seconded. I know some people might call me an appeasement puppy, but there are no legal grounds to deny them peaceful use of nuclear energy anyway. As long as they co-operate with IAEA inspectors, that is.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats normal CIA practise - Whats the big deal?Care to address the inconvenient reality of one unconfirmed and uninterviewed source being the basis for a whole intelligence report?
I think a peaceful Iranian nuclear program - with full inspections and safeguards under the IAEA - would benefit everyone.
The alternative is what we have now - noone knows what is going on and the US are about to start WWIII.
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).usmarine2005 wrote:
zomg bush sucks zomg hitler zomg...B.Schuss wrote:
what ?konfusion wrote:
I have to say that I have come to respect Bush a lot more in the last 2 years. He's stood his ground about Iraq, he's admitted some mistakes, and he's actually started being more charismatic that way...
As a person, I could almost like Bush...
-konfusion
happy?
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
I don't like him either.B.Schuss wrote:
I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
So, are you saying the NIE issued the report without having any idea of the real situation? That would be terrible. NIE should know something.Stingray24 wrote:
Care to address the inconvenient reality of one unconfirmed and uninterviewed source being the basis for a whole intelligence report?sergeriver wrote:
It's typical, when the source doesn't fit their own agenda they call it BS. I'm not talking about you Stingray, but the source you posted.Stingray24 wrote:
I call bullshit. The NIC, which produced the NIE, is chaired by a State Dept. intel analyst with no known overseas experience. His conclusion that Iran shut down in 2003 is based on a single unproven source who has not been interview by the US. That alone is more than enough to call his conclusions into question. He also fired d his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez. The NIE is supposed to report the facts and its assessment, not advocate policy positions.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes … 54359.html
Nah, he is an asshole in person too.B.Schuss wrote:
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).usmarine2005 wrote:
zomg bush sucks zomg hitler zomg...B.Schuss wrote:
what ?
happy?
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
Some semantics here:
NIE is a report, not an organization.
No single agency puts this report out. It is a compilation of reports and analysis from 16 separate intelligence agencies in the US govt. If any single agency were responsible (more of an editor than an author), it would be the Director of National Intelligence.
I'll withhold comment until I've had a chance to read the real thing, not the press-friendly (ie, redacted) version.
NIE is a report, not an organization.
No single agency puts this report out. It is a compilation of reports and analysis from 16 separate intelligence agencies in the US govt. If any single agency were responsible (more of an editor than an author), it would be the Director of National Intelligence.
I'll withhold comment until I've had a chance to read the real thing, not the press-friendly (ie, redacted) version.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
and, he cannot drink beer properly. shame on him.sergeriver wrote:
Nah, he is an asshole in person too.B.Schuss wrote:
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).usmarine2005 wrote:
zomg bush sucks zomg hitler zomg...
happy?
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
how do I integrate you tube videos properly ?
edit. fixed
OMG. Lol. What was Merkel drinking? She doesn't drink beer and she's German?B.Schuss wrote:
and, he cannot drink beer properly. shame on him.sergeriver wrote:
Nah, he is an asshole in person too.B.Schuss wrote:
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
how do I integrate you tube videos properly ?
edit. fixed
probably wine or s.th. more lady-like. G8 isn't exactly "girls gone wild", you know...
To be perfectly clear: I don't agree with him on many things, and I think many of his decisions have been absolutely retarded. But compared to what he was before, I'd have to say he's improved. But that may just be me.B.Schuss wrote:
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
-konfusion
I don't believe jack shit of it that Ahmedinejad isn't making any nuclear device, after all he said he wanted to litteraly vaporize Israel.
And how the hell should US intellegence know they aren't making it, if they were I bet they aren't stupid enough to make it obvious enough for foreign intelligence agencies to discover.
And how the hell should US intellegence know they aren't making it, if they were I bet they aren't stupid enough to make it obvious enough for foreign intelligence agencies to discover.
inane little opines
well, one reason for that might be that his legacy as president is on the line if he fucks up big time now. Reaching out to people, and showing come compassion and self-criticism always goes over well with the press.konfusion wrote:
To be perfectly clear: I don't agree with him on many things, and I think many of his decisions have been absolutely retarded. But compared to what he was before, I'd have to say he's improved. But that may just be me.B.Schuss wrote:
well, yes, as I cherish your affection, and thrive in it ( did that make sense ? ).
That being said, I must admit to not having met Mr Bush in person, so it may well be possible that he is actually a nice guy. However, based on the decisions he has been making in the last couple of years, and his views on such topics as religion, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him, if I ever met him.
I don't trust reborn christians. They are too missionary and fanatical for my liking...
-konfusion
jeez, I can't wait for the 2008 elections. Maybe we'll see the first female president ?
Something else was happening in 2003.. hmm I wonder what could have given them reason to change course. I know, let's ask Muammar al-Gaddafi.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is what bothers me. They claim that Iran will never need Nuclear weapons. But they are happy about a report stating they discontinued their weapons program in 2003. which is it? Further, in a memorandum from the 80's, the ayatollah states that it may be necessary to use nuclear arms against iraq.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good news for Iran... Bad news for warmongers.
Unless of course, my theory from the temp forum is true....
Unless of course, my theory from the temp forum is true....
Actually it's good news for the Pentagon.Turquoise wrote:
Good news for Iran... Bad news for warmongers.
Unless of course, my theory from the temp forum is true....
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … 41,00.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nice... I'm still worried about how our intelligence seems to fail us on these kinds of things though.
On the one hand, it's good to see that the Pentagon has some sane people in charge, but we haven't been so good lately at information gathering....
On the one hand, it's good to see that the Pentagon has some sane people in charge, but we haven't been so good lately at information gathering....
Ever since Gates took the helm we have.Turquoise wrote:
Nice... I'm still worried about how our intelligence seems to fail us on these kinds of things though.
On the one hand, it's good to see that the Pentagon has some sane people in charge, but we haven't been so good lately at information gathering....
However, Gates left no doubt where he stands on how to proceed, saying that the revised NIE shows that non-military measures are the best way to curb Iran's nuclear program. "If anything," he said in Kabul, "the new national estimate validates the Administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic pressures to bear on the Iranian government to change its policies."
In January 2004, Gates co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the task force's primary recommendation was to directly engage Iran on a diplomatic level regarding Iranian nuclear technology. Key points included a negotiated position that would allow Iran to develop its nuclear program in exchange for a commitment from Iran to use the program only for peaceful means.
He co-chaired a task force that issued a report entitled "Iran: Time for a New Approach". I'll give you the summary, New = Diplomacy.If Robert Gates joins the Bush cabinet as the replacement for outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he can be expected to urge President Bush to talk to the leaders of Iran — an option Bush has thus far avoided.
Of course the opinion of the Secretary of Defense is not nearly as exciting as spreading the rumor of an inevitable attack.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good for Gates. Let's hope Rumsfeld never enters government again.
Do you think Gates will be able to get through to Bush?
Do you think Gates will be able to get through to Bush?
No, but more importantly he is getting through to the public. Gates is effectively the Anti-Rumsfeld.Turquoise wrote:
Good for Gates. Let's hope Rumsfeld never enters government again.
Do you think Gates will be able to get through to Bush?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
or saddam husseinKmarion wrote:
Something else was happening in 2003.. hmm I wonder what could have given them reason to change course. I know, let's ask Muammar al-Gaddafi.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is what bothers me. They claim that Iran will never need Nuclear weapons. But they are happy about a report stating they discontinued their weapons program in 2003. which is it? Further, in a memorandum from the 80's, the ayatollah states that it may be necessary to use nuclear arms against iraq.