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

[M14 Shooter]

That is speculative cost.

Which must necessarily be part of the equation.
Dont you suppose the question of "what will GWB do with all those troops and aircraft at our dorrstep if we continue with this?" was asked, and then answered, with the answer factoring into the 'costs' of continuing?

I did not bash that possibility.

No, you refused to even consider it, at least up to the point where you were pressed.

I acknowledge that Iran might have thought that the US and its allies might use force, and that such a thought might have influenced Iran to do what it did

Thank you.

Now, if only certain others here had the intellectual honesty to make such an admission.

 

[maineman]

Which must necessarily be part of the equation.
Dont you suppose the question of "what will GWB do with all those troops and aircraft at our dorrstep if we continue with this?" was asked, and then answered, with the answer factoring into the 'costs' of continuing?


No, you refused to even consider it, at least up to the point where you were pressed.


Thank you.

Now, if only certain others here had the intellectual honesty to make such an admission.

I will admit that any number of things might have influenced Iran's decision. The NIE, however, suggests that diplomatic efforts and cost-benefit analysis were the noteworthy factors.

Your speculation that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a significant factor in the decision is unsupportable by the facts - which never seems to bother YOU all that much, although other people's speculations seem to drive you into a tizzy.

 

[Alpha1]

What does it matter? The NIE is not going to publish classified, behind the scenes diplomacy and contacts between Iran, Russia, UK, France, and others.

Why do you care? Are you trying to divert from the fact that Bush lovers have been wrong....AGAIN...with respect to anothter supposed imminent threat to us?

Bush lovers Bush lovers Bush lovers, You're like a freekin' broken record....

"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb."

So ...were the NIE conclusions reported 2 years ago written by a bunch of "Bush lovers".?

"Bush lovers" weren't wrong...the NIE report in 2005 was wrong....and now the intell has been re-assessed and different conclusions have been arrived at....are you that narrow-minded that you cannot put facts into the time frame in which they happened....

It took 4 years for the NIE's conclusions to change.
And 4 years from now, their conclusions may change again, maybe 180* different....

Will you be so quick to rant, "Oh, us Bush haters were so wrong in 2007. The new NIE report says that Iraq will test an atomic bomb tomorrow"....

You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....

 

[maineman]

Bush lovers Bush lovers Bush lovers, You're like a freekin' broken record....

"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb."

So ...were the NIE conclusions reported 2 years ago written by a bunch of "Bush lovers".?

"Bush lovers" weren't wrong...the NIE report in 2005 was wrong....and now the intell has been re-assessed and different conclusions have been arrived at....are you that narrow-minded that you cannot put facts into the time frame in which they happened....

It took 4 years for the NIE's conclusions to change.
And 4 years from now, their conclusions may change again, maybe 180* different....

Will you be so quick to rant, "Oh, us Bush haters were so wrong in 2007. The new NIE report says that Iraq will test an atomic bomb tomorrow"....

You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....

do you think that the ink is just now drying on this NIE? Don't you suspect that the president got an advanced briefing on it? back when he was talking about WWIII?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're such a hack, its unbelievable...even desh can be reasonable at times....you? It seems never....

That someone wont even consider the possibility that our action against Iraq had -something- to do with Iran giving up its nuke program is pure partisan bigotry.

Diplomatic efforts?
Labelling Iran as part of the axis of evil, then going after another member of that axis because of its concealed WMD programs, thereby establishing military actions as a credible threat?
Yes, that's diplomacy

Pressure?
Having all those troops next door, commanded by someone with the obvious will to use them?
Yes, that's pressure.

Cost/benefit?
The cost of having those troops used against you to take out all that investment in a nuclear weapons program?
Yes, that cost would be very high, and there would be no benefit.

This is what you get when you start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.

 

[mattskramer]

That someone wont even consider the possibility that our action against Iraq had -something- to do with Iran giving up its nuke program is pure partisan bigotry.

Diplomatic efforts?
Labelling Iran as part of the axis of evil, then going after another member of that axis because of its concealed WMD programs, thereby establishing military actions as a credible threat?
Yes, that's diplomacy

Pressure?
Having all those troops next door, commanded by someone with the obvious will to use them?
Yes, that's pressure.

Cost/benefit?
The cost of having those troops used against you to take out all that investment in a nuclear weapons program?
Yes, that cost would be very high.

This is what you get when you start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.

I think that there are many possibilities including combinations of possibilities in varying degrees. Maybe Iran felt threatened. Maybe there is an underground trade deal going on (bribing or threatening Iran to change (recall the oil for food fiasco in Iraq)). Maybe the US is trading secretly with Iran (recall the Iran / Contra controversy). Maybe Iran decided that the making of nukes was more costly than first anticipated (irrespective of any imagined military interfention or reprisal). Maybe other nations are were quietly telling Iran to back off (Didn’t China get annoyed by the saber-rattling of North Korea?) Maybe the most recent reports, or previous reports, have errors (Wasn’t Bush given inaccurate information about Iraq before we invaded it?). Maybe the citizens of Iran wanted change (Perhaps the money of Iran needed to be better redistributed to immediate domestic issues like health and welfare.). Yes, maybe Bush spooked Iran. I mean, come on. There are all sorts of possibilities if you open your mind to them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, maybe Bush spooked Iran. I mean, come on. There are all sorts of possibilities if you open your mind to them.

Ah... the absence of an open mind.
That explains everything.

 

[Alpha1]

do you think that the ink is just now drying on this NIE? Don't you suspect that the president got an advanced briefing on it? back when he was talking about WWIII?

I really can't answer that question, MM....
I believe that it usually takes about 4 to 6 months for all the different agency's involved to meet and hash out what they have found out and how valid their different assessments are before they arrived on a conclusion they all can agree to....
but I would hope that any President would be briefed in a timely manner on what the likely final NIE conclusions might be after everyones input is considered.....

IMO...
In light of what the NIE's conclusions were in 2002, (pre-war) and 2005, I would suspect that all involved, the intell. agencys and the Admin. would not be too quick to take any serious action on these assessments alone....they have been known to be seriously flawed in the past....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program. Nor does the NIE say that.

the only ones I see speculating that are that bush voters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I really can't answer that question, MM....

And you dont have to.
See, GWBs warning that a nuclear-capable Iran will bring about WW3 is sound, period. The fact that they might not have nukes for several more years only puts WW3 farther out than originally thought.

But, here's a guarantee:
When Iran DOES get a nuke, the liberals will blame Bush for not doing something about it when he had the chance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program. Nor does the NIE say that.
the only ones I see speculating that are that bush voters.

Ah... the absence of an open mind.
That explains everything.

 

[mattskramer]

Ah... the absence of an open mind.
That explains everything.

Yep. It is easy, and sometimes dangerous (particularly in the area of personal relationships), to rush to judgment without taking the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep. It is easy, and sometimes dangerous (particularly in the area of personal relationships), to rush to judgment without taking the time to communicate, brainstorm, and think about as many possibilities as practically possible.

Question to DeadCanDance:

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?

 

[Alpha1]

Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program. Nor does the NIE say that.

the only ones I see speculating that are that bush voters.

(don't miss post 123)

mattskramer at least shows he can consider events with an open mind...

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....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because WE DON'T KNOW to what degree anyone had on influencing Irans change of heart, all we can do is speculate....

Two things regarding the Iranian's halting of their nuke program:
-The majority of the external factors are attributable to the US;
-All of the actions by the US are because of GWB.

Given those, its impossible for an intellectually honest person to NOT give a large degree of credit for the Iranians shutting down their nuke efforts to GWB.

 

[mattskramer]

(don't miss post 123)

mattskramer at least shows he can consider events with an open mind...

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....

Okay. Okay. As if I don’t have enough of a swelled ego.

 

[Alpha1]

Even Bush HIMSELF didn't try to claim in his press conference that his war helped make iran halt their nuclear weapons program. Nor does the NIE say that.

the only ones I see speculating that are that bush voters.

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

 

[maineman]

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

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

 

[eots]

ya but we need to understand that IF they did have a bomb they would be dangerous and just because they don't have one and are not making one now does not mean that one day they MIGHT maybe have one so nothing has really changed and if we preemptively bomb them back into the stone age it would be a less dangerous world in the future

 

[Larkinn]

You're fishing. "Warmongering" has a specific definition. The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition. I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.

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.