[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8791468/

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.

 

[Changleen]

Watch any more news of said review slowly slide out of view and be roundly ignored by the WH.

 

[F.O.G]

What part of what Bush said is any different than the article you linked. He and the White House have asserted that Iran was indeed in the process of developing the weapons. The 5 year time frame might be off but the intent is clearly there and the Iranians have said as much as well. They can hide behind the Nuke power plant excuse all they want, they still are moving towards weapons.

 

[Changleen]

Assuming what you say is coorect, the US can develop new nukes, but Iran cannot?

 

[F.O.G]

Giving that you are located outside the United States and your Global Views probably differ a bit from mine, yes. If you remember our history with Iran you will know that they are/and have been more than a bit unstable over the last 30-35 years, they were with us, then against blah blah. I don't really feel that these unstable infighting Middle East Countries need to have the option to use nukes as leverage. Also I don't think is is really a good idea to have another country near Isreal with the ability to piss them off to the point where they will use theirs. And to really get your panties all bunched up......Might makes Right.

 

[DRB]

What part of what Bush said is any different than the article you linked. He and the White House have asserted that Iran was indeed in the process of developing the weapons. The 5 year time frame might be off but the intent is clearly there and the Iranians have said as much as well. They can hide behind the Nuke power plant excuse all they want, they still are moving towards weapons.

Did you read the article?

 

[Changleen]

Giving that you are located outside the United States and your Global Views probably differ a bit from mine, yes. If you remember our history with Iran you will know that they are/and have been more than a bit unstable over the last 30-35 years, they were with us, then against blah blah. I don't really feel that these unstable infighting Middle East Countries need to have the option to use nukes as leverage. Also I don't think is is really a good idea to have another country near Isreal with the ability to piss them off to the point where they will use theirs. And to really get your panties all bunched up......Might makes Right.

Times America has used Nukes as leverage: Many

Countries invaded by Iran in last 35 years: 0
Countries invaded by US in last 6 years: 2

Only country in the history of the world ever to use Nukes: USA

Your assumption that might equals right: Retarded.

 

[Damn True]

Where is your survival of the fittest now?

Seem's too me an evolutionist such as yourself might understand the might/right connection. Though not always nice and flowery that's pretty much the history of the world.

 

[Changleen]

Where is your survival of the fittest now?

Seem's too me an evolutionist such as yourself might understand the might/right connection. Though not always nice and flowery that's pretty much the history of the world.

Yes, it has been. However in the 50's most countries realised that things like the welfare state and not going round killing each other were actually a pretty good idea, and institutions like the UN were formed.

Might may well equal right in the animal kingdom, but DT, do you consider yourself more enlightened than animals, whose only response to conflict is to fight or kill? Maybe if that's really your ideal state of affairs, we should do away with the laws of man. How utterly constructive that would be. Another great idea.

 

[dan-o]

"Advantage is taken, not handed out" - Metallica

Chang, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU and UN based on the idea of strength through numbers, ie. might makes right?

 

[Changleen]

"Advantage is taken, not handed out" - Metallica

Chang, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU and UN based on the idea of strength through numbers, ie. might makes right?

Group concensus vs. Individual aggression. Democracy vs. Dictatorship. They are not the same thing. The UN is supposed to be about world democracy, and facilitates that to a certain extent, although not as well as it might.

 

[dan-o]

Group concensus vs. Individual aggression. Democracy vs. Dictatorship. They are not the same thing. The UN is supposed to be about world democracy, and facilitates that to a certain extent, although not as well as it might.

OK, but boil it down and it's still a group using its size/power to manipulate the destiny of others.

Semantics aside, the group consensus seems to be that we don't want unstable countries to obtain nukes. The question is, barring military force, how will this desire be implemented beyond the preliminary stern letters. Maybe collect calls from Brussels are the next step.

 

[Senôr Lopez]

Dan-O....I wouldn't call Iran "unstable" I think "unfriendly" or "uncooperative" would be a better way to describe them. If you look around the world I would think that most people would agree that N. Korea is the reigning poster country for unstability. And even Pakistan could be considered "unstable". Even with Mushararraf in charge the extremists and tribal leaders control vast sections of territory. He has sabre rattled his nukes at India for years now and we say nothing.......because we need his backing in the region. It all comes down to our own self interest. The US has a great history of turning a blind eye to "friends" who may be involved in things that are unsavory to say the least as long as it serves our interests in the long run.

 

[F.O.G]

I would like to respond to Chang's Visa commercial. The only leverage used by the US in the way of nukes was with the Soviets in the form of the arms race. You might want to check on Irans history a little better,they have had a few sqirmishes throughout the years and they weren't the best of friends with surrounding countries like Iraq and others, also their goverment was overthrown thus their/our severing ties with them in the late seventies. Name the countries we "Invaded" as in to take over, the US has never taken a country over in the terms of expanding our country or territories. And if Afganistan is your # 2 in the answer give me a break. As far as the US being the only country to ever use nukes, yes we were first but only because we developed them before say the Soviets or the Germans, or the Japanese for that matter. We not only warned Japan of the weapon before it's use we also showed them the destructive power as a deterant to stop the war and even after they poo-pooed the evidence we warned the people in the two cities and informed Japan of the targets. You can't tell me that Hitler would have warned or even held back on multiple uses of that type of weapon if he had the opportunity. Since you think my statements are retarded count the countries you would like to see have the weapons that don't already possess them. My leverage statement was in regard to them using the weapon t get things like say money and power just like the Koreans. I don't see your beloved UN footing the bill for all these piss ant tyrants to keep them quiet and flying straight. In fact the UN seems to be more worried about the Money to be made off these small countries. Why doesn't the UN step in and do something???

 

[johnnylovegod]

I haven't read the article, but:

Giving that you are located outside the United States and your Global Views probably differ a bit from mine, yes. If you remember our history with Iran you will know that they are/and have been more than a bit unstable over the last 30-35 years, they were with us, then against blah blah. They were only "with us" because the US helped formulate and supported the Shah when he was in power most recently. He was overthrown because of his brutal tactics in which western countries were complicit. I don't disagree that there were changes in leadership, but you must look a little deeper than the surface if you are going to attribute blame or hypothesise for the future. I don't really feel that these unstable infighting Middle East Countries need to have the option to use nukes as leverage. Also I don't think is is really a good idea to have another country near Isreal with the ability to piss them off to the point where they will use theirs. Maybe it would be a little fairer to force Israel to lose it's nuke option removing another premise to Arabic nuclear powers.And to really get your panties all bunched up......Might makes Right.

Where is your survival of the fittest now?

Seem's too me an evolutionist such as yourself might understand the might/right connection. Though not always nice and flowery that's pretty much the history of the world.

I don't think survival of the fitest is really appropriate when a nuke holocaust risks destroying vast areas of the planet........unless you think cockroaches are the next wave!

Chang, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU and UN based on the idea of strength through numbers, ie. might makes right?

Nah, sorry mate. The UN security council is based on group consensus/mutual support for over-arching frame works of cooperation to alleviate the threat of international conflict. It's not how it actually works, but you can blame it's unitary players for that. You may also like to blame a few republican congressmes/senators for voting down Woodrow Wilson's Article X at the formation for the League of NAtions, which can be argued was the premise for WW2, which was the premise for the cold war. Might makes right is actually 100% antithetic to the reasons that the League of NAtions/UN was formed.

Semantics aside, the group consensus seems to be that we don't want unstable countries to obtain nukes. The question is, barring military force, how will this desire be implemented beyond the preliminary stern letters. Maybe collect calls from Brussels are the next step.

Once again, this would not have been the case if the Republicans hadn't voted down Article-X (was the article in the League's constitution that gave legality and responsibility for council members to form a coalition to repell any aggressive, invading forces. The only time that this has actually worked was the Gulf War 1. It only worked because the sole super power wanted it to. It was a republican government.

I would like to respond to Chang's Visa commercial. The only leverage used by the US in the way of nukes was with the Soviets in the form of the arms race. You don't think that the nuke option/deterence is still an issue on possession alone? You don't think that it still works as a deterence to countries such as China who are on the rise? I see deterence as being a tool of leverage. You might want to check on Irans history a little better,they have had a few sqirmishes throughout the years and they weren't the best of friends with surrounding countries like Iraq and others, Ummm, Iraq invaded Iran....with the help and blessing of the US. also their goverment was overthrown thus their/our severing ties with them in the late seventies. They over threw a largely western installed regime that wasn't doing the best job for it's people. Name the countries we "Invaded" as in to take over, the US has never taken a country over in the terms of expanding our country or territories. I wouldn't say that the US has invaded many countries, but it certainly has helped other wage violent conflict in their place....it's called proxy wars Chile/Pinochet, Iran, AND Iraq, Nicaragua, Panama and let's not forget good ol' Vietnam. the influence of USA during the Cold War was heavily projected throughout the world in many forms. And if Afganistan is your # 2 in the answer give me a break. Maybe so, but let's also remember that the US formulated the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan from the start, this was a period where Afghanistan had a literacy rate of 98% and there was no such thing as a Burqa and women were doctors and scholl teachers. So one might well argue that the US is responsible for the situation that ended up being in Afghanistan that actuated their own invasion. As far as the US being the only country to ever use nukes, yes we were first but only because we developed them before say the Soviets or the Germans, or the Japanese for that matter. We not only warned Japan of the weapon before it's use we also showed them the destructive power as a deterant to stop the war and even after they poo-pooed the evidence we warned the people in the two cities and informed Japan of the targets. You can't tell me that Hitler would have warned or even held back on multiple uses of that type of weapon if he had the opportunity. Some would argue that Japan was already a spent and depleted force at that point of the war and the bombs were more a message to Russia than anything else. Since you think my statements are retarded count the countries you would like to see have the weapons that don't already possess them. My leverage statement was in regard to them using the weapon t get things like say money and power just like the Koreans. I don't see your beloved UN footing the bill for all these piss ant tyrants to keep them quiet and flying straight. In fact the UN seems to be more worried about the Money to be made off these small countries. Why doesn't the UN step in and do something???

Why doesn't the UN do anything??/ Come on mate! The UN is a result of its member nations. It's not as if the UN sits around and says "What shall we do" The member countries of the UN sit round and say "how can we benefit out of this". I have no argument against the UN being disfunctional, but you have to ask why and how before you go calling for it's irrellevance. I think you simplify things a little too much to aid your position.

 

[Changleen]

I would like to respond to Chang's Visa commercial. The only leverage used by the US in the way of nukes was with the Soviets in the form of the arms race.

If you believe that then you are quite naive.

You might want to check on Irans history a little better,they have had a few sqirmishes throughout the years and they weren't the best of friends with surrounding countries like Iraq and others, also their goverment was overthrown thus their/our severing ties with them in the late seventies.

Lets draw a quick list of countries which America has been involved in fighting vs. a list for Iran. Hmm, the US list is a little longer.

Name the countries we "Invaded" as in to take over, the US has never taken a country over in the terms of expanding our country or territories. And if Afganistan is your # 2 in the answer give me a break.

Invaded = Invaded. To move one's troops into another soverign nation as an act of war. Invaded. Take over = ?? You have not made the countries actually part of the US, but you have tried to build an empire of American influence? Look at the last two countries you've dealt with, let alone South America. Governmentally? Are the new Afghan and Iraqi governments not friendly to the US? Territorially? Do you still not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Economically? Are US companies not profiting from reconstruction and is US money more a part of these economies than ever? In what way is this not empire building?

Your argument that Iran is unstable and more likely to use Nukes than the US is just plain wrong. The US has nukes and has current plans for their use in Iran. Iran don't even have nukes yet.

If and when they development them who will they fire at who will not respond with absolute destruction? If you are worried about Iran supplying terrorists who may bring the weapon to the US, your current stance is making that more likely.

Iran wants civian nuclear power whether or not it really wants to genuinely develop nukes. The US really has no leg to stand on when it asks that they should be denied this technology, simply because they happen to stand in the way of American geo-political goals. America itself is currently developing new nuclear devices. It's hypocracy in this argument is clear to the world and harms it's position and ability to persue it's agenda without warfare, which it apparantly knows and encourages.

Since you think my statements are retarded count the countries you would like to see have the weapons that don't already possess them.

I don't want any more countries to have nukes and I don't want countries that already have them to develop new and nastier ones. However I support Iran's right to have civilian nuclear power as it is a) their right and b) better for their (our) environment.

My leverage statement was in regard to them using the weapon t get things like say money and power just like the Koreans. I don't see your beloved UN footing the bill for all these piss ant tyrants to keep them quiet and flying straight. In fact the UN seems to be more worried about the Money to be made off these small countries.

If you cannot see the hypocracy in that statement you need to examine the US's involvement in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on a little more.

Why doesn't the UN step in and do something???

Is America not a member of the UNSC? You are asking why America herself does not persue it's own agenda through the UN. Because it chooses not to. America as much as anyone has contributed to the UN being what it is today.