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

[Gunny]

In the thread about Iran.

Now can I get an answer to my question?

About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."

 

[Larkinn]

About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."

So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.

Not letting them means not allowing them to have them. Not allowing them to have them would require US strikes or a US invasion.

Really...this is simple stuff. You said it, we all know what you meant, why are you trying to squirm out of it?

 

[Alpha1]

The implications of it are not clear. I am asking so that I don't accuse him of doing something before it is clear that is what he is doing. It is a line of questioning you would do well to avail yourself of on occasion.

If 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." and that caused concern with US leaders, don't you think that was prudent...?
And now with a new assessment of Irans capabilities, I would expect that the rhetoric will change to reflect todays intell.....

Just as suspect Al Gore would not repeat this in todays world.....

"We know that he(Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200

It ain't rocket science...

 

[Gunny]

Not letting them means not allowing them to have them. Not allowing them to have them would require US strikes or a US invasion.

Really...this is simple stuff. You said it, we all know what you meant, why are you trying to squirm out of it?

I see. So you think you can fill in the blanks with your assumptions and they are correct just because you have decided so?

Rather than me squirming, you have stepped in it ... again ... by presuming to think what someone else is thinking.

FYI, I have not advocated using specific means of deterring Iran from having nuclear weapons. I have only advocated that Iran should be deterred from having them. That does NOT necessarily mean by use of force, and in fact, I would prefer a peaceful solution.

And I guess that would mean you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about, huh?

 

[Larkinn]

If 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." and that caused concern with US leaders, don't you think that was prudent...?
And now with a new assessment of Irans capabilities, I would expect that the rhetoric will change to reflect todays intell.....

Just as suspect Al Gore would not repeat this in todays world.....

"We know that he(Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200

It ain't rocket science...

All this says to be is be skeptical about US intel. I wish some individuals, specifically in our government, had a bit more skeptical before invading other countries based on said intel.

 

[Larkinn]

I see. So you think you can fill in the blanks with your assumptions and they are correct just because you have decided so?

Its not much of a blank ol boy.

Rather than me squirming, you have stepped in it ... again ... by presuming to think what someone else is thinking.

I would never presume to think what you are thinking. I have much higher standards than that.

FYI, I have not advocated using specific means of deterring Iran from having nuclear weapons. I have only advocated that Iran should be deterred from having them. That does NOT necessarily mean by use of force, and in fact, I would prefer a peaceful solution.

No, it does not necessarily mean by use of force, but the obvious interpretation of your statement is that it includes the use of force.

 

[Larkinn]

And since you seem to want to squirm, I will ask you point blank.

Would you use force to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons?

 

[Alpha1]

All this says to be is be skeptical about US intel. I wish some individuals, specifically in our government, had a bit more skeptical before invading other countries based on said intel.

As I hope some individuals will be a bit more skeptical of what todays intell. may imply....some will ignore the rhetoric from Iran and some will believe it....
and over reaction in either direction could be a serious mistake as you NOW find out the facts about Iraq.....but what was believed in 2002 about Saddam, and what we now know about Saddam is 20/20 hindsight....

 

[Larkinn]

As I hope some individuals will be a bit more skeptical of what todays intell. may imply....some will ignore the rhetoric from Iran and some will believe it....
and over reaction in either direction could be a serious mistake as you NOW find out the facts about Iraq.....but what was believed in 2002 about Saddam, and what we now know about Saddam is 20/20 hindsight....

Yes it is 20/20 and the far left was right and everyone else was wrong. Life's a bitch, ain't it?

As for Iran considering the claims are almost identical to what the claims were in Iraq (they have a secret weapons program!...oh noes the sky is falling!), by an administration which I trust not one whit, I am quite skeptical of the claims of a nuclear Iran. I am significantly more concerned with Pakistan, which nobody seems to give a damn about, than Iran.

 

[Alpha1]

And since you seem to want to squirm, I will ask you point blank.

Would you use force to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons?

Me? I'd wait on confirmation, rather than act on suspected nuclear weapons.

But I'd hope someone acts before the confirmation is seen in the sky over Europe or Isreal or over a US Naval fleet at sea....thats the nature of the problems the west faces....

 

[Chips Rafferty]

These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?

Gee, Gunny's, (pl) is this proof of yet another attempt to con cement-headed Americans into a criminal war?

If so, then why all the subterfuge? When all ya have to do is tell them they are gonna kick serious ass, with fuck-all casualties, and a flag-waving, ego-inflating good time will be had by all!

Do I detect a justified coup de etat in the intelligence services? A belated attempt to stop your monosyllabic Christapitalist megalomaniacal leader from murdering millions more, before an equally religiously demented Democrat takes his place in the Retchstag?

 

[Gunny]

Its not much of a blank ol boy.



I would never presume to think what you are thinking. I have much higher standards than that.



No, it does not necessarily mean by use of force, but the obvious interpretation of your statement is that it includes the use of force.

You assumed. You assumed wrong. Period.

The "obvious interpretation" is you just ain't half as smart as you wish you were.

 

[Larkinn]

Me? I'd wait on confirmation, rather than act on suspected nuclear weapons.

I was asking Gunny, but interesting nonetheless. What type of confirmation...and from who? Intel agencies? I think we got confirmation that Saddam had WMD's, yes? Or supposedly we did...

But I'd hope someone acts before the confirmation is seen in the sky over Europe or Isreal or over a US Naval fleet at sea....thats the nature of the problems the west faces....

Disagree with Iran, think they are violent, stupid, whatever, they aren't suicidal. Iran wants nukes to improve its standing in the world, unless it falls into chaos its not exactly going to go around using them.

 

[Alpha1]

Yes it is 20/20 and the far left was right and everyone else was wrong. Life's a bitch, ain't it?

Yeah....and the worlds intell. was wrong, along with dozens of UN unanimous votes on resolutions against Iraq...lifes a bitch

As for Iran considering the claims are almost identical to what the claims were in Iraq (they have a secret weapons program!...oh noes the sky is falling!), by an administration which I trust not one whit, I am quite skeptical of the claims of a nuclear Iran. I am significantly more concerned with Pakistan, which nobody seems to give a damn about, than Iran.

The only real difference between the two is Iraq actually used WMD, so the beliefs were not as suspect....Iran has the centrifuges and is using them to enrich the uranium, they don't even deny that, its their final application that is still suspect.....

000

 

[Larkinn]

You assumed. You assumed wrong. Period.

The "obvious interpretation" is you just ain't half as smart as you wish you were.

So...would you use force if necessary to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons Gunny? Yes or No?

 

[Gunny]

So...would you use force if necessary to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons Gunny? Yes or No?

I would not use force for "suspected" nuclear weapons.

 

[Larkinn]

I would not use force for "suspected" nuclear weapons.

So what level of proof would you require? Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

So what level of proof would you require? Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?

Why not? It was good enough for the Demochats, and all America's sycophantic "allies," like us, to slavishly goosestep behing Dad and Junior into both Gulf "Wars."

 

[Alpha1]

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".....

 

[Larkinn]

PS...just a few more quotes for you Gunny...

Their[Irans] idea of a peaceful resolution and coexistence is each and every one of us dead.

Do you try and negotiate with rattlesnakes? I shoot them.

Fallacy #2: That we need to invade Iran. Locating the facilities and blowing them back into the desert from whence they came would suffice.

I know with my massive incompetence I tend to make incorrect assumptions about you, so I'd ask for clarification of how these two statements are consistent with NOT wanting to attack Iran?