• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

WW3....NOT!!!!!

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Deja`vu anyone????????





WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.


A file satellite image shows Iranian nuclear facilities.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

**********************************


I also ck'ed out the ' sainted' FOX news page...and ya know this story is just an itty bitty by-line!!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010

I'm sure that in 2010,.. every liberal alive will say Bush should have done something to avert the Iranians from acquiring enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb..... :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks lke DEJA VUE- all over again- and again- and again :roll:

GW has now pretty much lost all credibility- not only in the US, but with all the foreign countries that we might have called upon as an ally....Iran could start building all the bombs they want--and nobody's going to believe GW....

White House insiders are admitting that they were briefed on this report and the change of status it reflected clear back in August-- long before GW's World War 3 and Goebbels style war drum pounding speachs .... :shock: GW's answer "Report what report- DUH" :( :( :mad:

And old IdumaJug in Iran is laughing and saying "I told you so"- and building HIS credibility with the world ...
 

Steve

Well-known member
But the latest report says Iran,... could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.,..."We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009"

It suggests that a combination of "threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressure,... could persuade the Iranian leadership to continue its suspension of nuclear weapons research.

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."

He said technology being developed for Iran's civilian nuclear power program could be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, and that Iran is continuing to develop ballistic missiles.

I hate to rain on your parade but 2009 is only two years away...
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
White House insiders are admitting that they were briefed on this report and the change of status it reflected clear back in August-- long before GW's World War 3 and Goebbels style war drum pounding speachs .... Shocked GW's answer "Report what report-

"Hadley said the intelligence community came to the new conclusions on Tuesday, based on information gathered over the past few months, and President Bush was briefed about them on Wednesday".

if the "new conclusion" was on Tuesday..how were the insiders briefed in August?
 

Steve

Well-known member
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.


before you start high five'n yourselves you might want to read the report...

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/03/iran.nie.pdf

I am not sure why they released this report, but when playing poker, I wouldn't show my hand, nor indicate that I knew the meanest bastard at the tables hand.....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
2010? It is more serious than I thought. 2010 is so close, I thought it might be 10 years before they could have a bomb. We better start actively doing something if they could have a nuke in just 2 years.

We saw how doing nothing over an 8 year period with Clinton led to 911. We do not want to make that same mistake with Iran or whole cities and nations could be wiped out.

Seems more pressing than ever that we stay in Iraq now to keep a strategic placement to be able to pressure Iran not to develop nukes.

Kolan, thanks for bringing the urgency of the Iran matter to our attention!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
White House insiders are admitting that they were briefed on this report and the change of status it reflected clear back in August-- long before GW's World War 3 and Goebbels style war drum pounding speachs .... Shocked GW's answer "Report what report-

"Hadley said the intelligence community came to the new conclusions on Tuesday, based on information gathered over the past few months, and President Bush was briefed about them on Wednesday".

if the "new conclusion" was on Tuesday..how were the insiders briefed in August?

All the news sites are reporting that this info of the change of intelligence was relayed to the White House in August- and while the final report was just released the info has been in government intelligence hands....
Or isn't GW important enough to be included in the circle....

Either way its making him look like a lying incompetent fool...Even his buddy Bolton was on TV saying this is a huge guffaw-- and that if the intelligence head comes to the President in August and says he has new info- you'd think a sane, normal President would want to know about it....

A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy

By Peter Baker and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; Page A01

President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

Iran had been shaping up as perhaps the dominant foreign policy issue of Bush's remaining year in office and of the presidential campaign to succeed him. Now leaders at home and abroad will have to rethink what they thought they knew about Tehran's intentions and capabilities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120302210.html?hpid=topnews
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Looks lke DEJA VUE- all over again- and again- and again :roll:

GW has now pretty much lost all credibility- not only in the US, but with all the foreign countries that we might have called upon as an ally....Iran could start building all the bombs they want--and nobody's going to believe GW....

White House insiders are admitting that they were briefed on this report and the change of status it reflected clear back in August-- long before GW's World War 3 and Goebbels style war drum pounding speachs .... :shock: GW's answer "Report what report- DUH" :( :( :mad:

And old IdumaJug in Iran is laughing and saying "I told you so"- and building HIS credibility with the world ...

Did I miss something? Did Bush ever say Iran will have a bomb in 6 months? 2 years is a relative short period of time for politicians to get something done. That is where we got in trouble with Clinton, he did not go proactive against Al Qaeda when they first attacked us. He never viewed things as pressing, so it escalated to 911.

Say they could have a bomb in 2 years, do we wait 2 years to attack and maybe they have the bomb already? Or do we attack say 18 months before they get it, which would be in 6 months?

Do you wait to buy your hay at first snow? Or do you put it up months before snow could possibly fall?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

Problem is that they have not stopped enriching uranium. Even if they stopped or appear to have stopped development of a Nuclear weapon does not make them much less of a threat.

Once they have stock piled enough uranium it is a short step to making a bomb.

The fact that Iran has abundance of other natural resources for energy, they have made Genocide threats and they are currently enriching uranium makes them a grave and present threat.

Besides we have seen wrong Intel before maybe they are still working on weapons. But we know for sure they have made threats, and they claim themselves that they are going ahead with their Uranium enrichment. Those things have came from the horses mouth, no faulty Intel to cloud the issues.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Problem is that they have not stopped enriching uranium. Even if they stopped or appear to have stopped development of a Nuclear weapon does not make them much less of a threat.

Aplus, don't even waste your time with this argument. They don't need U235 or anything even close to make drity bombs. Dirty bombs will become a bigger fear once the public is educated.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
backhoeboogie said:
aplusmnt said:
Problem is that they have not stopped enriching uranium. Even if they stopped or appear to have stopped development of a Nuclear weapon does not make them much less of a threat.

Aplus, don't even waste your time with this argument. They don't need U235 or anything even close to make drity bombs. Dirty bombs will become a bigger fear once the public is educated.

Yep- but we're still doing nothing to secure our borders and keep illegal invaders from all over the world from freely entering- packing any terrorist material they want-- or staying in our country once here--no matter if they're from a Muslim country or a Latino country.... :roll: :( :( :mad:
Instead we've sent our Border Patrolman to Iraq to secure their borders- and jailed the ones that tried to apprehend multiple offense professional illegal invader drug smugglers :shock: :( :mad:

So much for GW's WW III speachifying and wardrum beating that hes acting in our security interests :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
backhoeboogie said:
aplusmnt said:
Problem is that they have not stopped enriching uranium. Even if they stopped or appear to have stopped development of a Nuclear weapon does not make them much less of a threat.

Aplus, don't even waste your time with this argument. They don't need U235 or anything even close to make drity bombs. Dirty bombs will become a bigger fear once the public is educated.

Yep- but we're still doing nothing to secure our borders and keep illegal invaders from all over the world from freely entering- packing any terrorist material they want-- or staying in our country once here--no matter if they're from a Muslim country or a Latino country.... :roll: :( :( :mad:
Instead we've sent our Border Patrolman to Iraq to secure their borders- and jailed the ones that tried to apprehend multiple offense professional illegal invader drug smugglers :shock: :( :mad:

So much for GW's WW III speachifying and wardrum beating that hes acting in our security interests :roll:

I need to add another word to the nickle jar, Borders. I am a very big supporter of secure borders and very against illegal immigration. But your constant blabbing of borders and GW gets old.

Sure secure borders are important, but Mexicans have been crossing the borders for a couple hundred years. Yes there is problems with this but radical Muslims hare a more pressing issue, they have been the cause of wars and thousands if not millions of deaths in world history.

Stopping Iran from getting nukes is way more pressing that stopping some Mexican from picking tomatoes.

You can be happy that Bush is trying to stop Iran from reaching a point that could kill millions of people while at the same time be unhappy with his efforts to secure the borders. It does not have to be all or nothing!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
backhoeboogie said:
Aplus, don't even waste your time with this argument. They don't need U235 or anything even close to make drity bombs. Dirty bombs will become a bigger fear once the public is educated.

Yep- but we're still doing nothing to secure our borders and keep illegal invaders from all over the world from freely entering- packing any terrorist material they want-- or staying in our country once here--no matter if they're from a Muslim country or a Latino country.... :roll: :( :( :mad:
Instead we've sent our Border Patrolman to Iraq to secure their borders- and jailed the ones that tried to apprehend multiple offense professional illegal invader drug smugglers :shock: :( :mad:

So much for GW's WW III speachifying and wardrum beating that hes acting in our security interests :roll:

I need to add another word to the nickle jar, Borders. I am a very big supporter of secure borders and very against illegal immigration. But your constant blabbing of borders and GW gets old.

Sure secure borders are important, but Mexicans have been crossing the borders for a couple hundred years. Yes there is problems with this but radical Muslims hare a more pressing issue, they have been the cause of wars and thousands if not millions of deaths in world history.

Stopping Iran from getting nukes is way more pressing that stopping some Mexican from picking tomatoes.

You can be happy that Bush is trying to stop Iran from reaching a point that could kill millions of people while at the same time be unhappy with his efforts to secure the borders. It does not have to be all or nothing!

Is it more important than having a pickup load of terrorists haul across a load of "suitcase" nukes- that could kill thousands- maybe millions in any of many US cities :???: .....If the border is porous enough that they can haul across tons of mary jane or coke- they can definitely get in the nukes...Nukes that may have been on the market since the break up of the former Soviet Union as many are unaccounted for .... And probably have the Mexican Army provide them the security to guarantee the crossing....

Makes all GW's other rantings about policing the world to protect the homefolk look pretty hypocritical....Dobbs is tearing him another rear end tonite over just this issue....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- but we're still doing nothing to secure our borders and keep illegal invaders from all over the world from freely entering- packing any terrorist material they want-- or staying in our country once here--no matter if they're from a Muslim country or a Latino country.... :roll: :( :( :mad:
Instead we've sent our Border Patrolman to Iraq to secure their borders- and jailed the ones that tried to apprehend multiple offense professional illegal invader drug smugglers :shock: :( :mad:

So much for GW's WW III speachifying and wardrum beating that hes acting in our security interests :roll:

I need to add another word to the nickle jar, Borders. I am a very big supporter of secure borders and very against illegal immigration. But your constant blabbing of borders and GW gets old.

Sure secure borders are important, but Mexicans have been crossing the borders for a couple hundred years. Yes there is problems with this but radical Muslims hare a more pressing issue, they have been the cause of wars and thousands if not millions of deaths in world history.

Stopping Iran from getting nukes is way more pressing that stopping some Mexican from picking tomatoes.

You can be happy that Bush is trying to stop Iran from reaching a point that could kill millions of people while at the same time be unhappy with his efforts to secure the borders. It does not have to be all or nothing!

Is it more important than having a pickup load of terrorists haul across a load of "suitcase" nukes- that could kill thousands- maybe millions in any of many US cities :???: .....If the border is porous enough that they can haul across tons of mary jane or coke- they can definitely get in the nukes...Nukes that may have been on the market since the break up of the former Soviet Union as many are unaccounted for .... And probably have the Mexican Army provide them the security to guarantee the crossing....

Makes all GW's other rantings about policing the world to protect the homefolk look pretty hypocritical....Dobbs is tearing him another rear end tonite over just this issue....

Seems to me you do not take a very strong stand on terrorism or the threat of radical Muslims like those in Iraq or Iran unless it supports your agenda with the borders.

You use the terrorist as a scare tactic when it involves the borders but all other times you give the impression they are not a threat abroad.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
I need to add another word to the nickle jar, Borders. I am a very big supporter of secure borders and very against illegal immigration. But your constant blabbing of borders and GW gets old.

Sure secure borders are important, but Mexicans have been crossing the borders for a couple hundred years. Yes there is problems with this but radical Muslims hare a more pressing issue, they have been the cause of wars and thousands if not millions of deaths in world history.

Stopping Iran from getting nukes is way more pressing that stopping some Mexican from picking tomatoes.

You can be happy that Bush is trying to stop Iran from reaching a point that could kill millions of people while at the same time be unhappy with his efforts to secure the borders. It does not have to be all or nothing!

Is it more important than having a pickup load of terrorists haul across a load of "suitcase" nukes- that could kill thousands- maybe millions in any of many US cities :???: .....If the border is porous enough that they can haul across tons of mary jane or coke- they can definitely get in the nukes...Nukes that may have been on the market since the break up of the former Soviet Union as many are unaccounted for .... And probably have the Mexican Army provide them the security to guarantee the crossing....

Makes all GW's other rantings about policing the world to protect the homefolk look pretty hypocritical....Dobbs is tearing him another rear end tonite over just this issue....

Seems to me you do not take a very strong stand on terrorism or the threat of radical Muslims like those in Iraq or Iran unless it supports your agenda with the borders.

You use the terrorist as a scare tactic when it involves the borders but all other times you give the impression they are not a threat abroad.

I believe radical Muslims are a very real threat- and as I indicated in many of my past posts have thought so for probably longer than you have- long before 9/11......On the day before the Oklahoma bombing- I was setting in a meeting in Billings Mt. looking for the first time at pictures of Osama Bin Laden- and learning about the plots/foiled plots he'd already tried....I'll Never forget it- because that night all of us watched the Oklahoma city incident on TV- and the next morning I woke up with a Ryder Truck parked outside my motel window :shock:

But Bush cheapens his argument that we have to be fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and wherever else in the world- when he does little or nothing to provide security for our own borders- and our own citizens residing within the boundaries of that border....

He has used National Security and Homeland Security as an excuse to break, bend, and change laws that take away our individual freedoms- and privacy-The Patriot Act- more than any President since Roosevelt-- even going so far as to erode away the Constitution...And he has told Americans that it is needed because of the Terrorist Threat-- but still at the same time he has fought or stalled most efforts to truly secure the US borders- and keep those terrorist out of our Homeland ( a job he is Constitutionally mandated to do) -- or find the millions of undocumenteds inside the country- that either entered illegally or are now here legally- many thousands of which are Muslims from the same countries that the terrorists are coming from- that entered the country on student or work visas- and now have disappeared....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
you really DON'T like him, do you OT?

I don't like what he's done to our country....He's thrown the idea of "rule of law" right out the door from the day he walked in....

And like with this border/immigrant issue - he has shown that he doesn't care what the wishes of the public/citizen/voter are....Its his way or no way!!! :( :( :(
 
Top