Mingbearer
Jr. Member
Karma: +3/-10
Posts: 52
|
 |
« on: December 18, 2007, 08:33:17 AM » |
|
But still Iran insists it must go ahead with enriching its own (FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES).
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I bear Ming
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2007, 05:38:54 PM » |
|
But still Iran insists it must go ahead with enriching its own (FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES).
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake).
With the Russians providing fuel grade Uranium, it loosens the Iranians production of nuclear weapons grade Uranium. IMHO -Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +30/-31
Posts: 868
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2007, 01:27:01 PM » |
|
It loosens the justification of doing so.
Uranium import is 10x cheaper than production if you don't have a military program to back it up.
The "economic incentive package" also contained guarantees that Iran will always get the uranium that they need. Iran blew it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)  |
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2007, 10:33:29 PM » |
|
You seriously think Bush is suddenly basing his foreign policy on 'legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President'? A little late for that don't you think? Closer to the truth there was never a serious intention to do it.
Ahk
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2007, 10:46:55 PM » |
|
You seriously think Bush is suddenly basing his foreign policy on 'legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President'? A little late for that don't you think? Closer to the truth there was never a serious intention to do it.
Ahk
Ahk, Bush has nine months left. You don't think the Republican Party hasn't put the brakes on? .. to at least give them a chance of another White House?  Un-huh, I'll sell you some swampland mate. Which is where the Republicans seem to be headed right now!  Regards Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2007, 11:17:54 AM » |
|
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake). Bush has nine months left. You don't think the Republican Party hasn't put the brakes on? .. to at least give them a chance of another White House?
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake). You guys are trying to make the argument that suddenly out of nowhere the Bush admin needs to be concerned with how they look and so everything they've said to date about Iran is now silenced in order to look like nice guys. Is that what Im hearing? Okay, while either of those two scenarios are -plausible- on a very simplistic level, I disagree. In fact I think these scenarios are both kinda 'out there'. To me, an infinitely more likely and simple explanation, in a cause-and-effect sense, is just that their own intelligence -the only thing they have to go to people and say, "look: they're enriching. told ya"- came back and told them they were all wack. Now what are they going to do? Seriously: What are they going to say? When they went to Iraq they had the CIA and other intelligence there telling them this and that so they could go to the US people, to the UN, to their allies and say, "Look, see?". Now what? Now they're just a handful fat rich white guys in a funny shaped office. They have nothing to hold a press conference with. Nothing to hold a national address with. Nothing to make demands over. Nothing to bang the war drum with. ' Has jack**** to do with 'how they look' guys, it has everything to do with there being jack**** to whine about Iran with anymore*. Ahk *(in terms of seeking a nuclear arsenal worth mention) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 11:22:30 AM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2007, 11:26:33 AM » |
|
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake). Bush has nine months left. You don't think the Republican Party hasn't put the brakes on? .. to at least give them a chance of another White House?
I think Bush's move to stop any attack on Iran's facilities has more to do with his legacy NOT being that of a warmongering President, than it does with any sense in not blowing the hell out of Iran (for the world's sake). You guys are trying to make the argument that suddenly out of nowhere the Bush admin needs to be concerned with how they look and so everything they've said to date about Iran is now silenced in order to look like nice guys. Is that what Im hearing? Okay, while either of those two scenarios are -plausible- on a very simplistic level, I disagree. In fact I think these scenarios are both kinda 'out there'. To me, an infinitely more likely and simple explanation, in a cause-and-effect sense, is just that their own intelligence -the only thing they have to go to people and say, "look: they're enriching. told ya"- came back and told them they were all wack. Now what are they going to do? Seriously: What are they going to say? When they went to Iraq they had the CIA and other intelligence there telling them this and that, but now what? Now they're just a handful fat rich white guys in a funny shaped office. They have nothing to hold a press conference with. Nothing to hold a national address with. Nothing to make demands over. Nothing to bang the war drum with. ' Has jack**** to do with 'how they look' guys, it has everything to do with there being jack**** to whine about Iran with anymore*. Ahk *(in terms of seeking a nuclear arsenal worth mention) Ahk, In the real world, Iran can start making Uranium anytime. And the extended NIE supports that view. Even the Debka Files say they will start again in March. Why do you believe the NIE summary and not the IAEA plus the UK, Israel, former administration security consultants, not to mention the NY Times analysis? Kind regards -Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2007, 03:48:38 PM » |
|
In the real world, Iran can start making Uranium anytime. Yes but in the even realer world, they aren't and it wouldn't really matter if they did. No matter when it's used the not the IAEA plus the UK, Israel, former administration security consultants, All those guys say Iran could make a nuke in ten years. So what? I don't entertain arguments based solely on 'they just shouldn't be allowed to have one'. Then no one should and whatcha gonna do about that? Y'see contrary to your thinking I believe the muddy waters and tough talk over Iran the past year is more of something to play in favor of the next election. Now that they're coming up dry (AGAIN) they're keeping their mouth shut. I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation why the Iran-gives-Nuke-to-Osama-to-use-against-USA theory is such a Holy Grail of Iranian vilification when most likely Osama is with the rest of al Qaeda and anti-American Islamic terrorism are IN PAKISTAN, which has plenty of reasonably sized nukes and has for years. IMO the 'terrorists-hit-the-US-with-a-nuke' scenario is FAR more likely getting one from Pakistan, than maybe anywhere else in the world, yet don't ever seem to hear any concerns over this. Why? Is Pakistan more US-friendly? Fewer Al Qaeda in Pakistan? (hardy-har-har) it makes zero sense. Ahk |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 03:53:11 PM by Ahkenaten »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2007, 03:58:10 PM » |
|
. (dryly) .. I note Ahk did not address the issues presented but seeks to go on to another entirely different topic. -Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Cassandra
Full Member
Karma: +17/-8
Posts: 209
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2007, 04:38:13 PM » |
|
Is it only me, or does this article from DEBKAfile confuse the issue even more than it already is? What is Mushroom Cloud Condi really saying? Is it just the Israeli interpretation of what is or is not reality in Iran? There is the NY Times analysis and then the article I posted on the other thread from the American Conservative about the NIE. Ahkenaten, may have a valid point in bringing up the Pakistani connection, particularly where Kahn was concerned. LOL, we may find ourselves in agreement that Osama may well be located in the Presidential Suite of the Islamabad Hilton. (Ank, I jest, sort of, but I'll return to topic and post the DEBKAfile article I find somewhat confusing and hope Terry or you will share an opinion on it.) DEBKAfile: Rice offers Iran more carrot than stick - better relations for suspending uranium enrichment and abandoning “confrontation” December 22, 2007, 9:51 PM (GMT+02:00) US abassador Gregory Schulte: Iran must come clean http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=4875 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.\" Sinclair Lewis
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2007, 07:29:44 PM » |
|
. Yeah Cassandra, Bush Jr thew in the towel (upcoming elections you see).  Regards Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-136
Posts: 1,664
Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2007, 07:38:21 AM » |
|
"I note Ahk did not address the issues presented but seeks to go on to another entirely different topic. "
Uh, no I didn't. I was always on the same topic. Maybe you should be less ambiguous with your questions/issues you wish to raise of me.
Ahk
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2007, 07:57:04 AM » |
|
"I note Ahk did not address the issues presented but seeks to go on to another entirely different topic. "
Uh, no I didn't. I was always on the same topic. Maybe you should be less ambiguous with your questions/issues you wish to raise of me.
Ahk
Still trying to duck Ahk? The IAEA and other sources mention months to three years, if you follow you nose mate!  .. definitely not ten. Regards Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2007, 11:18:25 AM » |
|
Terry, just tells us what should be done to Iran. What and when and how and following which events?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2007, 11:36:21 AM » |
|
Terry, just tells us what should be done to Iran. What and when and how and following which events?
Peisi, Once MOSSAD considers Iran to be an acute threat, I would take out their Uranium sites in a conventional manner. We already know they have some Nuke design work done (thank N. Korea and Syria). The question is, when do they start enriching uranium with their 3,000+ centrifuges again? Also we know that they can start up as soon as March up intil 2008. Don't for get Syrias biological and chemical missiles either. They do so want to badly throw a Nuke and destroy Israel. Better safe than sorry mate! BTW, Happy Hanukah! Kind regards Terry . . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
