Home The Lodge

No hard evidence.....

EdBEdB Senior MemberPosts: 3,084 Senior Member
....that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. So says 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. So if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be for other nefarious reasons like installing a puppet government that is subservient to corporate oil interests just like what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan.



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/25/u-s-intelligence-finds-no-hard-evidence-of-iran-bomb-making/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



US intelligence analysts continue to believe there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Citing unnamed US officials, the newspaper said the latest assessments by US spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies, the report said.
«13

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,541 Senior Member
    So says 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

    This is inconsistent with your argument that the government is lying to you.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    This is inconsistent with your argument that the government is lying to you.

    Agreed. But the flip side to this article is "16 agencies" only one agency is named. No one quoted. What 15 agencies?

    If Iran is working to build a bomb then why not allow U/N Inspectors in? They were denied access to sites just this last week. Gee maybe they like sanctions on their country as it gives the Mullahs and other gooks in that country a boogie man to blame.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency report also said Iran failed to give a convincing explanation about a quantity of missing uranium metal. Diplomats say the amount unaccounted for is large enough to be used for experiments in arming a nuclear missile.

    Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons and says its activities are meant either to generate energy or to be used for research.

    But the report contained little assurances the country's activities are purely peaceful. Instead, it also confirmed that two IAEA missions to Tehran within less than a month had failed to dent Iran's refusal to assist an IAEA probe of suspicions the country has been secretly working on aspects of a nuclear weapons program.

    The IAEA team had hoped to speak with key Iranian scientists suspected of working on the alleged weapons program, break down opposition to their plans to inspect documents related to nuclear work and secure commitments from Iranian authorities to allow future visits.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/iran-nuclear-program-iaea_n_1299497.html

    Instead, it also confirmed that two IAEA missions to Tehran within less than a month had failed to dent Iran’s refusal to assist an IAEA probe of suspicions that the country has been secretly working on aspects of a nuclear weapons program.

    The confidential report obtained by The Associated Press said the agency continues to have “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”

    The report was issued to the IAEA’s 35-nation board and the U.N. Security Council as the latest update on what the agency knows and what it suspects about Iran’s nuclear program.

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/24/un-atomic-agency-iran-rapidly-expands-nuke-work/


    Ed continues to post specious mumbo jumbo that only reinforces his only world view with no serious effort to source material or check numerous sources.


    Another drone got its wings today.
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 4,328 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    Agreed.
    If Iran is working to build a bomb then why not allow U/N Inspectors in?

    Simple: Because they want their neighbors (The Saudi's) to THINK they have a bomb. Saddam did the same thing.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Could be. "W" was a really bad poker player. But Iran was a signer of the non proliferation treaty then backed out as word hit that they were working on a bomb.

    n an interview with BBC in June 2004, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, made the following comment:

    "Anyone out there holding – as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said – the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, [is] really delusional."

    In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and media outlets for using the testimony of alleged former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, as a rationale for invading Iraq;

    n January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction. Robert Gallucci said, "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Similarly, former inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory."

    The I.A.E.A. don't seem to convinced that Iran is not making material for a bomb.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 6,152 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    Agreed. But the flip side to this article is "16 agencies" only one agency is named. No one quoted. What 15 agencies?

    There's 16 total "agencies" that make up the U.S. Intelligence community. I use quotes because some of the agencies are Army intelligence, Navy intelligence, or other sub-groups under other gov. entities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    Could be. "W" was a really bad poker player. But Iran was a signer of the non proliferation treaty then backed out as word hit that they were working on a bomb.

    Iran has not backed out of the NPT. Try to get your facts straight if you're going to beat the drums for attacking Iran, greenie.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iran.27s_nuclear_program_and_the_NPT
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,513 Senior Member
    Ed,

    Kindly explain how to reconcile the following:

    - Iran claims its nuclear program is for energy and medical purposes only.

    - Iran allows UN inspectors in, previously having expelled them.

    - Iran refuses said inspectors access to some facilities they wanted to see.

    - Iran continues to maintain it has no plans for nuclear weapons.

    And please, no BS about Israel, the CIA, warmongering, reliable sources, USG lies and the usual. Please just reconcile the above four statements so that all here may understand your point of view.
    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    As the NIE says, no hard evidence. Iran claims that the IAEA inspectors in the past identified Iranian nuclear scientists to western intel agencies and caused them to be assassinated. True or not, that is their reasoning.

    What is your point of view George?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Iran has not backed out of the NPT. Try to get your facts straight if you're going to beat the drums for attacking Iran, greenie.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iran.27s_nuclear_program_and_the_NPT

    How is not allowing inspections not backing out of the treaty. The treaty includes inspections.

    Since my question is similar to George's please answer his.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,541 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    As the NIE says, no hard evidence.

    But wait I thought these guys were lying to us and beating the drums of war?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    As the NIE says, no hard evidence. Iran claims that the IAEA inspectors in the past identified Iranian nuclear scientists to western intel agencies and caused them to be assassinated. True or not, that is their reasoning.

    What is your point of view George?

    Anything to get out of being inspected after signing on agreeing to do so. Not exactly trustworthy and honest.
  • TimDTimD Senior Member Posts: 906 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    ....that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. So says 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. So if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be for other nefarious reasons like installing a puppet government that is subservient to corporate oil interests just like what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/25/u-s-intelligence-finds-no-hard-evidence-of-iran-bomb-making/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    US intelligence analysts continue to believe there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, The New York Times reported Saturday.

    Citing unnamed US officials, the newspaper said the latest assessments by US spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

    The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies, the report said.

    Ed,

    When was the last war with evidence for some type of WMD or illegal act? Korea maybe? Pretty much the powers that be build some conspiracy theory from scant evidence and innuendo and then beat the war drums. This Iran thing is pretty much textbook: things will swirl up and Iran will have to prove that they are not guilty and nobody will accept their evidence; then there will be an ultimatum that Iran won't meet and this will be 'justification' for a defensive attack. The pressure against escalation comes from the fact that Obama is looking good against his opponents. The pressure for the war is from Israel - I wonder how their current government is looking in the polls?

    Tim

    Tim
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    ....that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. So says 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. So if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be for other nefarious reasons like installing a puppet government that is subservient to corporate oil interests just like what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Citing unnamed US officials,
    That's really worked out well hasn't it? Both countries want us to get the hell out. We should show Karzai et al we can leave just as fast as we came in... wanna start a pool on how long his gov't last after we leave?
    Citing unnamed US officials,

    Citing unnamed US officials does not create a lot of credibility, could be a janitor in the White House for all we know.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,513 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    As the NIE says, no hard evidence. Iran claims that the IAEA inspectors in the past identified Iranian nuclear scientists to western intel agencies and caused them to be assassinated. True or not, that is their reasoning.

    What is your point of view George?

    Still waiting for you to reconcile those four statements without bringing in crazy conspiracy theories concerning individuals, not locations.
    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,513 Senior Member
    flytrap wrote: »
    That's really worked out well hasn't it? Both countries want us to get the hell out. We should show Karzai et al we can leave just as fast as we came in... wanna start a pool on how long his gov't last after we leave?



    Citing unnamed US officials does not create a lot of credibility, could be a janitor in the White House for all we know.

    The spread would be set up as days; not weeks, months or years. That's for sure.
    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Gee George we seem to have been ignored.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Ed,

    Kindly explain how to reconcile the following:

    - Iran claims its nuclear program is for energy and medical purposes only.

    - Iran allows UN inspectors in, previously having expelled them.

    - Iran refuses said inspectors access to some facilities they wanted to see.

    - Iran continues to maintain it has no plans for nuclear weapons.

    And please, no BS about Israel, the CIA, warmongering, reliable sources, USG lies and the usual. Please just reconcile the above four statements so that all here may understand your point of view.

    1. NIE says there is no hard evidence that that isn't true.

    2. Iran wants to avoid being attacked.

    3. Iran does not trust the IAEA, they say they are agents of the CIA and Israel, right or wrong. They also want their enemy neighbors to think they might have nukes.

    4. Iran does not want to commit suicide, which is inevitible if they attack Israel with nukes, and they know that.

    Now, George and greenie, what is your viewpoint other than believing whatever the government and propaganda MSM tells you?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 6,152 Senior Member
    So... we should trust Iran when they tell us that their program is not for nuclear weapons, but their neighbors should be cautious when Iran denies it, as they just might be developing them "for peaceful purposes?"
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    No, we should not trust Iran. There are 43 U.S. military bases surrounding Iran, who is threatening whom in this situation? Maybe they are developing nuclear weapons but 16 intel agencies that make up the NIE say there is no hard evidence of that.
    Maybe if we brought our troops home from those 43 bases, Iran would not feel so threatened.

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1793860/pg1
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 6,152 Senior Member
    I thought the threat of nukes was to intimidate their neighbors? And as others have said, if the NIE is made by the same folks who deceive us into going into war, why trust it this time? Maybe they're falsifying findings so that if/when Iran reveals a nuke, it'll show that it's a rogue nation that needs to be dealt with harshly?

    Seriously Ed, you've got to get consistent with what you're saying. You're changing your reasons just to justify your overall message.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    You know who else changed their story to justify their invasion?
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    You're wrong about that. Back when Bush was preparing to invade Iraq, lower intel people in the various agencies were saying curveball was a liar and there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq, just like the NIE is saying now about Iran. The Bush neocons ignored that and got the CIA head to say "slam dunk" about WMD and used that to invade. The NIE has been consistent in saying there is no hard evidence.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    I was talking about you Ed. You are cherry picking info just like "W" and Cheney did.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    I was answering Bream, not you. I'm still waiting to hear what your (and the rest of my critics') position on the evidence about Iran is. All you can do is try to discredit what I post, what is your viewpoint on the subject?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    My viewpoint is Iran is lying.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 3,084 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    My viewpoint is Iran is lying.

    Based on what evidence?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    They are not allowing inspections. They signed the treaty. They are covering up and lying.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    He's got a point there. If Iran has nothing to hide why not let the inspectors in?
    Of course, it is an insult to their soverignity, and how willing would the U.S. be to allow inspections of it's nukes?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    flytrap wrote: »
    He's got a point there. If Iran has nothing to hide why not let the inspectors in?
    Of course, it is an insult to their soverignity, and how willing would the U.S. be to allow inspections of it's nukes?

    Trap, Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Part of that treaty requires inspections. They've refused. They've broken the treaty. Ipso fatso they are not being honest.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,513 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »

    1. NIE says there is no hard evidence that that isn't true. When did you start believing the NIE agencies?

    2. Iran wants to avoid being attacked. Simple - open up the facilities so UN inspectors can verify the peaceful uses only claim.

    3. Iran does not trust the IAEA, they say they are agents of the CIA and Israel, right or wrong. You can't fix stupid, but paranoia is treatable. They also want their enemy neighbors to think they might have nukes. As does Israel.

    4. Iran does not want to commit suicide, which is inevitible if they attack Israel with nukes, and they know that. Assuming that those who would control nukes are "rational actors". That is probable, but not at all certain based on their past history.

    Now, George and greenie, what is your viewpoint other than believing whatever the government and propaganda MSM tells you?

    Sorry Ed, you still are selling underwater real estate in Florida.
    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement