Nuclear weapons in Iran much less likely

[Higgly]

A new US intelligence report says nuclear weapons in Iran are much less likely than previously thought and that Iran in fact stopped making advancements towards the production of nuclear weapons four years ago.

The White House is apparently not very happy with the report. General consensus is that the US Intelligence Agencies have reconfigured themselves to be less vulnerable to the kind of political pressure that caused them to produce the distorted intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

It looks as though it was almost deja WMD all over again...

This is most likely a death knell for the Bush administration.

[aras]

A new US intelligence report says nuclear weapons in Iran are much less likely than previously thought and that Iran in fact stopped making advancements towards the production of nuclear weapons four years ago.

The White House is apparently not very happy with the report. General consensus is that the US Intelligence Agencies have reconfigured themselves to be less vulnerable to the kind of political pressure that caused them to produce the distorted intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

It looks as though it was almost deja WMD all over again...

This is most likely a death knell for the Bush administration.

This is too bad. All Arab and Muslim countries need to have WMD. Israel and US do. Pakistan does. Iran should too.

You can not stop US from invading your country unless you have WMD. Human lives have no value for them. If US army was not overstretched, it would be in Iran too.

Edited December 3, 2007 by aras

[Higgly]

This is too bad. All Arab and Muslim countries need to have WMD. Israel and US do. Pakistan does. Iran should too.

You can not stop US from invading your country unless you have WMD. Human lives have no value for them. If US army was not overstretched, it would be in Iran too.

Personally, I'd prefer that nobody has them.

[aras]

Personally, I'd prefer that nobody has them.

"Duel was a consensual fight between two people, with matched deadly weapons." There is honor in that, if anyone insists on assuming there should be honor in war and death. However, there is no honor in a few nations bullying weaker nations, invading them, and threatening them. I really don't think US would have dared invade Iraq if Iraq had WMD.

[jdobbin]

The White House is apparently not very happy with the report. General consensus is that the US Intelligence Agencies have reconfigured themselves to be less vulnerable to the kind of political pressure that caused them to produce the distorted intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

A spokesman for Bush said that it won't change the policy on Iran.

I just wonder what they intend to hit as a first strike.

[sharkman]

This is too bad. All Arab and Muslim countries need to have WMD. Israel and US do. Pakistan does. Iran should too.

You can not stop US from invading your country unless you have WMD. Human lives have no value for them. If US army was not overstretched, it would be in Iran too.

Gee, how silly can you get. Uh, Canada has no nukes and has managed to elude the clutches of the evil darth vader empire to the south for over 200 years! And how many non nuke oil producing countries have yet to be attacked?

[aras]

Gee, how silly can you get. Uh, Canada has no nukes and has managed to elude the clutches of the evil darth vader empire to the south for over 200 years! And how many non nuke oil producing countries have yet to be attacked?

Canada does not have OIL. Canada does not have a strategic position. Canada is the little dog that gets dragged behind US all the time. Canada is a frightened little baby afraid to stand up to US. I still don't understand what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. It's a concession: since Canada refused to go to war in Iraq now it has to do in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never posed any direct threat to Canada.

I was referring to countries and governments that want to stand up to outside pressure and do only what they deem right--not that which is forced upon them.

There are nations that US sees as threat or competition or whatever. Their culture or religion or way of life may not fit in with America's capitalist ideology and future plans. These are the nations that could do well to have WMD--or somekind of advanced weapons so that they could at least show some resistance to US.

There is nothing inherently evil about US or capitalism. However, whenever you combine and ideology with a superpower, you better be afraid.

[AngusThermopyle]

Canada does not have OIL. Canada does not have a strategic position. Canada is the little dog that gets dragged behind US all the time. Canada is a frightened little baby afraid to stand up to US. I still don't understand what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. It's a concession: since Canada refused to go to war in Iraq now it has to do in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never posed any direct threat to Canada.

Canada does not have Oil? Since when? Better tell all those guys up in Fort Mac that, Hybernia as well. We most certainly do hold a strategic position, or do you think Norad was built for fun? Just something to do?

Nope, we're not a scared little baby, we're friends and neighbours. Much as you might hate that fact. Trading partners as well.

Afghanistan, well thats the only semi sensible thing you said in that paragraph. We're there to help get rid of a fundamentalist regime of thugs and murderers. Canadians were also killed by the same kind of thugs in 911. Or do they not matter to you?

[sharkman]

Canada does not have Oil? Since when? Better tell all those guys up in Fort Mac that, Hybernia as well. We most certainly do hold a strategic position, or do you think Norad was built for fun? Just something to do?

Nope, we're not a scared little baby, we're friends and neighbours. Much as you might hate that fact. Trading partners as well.

Afghanistan, well thats the only semi sensible thing you said in that paragraph. We're there to help get rid of a fundamentalist regime of thugs and murderers. Canadians were also killed by the same kind of thugs in 911. Or do they not matter to you?

This aras guy talks out his ass way too much. I never thought I'd see the day, a muslim talking smack.

[ScottSA]

This is most likely a death knell for the Bush administration.

No, but that statement was the death knell of your already floundering reputation for knowledge of intl relations, since if true, the demise of the program is directly linked to the fear in the hearts of petty tyrants generated by Afghanistan and Iraq.

[marcinmoka]

Canada is a frightened little baby afraid to stand up to US.

What would be the point? Feelings of inadequacy? Sure the U.S is not perfect though no one is and yet they come closer than most. Not to mention we hold a (very) mutually beneficial relationship.

Maybe to your (wishful/naive thinking), we should form a strategic alliance with Algeria, perhaps China? No doubt they would be just as generous in offering economic partnerships, military protection, not to mention their bang up job as leaders in domains such as human rights, scientific advancement, etc.

Well, unless you prefer to follow the isolationist course of our good friend Krazy Kim in the good ol' "D"PRK.

Lemme just take a stab in the dark. You are a 18-22 yr old kid who is close to finishing his/her first semester in college, enrolled in either a polisci, philosophy and/or literary theory class and feel enlightened after having read a quick chapter about Adorno's neo-marxist analysis of contemporary society, and are in the midst of demonstrating the de rigeur youthful display of rebelliousness against the 'evil' and 'unfair' establishment, i.e that same establishment which provides the security and prosperity you enjoy today while you wrote your 40 posts in one day, rather than hauling bags of subsistence crops on your shoulders.

Edited December 4, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Higgly]

A spokesman for Bush said that it won't change the policy on Iran.

I just wonder what they intend to hit as a first strike.

Just like Iraq. The WMD were just a story to get everybody riled up. Now that WMD have turned out to be BS, it's on to the next story.

What is remarkable is the number of people who have bought into this simply on the strength of what Bush has been saying. The guy is proven a lying thug and yet no sooner are the words out of his mouth than the warmongers start shrieking hysterically.

[DogOnPorch]

marcinmoka: Lemme just take a stab in the dark. You are a 18-22 yr old kid who is close to finishing his/her first semester in college, enrolled in either a polisci, philosophy and/or literary theory class and feel enlightened after having read a quick chapter about Adorno's neo-marxist analysis of contemporary society...et al

Wonderful...simply wonderful. Hats off.

(back to shoveling snow...won't it ever stop?? BC is under either a huge blanket of snow or a massive puddle of rain)

-----------------------------------

The greatest problem in the world today is intolerance. Everyone is so intolerant of each other.

---Princess Diana

[M.Dancer]

Canada does not have OIL.

For someone who claims to have aphd you sure are in the dark about a lot of things. That couple with the bogus news you try to pass off leads me to assume you are a know nothing troll.

[Wilber]

A spokesman for Bush said that it won't change the policy on Iran.

I just wonder what they intend to hit as a first strike.

Bush won't attack Iran.

[jdobbin]

Bush won't attack Iran.

Bush wouldn't rule it out and got authority to strike if and when he thought it was necessary. I don't think you can definitely say that they wouldn't attack Iran.

[buffycat]

Bush won't attack Iran.

Perhaps, but Israel REALLY wants to!! If she does, the American President has already pledged that NO MATTER WHAT the US will support Israel (read: American kids will die for Israel).

Also, keep in mind that Peter McKay has recently signed 'something' with Israel which most likely commits our government to blind support as well. (This was VERY hush hush in the Canadian media and wasn't even reported here until a week after it coming out in Jpost. Since then there has been silence, as well as a little back peddling and lying.

So...no Bush might not do it - but if Israel gets her way the Americans will be there.

[trex]

Perhaps, but Israel REALLY wants to!! If she does, the American President has already pledged that NO MATTER WHAT the US will support Israel (read: American kids will die for Israel).

Also, keep in mind that Peter McKay has recently signed 'something' with Israel which most likely commits our government to blind support as well. (This was VERY hush hush in the Canadian media and wasn't even reported here until a week after it coming out in Jpost. Since then there has been silence, as well as a little back peddling and lying.

So...no Bush might not do it - but if Israel gets her way the Americans will be there.

I was wondering, could that be why Iran sent our ambassador home?

And BuffyCat do you have any links?

Edited December 4, 2007 by trex

[buffycat]

I was wondering, could that be why they Iran our ambassador home?

And BuffyCat do you have any links?

Not sure about the ambassador thing, seems odd though.

Yeah, here is the jpost link:

Israel, Canada sign security accord

I posted it here a while back.. you can search if you like.

Here is the Globe article: YOU GOTTA PAY FOR IT

Which is totally lame, since it was in the regular sections when it came out. I should've saved it, but I didn't.

All very cloak and dagger (probably because most Canadians would question whether aligning ourselves so closely with Israeli policies is in Canada's best interests). IMO they are NOT.

Edited to add the link to the first thread I started on this:

Found on Google

Edited December 4, 2007 by buffycat

[ScottSA]

The absolute ignorance, of even well discussed events, shown in the last three posts is astounding.

[jdobbin]

Bush news conference today on Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22095352/

That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.

It is also stood in marked contrast to Bush's rhetoric on Iran. At his last news conference on Oct. 17, for instance, he said that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week. But he portrayed it as valuable ammunition against Tehran, not as a reason to lessen diplomatic pressure.

[Wilber]

Bush wouldn't rule it out and got authority to strike if and when he thought it was necessary. I don't think you can definitely say that they wouldn't attack Iran.

Bush had popular support when he invaded Iraq. He no longer has that and he has never had it when it comes to attacking Iran. Bush will not attack Iran.

[jdobbin]

Bush had popular support when he invaded Iraq. He no longer has that and he has never had it when it comes to attacking Iran. Bush will not attack Iran.

I don't have as much confidence as you do that that won't happen. I don't disagree that he doesn't have popular support for a war but as far as an attack goes...it is hard to say. I thought they would justify an attack because of weapons coming into Iraq from Iran.

[Higgly]

This evening on CNN ("The Situation Room - Cafferty File") it was reported that US intelligent services were dropping heavy hints last summer that things had changed with respect to Iran; there are now suspicions that Bush either knew or knew he should have been asking questions of his intelligence agencies.

Cafferty credited the Cheney mentality at the White House for the constant war mongering.

Bush gave a press conference today saying that nothing has changed. He looked like a fool. It is going to be a lot easier now for those who are advocating a rapid withdrawl from Iraq. I'd say the Annapolis conference is not looking too good either.

The BBC interviewed the Israeli Ambassador to Britain this evening. The ambassador started in on the same old rant about Ahmedinijad's rhetoric and the BBC interviewer stopped him and asked if Israeli intelligene had anything different to say than American intelligence about Iranian nukes. The ambassador ran away from the question in a mumbling vaque sort of way and lapsed into another rant about North Korea and the Holocaust. The BBC cut him off.

There was an interesting bit in the Economist a couple of weeks ago (Nov 24) indicating that the average Iranian is somewhat dismayed at Ahmedinijad's anti-Israel rhetoric and does not agree with it.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Higgly

[Wilber]

I don't have as much confidence as you do that that won't happen. I don't disagree that he doesn't have popular support for a war but as far as an attack goes...it is hard to say. I thought they would justify an attack because of weapons coming into Iraq from Iran.

I still say he will not attack Iran. There is no upside to it for him or the US.