|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 12:49:14 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
ctipton,
I believe I, and many other Americans, would aggree with this view point except for one thing. It seems that almost ever since America came into existence, and established oursevelves as a world power, we have been seen as the big guy in the community of nations. We are the Enforcer. We are the problem solvers. We are the defender of the litle guy. We are the country willing and able to take on the hard tasks. We are the guys willing and able to bring relatively swift resolutions to unpleasant situations.
America is the guy the rest of the international community calls upon to address and resolve unpleasant situations which provides them a sense of deniability, and responsibility regardless of how the situation is resolved.
It seems that no matter how much we may dislike that image the international community, and we ourselves may tend to have of ourselves, we are stuck with it.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 12/7/2007 1:07:04 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:05:49 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wing2000
"Anti-Bush, Ex-State Department Bureaucrats Sabotaged the Iran NIE"
Thanks for the laugh Abrieviated....when you have something serious to present, let us know.
The Flaws In the Iran Report
quote:
the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported.
...
the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism.
...
many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department,
...
Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.
John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad." He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:08:27 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
ctipton,
I believe I, and many other Americans, would aggree with this view point except for one thing. It seems that almost ever since America came into existence, and established oursevelves as a world power, we have been seen as the big guy in the community of nations. We are the Enforcer. We are the problem solvers. We are the defender of the litle guy. We are the country willing and able to take on the hard tasks. We are the guys willing and able to bring relatively swift resolutions to unpleasant situations.
America is the guy the rest of the international community calls upon to address and resolve unpleasant situations which provides them a sense of deniability, and responsibility regardless of how the situation is resolved.
It seems that no matter how much we may dislike that image the international community, and we ourselves may tend to have of ourselves, we are stuck with it.
BRAVO !
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:13:02 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:18:59 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ctipton
Leon,
If we are going to embark on a new policy of non-intervention, then the Europeans and Iran's neighbors are going to have to deal with the problem.
At least from my viewpoint.
charlie
Whose policy ? How long of a transition period ?
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:27:16 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10861
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
quote:
ORIGINAL: ctipton
Leon,
If we are going to embark on a new policy of non-intervention, then the Europeans and Iran's neighbors are going to have to deal with the problem.
At least from my viewpoint.
charlie
Whose policy ? How long of a transition period ?
That'd be Ron Paul's policy, starting immediately after his election.
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:29:25 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
Let me begin by admitting that I have not been following the situation with Iran as closely as others may have. What I have heard and seen tells me that the rulers of Iran have picked up where Sadam and his people in Iraq left off. They have established themselves as a nation to be dealt with. Intelligence concerning their nuclear program is as inconclusive, conflicting, and shrouded in mystery and double dealing as the intelligence that existed concerning Iraq's nuclear program before necessary action was taken to get questions answered.
Even if one is to ignore intelligence that Iran has ties to terrorist organizations, one can neither dismiss nor ignore the rhetoric from Iran's President Ahmadinijad concerning the United States and Israel (among other matters). By any stretch of the imaginiation Iran poses a threat and will continue to pose a threat to world peace whether we like it or not.
Whether we like it or not Iran and its rulers are a force to be dealt with. They know it. European leaders know it. The UN knows it. Politicians in this country, on both sides of the political aisle know it.
Yes, it would appear that we have set ourselves up to decide who is worthy to pocess nuclear power/ nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't the international community expect that any country that develops a nuclear program, of any kind, also develops some kind of security/ control structure by which the rest of the international community could feel relatively safe?
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons/ technongy are too dangerous to merely hope that they will not be used. A country that has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon technology must also have some kind of infra structure in place by which the urge to use such technology is controlled. There also needs to be some means to assure that such technology does not fall into the hands of people who will, more than likely, use that technology if given the urge to do so.
So far, there appears to be no such infrastructures, or security and control measures in place in many, if not all, of the countries that we, and the rest of the international community, know have been or are developing some kind of nuclear program.
Even the UN inspectors haven't had access to Iran.
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 1:59:42 PM
|
|
|
ctipton
Posts: 1035
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline
|
Leon,
That is an excellent post. And I think that it is this notion that we as a nation should discuss. Should we be the problem solvers? For if we are going to be the problem solvers, then Iraq strikes me as the way to go. But the American people agreed and now have turned their backs on the soldiers that they sent over there.
If Iraq is not the way this nation wants to go, then maybe we do not want to be the world's problem solvers.
It seems to me that we can't do both. Either we mind our own business or we do what it takes.
And I suppose I would like to challenge the notion that we are "stuck with it". We have a choice. Frankly I think the choice is now or we have lost our chance to change course for a generation.
charlie
_____________________________
Who is Ron Paul? www.RonPaul2008.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 2:11:18 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1904
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center - Latest post - John 3:16 conference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 2:12:10 PM
|
|
|
ctipton
Posts: 1035
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whose policy ? How long of a transition period ?
Abbreviated, it may be best for me to briefly explain to you why I have come to this conclusion.
All of my life I have had the attitude expressed by Leon_figg. And after ten years of Sadam thumbing his nose at us and all the other things, I thought that invasion was necessary. For, as is mentioned, we are the problem solvers of the world, and Saddam needed to be solved into the grave. And, I did my part, spending 2005 in Al Anbar in the uniform of the United States Army. And frankly we did a great job....
When I returned home, though, I found that the same people who were as quick to send the troops into Iraq had changed their tune. NOW they decide that we should not be there and wanted to pull out all troops before the job could be finished. I have decided this "law". The law of American Will is that if a military conflict lasts longer than a television season, the American people will not and perhaps cannot maintain the will to finish the conflict. And I am angry. Very angry. And in about half a year I will be back in that nasty nation, knowing that the American people do not really want us to finish the job; they just want us to turn tail, as if we failed.
So, in my view, if the nation will not have the will to see military action through to the end. it should never, ever send me or my comrades from our homes and families. It is just not right.
And then I learned of Congressman Ron Paul. And I think he is right about a policy of non-intervention and it fits in well with my thoughts above.
Anyway, I hope this explains why I feel the way I do. I admit that I am very biased and it is based on very personal reasons that may make me not the best judge on the matter. But I feel better expressing my views anyways.
charlie
_____________________________
Who is Ron Paul? www.RonPaul2008.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 2:14:57 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 527
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
I would also like to challenge the idea that we are stuck with the image that I described. I believe that almost as long as America has had this image, it has tried to fight it. The problem is that-historically- almost every time America has tried not to live up to that image, it was made to do so.
I will leave it there so this thread does not go further off topic and get into a whole lot of conspiracy theories.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 12/7/2007 2:25:22 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 3:43:31 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ctipton
quote:
Whose policy ? How long of a transition period ?
Abbreviated, it may be best for me to briefly explain to you why I have come to this conclusion.
....
When I returned home, though, I found that the same people who were as quick to send the troops into Iraq had changed their tune. NOW they decide that we should not be there and wanted to pull out all troops before the job could be finished. I have decided this "law". The law of American Will is that if a military conflict lasts longer than a television season, the American people will not and perhaps cannot maintain the will to finish the conflict. And I am angry. Very angry. And in about half a year I will be back in that nasty nation, knowing that the American people do not really want us to finish the job; they just want us to turn tail, as if we failed.
So, in my view, if the nation will not have the will to see military action through to the end. it should never, ever send me or my comrades from our homes and families. It is just not right.
...That may make me not the best judge on the matter. But I feel better expressing my views anyways.
charlie
Thanks for the info. Maybe a Non Intervention spin off thread is in order. I am just wondering how many decades it would take to implement non intervention.
62 years after WWII we still have troops in Europe.
Not sure I understand which major group of American people don't want to finish or want the military to fail. Guess I need to read the One Stop War thread.
There are servicemen who are on their 3rd tour & WANT to go back. But that is probably a whole nother topic.
Read recently that 10,000 troops died during Clinton's reign.
Bottom Line: Don't trust Iran. Their worldview doesn't include diplomacy without a sword.
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 3:46:45 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1790
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
Yep. But people credited Reagan simply due to the fact that perception often beats reality.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 4:01:13 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10861
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
And it was George W Bush that allowed 9/11 to happen.
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 5:49:35 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1010
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
It is a self-defeating argument. The Iranians wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan was inagurated, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. That's like saying it didn't start raining until the clouds came, but the clouds had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 6:33:10 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 925
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Whether we like it or not Iran and its rulers are a force to be dealt with. They know it. European leaders know it. The UN knows it. Politicians in this country, on both sides of the political aisle know it.
Agreed. Iran has the capability and knowledge to resume their nuclear weapons program at any time (understanding of course that it's more than just throwing a switch). Additionally, whether our intelligence is good enough to pick up on such an event is unknown.
With the most recent NIE, senior intelligence analysts incorporated new information (reportedly based on electronic intercepts and other sources)...as any responsible intelligence analyst should do. As Charlie and I previously posted, the latest NIE was produced after an exhaustive review across 16 national intelligence agencies over a long period of time.
How our government responds to this information is up to our political leaders and is another question entirely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/7/2007 6:54:52 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 925
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
As for former UN Ambassador John Bolton's op-ed in the WP, he makes some good points. We of course need to be mindful of Iran regardless of their current status and always understand that intellgence is never iron-clad (of course, some like Dick Cheney make it sound that way when it suits their ideological interest)
However the following statement is very questionable:
"Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."
It certainly sounds like Bolton has a personal ax to grind with some UNNAMED officials from his former employer...based on their views of five or six years ago (...of course their views may have changed and unlike Bolten, they have had access to the intelligence).
btw, John Bolten has no formal training as an intelligence analyst...nor has he ever worked for any intellgience agency. He has served as a diplomat for most of his career and is currently employed by the American Enterprise Institute.
< Message edited by wing2000 -- 12/7/2007 7:00:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/8/2007 6:25:28 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1904
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
It is a self-defeating argument. The Iranians wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan was inagurated, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. That's like saying it didn't start raining until the clouds came, but the clouds had nothing to do with it.
Strawman
What did Reagan do to bring those hostages home, other than be elected?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center - Latest post - John 3:16 conference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/8/2007 12:07:57 PM
|
|
|
Abbreviated
Posts: 2176
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abbreviated
Remember when Carter's diplomacy didn't work in Iran with the hostage crisis in the early 80's ?
It took Reagan to bring those people home.
If one believes that Iran says, " the aims of it's nuclear program is peaceful" then I have some coastal property in New Orleans to sell.
I hope you're kidding. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing those hostages home. The Iran administration waited until just Reagan's inauguration, and then released the hostages, just to snub Carter. It had nothing to do with Carter's failed diplomacy or anything. It had everything to do with snubbing America in general. Reagan got the credit because he was the sitting president, but he did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.
It is a self-defeating argument. The Iranians wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan was inagurated, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. That's like saying it didn't start raining until the clouds came, but the clouds had nothing to do with it.
Strawman
What did Reagan do to bring those hostages home, other than be elected?
After over a year of Carter's diplomacy all he needed was one more helicopter & the hostages would have made it home.
_____________________________
Buried In Legos...
Bologna Donuts
Jackie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran not building nukes - 12/8/2007 3:37:49 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 41
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
So what is VP Cheney and other hawk/warmongers who want the US to attack Iran say now?
I don't WANT us to attack Iran if we don't have to, but since I'm OPEN TO the idea if that's what we have to do, then I guess you'd probably lump me in there anyway.
What is so telling though is when the NIE (and the key letter in that is "E" for ESTIMATE) issues pre-war reports that to that point said Iraq DID IN FACT have WMD's, you guys (the "Bush lied" crowd) were quick to dismiss it. But now that they issue a report you feel you can run with, suddenly they are credible again. If they supposedly got it wrong before, why would you suddenly trust them NOW? You also missed a key component of the report, the part that says, "Iran is STILL enriching uranium". Why do you suppose they are doing so? Nuclear power? I doubt it. At best the report is an "educated guess" and at worst, an attempt by some in the state department to undermine Bush. I hope the former is correct.
quote:
Cynical though this sounds, I bet you a lot of people are still going to clamor for war against Iran.
If that's what we WANTED, it would have happend already. As crude as it might sound, we could obliterate the entire Middle East if we WANTED to. Fortunately, other less scrupulous coutries don't wield the power and authority that we possess or THEY probably would abuse it.
Can you imagine what it must be like to be Israel, surrounded by a bunch of countries that would like to see you wiped off the face of the Earth? At the very least, Iran needs to remain on the radar, ESPECIALLY if they are still enriching uranium.
Btw, what made them stop (assuming the report is correct) in 2003? What ELSE might have been going on to make them do so? (I'll let you ponder that, I'm sure you know the answer)
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
