While writing a project found this...

[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2221486,00.html#article_continue[/URL]

[FONT=Arial]Intelligence agencies say Tehran halted weapons programme in 2003[/FONT]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

meh...let's invade them anyways, hasn't stopped us before :p

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Miroslav;548693]meh...let's invade them anyways, hasn't stopped us before :p[/quote]

I actually laughed at that!

Re: Iran has no WMD's

When has rational fact ever stopped the current adminstration from acting.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=Miroslav;548693]meh...let's invade them anyways, hasn't stopped us before :p[/QUOTE]

yeah definitely. afterall, we're known for false intelligence reports..who's to say this one isn't false??

BOMB THE BROWN PEOPLE!

Re: Iran has no WMD's

The scary thing is that although almost every rational person would think that this means that there's no way that Bush would dare bomb Iran, I don't think we're out of the woods just yet. I don't think we've yet seen Bush's stupidity in all its splendor.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=toasty;548906]The scary thing is that although almost every rational person would think that this means that there's no way that Bush would dare bomb Iran, I don't think we're out of the woods just yet. I don't think we've yet seen Bush's stupidity in all its splendor.[/quote]

its like you can see the future Toasty: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/index.html[/url]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=Huggie Smiles;548969]its like you can see the future Toasty: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Trust me, picking that did not require a crystal ball. The guy is a war-mongering moron -- if there's a way he can spin something into an opportunity to bomb another country, he's going to do it.

The mindblowing thing, though, is that there are unfortunately plenty of people sitting at home stroking their replica cruise missiles saying, "Yeah, this [B]DOES[/B] prove that Iran is a bigger threat than we thought before this story came out. [B]LET'S BOMB 'EM!!![/B]"

Re: Iran has no WMD's

Check this out!!!!

[URL]http://www.realmofdarkness.net/pranks/bush-soundboards.htm[/URL]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

People hate Bush for believing intelligence before. Now they'll just hate him for not believing it now.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;549143]People hate Bush for believing intelligence before. Now they'll just hate him for not believing it now.[/QUOTE]

No, people hate Bush for ignoring and/or fixing intelligence before -- and for a host of other reasons that don't bear mention right now. Only the most ardent of Bush apologists still believe that Bush was hoodwinked with the rest of us.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=toasty;549161]No, people hate Bush for ignoring and/or fixing intelligence before -- and for a host of other reasons that don't bear mention right now. Only the most ardent of Bush apologists still believe that Bush was hoodwinked with the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

^this.

i didn't think there was anyone left apologizing for bush.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

Check this out from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley:

[QUOTE]"On balance, the estimate is good news," Hadley said. "On one hand it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to insure that that does not happen. But it also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314782,00.html[/url]

How do you reach the conclusion that "we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons" from a report that says that it hasn't been seeking nuclear weapons for 4 years? Keep in mind, also, that Bush evidently had this NIE as early as 1 year ago -- so all of these statements from Bush about Iran actively working towards the development of a nuclear weapon were demonstrably false when made per our own intelligence.

Can someone please impeach this clown? He is a dangerous, dangerous, dude to have at the helm, even for just another 14 months.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

^yep. agreed.

in my own head tho- i do think iran wants nukes even if they're not working on building them at the moment.

i don't trust ahmadinejad at all.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=Jenks;549169]

in my own head tho- i do think iran wants nukes even if they're not working on building them at the moment. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that puts Iran in pretty much the same category as dozens of other countries. Doesn't explain the ramped up rhetoric against Iran specifically, and the accusations only makes us lose even more credibility when shown to be at odds with our own intelligence. We need to keep tabs on these countries that want to develop nuclear weapons, not publicly call them out based upon smoke and mirrors.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Jenks;549169]^yep. agreed.

.[/quote]

are you agreeing to impeach Bushie?

Re: Iran has no WMD's

i'd agree to that, except wouldn't that leave cheney in charge? not good imo.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=Jenks;549266]i'd agree to that, except wouldn't that leave cheney in charge? not good imo.[/QUOTE]

you'd have to knock out Cheney at the same time, and personally, I think they've both earned it. That would leave Pelosi as President. Not my first choice, but so much better than what we've got now...

Re: Iran has no WMD's

I reeeeeeally don't like Pelosi.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=toasty;549172]Yeah, but that puts Iran in pretty much the same category as dozens of other countries. Doesn't explain the ramped up rhetoric against Iran specifically, and the accusations only makes us lose even more credibility when shown to be at odds with our own intelligence. We need to keep tabs on these countries that want to develop nuclear weapons, not publicly call them out based upon smoke and mirrors.[/quote]

fair enough, but you damn well know that when a country is hardlining its programme one week, then saying thier mortal enemies will be wiped off the map, rhetoric will be generated. the middle east will never be sane or peaceful. end of story. since the beginning of time it has been a war zone, and since the advent of islam it has been in constant warfare. the real question is..... why do we as outsiders even care anymore?

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE=thesightless;549272] the real question is..... why do we as outsiders even care anymore?[/QUOTE]

because there's a fuckload of oil over there. :lol:

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Jenks;549169]i don't trust ahmadinejad at all.[/quote]

bingo... That said, I do also agree with Toasty that we can't just go start bashing (much less invading) other countries with accusations that end up being complete bs...that's obviously not without its own unpleasant reprecussions for us in the longer term. There is a difficult balance to be managed here...on one hand, we shouldn't baselessly villify anyone and basically become the heavy-handed intolerance that we claim to abhor...on the other hand, a nuclear Iran or Syria won't be a pretty sight, and once the cat is out of the bag it's [I]done[/I]...we can't go back.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

"because there's a fuckload of oil over there. :lol: "

YES....one of the reasons why there has been a constant war in the middle east is because of oil...If the region is destabilized then oil is much cheaper and can be exchanged for protection...e.g. If there was peace in the Middle East why would the Saudi's Need so much protection from the US in exchange for oil. So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion.

Furhermore....the way technology is advancing all countries wanting WMD's will have them sooner or later as they will becme more readily available so there is no real stoping this - short of destroying every other nation apart from the US and its friends...(god, that would make things boring)

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[QUOTE]So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion. [/QUOTE]

THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING BEFORE 1947 ? ISLAM'S EXPANSION? THE ROMANS VS THE JEWS? ISLAM VS HINDU? ISLAM VS CHRISITIANITY? ISLAM VS ASIAN SECULAR RELIGIONS? JEWS VS ISLAM? JEWS VS CHRISTIANITY??

THE MIDDLE EAST WILL NEVER BE PEACEFUL, EVEN IF THE U.S.A. NEVER EXISTED.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

I agree with your statement, but all caps makes you look like a douche Sean. :p Im just sayin...

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=thesightless;549302]THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING BEFORE 1947 ? ISLAM'S EXPANSION? THE ROMANS VS THE JEWS? ISLAM VS HINDU? ISLAM VS CHRISITIANITY? ISLAM VS ASIAN SECULAR RELIGIONS? JEWS VS ISLAM? JEWS VS CHRISTIANITY?? THE MIDDLE EAST WILL NEVER BE PEACEFUL, EVEN IF THE U.S.A. NEVER EXISTED.[/quote]

MATE....calm down!!! for fuck sake...:shock:

I don't account for anything but in all likelihood (if we are talking hypothetically here) Israel would have been wiped out a long time ago if not for USA right??? There you have it no war between Jews and Muslims in the middle east -- Again I am not saying that this is the right thing to have happened I am just stating what I believe would have happened--- as for Islam vs Hindu, that’s Britain’s fault to large extent --- in the process of decolonisation of India.

The other questions are broader than Middle East...and are questions of religious conviction --- I have none so I feel inadequate to answer...as far as I am concerned all religions could be banned for all I care or allowed to peacefully co-exist .... p.s. Buddhism is the best religion IMO.

p.p.s We were talking present time not history...but I see where you are comming from

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Shpira;549294]"because there's a fuckload of oil over there. :lol: "

YES....one of the reasons why there has been a constant war in the middle east is because of oil...If the region is destabilized then oil is much cheaper and can be exchanged for protection...e.g. If there was peace in the Middle East why would the Saudi's Need so much protection from the US in exchange for oil. So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion.[/quote]

Actually, if you take a closer look at economics I think you may see that you've got this a bit backwards. The US would very much prefer [I]stability[/I] - but as long as it is their kind of stability, of course (meaning, not with the extremists and terrorists in power).

When there is an increased threat of violence and destabilization in the Middle East, the price of oil [I]GOES UP[/I], not down. I can find you all kinds of news articles that talk about the temporary impact on future markets of terrorist nutjobs blowing up a portion of a pipeline over there. Commodity markets do not like uncertainty about supply and react to it in the aforementioned way.

Aside from the market economics, increased violence in the Middle East would most likely be along the lines of US/Jews vs. Arabs, as it has most always been before...this wouldn't make Arabs more inclined to give us a better deal on oil. It is true that the US is propping up the Saudi Arabian government, but I think it is doing this precisely in the hopes of preserving as much stability as possible by not letting more extremist Saudi groups kick the royal family out and take over the reigns.

Finaly, there already is a group of oil producing nations that get together and regulate oil output and thus significantly influence price: OPEC. They don't call us and ask our opinion before they set policy.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

It seems the main thing is with this intelligence report makes Bush look more like a fraud and this country more inept for going along with it, regardless of how you personally feel about the war. Still seems politicans are afraid to nail him to cross collectively especially as a lame duck president. This apprehension allow Bush to continue his foot in mouth policy. You have to remember this guy was boys with Billy Graham, who was a total whackjob, consulting him at times, now that is scary shit. Bush may go down in history as babbling naybob of a president, but until Jan. 20th 2009 he'll give the press something to report, because the 2008 elections seem like a sleeper right now.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Miroslav;549380]Actually, if you take a closer look at economics I think you may see that you've got this a bit backwards. The US would very much prefer [I]stability[/I] - but as long as it is their kind of stability, of course (meaning, not with the extremists and terrorists in power). When there is an increased threat of violence and destabilization in the Middle East, the price of oil [I]GOES UP[/I], not down. I can find you all kinds of news articles that talk about the temporary impact on future markets of terrorist nutjobs blowing up a portion of a pipeline over there. Commodity markets do not like uncertainty about supply and react to it in the aforementioned way. Aside from the market economics, increased violence in the Middle East would most likely be along the lines of US/Jews vs. Arabs, as it has most always been before...this wouldn't make Arabs more inclined to give us a better deal on oil. It is true that the US is propping up the Saudi Arabian government, but I think it is doing this precisely in the hopes of preserving as much stability as possible by not letting more extremist Saudi groups kick the royal family out and take over the reigns. Finaly, there already is a group of oil producing nations that get together and regulate oil output and thus significantly influence price: OPEC. They don't call us and ask our opinion before they set policy.[/quote]

Yes...I know all of that ...and I understand market economics...but I am pretty sure that the US has some special deal with the Saudi's. It must do for all the services rendered + its going to have a special deal with the Iraq government + if its army picks up the oil directly from the place its taken out of the ground its surely cheaper as the US guarantees safety...+ as you say "their kind of stability" will hardly ever happen...

...I understand market economics and generally what you are saying is true ...nevertheless on the other hand I am not sure what pays more for the USA... because surely if it wasn't profitable why do it...?

If you know that you are going to loose money in the long run on oil prices why sell weapons to both sides so that they can fight each other??? Why invade Iraq and stay there for 5 years sitting on your hands while people kill each other by the hundreds each day... Maybe you can explain why the US government would go against its own interests...cuz I don't get it?

I for one think that its more than an Idiot president....don’t get me wrong I’m not saying conspiracy and what not but there are perhapse interests we don't know about...

Re: Iran has no WMD's

lol

I can't wait for Bush to be like. I meant to go after Iran but I said Iraq by accident.

honestly i don't trust reading stuff on paper. there has to be actual visual fact for this type of things.

I lack trust in everything. I want actual proof. If it is a real document. I want everyone name on it signed with their own blood, and that is when I will know that they really mean it.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Shpira;549529]If you know that you are going to loose money in the long run on oil prices why sell weapons to both sides so that they can fight each other??? Why invade Iraq and stay there for 5 years sitting on your hands while people kill each other by the hundreds each day... Maybe you can explain why the US government would go against its own interests...cuz I don't get it?

I for one think that its more than an Idiot president....don’t get me wrong I’m not saying conspiracy and what not but there are perhapse interests we don't know about...[/quote]

To answer your question: I think the US props up the Saudi Arabian royal family and sells arms to various contingencies over there precisely because it wants to [I]preverse[/I] stability, not create instability. But the catch is that the US wants to preserve a kind of stability that is [I]in its own best interests[/I]; the last thing the US wants to see is some militant/terrorist factions get into power and possibly doing something nutty with the oil (like play around with output levels to the US's disadvantage). So, the US tries to prop up various players that it thinks are in their own interest but who are "weak" - i.e., in danger of being toppled by extremist factions. I think this fits the Saudi ruling family quite well...this is from back in 2004: [URL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128348,00.html[/URL]

I also doubt that the US is getting some sort of a special deal on oil. Oil is sold through complex global commodity markets with many players in there, and it just isn't anywhere nearly as simple as "hey, give us some weapons and we'll drop ship a few barrels to you". I think the upside to the US of this kind of activity is simply that the groups it likes stay in power and as much stability as possible is maintained.

I'm not saying that what the US is doing is right or just, mind you...this is just my $.02 of what I figure is going on.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

"this is just my $.02 of what I figure is going on."

I don't really understand what this means...?

Sorry, I'm not American....

Re: Iran has no WMD's

[quote=Shpira;549577]"this is just my $.02 of what I figure is going on."

I don't really understand what this means...?

Sorry, I'm not American....[/quote]

It means it's just my opinion of what is happening - in written form, the expression here is: "my two cents" on the situation.

Re: Iran has no WMD's

Well okay...thats fair enough. Nevertheless I still think that something as simple as "hey, give us some weapons and we'll drop ship a few barrels to you" is happening. Maybe not exactly in those words....but there are so many breaches of these "complex market mechanisms" such as the oil for food scandals in the 90's with Sadams government.

I agree that on face value and generally speaking it is market regulated but I think when it comes to vital national interests (Oil being one of the main ones) anything goes.

p.s. thanks for explaining the term

Re: Iran has no WMD's

^^ np :) and I respect your opinion...it might come out that way in the news some day, who knows..