comes from Islamic theocracies? you don't think Russia or China is a threat to Israel?

Is that how it works in your world? All you have to do is state your conclusion and it magically is true? No need for support, or evidence?

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

DER.

I guess you're in a debate with an eleven year old girl.

[shawmutt]

See, that's the BS move. You're outsourcing your thinking, and your arguments.

That's not BS, sorry. I don't claim to know everything about everything, but I can point to people who know more than I do about a subject.

It wasn't an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to arithmetic.

It was a blatant appeal to emotion.

As I said, please provide some evidence of this.

I did.

Oh, and "I heard it in a podcast" is not convincing evidence.

It is as good as evidence as "all the photos of children with AK47s and crowds burning American flags".

And don't be so intellectually dishonest. It isn't that I don't want to be linked to good information; it's that I don't come here to get that. I come here to have discussions with other people.

I don't talk about things I know nothing about--if I get to the limits of my knowledge I link to someone who knows more than I do. It's not my problem if that's not acceptable to you.

Is that how it works in your world? All you have to do is state your conclusion and it magically is true? No need for support, or evidence?

Support and evidence is in post #1.

[Stizzles]

That's not BS, sorry. I don't claim to know everything about everything, but I can point to people who know more than I do about a subject.

The BS move is saying "My claims are true--but I can't be bothered to familiarize myself with the evidence enough to present it myself, so here's a link for you to pour through, because I can't be bothered to provide relevant quotes."

That's what gets me.

It was a blatant appeal to emotion.

No, it wasn't. You don't think Iran would seek nuclear weapons; how many Americans would have to die for you to change your mind? For me, it's zero, because I think that Iran is hostile until proven otherwise. Maybe your idealism and naivete will win out in the end, but I doubt it.

I did.

No, you provided a link to what you claim is the evidence. Present it yourself, or I get to dismiss your claims as unsupported.

It is as good as evidence as "all the photos of children with AK47s and crowds burning American flags".

You haven't seen them?

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

I don't talk about things I know nothing about--if I get to the limits of my knowledge I link to someone who knows more than I do. It's not my problem if that's not acceptable to you.

No, you do talk about things you know nothing about. You make claims about things you know nothing about, then provide a link that supposedly covers your @ss. Clever, perhaps, but not persuasive.



This might be a bit early, since I don't know whether you intend to post more, but you didn't address my central challenge to your case, which is that it's based on information from five years ago.

Or do we just ignore that? After all, you did provide a link, so what you said must be true!

[shawmutt]

The BS move is saying "My claims are true--but I can't be bothered to familiarize myself with the evidence enough to present it myself, so here's a link for you to pour through, because I can't be bothered to provide relevant quotes."

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.

You don't think Iran would seek nuclear weapons; how many Americans would have to die for you to change your mind? For me, it's zero, because I think that Iran is hostile until proven otherwise. Maybe your idealism and naivete will win out in the end, but I doubt it.

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

And FDR couldn't talk about peace in Europe without mentioning Germany. Big surprise.

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."

You haven't seen them? Oh, this is gonna be fun.

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.

This might be a bit early, since I don't know whether you intend to post more, but you didn't address my central challenge to your case, which is that it's based on information from five years ago.

Post #3.

You make claims about things you know nothing about, then provide a link that supposedly covers your @ss. Clever, perhaps, but not persuasive.

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