Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says

[Ramo]

Yeah, so what? Just because I would use military force doesn't me I want to use that before anything else.

That's a pretty dumb straw man. It completely ignores the context of the US debate, which was that large numbers of people believed that we need to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear sites in the near future. See the point that is made in the polled that I quoted in the next post.

So again, there is no evidence beyond the juvinile fantacies in your own head that the admin WANTED to bomb Iran, only that they were WILLING to if need be.

If you completely ignore all the great reporting on the Iran politics inside of the Bush Admin, again notably Sy Hersh.

Junvenile? You're completely trying to rewrite history here. I look forward to the Daily Show/Colbert Report montage of the Admin selling the war. : b:

Interesting that those demanding military force be taken off the table completely did so in spite of and in total disregard of what the IAEA and previous NEIs

Because we are arguing, just like in the Iraq debate, invading Iran doesn't make since even if they were working on WMD's. It's just that the the lack of evidence for a nuclear program makes military strikes to stop WMD development a particularly dumb option.

And the IAEA has been saying to a great extent the substance of what this past NIE said.

BTW, it's notable, BTW, that Dems Pres candidates don't talk about taking the military option off the table. That simply isn't the context of the political debate for the past couple years, which is actually whether a strike in the near future is justified.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Ramo


That's a pretty dumb straw man. It completely ignores the context of the US debate, which was that large numbers of people believed that we need to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear sites in the near future. See the point that is made in the polled that I quoted in the next post.



If you completely ignore all the great reporting on the Iran politics inside of the Bush Admin, again notably Sy Hersh.


Because we are arguing, just like in the Iraq debate, invading Iran doesn't make since even if they were working on WMD's. It's just that the the lack of evidence for a nuclear program makes military strikes to stop WMD development a particularly dumb option.

And the IAEA has been saying to a great extent the substance of what this past NIE said.

BTW, it's notable, BTW, that Dems Pres candidates don't talk about taking the military option off the table. That simply isn't the context of the political debate for the past couple years, which is actually whether a strike in the near future is justified.

I usually try not to interrupt two other posters having an argument, but can I show you guys something real quick?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Here's a little taste:

CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team,...blah, blah, blah.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.,...blah, blah, blah.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will..,...blah, blah, blah.


Sorry for the interruption, please feel free to resume your argument.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
One could ask the same of Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors.

That one I kinda understand. He was trying to keep the illusion up for the benefit of Iran and to keep them in check.

[Patroklos]

That's a pretty dumb straw man. It completely ignores the context of the US debate, which was that large numbers of people believed that we need to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear sites in the near future.

The near future, in other words not right now, or in some other words after some other circumstances have been fleshed out. Like say, continued deception which it is now proven they were doing for the better part of a decade to include when the US started the tough rhetoric (good thing we figured that out eh, now we don't have to bomb them).

For your exercise in trying to prove the nonexistent bloodthirstiness of the right to work, you would have to take the poll now given what we know. That is assuming we are going to give this NIE credit, something the left failed to do with all the previous ones.

Because we are arguing, just like in the Iraq debate, invading Iran doesn't make since even if they were working on WMD's.

Back to your fantacies again eh? Please tell me who advocated invading Iran, ever?

In any case attacking Iran makes all kinds of sense given a multiple of circumstances coupled with achieving nuclear weapons (Iran has WMDs). None of those combinations have been reached as of yet for any party. If they had, since you thing the admin WANTS to attack Iraq (that is so ridiculous on the face of it Ramo I can't believe you persist in it) they would have already.

It's just that the the lack of evidence for a nuclear program makes military strikes to stop WMD development a particularly dumb option.

Exactly, which is why that option wasn't exercised. Given the 2005 NIE, however, it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion that it might be necessary in the future. Something we reminded Iran of.

And the IAEA has been saying to a great extent the substance of what this past NIE said.

We have been over this before. The IAEA says what they know about isn't threatening. What you and others so gleefully gloss over every time you reference them is the fact that they themselves say what they know about the Iranian program in its entirety isn't much. Which this NIE says as well in so many words.

BTW, it's notable, BTW, that Dems Pres candidates don't talk about taking the military option off the table. That simply isn't the context of the political debate for the past couple years, which is actually whether a strike in the near future is justified.

So?

[Ramo]

Please tell me who advocated invading Iran, ever?

Sorry, that was an unclear (I'm really tired of writing "an attack on suspected nuclear sites").

I repeat: my position is that an airstrike is really dumb policy even if they were working on WMD's (so the situation is very analagous to the run-up to the Iraq war). And the dearth of evidence of an operating weapons program makes it particularly dumb policy.

The near future, in other words not right now, or in some other words after some other circumstances have been fleshed out.

Nowhere the poll say "not right now." You're introducing caveats in the poll that clearly weren't there. It said an attack for a specific purpose (to stop Iran from getting WMD's). The Republican base heavily supported an attack on Iran. And there's a reason for that: cheerleading from the Admin and its allies.

If they had, since you thing the admin WANTS to attack Iraq (that is so ridiculous on the face of it Ramo I can't believe you persist in it) they would have already.

Iran, not Iraq.

They've tried to. They were held back by the military brass, and then Blair in two documented instances. And Congress has made a lot of noise about it. Once more, serious reporting on the politics of the Bush Admin's Iran policy by people such as Sy Hersh says that there are elements (i.e. Cheney) who have been pushing for an attack on Iran.

For your exercise in trying to prove the nonexistent bloodthirstiness of the right to work, you would have to take the poll now given what we know.

I'm talking about the Admin's motives, not the Republican base. The base was mislead by the Admin, which is my point.

That is assuming we are going to give this NIE credit, something the left failed to do with all the previous ones.

That's another dumb strawman that you can't possibly substantiate. Most people on the left accepted that Iran is probably working on nukes (including myself, though I had serious doubts); a pretty small minority doubted that consensus, and now they appear to be correct.

The IAEA says what they know about isn't threatening. What you and others so gleefully gloss over every time you reference them is the fact that they themselves say what they know about the Iranian program in its entirety isn't much.

This is a game of probabilities we're playing. Again, the evidence we've got points to a nuclear program primarily aimed at civilian uses for the past few years. The IAEA and NIE are saying the same thing here.

[Ramo]

So?

It spells out the context of the political debate. The mainstream Dem position is not to rule out the military option, one taken by all the Dem candidates (except Kucinich and Gravel). This is in contrast to the Bush position, which was advocating an attack on Iran ASAP.

[Ramo]

I usually try not to interrupt two other posters having an argument, but can I show you guys something real quick?

You realize that's completely irrelevant to absolutely everything I've written in this thread, right?

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Ramo
You realize that's completely irrelevant to absolutely everything I've written in this thread, right?

Not entirely. And besides it wasn't meant just for you but for the entire thread, even though your quote did provide a good opening for what I posted.

It shows that :

A - there is precident for the U.S. attacking another country; without invading; under the pretense of eliminating wmd's

B - that the intelligence community has been wrong before and misled a president into attacking another country with no physical proof of wmd's

C - that the NIE and the IAEA have been succesfully decieved before by a dictatorial madman of a similar mold of Ahmadinijhad

D - sometimes diplomacy doesn't work even if every country in the world and the U.N. are behind you

Also, that article I posted is eerily similar to the situation we have right now. You can practically transpose the names 'Bush for Clinton'; Iran for Iraq' and 'Ahmadinijhad for Saddam' without altering the implications at all. Well, except for the part about BC actually launching his attack whereas GWB is only threatening so far.

[Ramo]

I don't know what to say other than that's an extraordinarily pointless post. I'd just like to point out that Ahmedinejad, in absolutely no sense of the word, is a dictator. Maybe he dictates his meal plan or his letters, but not government policy.

[Berzerker]

Yes, it's interesting that they stopped the program as our tanks were rolling over Iraq. Could be a lesson in there somewhere.

And Libya became "friendlier" too

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know what to say other than that's an extraordinarily pointless post.

I must be missing where it's written that you are the final arbiter of what is and isn't worth a point.

Reign in your ego and go drink a beer or something.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says

What's that I smell? Oh yeah, it's the level smell of "I TOLD YOU SO!"

[Sirotnikov]

I wonder if you've even read the summary.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And Libya became "friendlier" too

Libya got their mind right after some well-placed rounds.
Hold on here. Let's think about this. Why storm the next Iraq? Pull a Libya. Seems to work much better.

[Arrian]

That means offering carrots while threatening the stick. That means talking to them, even if it's "backroom" stuff. It also, of course, risks a North Korea situation (new blackmail demands every few years).

-Arrian