Jump to content

NYT: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work


tinblimp

Recommended Posts

Why not - after all that strategy did a lot of good in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Alternatively we could just ask them to accept a powerless pro-Western puppet government and otherwise carry on as usual. :)

Or we could wait for them to get nukes and in the words of their President, "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

Good thinkin :yay:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we could wait for them to get nukes and in the words of their President, "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

Good thinkin :yay:

As much as a nutcase he is, I extremely doubt he's dumb enough to drop nukes in his own backyard that will undoubtly destroy what little eco-system they have in the desert. Then again, lwe can always hope he has laryngitis when he does so we don't hear all that ridiculous "yalalalalalalalalaing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as a nutcase he is, I extremely doubt he's dumb enough to drop nukes in his own backyard that will undoubtly destroy what little eco-system they have in the desert. Then again, lwe can always hope he has laryngitis when he does so we don't hear all that ridiculous "yalalalalalalalalaing"
I'm not seriously advocating that we invade Iran by any means. I simply don't think we can ignore them and pretend nothing is wrong with that country.

And in all honesty, I personally think he'd try to nuke Israel. Didn't he say he wants a nuclear apocalypse to happen because Mohammed's supposed heir (or whatever you want to call him) will come out of the well? He may not personally believe it, but I'm sure the Ayatollah does and I'm sure the Fundo's in that country would be more than willing to get bombed to shit by the West if they could take 10,000,000 infidels with them.

But thats just my crystal ball talking, I don't honestly know of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Fundo's in that country would be more than willing to get bombed to shit by the West if they could take 10,000,000 infidels with them.

Believe me, hard-nosed evangelics aren't too opposed to this either. They see this as the war of wars too and willingly admit if it goes down, atleast they'll go up.....in smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we could wait for them to get nukes and in the words of their President, "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

Good thinkin :yay:

Maybe we could ask our intelligence services to monitor their efforts at getting nukes? Would that be an idea?

Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could ask our intelligence services to monitor their efforts at getting nukes? Would that be an idea?

Oh, wait...

Lets go back in time shall we? Sadaam is still in power. This is before the war.

How many fucking countries thought he had nukes or some kind of WMD? I'd say around 90% were right there with us.

The difference with iran is, they have the brains to get them. They're a hell of a lot smarter than Sadaam was.

And by the by, if they do get nukes and we did nothing to stop them, it'd be just as bad as if we launched them ourselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets go back in time shall we? Sadaam is still in power. This is before the war.

How many fucking countries thought he had nukes or some kind of WMD? I'd say around 90% were right there with us.

The difference with iran is, they have the brains to get them. They're a hell of a lot smarter than Sadaam was.

And by the by, if they do get nukes and we did nothing to stop them, it'd be just as bad as if we launched them ourselves...

Let's go back in time, shall we? Remember how you claimed that debating on message boards helps people to practice their debating skills? I think you're the living proof that this doesn't work for everybody.

Here's a couple of things you might try: Stick to the topic at hand (and that's not Saddam or WMDs in Iraq or your ideas about how clever or dumb Saddam was). If you want to introduce a new topic, do it in a way that makes sense and shows how it is related to the topic under discussion - at least come up with a conclusion that sheds some light on what you're on about. What's more, don't make claims you can't prove - don't cite numbers you can't support with quotes ("I'd say around 90 %") and don't make personal assessments that are only based on your own ideas ("they are cleverer than Saddam"). If you use personal pronouns, make sure to be clear about who it is you are referring to (who are "they"? Ahmadinejad?). Above all: Try to get to the point. It's completely unclear what your first three paragraphs are supposed to be about. Do you think the invasion of Iraq stopped Saddam from nuking the US? With the nukes he was too dumb to get? Do you think because the invasion of Iraq was based on false information the same should be done in Iran? What are you on about?

As for your last paragraph: "IF they do get nukes"... - wouldn't it be great if we found out about it if they did? Like - our intelligence servies? Wouldn't that be the basis for doing something about it? In other words:

Maybe we could ask our intelligence services to monitor their efforts at getting nukes? Would that be an idea?

Yep, that's the very post you "addressed" - only you din't address it in any way, did you? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go back in time, shall we? Remember how you claimed that debating on message boards helps people to practice their debating skills? I think you're the living proof that this doesn't work for everybody.

Here's a couple of things you might try: Stick to the topic at hand (and that's not Saddam or WMDs in Iraq or your ideas about how clever or dumb Saddam was). If you want to introduce a new topic, do it in a way that makes sense and shows how it is related to the topic under discussion - at least come up with a conclusion that sheds some light on what you're on about. What's more, don't make claims you can't prove - don't cite numbers you can't support with quotes ("I'd say around 90 %") and don't make personal assessments that are only based on your own ideas ("they are cleverer than Saddam"). If you use personal pronouns, make sure to be clear about who it is you are referring to (who are "they"? Ahmadinejad?). Above all: Try to get to the point. It's completely unclear what your first three paragraphs are supposed to be about. Do you think the invasion of Iraq stopped Saddam from nuking the US? With the nukes he was too dumb to get? Do you think because the invasion of Iraq was based on false information the same should be done in Iran? What are you on about?

I apologize that I confused you, but I had less than 5 minutes to type that (just got home from school, needed to go to work). Allow me to clarify myself.

I thought that you were pointing out that we should monitor them to see if they were getting nuclear weapons or not and then pointing out how stupid we were for having wrong information. And yes, I used a personal thought (90%) that countries thought he had WMDs. Sure, it may not be extremely accurate. But then again, that isn't really something that can be proven factually, unless countries start releasing their official beliefs on subjects such as this. But from what I've read and the quotes I've read about and from other sources, thats my guestimate. Feel free to throw that out as useless info. if you want, I wouldn't blame you, but how should I really go about proving the real percentage?

Number two, I try not to refer to Ahmadinejad, not because I hate typing out that long-ass name, but because he's not really the man in power. The mullahs and the Ayatollah are the real masterminds behind that country. Ahmadinejad is there to look good for the press and take the blunt of the attacks, a useful tactic no doubt.

Number three, I wasn't trying to change the subject by any means. I'm simply pointing out how stupid it is to try and blame our intelligence alone for the mistake of thinking Iraq had WMDs. Granted, our government did fuck up, but at the same time, show me someone who didn't believe Sadaam, with all his bragging and whatnot, had WMDs.

Yep, that's the very post you "addressed" - only you din't address it in any way, did you? :wacko:
Again, I apologize for hurrying my post, and confusing you and whatnot. I hate going seeing an argument directed to me and not being able to react to it. I'd rather sit down, type my thoughts as fast as possible, and get going. Obviously thats stupid, but what can I say, I'm not very patient
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody that thinks Iran should have nukes, or that it's not worth it for the world to stop them from having nukes, is a complete sheltered moron who deserves whatever they get.

Iran having nukes? That's insane.

And it's clear they want nukes. This isn't about electricity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody that thinks Iran should have nukes, or that it's not worth it for the world to stop them from having nukes, is a complete sheltered moron who deserves whatever they get.

No, they should not have nukes. And neither should anybody claim that they are trying to get nukes when they are not.

And it's clear they want nukes.

Obviously this isn' clear to the CIA. :rolleyes:

The real questions are:

Why did it take the CIA four years to find out that Iran had stopped their nukes program? Are they simply incompetent or was the information held back - because Bush needed an excuse for attacking/invading Iran? Are they coming forth with this information now because it's become clear that the US doesn't have the necessary manpower and financial means left to invade Iran and because support of war efforts in the middle east is dwindling both in the US and in the rest of the world?

How much credibility do the CIA and Bush have left after Bush cried wolf over Iraq, invaded the country because of those ominous WMDs and failed to come up with any evidence of WMDs, then proceeded to cry wolf over Iran, claimed that Iran should be attacked because of their nukes program - and now has to concede that such a program hasn't existed for four years? Was he just misinformed or did he lie? Is there a pattern? What willl happen the next time a president of the US tries to get international support for attacking a country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize that I confused you, but I had less than 5 minutes to type that (just got home from school, needed to go to work). Allow me to clarify myself.

I thought that you were pointing out that we should monitor them to see if they were getting nuclear weapons or not and then pointing out how stupid we were for having wrong information. And yes, I used a personal thought (90%) that countries thought he had WMDs. Sure, it may not be extremely accurate. But then again, that isn't really something that can be proven factually, unless countries start releasing their official beliefs on subjects such as this. But from what I've read and the quotes I've read about and from other sources, thats my guestimate. Feel free to throw that out as useless info. if you want, I wouldn't blame you, but how should I really go about proving the real percentage?

Number two, I try not to refer to Ahmadinejad, not because I hate typing out that long-ass name, but because he's not really the man in power. The mullahs and the Ayatollah are the real masterminds behind that country. Ahmadinejad is there to look good for the press and take the blunt of the attacks, a useful tactic no doubt.

Number three, I wasn't trying to change the subject by any means. I'm simply pointing out how stupid it is to try and blame our intelligence alone for the mistake of thinking Iraq had WMDs. Granted, our government did fuck up, but at the same time, show me someone who didn't believe Sadaam, with all his bragging and whatnot, had WMDs.

Again, I apologize for hurrying my post, and confusing you and whatnot. I hate going seeing an argument directed to me and not being able to react to it. I'd rather sit down, type my thoughts as fast as possible, and get going. Obviously thats stupid, but what can I say, I'm not very patient

Nice reply - I appreciate that. :)

The point is: If the CIA got it wrong both in Iraq and Iran - in situations where the lives of thousands if not millions of people were at stake - what are they good for? Nobody says that it's an easy job, but if they come up with information that's most likely used for starting a war - shouldn't they be 100 % sure of what they're saying? And why didn't they admit at an earlier stage that Iran had stopped their nukes program in 2003? Why watch Bush claim again and again that Iran was developing nukes?

As for your "90 %": The world doesn't just exist of a handful of western nations, and even among Western nations, France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq. Out of those countries who supported the US and Great Britain, many did so because they hoped for personal gain or felt obliged to support the US after 9/11 - and not because they were convinced of the "evidence" put forward. High-ranking members of the CIA claimed that the "evidence" referred to by Bush was NOT AT ALL reflecting the evidence they had gathered. The UN weapon's inspectors stated that Iraq didn't have WMDs. No way did "90 %" of all nations believe that Iraq had WMDs....it's even dubitable whether Bush and Blair believed it.

If you look at my reply to DRUNK, you'll get a better idea what I think of the entire situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody that thinks Iran should have nukes, or that it's not worth it for the world to stop them from having nukes, is a complete sheltered moron who deserves whatever they get.

Iran having nukes? That's insane.

And it's clear they want nukes. This isn't about electricity.

Who do you hear saying "I think Iran should have nukes", DRUNK? :rolleyes:

The question is.. would you.. as GWB and the rest of the neocon nutjob cabal would.. preemptively attack Iran to prevent them from "gaining the knowledge" to build nukes?

Is that your vision of America..

..a nation that goes to war to prevent other nations from having "knowledge"?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who do you hear saying "I think Iran should have nukes", DRUNK? :rolleyes:

The question is.. would you.. as GWB and the rest of the neocon nutjob cabal would.. preemptively attack Iran to prevent them from "gaining the knowledge" to build nukes?

Is that your vision of America..

..a nation that goes to war to prevent other nations from having "knowledge"?

:rolleyes:

Well, if you look at Iran's insane behaviour, preemptively attacking Iran might be the world's only choice.

What else can we do? They are given the world the middle finger. They don't want to listen to anybody. There will be no deal good enough for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at Iran's insane behaviour, preemptively attacking Iran might be the world's only choice.

What else can we do? They are given the world the middle finger. They don't want to listen to anybody. There will be no deal good enough for them.

:rolleyes:

What has Iran done.. actually done.. that is more insane than what George Bush has done?

By your logic other nations would be justified in preemptively attacking America.. you know.. claiming "Well, if you look at Bush's insane behaviour, preemptively attacking America might be the world's only choice. What else can we do? They are giving the world the middle finger. They don't want to listen to anybody. There will be no deal good enough for them."

:whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

What has Iran done.. actually done.. that is more insane than what George Bush has done?

By your logic other nations would be justified in preemptively attacking America.. you know.. claiming "Well, if you look at Bush's insane behaviour, preemptively attacking America might be the world's only choice. What else can we do? They are giving the world the middle finger. They don't want to listen to anybody. There will be no deal good enough for them."

:whistling:

Ok. Well I guess you live with the fact that you feel other countries are justified in attacking your own country. I bet you won't feel like that when shit hits the fan.

No one is justified in attacking the US.

Iran's own parliament was screaming, on the parliament floor, "death to America!!!!!". So, a country's elected officials, who some might assume would the best and brightest of the country, is screaming shit like that in the moderan world? Insanity. Or when the leader of your country denies the Holocaust existed, and wishes to wipe a country off the map (Israel). Or when Iran is helping arm and train people that are killing us soldiers.

Iran is a ticking time bomb. And if it's not dealt with, we are going to be dealing with some serious issues.

I don't think you respect their religious fanaticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a great and faithful servant of the prophet Ms Lake of the Shadows.

Not even close, Del.

Well, if you look at Iran's insane behaviour, preemptively attacking Iran might be the world's only choice.

What else can we do? They are given the world the middle finger. They don't want to listen to anybody. There will be no deal good enough for them.

That sounds kinda like Dubya and Co. in late 2002/early 2003. <_<

-----

No, I don't support the notion of Iran having nukes. I don't think it is a "good idea".

However, in many ways I think Iran is, and was, a bigger threat than Iraq ever thought of being. The 'bright bulbs' wanted to go into Iran and 'impose democracy,' by force if necessary. They just thought we oughta do Iraq first. Those bright lights are finally/still showing that they've actually been dim bulbs, and we have quite possibly made the world a much more dangerous place than it was 10 years ago.

Somewhere in that NIE thingamy was the opinion/statement/something that Iran stopped its nuke efforts due to the sanctions against it. Great. That's what sanctions are for. Yet Dubya made it sound like we need to up the ante because Iran did what we wanted it to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds kinda like Dubya and Co. in late 2002/early 2003. <_<

-----

No, I don't support the notion of Iran having nukes. I don't think it is a "good idea".

However, in many ways I think Iran is, and was, a bigger threat than Iraq ever thought of being. The 'bright bulbs' wanted to go into Iran and 'impose democracy,' by force if necessary. They just thought we oughta do Iraq first. Those bright lights are finally/still showing that they've actually been dim bulbs, and we have quite possibly made the world a much more dangerous place than it was 10 years ago.

Somewhere in that NIE thingamy was the opinion/statement/something that Iran stopped its nuke efforts due to the sanctions against it. Great. That's what sanctions are for. Yet Dubya made it sound like we need to up the ante because Iran did what we wanted it to do.

You're exactly right, except for the last paragraph.

Sanctions won't work against Iran because Iran is one of the world's biggest oil suppliers. Hell, we even get a lot of our oil from Iran.

Iran just stopped the program, if they infact did, because they didn't want a war. Which was smart.

So if they stopped because they wanted to avoid war, then doesn't threats of war or war itself as a solution make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's let the UN handle this. The US needs to discontinue it's role as the "World Police".

The UN is incompetent. Not to mention corrupt. The UN isn't going to do anything without heavy US involvement.

We have to be world police because their are threats directed at us around the world. We are trying to cover our asses, and it's the smart thing to do considering we have a lot of enemies.

Do you like your quality of life? When China becomes the biggest superpower, with Russia, and some of these middle eastern countries as allies, America is going to be suffering. You can kiss your quality of life good bye. The good times, believe it or not, are here now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right, except for the last paragraph.

Sanctions won't work against Iran because Iran is one of the world's biggest oil suppliers. Hell, we even get a lot of our oil from Iran.

So, sanctions won't work because we don't want to have to deal with the inconvenience they could cause us? That isn't a case of they don't work against Iran, that's a case of they also work against us as well. Oops.

Iran just stopped the program, if they infact did, because they didn't want a war. Which was smart.

So if they stopped because they wanted to avoid war, then doesn't threats of war or war itself as a solution make sense?

:blink::wtf:

Somebody does what we want because they want to avoid a war... therefore, we should go to war against them? No, that doesn't make sense. That sounds like a good 'reason' for them to go ahead with nuke plans despite sanctions or whatever.

No, that doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that we should lay down, just that we should become a cooperative member of the World Community instead of acting alone as the "Sheriff Of The World". Big difference. Never said that we shouldn't be involved in the UN.

Many countries hate us because we can't keep our hands (arms) to ourselves. I would like to see the quality of life for ALL Americans be better. If we spent those same billions on domestic projects instead of protecting the Bush/Cheney oil field interests abroad, we might see some nice improvements here at home!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, sanctions won't work because we don't want to have to deal with the inconvenience they could cause us? That isn't a case of they don't work against Iran, that's a case of they also work against us as well. Oops.

Somebody does what we want because they want to avoid a war... therefore, we should go to war against them? No, that doesn't make sense. That sounds like a good 'reason' for them to go ahead with nuke plans despite sanctions or whatever.

No, that doesn't make sense. That makes it sound like them going ahead with whatever is more sensible.

Sanctions don't work, yet we've had sanctions against Iran, and will continue to have sanctions against Iran, whether it is risky for us or not. We are trying sanctions, despite the risk or possible inconvenience to us. We have not avoided sanctions because of this risk.

Strict logic cannot be used when thinking about Iran or any Muslim country. These are not logical people. They did what we wanted to avoid war. Yes, that is correct. Now they feel that the US is too weak, and won't actually fight a war. So, they go ahead and make regular comments doubting America's war capabilities, and saying things like America will fall, and that if Iran is attacked, the consequences will be severe. Have you paid attention to the amount of insane bullshit coming from Iran?

Listen, if sanctions made them do what we want them to do, and they stick with it, then things are ok. But, if they continue to pressure us, and continue spit in our face, then that doesn't really show a stable country that has accepted what we want, and will abide by it. It shows a country that will bust our balls at every available opportunity. That's dangerous.

They are most likely moving forward with their nuke plans. Intelligence only goes so far. w ehave no idea what the fuck the Iranians are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that we should lay down, just that we should become a cooperative member of the World Community instead of acting alone as the "Sheriff Of The World". Big difference. Never said that we shouldn't be involved in the UN.

Many countries hate us because we can't keep our hands (arms) to ourselves. I would like to see the quality of life for ALL Americans be better. If we spent those same billions on domestic projects instead of protecting the Bush/Cheney oil field interests abroad, we might see some nice improvements here at home!

:D

Do you realize that the only thing that has made America the most prosperous and safe nation in the world is our military capability? The rest of the world is absolutely frightened by our war fighting capability. You can thank that and that alone for our position in the world.

The reason why we are recently seeing these other countries try to step up and oppose America is because we are fighting 2 wars which haven't been as successful as everyone thought they would be, and the enemy is trying to utilize the American public's frustrations and fears. They are playing psychological warfare.

China, Russia, Iran, Venezuala, and others have been opposing us more and more now that they think we are in a weak position. They are doubting are military capabilities, but more importantly, they are trying to use the anti American sentiment across the globe to strengthen their own agendas.

This is a competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...