IAEA comments on the NIE

[DeadCanDance]

The IAEA says that the new NIE on Iran’s halted nuclear weapons program is “validation of its own long-standing conclusion that there is ‘no evidence‘ of an undeclared nuclear program in Iran.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...02210_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007102501235


Glenn Greenwald notes that the IAEA has long been attacked by BushCo. and their minions for its conclusions. Even though IAEA was right about Iraq. And right about Iran.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/elbaradei/index.html



As for me, I was mocked for months, for stating that I would believe IAEA before I ever believed Bush, or one of his faithful supporters, with regard to Iran.

My caution and confidence in IAEA (and my mistrust of BushCo.) was well founded.

 

[Shogun]

It's gotta be almost like heartburnof the keyboard for the warmonging hawks having to swallow this FACT despite the last year of internet messageboard posting.

 

[Alpha1]

The IAEA says that the new NIE on Iran’s halted nuclear weapons program is “validation of its own long-standing conclusion that there is ‘no evidence‘ of an undeclared nuclear program in Iran.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...02210_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007102501235


Glenn Greenwald notes that the IAEA has long been attacked by BushCo. and their minions for its conclusions. Even though IAEA was right about Iraq. And right about Iran.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/elbaradei/index.html



As for me, I was mocked for months, for stating that I would believe IAEA before I ever believed Bush, or one of his faithful supporters, with regard to Iran.

My caution and confidence in IAEA (and my mistrust of BushCo.) was well founded.

What you mean is, you trust the IAEA over the NIA reports unless the NIA reports agree with what IAEA claims....then you use the NIA as validation....
In other words...you're a hack...

You see....the NIA reports don't come from Bush....
-------------------------
Why the 2005 NIA report was wrong...
http://tinyurl.com/2bcwee

Now run away from this thread as you do on most others when asked valid questions....

 

[Shogun]

no, i'm pretty sure what he meant was that BOTH agencies have validated his caution of the war drum frenzy that modern conquistadors have been using to drum Moby Dick on during the last year.

I guess it's easier to call someone a hack than to address the conclusions of both organizations in contrast to your invasion jonez.

 

[DeadCanDance]

What you mean is, you trust the IAEA over the NIA reports unless the NIA reports agree with what IAEA claims....then you use the NIA as validation....
In other words...you're a hack...

You see....the NIA reports don't come from Bush....
-------------------------
Why the 2005 NIA report was wrong...
http://tinyurl.com/2bcwee

Now run away from this thread as you do on most others when asked valid questions....

Alpha, I understand your in a rage that your not going to get your splendid little war that you wanted. But, instead of following me around the board in a huff to call me a hack, I suggest you write your own thread.

A thread where you admit to, and apologize for spending the last three years claiming iran was working on a nuclear bomb, claiming that iran was some sort of grave and immediate threat, claiming that they were close to having a nuclear bomb, and belittling those who (corrrectly it turns out) urged caution and asked you for evidence of an active iranian nuclear weapons program.

Its Iraq all over again dude. You were wrong.....Again.

 

[Gunny]

It's gotta be almost like heartburnof the keyboard for the warmonging hawks having to swallow this FACT despite the last year of internet messageboard posting.

What "fact"? I see a discombobulated international agency slapping on the back an agency that agrees with it, and as I pointed out in the other thread of the same topic that I guess there are going to be a hundred of ...

How come it is US intelligence could be so wrong about Iraq, but suddenly where Iran is concerned it's gospel? It's a blatantly obvious double-standard based on nothing but partisan politics.

Kind of like some on the left labelling anyone who questions what Iran is doing is labelled a "warmonger."

Being concerned with an Islamic fundamentalist regime's dabbling in nuclear energy is quite logical, given that nation's anti-western, anti-israel rhetoric, and myriad calls for the annihilation of the latter -- a sovereign nation.

That concern is a FAR CRY from "warmongering."

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If you're referring to Ahmadinejad's quote about wiping Israel off the map, that was a mistranslation. What he actually said was, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." He gave three examples of regimes that had vanished--the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam. He's not talking about nuking Israel.

source

 

[DeadCanDance]

If you're referring to Ahmadinejad's quote about wiping Israel off the map, that was a mistranslation. What he actually said was, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." He gave three examples of regimes that had vanished--the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam. He's not talking about nuking Israel.

source

Not only that but Ahmadinejad CAN'T nuke israel.

The rightwing media never saw fit to inform NeoCons that Ahmadinejad doesn't command the Iranian military. He has no power to issue any commands or orders. He's a figurehead, with virtually no constitutional power. A nuclear strike on Israel would have to be ordered by the Supreme Islamic Council and the military leaders. Which is highly unlikely to happen, unless they enjoy suicide and the complete annihilation of the Iranian state.

 

[Gunny]

If you're referring to Ahmadinejad's quote about wiping Israel off the map, that was a mistranslation. What he actually said was, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." He gave three examples of regimes that had vanished--the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam. He's not talking about nuking Israel.

source

Annihilation -- vanishing from the page of time -- same end result. I did not state that Iran stated it specifically intended to nuke anyone.

The Iranian regime is comprised of religious fanatics who believe people of another religion should be wiped out. Not exactly the kind of mind that should have the power to destroy millions at the touch of a button.

 

[Gunny]

Not only that but Ahmadinejad CAN'T nuke israel.

The rightwing media never saw fit to inform NeoCons that Ahmadinejad doesn't command the Iranian military. He has no power to issue any commands or orders. He's a figurehead, with virtually no constitutional power. A nuclear strike on Israel would have to be ordered by the Supreme Islamic Council and the military leaders. Which is highly unlikely to happen, unless they enjoy suicide and the complete annihilation of the Iranian state.

How far are you going to run with a statement that wasn't made, "Wrongway?"

As I have already pointed out, the Islamic regime in Iran funds, equips and mans two, suicidal terrorist organizations --Hamas and Hezbollah. It isn't so far-fetched at all to believe them suicidal.

One of these days some of you ostriches are going to pull your heads out the sand of your Western thinking and realize Arabs and Persians don't think the same as we do. YOU value your own life WAY more than they value theirs.

 

[Annie]

How far are you going to run with a statement that wasn't made, "Wrongway?"

As I have already pointed out, the Islamic regime in Iran funds, equips and mans two, suicidal terrorist organizations --Hamas and Hezbollah. It isn't so far-fetched at all to believe them suicidal.

One of these days some of you ostriches are going to pull your heads out the sand of your Western thinking and realize Arabs and Persians don't think the same as we do. YOU value your own life WAY more than they value theirs.

Gunny, it's almost like you are implying that Islamic regimes don't follow rules. C'mon, we know they are the most likely. Concern yourself with those that are out to harm the 'world.' You know, US, Israel, England, *sigh* France, Germany, etc.

 

[Alpha1]

Alpha, I understand your in a rage that your not going to get your splendid little war that you wanted. But, instead of following me around the board in a huff to call me a hack, I suggest you write your own thread.

A thread where you admit to, and apologize for spending the last three years claiming iran was working on a nuclear bomb, claiming that iran was some sort of grave and immediate threat, claiming that they were close to having a nuclear bomb, and belittling those who (corrrectly it turns out) urged caution and asked you for evidence of an active iranian nuclear weapons program.


I claimed nothing about Iran one way or the other....the NIE report of 2005 made the claims that you attribute to Bush and Conservatives in general...
Its only your narrow little brain that won't allow you to grasp those facts....and admit that Bush don't make NIE reports....16 intell agencys make the reports....
Buts thats the way it is with hacks....they never allow facts to cloud their fantasy world of cute and clever word games to muddle the truth

Its Iraq all over again dude. You were wrong.....Again.

The NIE reports might have been wrong in 2002 and 2005...I'm never wrong....

 

[Shogun]

What "fact"? I see a discombobulated international agency slapping on the back an agency that agrees with it, and as I pointed out in the other thread of the same topic that I guess there are going to be a hundred of ...

How come it is US intelligence could be so wrong about Iraq, but suddenly where Iran is concerned it's gospel? It's a blatantly obvious double-standard based on nothing but partisan politics.

Kind of like some on the left labelling anyone who questions what Iran is doing is labelled a "warmonger."

Being concerned with an Islamic fundamentalist regime's dabbling in nuclear energy is quite logical, given that nation's anti-western, anti-israel rhetoric, and myriad calls for the annihilation of the latter -- a sovereign nation.

That concern is a FAR CRY from "warmongering."

and yet being aggressive about an encroaching west and it's blankcheck support for israel is "terrorism". Don't be afraid of the nomenclature if it accuratly describes motivation and intent, dude. It's rediculous that your side thinks it should be allowed another go around in military aggression based on a total lack of evidence on your part beyond rhetorical huffing and puffing about not being able to throw our military balls at IRAQ v2.0. It's pretty clear that were the message different your side would be screaming to high heaven about what it PROVES rather than looking for some "discombobulated" excuse to ignore the evidence while it doesn't support the war drum.


sucking zionist dick is not the reason our nation is here. PUTTING OUR TROOPS IN DANGER FOR THE SAKE OF ISRAEL'S BODYGUARD PROTECTION IS NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.



and, dude... the whole "islamic regime" schtick is getting old. The US is not Sheriff Earp on this planet. Your opinion about their ISLAMIC nation means tow things. I'm sure you can figure out what they are. I'd be pretty fucking ANTIWESTERN too given the prevelance of people like your side looking for any damn inch to push military aggression through. If it's not 9/11 it's "dangerous impending nukes". If it's not "dangerous impending nukes" it's something else. Don't blame me if your chicken little sky is falling MOBILE CHEM LABS that was pointed at the last time this same arguement was made has since kicked shit on your talking points. Hindsight doesn't validate your "we must remove the islamic REGIME" hardon.

 

[Shogun]

If you're referring to Ahmadinejad's quote about wiping Israel off the map, that was a mistranslation. What he actually said was, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." He gave three examples of regimes that had vanished--the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam. He's not talking about nuking Israel.

source

thank you. THANK YOU, Baron Vonbigmeat for bringing this to the table. If it were a lefty the same ole team sport right side of the field would insist that such is just another lefty myth.

THANKYOU.


I present to you the Office Space Great Post award.

 

[Shogun]

Annihilation -- vanishing from the page of time -- same end result. I did not state that Iran stated it specifically intended to nuke anyone.

The Iranian regime is comprised of religious fanatics who believe people of another religion should be wiped out. Not exactly the kind of mind that should have the power to destroy millions at the touch of a button.

Funny, I can say the same thing about a "christian" west who actually HAS a record of using nukes... Again, if I were Iran facing the US who constantly and eternally schlobs the zionist knob ID WANT THE NUKES TOO.

But, this isn't tombstone and we re not the Earp clan. Let's not "mobile chem lab" ourselves another round of hindsight laughing stock jokes by trying to stretch our hatred of muslim nations around bullshit accusations, yes?

 

[Shogun]

How far are you going to run with a statement that wasn't made, "Wrongway?"

As I have already pointed out, the Islamic regime in Iran funds, equips and mans two, suicidal terrorist organizations --Hamas and Hezbollah. It isn't so far-fetched at all to believe them suicidal.

One of these days some of you ostriches are going to pull your heads out the sand of your Western thinking and realize Arabs and Persians don't think the same as we do. YOU value your own life WAY more than they value theirs.

yea, hey.. if there are any WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION down in the ostrich hole we'll let you know.. Certainly, in leu of any evidence to support your last claim for aggression we might as well look there too!