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

[Gunny]

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

That's a good question. Being in the position to make such a decision would also allow me access to intel from anyone in the world we share intel with. I would also assume that I would be privvy to whatever physical evidence exists.

As far as level of proof goes, I would need to see some evidence/intel that was unquestionable and would withstand the closest scrutiny.

 

[Larkinn]

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".....

tsk, and you were actually saying things vaguely intelligent and then you had to go and blow it all like this.

Or we could, you know, invade Pakistan and North Korea who both actually have nukes, before we threaten countries which might get them in the future. Do you honestly think that Iran is less stable than North Korea? God knows how they build nukes, they can't even build a hotel, but yet they've got them. And with how many US soldiers between them and SK?

 

[Gunny]

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





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?

Neither statement is "warmongering."

Try keeping statements in context. I have NO problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes, or anything like them whose idea of compromise is me dead.

If indeed, a nucear weapons producing facility is discovered I also have no problem with destroying it. Bear in mind, we have the capability to destroy such a facility without declaring war on Iran and invading.

There's a FAR CRY between warmongering and being willing to use violence when necessary as a means of last resort to achieve an end.

 

[Larkinn]

That's a good question. Being in the position to make such a decision would also allow me access to intel from anyone in the world we share intel with. I would also assume that I would be privvy to whatever physical evidence exists.

As far as level of proof goes, I would need to see some evidence/intel that was unquestionable and would withstand the closest scrutiny.

But you don't get that. All you get is what whoever happens to be the leader decides to show you...or asks for your trust. Would you advocate invading Iran if the same amount of evidence that we recieved regarding Iraq was put onto the table by the same administration? My worry is that a large amount of people would say yes, and I find that foolish. We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.

 

[Larkinn]

Neither statement is "warmongering."

That is open for some debate.

Try keeping statements in context. I have NO problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes, or anything like them whose idea of compromise is me dead.

The context was in a discussion about invading Iran. You didn't say no we shouldn't, you said you have no problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes. That seems to imply a willingness to use force to me.

If indeed, a nucear weapons producing facility is discovered I also have no problem with destroying it. Bear in mind, we have the capability to destroy such a facility without declaring war on Iran and invading.

So your statement before where my "obvious interpretation" apparently meant that I was stupid, in fact included a willingess to use force?

There's a FAR CRY between warmongering and being willing to use violence when necessary as a means of last resort to achieve an end.

No, not really. It depends entirely on what that end is. If the US uses violence as a last resort to remove Chavez from power, I would consider that warmongering.

 

[Annie]

first, before you backpeddle and dance away from your previous assertions kathy, do you admit it looks like you were wrong when you suggested Iran was currently working on nuclear weapons, and was a year or two away from having a bomb?

No and that's NOT what that report was saying. It says they are 'highly confident' that they had ceased in 2003, they are uncertain what is currently going on. BTW, this is the 'unclassified' info.

 

[Annie]

Crickets chirping.

Having spent weeks having Bush lovers lecture me that they were simply sure that somehow, somewhere, Iran was building a nuclear bombs. No evidence of course was ever proffered. It was just the collective gut feeling of wingnutotopia.

Gut feelings of neocons on message boards don't count for much:

...because, the collective assessment of all US intelligence agencies (NIE) is that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program years ago. Though, its still is worth it to keep pressure and inspections on them.

And on the ground inspection by IAEA supports NIE's conclusions: no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.


I guess its good we nipped those lies in the bud, before Bush lovers could trick us into another unneccessary war.

Sorry, that wasn't crickets, rather class starting, which was why the original post was cut short.

 

[Annie]

12/3/07

the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
====================================
(same NIE?)Now, in late 2007 the NIE "don't know"
a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
SOOOooo...whats you point ?
-----------------------------------
But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
U.S. Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Program

Reuters

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in findings released on Monday that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Following are highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments.

-- Iran had a nuclear weapons program but halted it in 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007. The halt applied to design and engineering of an explosive device, such as fuses or shielding, and to covert uranium-conversion activities, according to senior intelligence officials. Other activities such as civilian uranium enrichment and missile development continue.

-- Iran is keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons, but U.S. intelligence agencies "do not know" whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. This is a major change from a 2005 intelligence estimate which concluded that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
http://tinyurl.com/2awtrh
--------------------------------

Ah, you didn't read the 'preface' where they put on the use of certain terms. They did NOT treat the mid2007 with the certainty of 2003. I don't think anyone, certainly NOT I, (other than my response to you post about 'backing off), knows for certain what Iran is or isn't doing. I do believe that is what the UN is saying, basically that Iran is being uncooperative. Now State or CIA release this report, to try and give IAEA an out.

 

[Alpha1]

tsk, and you were actually saying things vaguely intelligent and then you had to go and blow it all like this.

Or we could, you know, invade Pakistan and North Korea who both actually have nukes, before we threaten countries which might get them in the future. Do you honestly think that Iran is less stable than North Korea? God knows how they build nukes, they can't even build a hotel, but yet they've got them. And with how many US soldiers between them and SK?

Ha...you find no valid point in my sarcasm....? What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....
Like you pointed out...lifes a bitch.....

Those that have the nukes, have the nukes...we can't turn the clock back...
The dangers from China, Russia, Pakistan, and India are quite enough...we don't need the really mentally unstable leaders of Iran and N. Korea to get them also.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

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

Let's review:

Both the collective intelligence of the U.S., and the IAEA (the ones who were right about Iraq, remember?) are saying that there's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program years ago.

Do you expect me to take your and RSG's word for it, that Iran is building a bomb?

lol

 

[Larkinn]

Ha...you find no valid point in my sarcasm....? What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

Notice that I said far left, not left.

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....

Yes they did. Obviously a huge mistake...but there was great political pressure on them to do so. Its hard not to go along when questioning the general wisdom gets one called a traitor/terrorist sympathizer/etc.

I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....

Correct it doesn't, but I blame the Republicans a great deal more than the Democrats for this particular fuck up.

Those that have the nukes, have the nukes...we can't turn the clock back...
The dangers from China, Russia, Pakistan, and India are quite enough...we don't need the really mentally unstable leaders of Iran and N. Korea to get them also.....

Don't look now, but NK already has the bomb.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Ah, you didn't read the 'preface' where they put on the use of certain terms. They did NOT treat the mid2007 with the certainty of 2003. I don't think anyone, certainly NOT I, (other than my response to you post about 'backing off), knows for certain what Iran is or isn't doing. I do believe that is what the UN is saying, basically that Iran is being uncooperative. Now State or CIA release this report, to try and give IAEA an out.

It says they judge with high confidence that iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Its almost like you warmonger WANT a war. This is not what you've been saying the last few weeks. You've been claiming that you KNOW iraq is building a bomb. You were wrong. Again.

Whether or not Iran may intend at some point in the future to restart its nuclear weapons research is not a reason to go to war NOW. Its a reason to keep pressure on them.

The NIE also states that it appears that Iran's behaviour can be modified with international pressure. Which is what I've been saying all along. Bush lovers have been itching to let loose with another war. Do you guys love war that much, that you're willing to go to war with no credible evidence?

 

[Annie]

It says they judge with high confidence that iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Its almost like you warmonger WANT a war. This is not what you've been saying the last few weeks. You've been claiming that you KNOW iraq is building a bomb. You were wrong. Again.

Whether or not Iran may intend at some point in the future to restart its nuclear weapons research is not a reason to go to war NOW. Its a reason to keep pressure on them.

The NIE also states that it appears that Iran's behaviour can be modified with international pressure. Which is what I've been saying all along. Bush lovers have been itching to let loose with another war. Do you guys love war that much, that you're willing to go to war with no credible evidence?

Actually, I disagree with the war mongering. I'm all in favor of increasing sanctions, to get Iran to cooperate. To the best of my knowledge that is what has been being argued by US, France, and England. Russia and China, somewhat different, but having to come around due to Iran's behavior.

It's almost like you don't care about anything other than casting aspersions on 'conservatives' and GW. Go figure.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Actually, I disagree with the war mongering. I'm all in favor of increasing sanctions, to get Iran to cooperate. To the best of my knowledge that is what has been being argued by US, France, and England. Russia and China, somewhat different, but having to come around due to Iran's behavior.

It's almost like you don't care about anything other than casting aspersions on 'conservatives' and GW. Go figure.

So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?


I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.

 

[Annie]

So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?


I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.

Somehow I doubt we agree on much. I do find your ability to spin top notch however.

As for disavowing anything, I'd have to see them to decide.

 

[Psychoblues]

I know that countless intelligence reports contradicted the opinion as espoused by the bush bunch, that significant international support beyond Tony Blair (not England) was not forthcoming, that the reports asserting Iraqi intent to obtain nuclear technology were known to be false even before the war and that even Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector, vehemently claimed to no avail that there were no wmd's in Iraq despite his dissatisfaction of a complete inspection as cut off by the international terrorists that were determined to got to WAR ON IRAQ.

Your not very acquainted with the facts are you?.

Yeah, I'm acquainted with the facts, a1, and I suspect you only want to hear what you want to hear. That's ok. Our prez does much the same.

 

[maineman]

12/3/07

the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
====================================
(same NIE?)Now, in late 2007 the NIE "don't know"
a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
SOOOooo...whats you point ?

It is not THE SAME NIE.... idiot. NIE is an acronym which means National Intelligence Estimate. An NIE is a document produced by ALL of the nation's intelligence communities....based upon the most current intelligence. Would you prefer that, when they find out something new that contradicts a previous estimate that they keep it a secret so as not to spoil their image?

 

[Alpha1]

Notice that I said far left, not left.

Well I'm referring to mainstream Democrats and their quotes about Saddam BEFORE Bush ever was elected

Yes they did. Obviously a huge mistake...but there was great political pressure on them to do so. Its hard not to go along when questioning the general wisdom gets one called a traitor/terrorist sympathizer/etc.
...Political pressure? Thats not much of a excuse, but regardless, they voted the way they voted and thus share responsibility


Correct it doesn't, but I blame the Republicans a great deal more than the Democrats for this particular fuck up.

Well, thats as close to admitting you're a hack without actually saying it....kinda like the Dems continually warning about the dangers of Saddam and WMD without actually saying 'invade'....the runup to the war was 10 years in the making...the Bush gang, the Clinton gang, and the UN, along with every major intell org. got it wrong, so I tend to spread the blame around

Don't look now, but NK already has the bomb.

Last I saw, their test bomb was a dud, as was their missile, both pretty much failures

 

[maineman]

again.... the neocons always want to make a big deal out of the fact that democrats voted for the use of force resolution.

FACT: a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST it
the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support FOR it

 

[Alpha1]

It is not THE SAME NIE.... idiot. NIE is an acronym which means National Intelligence Estimate. An NIE is a document produced by ALL of the nation's intelligence communities....based upon the most current intelligence. Would you prefer that, when they find out something new that contradicts a previous estimate that they keep it a secret so as not to spoil their image?

Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
you 'll catch on soon....