RE: Iran not building nukes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message


RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/5/2007 12:10:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
Rich - StamperBen: Enough already!


As requested.




wing2000 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/5/2007 12:51:08 PM)

....more on the intel behind the NIE:

[excerpts from Anatomy of an about-face on Iran

As U.S. intelligence officials sought Tuesday to explain the remarkable reversal, they pointed to two factors: the emergence of crucial information over the summer, and a determination to avoid repeating the mistakes that preceded the Iraq war.

According to current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the matter, the information that surfaced this summer included intercepted conversations of Iranian officials discussing the country's nuclear weapons program, as well as a journal from an Iranian source that documented decisions to shut it down.
.....

Intelligence officials said that process of reevaluation was guided by lessons from the prewar intelligence on Iraq. In the months leading up to the war, the intelligence community in just 19 days put together an estimate that concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. They didn't take the usual time to challenge their assumptions or sources, which later proved to be off-base.

Delivery of the report on Iran was delayed at least three times, according to congressional officials, and the document's authors spent more than a year producing it. Within the last three months, officials said, the CIA used "red teams" -- groups assembled to take opposite or contrarian views -- to challenge the assumptions in the report and scrutinize its claims.

Mindful of criticism of the intelligence on Iraq, officials took steps to insulate the process from political influence.




ctipton -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/5/2007 2:40:38 PM)

quote:

Charlie,

That is encouraging. Our human intelligence capabilities have been sorely lacking (especially in the Middle East) so it's good to see progress.


I am glad that someone else find this to be significant progress.. I am surprised that Rich did not jump on this as it seems to be the government acknowledging and acting on the very things that Rich criticizes them for.

I guess the other thing is that it seems that they ( not sure if it is the politicians or the agencies) are criticized for changing their assessment. And if the effort is to avoid changing assessments to avoid criticism, then we are going to have the bad intelligence assessments like we had when deciding whether to invade Iraq. I do think it is a positive move to change assessments as better information comes in. And that criticizing one for that is not going to encourage good government.

just a few thoughts,
charlie




Abbreviated -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/5/2007 3:17:41 PM)

Consider the source. A 3 man State dept. team came up with THEIR politicized key interpretations of a classified document. What is their agenda? What are their politics ?

Is Iran still enriching uranium with no energy use for it ? If so why & how come.




wing2000 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/5/2007 3:28:27 PM)

quote:

Consider the source. A 3 man State dept. team came up with THEIR politicized key interpretations of a classified document. What is their agenda? What are their politics ?


It's not clear what document and interpretation thereof you are referring to....




cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 10:27:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abbreviated

Consider the source. A 3 man State dept. team came up with THEIR politicized key interpretations of a classified document. What is their agenda? What are their politics ?

Is Iran still enriching uranium with no energy use for it ? If so why & how come.


This is from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released 12/03/2007: LINK

Can't spin, this away, Rumsfeld.




ctipton -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 10:40:05 AM)

quote:

Can't spin, this away, Rumsfeld.


Got a link showing Rumsfeld is explaining it away? Or are you conjecturing based on your great dislike for him?




cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 11:02:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctipton

quote:

Can't spin, this away, Rumsfeld.


Got a link showing Rumsfeld is explaining it away? Or are you conjecturing based on your great dislike for him?

Not dislike, disdain. I've been impressed by Gates so far.




Abbreviated -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 2:48:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:

Consider the source. A 3 man State dept. team came up with THEIR politicized key interpretations of a classified document. What is their agenda? What are their politics ?


It's not clear what document and interpretation thereof you are referring to....

"The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions."




cow451 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 3:13:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abbreviated

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:

Consider the source. A 3 man State dept. team came up with THEIR politicized key interpretations of a classified document. What is their agenda? What are their politics ?


It's not clear what document and interpretation thereof you are referring to....

"The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions."


Is Rush Bimbo and some op-eds all you got? Consider the source, yourself.




ctipton -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 6:50:32 PM)

quote:


Iran a threat, say Europe allies

The leaders spoke days after a new US intelligence report was issued
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have said Iran continues to pose a threat.

LINK


Good, let's let the Europeans take care of it. And maybe the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful UN too. I think we already have a previous engagement, thank you very much.




EStan -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 7:08:13 PM)

"It isn't fair that only those countries we like get to have nuclear weapons." ~ Medea Benjamin




wing2000 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/6/2007 11:13:18 PM)

"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.




Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 2:18:07 AM)

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 appars to be no such infrastructures, or security and control meassures 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 kinnd of nuclear programe.




ctipton -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 7:42:35 AM)

Leon,

If we are going to continue to be the world's leader, then you are absolutely correct. 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




RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:24:19 AM)

It's ALWAYS the Israelis (well, some of the more hawkish ones)... [8|]

"It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation."

Fine. Just keep US troops out of it. With the nukes it has and the modernity of its arsenal, the Israeli Defense Forces should be able to handle Iran just as it handled Osirak.




TheosCentric -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:39:28 AM)

Are you surprised?

Hint: 1981




stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:42:39 AM)

Well, Israel is there, and it seems their intelligence is a little more . . . intelligent than ours has been recently. (See "buildup to Iraq war" for more info on that.)




RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:47:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
Well, Israel is there, and it seems their intelligence is a little more . . . intelligent than ours has been recently. (See "buildup to Iraq war" for more info on that.)


1. Israel being proximate to Iran means it's right? Well, Turkey, Syria, and even Kuwait did not feel threatened by post 1991 Iraq. Why did Israel?

2. Their intelligence is better than ours and you base this on the buildup to the Iraq war? Ben, I hope you're kidding.

And as I said: the Israelis are militarily VERY powerful. They have nukes. If they want Iran to be attacked, fine... let them deploy ISRAELI troops and use ISRAELI military resources and pay for it with ISRAELI TAXPAYER MONEY!




stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:53:30 AM)

1) I don't believe Turkey, Syria and Kuwait have near the resources to gather intelligence that Israel has.

2) I kid you not. There are even those on this very board who will tell you of Israeli spying in the United States!




TheosCentric -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 9:59:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

1) I don't believe Turkey, Syria and Kuwait have near the resources to gather intelligence that Israel has.

Israel was the biggest backer in the world for the pre-war intelligence to go into Iraq. And most of that intelligence has turned out to be flawed.

quote:


2) I kid you not. There are even those on this very board who will tell you of Israeli spying in the United States!


Do you deny that Jonathan Pollard was spying on the U.S.? What about the recent spy case mentioned in my Israel thread?

If Israel wants our intelligence, they should ask, not spy on their ally.




RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 10:00:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

1) I don't believe Turkey, Syria and Kuwait have near the resources to gather intelligence that Israel has.

2) I kid you not. There are even those on this very board who will tell you of Israeli spying in the United States!


Ben, since you and I have disagreed almost to a fault in the past, let me make my positions as clear as possible.

I raised those 3 countries to illustrate the fallacy in your claim that Israel, by virtue of being in the region, might know something we might not. I also pinpointed those 3 countries to highlight how Iraq in 2002 was a battered state which was not a danger to its neighbors. A claim made by those pushing for war (including many Israelis and their American supporters) was that Iraq was a threat. But Kuwait (actually much more of a victim of Saddam Hussein than Israel) did not feel threatened. Ditto for Kuwait or Turkey.

I will not speak about those 3 countries' intelligence services, but you did say Israel's intelligence is more "intelligent" than ours. Ours is not perfect, but I would imagine that 16 federal agencies with the full support of the government of the United States of America might know what they are doing. Some may, as Dick Cheney did, pressure analysts to cook up data for the fulfillment of certain agendas. But even if our American intelligence is imperfect, it should still be trusted. Dick Cheney himself said so this week, as quoted by an Israeli newspaper.

And as for your second answer: Israel pushed us very hard to attack Iraq and they want us to do the same to Iran. As I said before, the Israelis are military powerful. They can attack Iran if they wish - just keep American soldiers out of it. We've lost way too many to death and serious injuries in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And as for Israeli spying in the US: I only have two words on this.

Jonathan Pollard.




RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 10:01:47 AM)

And as a disclaimer, I wrote my reply to Stamper_Ben without reading Ccoppenbarger's post preceding mine. That he knows the same facts and used the same things to reply is a mere coincidence, not any off-Crosswalk plot on his part or mine. [;)]




RichLP -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 10:02:52 AM)

Ccoppenberger: please check your inbox in about 5-10 minutes.




stamper_ben -> RE: Iran not building nukes (12/7/2007 11:48:26 AM)

quote:

No one with whom I've spoken believes that professional considerations, such as new intelligence, were decisive in changing the American assessment on Iran. What has been widely hailed in the American media as an expression of intelligence sobriety, even courage, is seen in the Israeli strategic community as precisely the opposite: an expression of political machination and cowardice. "The Americans often accuse us of tailoring our intelligence to suit our political needs," notes a former top security official. "But isn't this report a case study of doing precisely that?"

Adds a key security analyst: "The report didn't surprise me. The [American intelligence] system isn't healthy. It has been thoroughly politicized. I saw it when I brought hard evidence to them through the 1990s about how the Palestinian Authority was violating its commitments. Their responses weren't professional but political. This report only deepens the crisis of confidence we feel."

The debate over the report within the Israeli security network is whether the motive of its sponsors was ideological or opportunistic. Was the NIE a back-handed way of implementing the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for engagement with Iran? Or, more simply, was the NIE motivated by fear among intelligence analysts not to be caught exaggerating another WMD crisis?
Pretty much sums up how I see it.

From An Insult to Intelligence in The New Republic




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI