Iranian Nuclear Threat - Real or Not?

[Hudson Jones]

I had hoped that people would have learned from the past major war which saw plenty of rhetoric and false marketing towards a war with Iraq on the basis of possession of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we are again seeing people repeating the same hysterical lines offered by the war marketing machine. This despite irrefutable information which show nothing much has changed with Iran's nuclear program since 2003.

Here is Seymour Hersh:

The net effect has been to create “more concern.” But Robert Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, “were old news,” Kelley said, and known to many journalists. “I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ‘new information’ by the same reporters.”

Here is more from his article:

The I.A.E.A.’s report “suggests,” the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran “is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.” Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.” He added, “Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

The last comment explains the situation well: “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb. Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

[Hudson Jones]

Here is more from the retired Mossad Chief:

'Iran far from posing existential threat'

Ex-Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warns strike on Iran could have devastating effect for region. 'Ultra-Orthodox radicalization poses bigger threat than Ahmadinejad,' he says

[dre]

I had hoped that people would have learned from the past major war which saw plenty of rhetoric and false marketing towards a war with Iraq on the basis of possession of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we are again seeing people repeating the same hysterical lines offered by the war marketing machine. This despite irrefutable information which show nothing much has changed with Iran's nuclear program since 2003.

Here is Seymour Hersh:

The net effect has been to create “more concern.” But Robert Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, “were old news,” Kelley said, and known to many journalists. “I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ‘new information’ by the same reporters.”

Here is more from his article:

The I.A.E.A.’s report “suggests,” the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran “is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.” Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.” He added, “Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

The last comment explains the situation well: “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb. Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

Yeah I definately noticed this. I read that IAEA report, which basically says theres a "possibility of this", and a "possibility of that", and then tuned into CNN and saw the following headline...

REPORT SHOWS THAT IRAN IS BUILDING A NUCLEAR BOMB!!!!

All of this based on the same clowns that told us WMD's in Iraq were a "Slam Dunk".

And you see the same types of people trying to use the same slogans. If you suggest that we should have evidence before we spend blood and treasure on a major war, these clowns say "PROOF WILL BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD" And then they say "well OF COURSE Irans building a bomb, and OF COURSE they want to nuke Israel with it". And act like these assumptions are some kind incontravertable biblical truth. Just like they did in Iraq.

And when theyre unable to find any evidence of nuclear weapons theyll say...

"Thats because they are developing their technology in the backs of trucks" :lol: And some shithead will appear before the UN with a little vial of uranium.

Edited December 2, 2011 by dre

[olp1fan]

Not

[Signals.Cpl]

Yeah I definately noticed this. I read that IAEA report, which basically says theres a "possibility of this", and a "possibility of that", and then tuned into CNN and saw the following headline...

REPORT SHOWS THAT IRAN IS BUILDING A NUCLEAR BOMB!!!!

All of this based on the same clowns that told us WMD's in Iraq were a "Slam Dunk".

And you see the same types of people trying to use the same slogans. If you suggest that we should have evidence before we spend blood and treasure on a major war, these clowns say "PROOF WILL BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD" And then they say "well OF COURSE Irans building a bomb, and OF COURSE they want to nuke Israel with it". And act like these assumptions are some kind incontravertable biblical truth. Just like they did in Iraq.

And when theyre unable to find any evidence of nuclear weapons theyll say...

"Thats because they are developing their technology in the backs of trucks" :lol: And some shithead will appear before the UN with a little vial of uranium.

At this point in time, no nation in the western world wants a war with Iran, least of all the Americans. This is not about going to war, this is about assurance from Iran that they will a) Not attack Israel, and stop all production and research in to nuclear weapons.In 2003 the US was activly seeking war, in 2011 the US is activly seeking to AVOID a war. I dont want a war, and I am sure the vast majority of people in the westworld want a peacefull resolution. The Iraq war put 4 trillion(4,000,000,000,000) dollars of debt on to the US as well as 4700 Coalition soldiers death and 32,000 wounded.

[dre]

At this point in time, no nation in the western world wants a war with Iran, least of all the Americans. This is not about going to war, this is about assurance from Iran that they will a) Not attack Israel, and stop all production and research in to nuclear weapons.In 2003 the US was activly seeking war, in 2011 the US is activly seeking to AVOID a war. I dont want a war, and I am sure the vast majority of people in the westworld want a peacefull resolution. The Iraq war put 4 trillion(4,000,000,000,000) dollars of debt on to the US as well as 4700 Coalition soldiers death and 32,000 wounded.

I dont believe that to be true. Iran has already given assurances that it has no nuclear weapons program and no plans on starting an open war with Israel. And they have been relatively cooperative with the IAEA and allowed a lot of inspections.

Nothing Iran can do or say would make any difference. Just like Saddam allowing inspectors in to look for WMD's did nothing to stop the invasion. They made up stories about weapons labs on trucks...

Im seeing the same patterns repeated here. Same people, same hyperbole, same sloganeering.

Edited December 2, 2011 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Good gosh...that's what the Nazis were saying after Czechoslovakia and there were fools that believed THEM, too.

Edited December 2, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Jack Weber]

Good gosh...that's what the Nazis were saying after Czechoslovakia and there were fools that believed THEM, too.

"I have in my hand a piece of paper with Adolph Hitler's signature on it...I believe we have achieved peace in our time!"

[DogOnPorch]

That's one of the fools right there.

[Signals.Cpl]

"I have in my hand a piece of paper with Adolph Hitler's signature on it...I believe we have achieved peace in our time!"

And yet Hitler had written what he wanted to do with Czechoslovakia 13 years prior to those events. I guess the human race is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Also just a simple question, who here believes the US is willing and able to eneter in to another conflict with a country that has 2 and a half times the population of Iraq?

[Jack Weber]

And yet Hitler had written what he wanted to do with Czechoslovakia 13 years prior to those events. I guess the human race is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Also just a simple question, who here believes the US is willing and able to eneter in to another conflict with a country that has 2 and a half times the population of Iraq?

Of course he did!!!

Mein Kampf was written in 1925 and was translated into several languages before 1933.The problem was that the entire civilized world did not want to enter another conflict like it had between '14 and '18.Little did the powers of the time know that if they had done something,the conflict between '39 and '45 would have much less worse than it turned out to be.

And I don't believe the US has the financial fortitude or the will of the populous of that country to enter into any ground conflict with Iran.Another thing,startegically speaking,Iraq is basically flat desert...Iran is very mountainous...

[dre]

And yet Hitler had written what he wanted to do with Czechoslovakia 13 years prior to those events. I guess the human race is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Also just a simple question, who here believes the US is willing and able to eneter in to another conflict with a country that has 2 and a half times the population of Iraq?

The mistake the world made with Germany was not failing to wage a pre-emptive war. It was failing to act when Germany started invading its neighbors. The world DID learn a lesson from this which is why when a country like Iraq invaded their neighbor Kuwait, there was a pretty robust response. Should the west have invaded Iraq based on vague and soft "intelligence" that suggested the "possibility" that Saddam "might" invade Kuwait? Because thats all we have on Iran.

If Iran invades its neighbors like Germany did you can bet there most certainly WILL be a robust response by the rest of the world, and dozens of countries with boots on the ground over there to put them in their place.

To suggest that the lesson learned from WW2 is that we should wage elective, and pre-emtive wars based on sketchy intelligence is a GROSS distortion of both logic and history.

Edited December 2, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

....Also just a simple question, who here believes the US is willing and able to eneter in to another conflict with a country that has 2 and a half times the population of Iraq?

The US is certainly able to do so, and willing under the right circumstances.

[Signals.Cpl]

The mistake the world made with Germany was not failing to wage a pre-emptive war. It was failing to act to when Germany started invading its neighbors. The world DID learn a lesson from this which is why when a country like Iraq invaded their neighbor Kuwait, there was a pretty robust response. Should the west have invaded Iraq based on vague and soft "intelligence" that suggested the "possibility" that Saddam "might" invade Kuwait? Because thats all we have on Iran.

If Iran invades its neighbors like Germany did you can bet there most certainly WILL be a robust response by the rest of the world, and dozens of countries with boots on the ground over there to put them in their place.

To suggest that lesson learned from WW2 is that we should wage elective, and pre-emtive wars based on sketchy intelligence is a GROSS distortion of both logic and history.

The argument is not weather or not to invade, the argument is weather or not to stand by Israel in the face of Iran's threats.

If the allies, had interviened in 1936, and informer Hitler that Remilitarization of the Rhineland would not be acceptable under any and all circumstances, if the allies, had stood by Austria and guaranteed its existance and if they had protected rather then sold out Czechoslovakia the war would have been avoided. If they had acted properly during ANY of these events, World War 2 might have been a minor affair.

I do not favour war in this case, mainly because by the best of estimates, the Iranians are years away from obtaining a working weapon, thus I think this is the perfect time to prevent this by attempting sanction and any and all other peacefull options at our disposal. War has been and will always be a last resort, a desperate decision to prevent something worse then war from happening, so please do not put words in my mouth, I favour strong action with military action on the table but as a last resort, I do not war until all other options are exausted.

[Signals.Cpl]

The US is certainly able to do so, and willing under the right circumstances.

I did not mean the US is unable in the sence that its military is unable to wage the war. What I meant was the US economy cannot sustain another occupation, and the American public will not be willing to go to war with Iran unless its a last resort.

[bush_cheney2004]

I did not mean the US is unable in the sence that its military is unable to wage the war. What I meant was the US economy cannot sustain another occupation, and the American public will not be willing to go to war with Iran unless its a last resort.

No, I think you underestimate the lingering resentment for Iran going back to 1979. The US certainly wants "regime change" in Iran, and some of Iran's neighbours are on board too. President Obama extended an opportunity to resume diplomatic relations upon entering office, but he was rebuffed as The Great Satan.

Iran would be the hat trick for American policy in the region....Iran just needs to provide a good enough reason to do it.

[olp1fan]

americans resent iran? more like iranians resent america for the US doing its part in overthrowing

its elected government

as for the great satan... that describes US foreign policy very well

[bush_cheney2004]

americans resent iran? more like iranians resent america for the US doing its part in overthrowing

its elected government

So is that why Haitians hate Canada?

as for the great satan... that describes US foreign policy very well

If you believe in Satan.

[olp1fan]

So is that why Haitians hate Canada?

If you believe in Satan.

i deeply regret what Canada did in Haiti

i dont believe in satan but the idea is there

[bush_cheney2004]

i deeply regret what Canada did in Haiti

So does that make Canada The Little Satan?

i dont believe in satan but the idea is there

Iran is going to wish it was just Satan.

[olp1fan]

So does that make Canada The Little Satan?

Iran is going to wish it was just Satan.

Which other times has canada done this? probably much fewer than the Us right

[bush_cheney2004]

Which other times has canada done this? probably much fewer than the Us right

Does that make it "better"? You can rationalize things any way you want...just like me. Nothing special about Iran on America's "hit parade".

[dre]

The American public will not be willing to go to war with Iran unless its a last resort.

Then just tell them its a last resort! Invent a bunch of stories and then have the CIA say its a "slam dunk".

Problem solved.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then just tell them its a last resort! Invent a bunch of stories and then have the CIA say its a "slam dunk".

Problem solved.

Won't even be that hard...for a lot of Americans, Iraq was just a substitute punching bag for Iran. Some still have their ayatollah dart boards!

[olp1fan]

Does that make it "better"? You can rationalize things any way you want...just like me. Nothing special about Iran on America's "hit parade".

it just makes america more satanic than canada