Iranian president raises stakes against Israel. (1 Viewer)

[Deuceistheman]

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-42553620090918

We should continue to negotiate.....

ANY country that has a threatening tone and the POSSIBILITY of using nuclear weapons is very dangerous. How all of the more civil countries end up dealing with this, will be very interesting, especially when one considers the latest report from the AP article and expressed by the IAEA.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AP714G0&show_article=1

 

[blackadder]

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-42553620090918

We should continue to negotiate.....

ANY country that has a threatening tone and the POSSIBILITY of using nuclear weapons is very dangerous. How all of the more civil countries end up dealing with this, will be very interesting, especially when one considers the latest report from the AP article and expressed by the IAEA.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AP714G0&show_article=1

There is absolutely nothing new here. No stakes have been "raised". Horrible journalism.

It's Quds day. The hard liners get out and rail against Israel and deflect the people's attention from their own problems.

Reference to a "secret report" that says Iran has "sufficient information" to make a bomb. Sure they do. I have suffient information to have the ability to kill you.

The non-secret part of the report says Iran is not diverting nuclear material to a weapons program and latest U.S. Intel says they have no active weapons program:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090917_3617.php

Iran is not going to launch a suididal nuclear strike against anyone and starting another war on that premise is asinine.

Therefore, it is likely to happen.

 

[Saintman2884]

We need to start talking about the problems, but it couldn't hurt for Achmed to stop insulating or suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen, just because of the fact that mentioning it or inferring to it ****** mostly everyone else off. The Holocaust is none of his business to spew out about especially since I gather he's probably never taken a trip to Auschwitz and SEEN the ruins of the place itself in Poland. If he has, I hope his trip was worth at least something.

This is about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, and how to find a drawn out agreement at some point. If he sincerely feels that Israel needs to stop it's settlements program in the West Bank, for God's sakes stop mentioning what happened in Germany some 70 years ago never happened because it a source of disgust. That's inane logic right there and it insults even his own supporters in Iran who say the same damn thing about him, even a few clerics on the Supreme Council and the Guardian Council.

 

[Jeff Miller]

nothing will come of it, because the international community does not have the will to act. Some want as much turmoil as possible because it keeps the price of oil higher than it would be otherwise.

 

[Deuceistheman]

The non-secret part of the report says Iran is not diverting nuclear material to a weapons program and latest U.S. Intel says they have no active weapons program:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090917_3617.php

Iran is not going to launch a suididal nuclear strike against anyone and starting another war on that premise is asinine.

Therefore, it is likely to happen.

Just like when U.S. intel had information on WMD within Iraq?

When it is convenient to support U.S. intel, I find it interesting many people will state such things as fact, right or left, when in reallity, is is simply another article to read. In retrospect, many of the same people that are quick to support U.S. intel now, wouldn't have any of it back when the war on Iraq was about to begin. Not that I believed any thing they had back then was reliable, but I couldn't tell you, or anyone else, that what they have now is factual.

Believe who you want, when you want and what you want, to support your position when it is covenient. Good job.

 

[blackadder]

Just like when U.S. intel had information on WMD within Iraq?

When it is convenient to support U.S. intel, I find it interesting many people will state such things as fact, right or left, when in reallity, is is simply another article to read. In retrospect, many of the same people that are quick to support U.S. intel now, wouldn't have any of it back when the war on Iraq was about to begin. Not that I believed any thing they had back then was reliable, but I couldn't tell you, or anyone else, that what they have now is factual.

Believe who you want, when you want and what you want, to support your position when it is covenient. Good job.

No, we did not have intel that there was WMD in Iraq and it threatened the US, at least not from the professional intel analysts.

Uncorroborated evidence and outright lies were cherrypicked by political appointees.

There was much dissent within the intelligence community and it was purposefully quashed in order to get us a "splendid little war".


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18022551/

BAER: We fought a war on a lie. And that‘s the important issue, on a lie.


MATTHEWS: Whose?

BAER: The administration‘s, the White House‘s. It was not the CIA‘s.
It was not the Pentagon‘s. This stuff was ordered top-down.

MATTHEWS: What is George Tenet going to say in his book, when it comes out in a couple of weeks? Is he going to say, they made me do it?
BAER: Tenet is a political servant of Washington. He will come in and say, this is what they wanted. I served the president, this executive branch. I was an employee of...
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Who is the CIA director responsive to, under the Constitution, under our form of government?
(CROSSTALK)

BAER: The president of the United States.

MATTHEWS: So, if the president says the moon is made of blue cheese, he‘s supposed to say that?

BAER: Got to. And then they put it in the national intelligence estimate October 2002, gave it to Congress. And then they went out to the press and sold this.
I mean, look, “The Washington Post” and “The New York Times” were—took point on this.

MATTHEWS: Why would some young person with a good education ever want to serve an agency like CIA, if they were told what you just said, that the purpose of our Central Intelligence and Defense Intelligence is to mouth the words the president wants spoken, and not to defense this country?

BAER: The attrition rate is horrendous at the CIA as of today. People are leaving in—they‘re calling me, looking for jobs. And, you know, if they‘re calling me, they‘re in trouble.