Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The MAIN Iran Thread: Eventual Confrontation

Old 10-31-07, 09:04 PM
  #251  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
We can "win" in Iran if we have enough support from the underground resistance which is currently active. But we can't go in there ourselves. We have to let the resistance do it. We also have to let them be the communicators to the rest of the public in Iran. We can't be there. We supply them with the weapons and necessary electronics to do it. In fact, this shit should be going on already. But I have no confidence in the US with regards to planning, so I'm sure Bush is just picking his nose right now, watching Hot Shots Part Deux, hoping to gain some inspiration.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 09:49 PM
  #252  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Yeah - support of the underground resistance - I thought we tried that in Iraq.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 09:57 PM
  #253  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
Uhhh, you're not listening. And taking snippets from my entire post which spins it anyway but how it's supposed to be.

I said we let them take the government over. We didn't try that in Iraq, now did we. They have to do it all themselves. If they can't, then I guess they don't want to change their country bad enough.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 10:03 PM
  #254  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Just how do you propose we 'let them take the government over?;

Come on - a little realism never hurt anybody.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 10:18 PM
  #255  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
If I was getting paid by the SoD and on the US Govt's payroll, I'd write a short novel for yah, but until then, I've stated as much a few posts above yours.

Obviously, we can't do the same as we did with Iraq. This much we know. If it does happen again, well, at least I haven't signed up for the military.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-01-07, 07:56 AM
  #256  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
What we have to do is go the diplomatic route - and hope for the best - that Iran really is not all that interested in becoming a nuclear power.

If that hope is not realized - we learn to live with it. We've done a reasonable job of living with others becoming nuclear powers in the past.

We do make it abundantly clear to the Iranians (& publically as we did the Soviets) what would happen if they chose to use those weapons - destruction of their country.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-08-07, 04:48 PM
  #257  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Maybe Israel will take care of the problem (with our permissions of course)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2827787.ece

Last edited by 4KRG; 11-08-07 at 06:17 PM.
4KRG is offline  
Old 11-08-07, 04:53 PM
  #258  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
If it drives down the prices of HD DVDs, I'm all for it.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-27-07, 12:36 PM
  #259  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Iran is claiming it has a missile capable of travelling 1,200 miles.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-03-07, 06:01 PM
  #260  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,564
So they released the NIE on Iran, which is available in PDF form here:

http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

I haven't read it, but the money quote appears to be:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
JasonF is offline  
Old 12-03-07, 06:04 PM
  #261  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,045
I read about this earlier today and was waiting to see who would post that report. Lets just say I was expecting JasonF or someone of similar thought.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 12-03-07, 10:22 PM
  #262  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...ear/index.html


U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003

White House says new report doesn't change U.S. policy toward Iran

Declassified summary of intelligence estimate on Iran's nuclear work released

Estimate says Tehran is "less determined to develop nuclear weapons"

Report: Iran unlikely to have enough material for nuclear bomb until 2010-2015

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 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."

But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produce enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion.

"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, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. Watch what new report says about Iran's nuclear ambitions »

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is strictly aimed at producing electricity, and the country has refused the U.N. Security Council's demand to halt its enrichment program.

Monday's report represents the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies. It suggests that a combination of "threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways," could persuade the Iranian leadership to continue its suspension of nuclear weapons research.

Available intelligence suggests the Iranian leadership is guided "by a cost-benefit approach," not a headlong rush to develop a bomb, the report concludes.

U.S. National Security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed hope after Monday's announcement, but he said Iran remains a serious threat.

"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, 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.

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.

He said U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report.

"If we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran ... with a path to a nuclear weapon, or the possibility of having to use force to stop it, with all the connotations of World War III -- then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure, to get Iran to stop their so-called civilian uranium enrichment program," he said. "That's our policy going forward -- no change."

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, welcomed the news.

"The key judgments show that the intelligence community has learned its lessons from the Iraq debacle," the West Virginia Democrat said in a statement. "It has issued judgments that break sharply with its own previous assessments, and they reflect a real difference from the views espoused by top administration officials.

"This demonstrates a new willingness to question assumptions internally, and a level of independence from political leadership that was lacking in the recent past."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the fact that Iran was several years away from nuclear weapons capability meant "the international community has a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice between going to war or accepting a nuclear Iran."

"But the Bush administration has long lacked a comprehensive strategy to take advantage of this window," the Delaware Democrat and Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement. "Instead of continuing its obsession with regime change and irresponsible talk of 'World War III,' we need a policy that focuses on conduct change."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has reported that Iran is cooperating with inspectors by providing access to declared nuclear material, documents and facilities. However, the agency also said Iran is withholding information in other areas, and as a result, the IAEA's knowledge about the status of the program is "diminishing."

Iran says its uranium enrichment work is allowed under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.N. Security Council has passed two rounds of sanctions against Tehran, but Washington missed its goal of reaching consensus on tighter restrictions by the end of November, the State Department said last week.

The report comes amid widespread accusations that the Bush administration is attempting to maneuver the United States into a conflict with Iran, which it accuses of meddling in the war in Iraq. In October, the United States designated elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as supporters of terrorism.

NIEs examine current capabilities and vulnerabilities and, perhaps more importantly, consider future developments. Policymakers usually request the estimates, but the intelligence community also can initiate them.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 10:05 AM
  #263  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,455
I think Israel begs to differ with this report and I think their intel is much better than ours.
General Zod is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 11:04 AM
  #264  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Once upon a time you could make that argument.

I don't believe you can make that argument now - witness the recent near fiasco in Lebanon. There was unquestionably an intelligence failure by Israel.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 11:35 AM
  #265  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
this is nothing but politics

the administratition needed a way out of the confrontation because someone told Bush quietly that he is crazy and there is no support for an attack on Iran
al_bundy is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 11:43 AM
  #266  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Oh, I believe there are facts other politics in the report.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:21 PM
  #267  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by General Zod
I think Israel begs to differ with this report and I think their intel is much better than ours.
Link to something that shows that Israel's intelligence contradicts our own??
hahn is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:27 PM
  #268  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,935
Yeah! A nuclear free Iran is a peaceful, safe lovin' kind of place!
atlantamoi is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:29 PM
  #269  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by al_bundy
this is nothing but politics

the administratition needed a way out of the confrontation because someone told Bush quietly that he is crazy and there is no support for an attack on Iran
al_bundy acknowledging Bush is crazy? Does Bush really have to be this stupid for this long before Republicans will finally admit there's something wrong with him??

I listened to the press conference this morning on NPR. This man is so beyond stupid, I don't know how anyone with half a brain can continue to support him as a president. There were two parts of the press conference that I can recall (I repressed the rest) made me want to shove a pencil in my ear and self-lobotomize to forget that such a stupid person could exist much less be president:

1) When asked about why he didn't discuss the gang-rape of a young woman in Saudi Arabia and how she was blamed, with the King of Saudi Arabia when he met with him, Bush answered that he thought of the situation in terms of, [paraphrased] "Well, I try to imagine - what if this were one of my girls? What if it had happened to them? Well, I'd be very emotional. I would be fully against it." First, that doesn't even answer the question. Second, WTF.

2) When asked about Hugo Chavez losing in an election, he responded, "It was a vote against one man rule. It was a vote against dictatorship. It was a vote for democracy." A vote for democracy. Let's think about that for a second, shall we? Again. WTF. You moron.

There is something pathologically wrong with this man. And I mean that literally.

Last edited by hahn; 12-04-07 at 12:33 PM.
hahn is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:42 PM
  #270  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by hahn
1) When asked about why he didn't discuss the gang-rape of a young woman in Saudi Arabia and how she was blamed, with the King of Saudi Arabia when he met with him, Bush answered that he thought of the situation in terms of, [paraphrased] "Well, I try to imagine - what if this were one of my girls? What if it had happened to them? Well, I'd be very emotional. I would be fully against it." First, that doesn't even answer the question. Second, WTF.
WTF indeed, since the reporter's question was factually incorrect. She's being punished for being alone with a man who is not her husband or family member. Its nonsensical to us, but a crime in Saudi Arabia. You might want to check this thread.(joeblow69 was the first to bring up this point. Credit where credit is due.)

2) When asked about Hugo Chavez losing in an election, he responded, "It was a vote against one man rule. It was a vote against dictatorship. It was a vote for democracy." A vote for democracy. Let's think about that for a second, shall we? Again. WTF. You moron.
Your supposition is incorrect. It wasn't a vote against Chavez. It was a vote against Venezuelan Constitutional changes that would have given Chavez dictatorial powers. Therefore, the vote in Venezuela was indeed a vote for democracy.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:46 PM
  #271  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by crazyronin
WTF indeed, since the reporter's question was factually incorrect. She's being punished for being alone with a man who is not her husband or family member. Its nonsensical to us, but a crime in Saudi Arabia. You might want to check this thread.(joeblow69 was the first to bring up this point. Credit where credit is due.)
I paraphrased because I don't remember the exact wording of the reporter. My comment wasn't about the facts of the case. My comment was about his response. It doesn't even address the issue. I don't give a shit that he'd be "emotional" if one of his daughters were gang-raped. First of all, what a disturbing thing to say in public. Second of all, what does it have to do with the price of apples in Peru (or in this case, the judicial process in Saudi Arabia)? Bush talks about wanting to create reform in the Middle East, but when it comes to issues that the administration claims to want to change, he won't discuss it with the countries that are involved? What exactly IS he talking about with them that anyone would actually give a crap about?

Your supposition is incorrect. It wasn't a vote against Chavez. It was a vote against Venezuelan Constitutional changes that would have given Chavez dictatorial powers. Therefore, the vote in Venezuela was indeed a vote for democracy.
The vote was for his being able to seek re-elections indefinitely. Why would a dictator bother with elections AT ALL?? The election process itself IS democratic. As for term limits, the prime ministers of Japan, Australia, the U.K., and Canada, do NOT have term limits. Does that define a dictatorship?

Last edited by hahn; 12-04-07 at 12:59 PM.
hahn is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:51 PM
  #272  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,945
Originally Posted by hahn
Why would a dictator bother with elections AT ALL??
Ask Robert Mugabe. Elections can give the illusion of a fair process, as long as you rig them the right way.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:53 PM
  #273  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Ask Robert Mugabe. Elections can give the illusion of a fair process, as long as you rig them the right way.

or ask Al Gore
dick_grayson is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:56 PM
  #274  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Ask Robert Mugabe. Elections can give the illusion of a fair process, as long as you rig them the right way.
So Chavez purposely lost this election to give the illusion that he is part of a fair process?
hahn is offline  
Old 12-04-07, 12:58 PM
  #275  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,945
Originally Posted by hahn
So Chavez purposely lost this election to give the illusion that he is part of a fair process?
No, and that's not even close to what I said.
wendersfan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.