US Intelligence Agencies: Iran doesn't currently have a Nuclear Weapons Program

[Alpha1]

that is different that trying to claim that the war in Iraq made them stop.

Speculations and opinions of posters on the net don't bother me....its only if an attempt is made to pass off those speculations and opinions as truth and fact that I might respond to them....

Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand, though it is only speculation.....
Just recognize it for what it is....a posters opinion, nothing more,nothing less.

So in this case, it might be other people's speculations seem to driving you into the tizzy.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Just WHO would you speculate has been leading the parade against Iran's effort to develop Nuclear capability.....Libya perhaps?

No, the international community, just as the NIE states. Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.

2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians. That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight. And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research.

If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.

 

[Gunny]

Incorrect.

From Wikipedia..."A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. Some may even admit that their selfishness includes the lust for war for personal satisfaction."

That is not a "specific definition". Secondly I am not mixing use of force and warmongering "as I see fit". Sometimes use of force is warmongering, sometimes it is not. And there is not such thing as a general "necessary" use of force. Necessary to achieve certain aims perhaps, but not a general necessity. What those aims are determines whether it is warmongering or not IMO.

By your own definition, it is YOU who are incorrect. I am not and was not warmongering. You assumed incorrectly. Simple as that.

And that IS a fairly specific definition. Nowhere in there do you see someone who is willing to use force when necessary. And yes, there IS such a thing. Y

 

[Larkinn]

By your own definition, it is YOU who are incorrect. I am not and was not warmongering. You assumed incorrectly. Simple as that.

Well, how can I argue with an argument which just states the conclusion without providing any evidence. You state I am incorrect (about saying you were warmongering). Then you say that you were not warmongering (same sentence). Then you again repeat that I was incorrect. I guess if you are just going to say the conclusion to your argument (if it can be called that), three times as a defense, then yes it is very simple.

And that IS a fairly specific definition.

No, actually its pretty vague. It allows for many different actions to fall into the category.

Nowhere in there do you see someone who is willing to use force when necessary.

There is nothing incompatible with someone who is willing to use force when necessary either. Not that it matters since "when necessary" is an incoherent term without knowing what the end is that would necessitate the force.

And yes, there IS such a thing. Y

As a general necessity? No, theres not. Its an incoherent term without defining the goal that the force is necessary to achieve. Nothing is, by itself, necessary until you figure out what the purpose is.

 

[Annie]

No, the international community, just as the NIE states. Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.

2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians. That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight. And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research.

If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.

And if you wish to dress up you pig in lipstick, keep the mantra up that suddenly the 'sanctions' worked, for some reason in 2003. Ignore the force, go ahead and do such.

You are now doing everything you are accusing the opposition of doing.

 

[Gunny]

Well, how can I argue with an argument which just states the conclusion without providing any evidence. You state I am incorrect (about saying you were warmongering). Then you say that you were not warmongering (same sentence). Then you again repeat that I was incorrect. I guess if you are just going to say the conclusion to your argument (if it can be called that), three times as a defense, then yes it is very simple.



No, actually its pretty vague. It allows for many different actions to fall into the category.



There is nothing incompatible with someone who is willing to use force when necessary either. Not that it matters since "when necessary" is an incoherent term without knowing what the end is that would necessitate the force.



As a general necessity? No, theres not. Its an incoherent term without defining the goal that the force is necessary to achieve. Nothing is, by itself, necessary until you figure out what the purpose is.

Just can't admit you're wrong, huh? Got to try and deflect to some relativist argument over "necessity."

Well, let's hope you figure out what necesity is if and when someone shoves a gun in your face. I'll bet you won't find it hard to do at all.

 

[Larkinn]

Just can't admit you're wrong, huh? Got to try and deflect to some relativist argument over "necessity."

Jesus Christ...learn what these words mean before you use them. Its not relativist at all. Its a function of the definition of the word.

For your elucidation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

I thought about admitting I was wrong after your stunning argument in which you stated the conclusion 3 times in a row with no statements to back it up. But then I figured, despite the incredible logical soundness of that argument I'd see what I could squirm out of. I know, I know...its a chance in hell to be able to get out of an argument like that, but I did my best.

Well, let's hope you figure out what necesity is if and when someone shoves a gun in your face. I'll bet you won't find it hard to do at all.

If someone shoves a gun in my face the end becomes quite clear.

 

[Gunny]

Jesus Christ...learn what these words mean before you use them. Its not relativist at all. Its a function of the definition of the word.

For your elucidation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

I thought about admitting I was wrong after your stunning argument in which you stated the conclusion 3 times in a row with no statements to back it up. But then I figured, despite the incredible logical soundness of that argument I'd see what I could squirm out of. I know, I know...its a chance in hell to be able to get out of an argument like that, but I did my best.



If someone shoves a gun in my face the end becomes quite clear.

Dude, deflect on your own time. I'm well-aware of what words mean. You just can't figure out the fact that I am. It's how you get your ass torn up every time -- thinking you're just so much damned smarter.

You couldn't beat my argument, you tried a deflection, now you want to attack my intelligence all to draw away from the fact that you labelled me based on an erroneous assumption.

You lose. Game over.

 

[Alpha1]

No, the international community, just as the NIE states. Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.

2003 was when the AQ Khan network was uncovered, and it was discovered that pakistan (our "good ally") had been sharing nuclear technology with the iranians. That's when the europeans, the UN, and the IAEA demanded that Iran submit themselve to more rigorous inspections and oversight. And evidently, Iran was spooked into stopping its nuclear weapons research.

If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.

Thats essentially what I said in post 134....

though I neglected to give the IAEA a role, its obvious they did play a role....

--------------
Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....and the only rational conclusion we can arrive at is that the US working in conjunction with the countries of Europe, and possibly some in ME and the UN have shown Iran its in their best interest to abandon nuke weapons....
---------------
And as I mentioned to mm....

Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand, though it is only speculation.....
Just recognize it for what it is....a posters opinion, nothing more,nothing less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, your accusation that I "want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. " is
nothing more than the unfounded rantings of a hack...
You're dismissed...

 

[Larkinn]

Dude, deflect on your own time. I'm well-aware of what words mean.

If so, then why did you use it in a completely inappropriate context?

You just can't figure out the fact that I am. It's how you get your ass torn up every time -- thinking you're just so much damned smarter.

Where exactly did I "get my ass torn up". It must have been somewhere between the argument with 3 repetitive conclusions and the inappropriate application of the term relativist. But I just can't figure out where.

You couldn't beat my argument

Lmfao...you didn't provide a coherent argument. You provided laughable snippets of information incoherently strung together.

, you tried a deflection, now you want to attack my intelligence all to draw away from the fact that you labelled me based on an erroneous assumption.

Actually I didn't attack your intelligence. I said you didn't know what relativist means.

You lose. Game over.

Right. Gunny, the self proclaimed winner of the internet.

 

[Gunny]

If so, then why did you use it in a completely inappropriate context?



Where exactly did I "get my ass torn up". It must have been somewhere between the argument with 3 repetitive conclusions and the inappropriate application of the term relativist. But I just can't figure out where.



Lmfao...you didn't provide a coherent argument. You provided laughable snippets of information incoherently strung together.



Actually I didn't attack your intelligence. I said you didn't know what relativist means.



Right. Gunny, the self proclaimed winner of the internet.

Bottom line: YOUR misuse of a word has been the cause of your dancin' chicken routine.

DO try and get over it. Or don't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the international community, just as the NIE states. Specifically, the europeans, the russians, the chinese, and us.

If you want to dress up your disasterous war in iraq, by putting lipstick on a pig, to somehow claim that your war seridipitiously caused iran to back down, you're entitled to your own illusions. Neither the NIE, nor the Bush Admin themselves are making that claim, however.

Did you take the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible before you decided to completely rule out the possibility that GWBs actions in Iraq created some of the pressure, comprised at least part of diplomacy, and entered at least in part into the equation of cost that convinced Iran to drop its nuke program?

Or are you illustrating for us the product of the absence of an open mind?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Speculations and opinions of posters on the net don't bother me....its only if an attempt is made to pass off those speculations and opinions as truth and fact that I might respond to them....

Having 150,000+ fully equipped troops, with superior air power and support, advanced missiles and a carrier group on your doorstep just might have given Iran an incentive to re-think their position...who knows? That speculation can't just be dismissed out hand...

It can... but only if you hate Bush so much that it deprives you of your ability to think.

 

[Larkinn]

Bottom line: YOUR misuse of a word has been the cause of your dancin' chicken routine.

DO try and get over it. Or don't.

Actually I used it just fine. If I hadn't you might be providing some evidence instead of restating your conclusion over and over again. Then again, maybe not...

 

[maineman]

Did you take the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible before you decided to completely rule out the possibility that GWBs actions in Iraq created some of the pressure, comprised at least part of diplomacy, and entered at least in part into the equation of cost that convinced Iran to drop its nuke program?

Or are you illustrating for us the product of the absence of an open mind?

no....it is you who are illustrating the phenomenon known as "grasping at straws."
Certainly, Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq may have had some small role to play. So could have the price of oil or some Iranian's horoscope. Who cares? The NIE gives its best guess as to what caused the cessation, and the war in Iraq was not part of their assessment.

You COULD be smarter than the best minds at all our combined intelligence agencies...that, too, is POSSIBLE.....just not very likely.

 

[ekrem]

Just to be on the SAFE side...lets just wait until Tel Aviv disappears in a flash, then we can listen to the loons screaming, "why didn't you know", "why did you let that happen", "why didn't you act if the NIE thought Iran had a nuke".....

thats the standard operating procedure of the loons.....you can't win....

like "don't stereotype those Muslims getting on that plane, they have rights"....then after it blows, "why didn't you stop those terrorists".....

Off course Israel is telling exactly that what profits them the most.

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html


Martin van Creveld (born 1946) is an Israeli military historian and theorist.
He was born in the Netherlands but has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December, 1999 and January, 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

Marin Van Crefeld to Austrian Newspaper:

Generally speaking Israel has since 20 years the possibility to eradicate Teheran.
The Iranians know this and Israel should not have fear about Iran, even not a nuclear Iran.
The other side of the story is, that we always knew of marketing external threats in favour to our own security interests.
To the foreign world and also to our own public the Israelian government warns of Iranian nukes, just like it did before from the threat of the Arab world.
In this style Israel got in the 60s advanced weapons from Germany. In the 70s and 80s weapons from USA, in the 90s again from Germany. So every time Ahmadinajad talks about Israel, he is helping us to get weapon systems from abroad. This functions very well.
http://diepresse.com/home/diverse/archiv/99747/index.do

All those Arrows Missile Systems, submarines, Merkavas is nothing a little country like Israel can afford in terms of money nor develop in terms of technology. It is dependent on foreign money from USA and German technology. Also Israel is still the only country in the middle-east which stands against a nuclear-free Middle East.
It is hypocrisy to critize one country seeking for nuclear weapons and standing behind a country which illegaly posseses exact same kind of weapons.

All this bullshit talk of US president clique is an aggression against Iran. And an Iran seeing itself on the shoot-list for oil and gas interests will eventually indeed develop nuclear weapons. It is an insurance against aggressors like current USA.

The US president should apologize from Iran. In criminal codes in many countries defamation is an act which even can put you into jail.