(Lake Tuscaloosa Specific)
11 messages
Updated 11/6/2023 3:02:24 AM
Lakes Online Forum
84,070 messages
Updated 10/30/2024 8:48:25 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,204 messages
Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM
(Lake Tuscaloosa Specific)
6 messages
Updated 6/30/2008 7:08:16 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,979 messages
Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
copperline
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/25/2012 9:10:19 PM
|
Information in this article may be of interest to those of us worried about war-drums.... All of the US Intelligence agencies doubt the Iranians even want a bomb right now, but may be more interested in "strategic ambiguity". Remember Saddam's WMD's?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Reactions?
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 9:11:37 AM
|
I don't think the Persians across the board are quite as ideological as some of the other countries in that area. I would like to believe that our intelligence community has a better chance at getting human intelligence from intelligent Iranian people who are independent thinkers and don't suffer fools like aschma-whatshisface.
Hound, my points of reference are a bit dated. Without stepping over the line you and I understand,can you offer any opinion on whether we have a better chance at HUNINT from Iran than places like Iraq and Syria?
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 9:49:35 AM
|
My knowledge here is a bit dated too at this point, but I would say yes. A much easier environment than Syria or Iraq.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 3:30:30 PM (updated 2/26/2012 3:36:56 PM)
|
CU____ are you crazy?
Be prepared to be belittled, be called a sorry excuse for a human, be called an un-American libtard, and generally taken to the woodshed by this bunch over the next day or two. He//, MM may even call you a babykiller. I've "driven by" this forum from time to time over the last few years in ferquent and not so frequent spurts, and have learned only one useful thing...with a few rare exceptions, you are wasting your time, breath, effort and brain cells trying to bring any light of reason to this bunch of nuts! A lot of these folks make Limbaugh sound unbiased and reasonable.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 4:25:37 PM (updated 2/26/2012 4:27:54 PM)
|
It may well be that Iran is playing a game to try to deceive the rest of the world that they have something when they don't have it at all. I wouldn't want to bet my kids and grandkids' lives on it though
Intelligence activities are rue to divulge how much they really know and how they got the information, so I wouldn't put too much faith in their public pronouncements. Their public pronouncements may an attempt to deceive the deceiver into making a mistake and showing their hand. Only those with super high security clearances know how reliable our intelligence really is.
Ignore archy - you've brought up an interesting question and I don't see it as a liberal-conservative thing so much as a question about a real.....or perceived by their own choosing....weapons program by the Persians. Personally I would err on the side of caution, but that's just my nature.
Also interesting that our allies are screaming that we are being too optimistic.....
We'll see in due time what he real answer is. I would think with the present administration the evidence would have to be be rock solid before we would actually engage in military action.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Mr H
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 6:13:19 PM (updated 2/26/2012 6:15:47 PM)
|
I'm sorry to see you think I am making something political out of this. Actually I was pointing out that others would politicize it to the rightwing neo-conservative talking points. These talking points will of course do a 180 flip if a GOP candidate gets elected and his non-partisan intell folks put out the exact same info.
BTW Mr. H, as you probably realize if you review some of our exchanges over the last few years, you along with Yankee and Maj have not made in my roster of the nuts posting here. You are in the reasonable and sane (though very small) conservative group...you're sort of the George Will of Lake Martin.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Mr H
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 6:49:38 PM
|
Well, the rest of this post may shake that up a bit.
It doesn't sit too well or really help anything to make such strident claims before the fact. You may think you are justified and it may make you feel better, but it doesn't help anything. Copper has been around long enough to know the lay of the land and therefore your post could be described as baseless and inflammatory. I stand on logic and reason and don't find a lot of either in your post.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 6:55:57 PM
|
Well, it does seem to be a puzzle within a puzzle, doesn't it? The Grand Ayatollah made a very specific statement some days ago and was absolute in his denials of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances that a major religious figure with strong ethical convictions in that country would make an absolute denial if he knew the secular govt was about to announce they have a bomb? He would have to stand in front of his congregations and admit to a huge lie or appear to being subject to the rule of the pragmatic side of Iran's bureaucracy. It would result in such a huge rift in their govt and a tarnishing of moral authority of the Ayatollah, I wonder if he would commit that sort of error.
Thanks, Arch. I been drawn and quartered in these parts a few times. It takes thick skin & probably a thick head to keep coming back.....
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 6:58:57 PM
|
Problem is that Muslims have no particular affinity for the truth if it gets in the way of their objective. In their mind the end justifies the means. Don't know if that is the case here but it can't be ruled out.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 7:30:49 PM
|
I tend to agree with Hodja there. In their mind, the ends do justify the means. Never forget that we are the Infidels to the one true religion.
In the back of my mind, I have wondered if all this public discussion about Iran and it's nuclear program, and what should be done about it, wasn't some kind of strategy to bait Iran into revealing more than they intend to. I wondered if we were trying to draw them out.
I do know that Israel has been pretty hysterical about Iran for years now. Been in a lot of meetings where it would be raised by Israel, whether it was on the agenda or not. Of course, they probably have good reason; but if they seriously wanted to hit Iran, they would do so. Which is what started me thinking. Granted the US wouldn't want Israel to do that, but by discussing it in public forums, it puts the US in the role as putting the brakes on Israel. We would likely have to be involved at this point in time because of the mid-air refueling. I think I read the other day that Israel does not yet have that capability.
It just feels like there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. Maybe they are hoping that the prospect of Israel attacking Iran would goad the Iranian people into overthrowing the current regime. And maybe part of the Iranian rhetoric has to do with trying to keep their people from engaging in a "Persian Spring".
Without seeing the intell, it's pretty hard to figure it out. But whatever anyone is currently thinking, it is probably wrong.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 9:10:12 PM
|
Good points. I can't think like a Iranian, but I do try to understand what I can ...trying to give just due to what I think about people seasoned with what comes thru the media & government sources. I guess I'm just your regular Joe Infidel, but is it truly allowable under Islam to be dishonorable in pursuit of a "Just Cause"? Don't their religious leaders believe they have a "burden of moral behavior" consistent with their stature as one of the oldest & largest religions in the world? Frankly, I am really hoping that this Islamic fundamentalist theocracy is highly invested in appearing to be Absolutely Moral in the eyes of their people, or more importantly, to their God. Their stringent moral view of things leaves little tolerance for what they perceive as sin, so could the Ayatollah be telling the truth when he said they were not developing nukes?
He may want to play the Aya-toldya-so in the eyes of the world and his people. (couldn't resist that one)
Agree that there no way the US Intelligence agencies give up all of what they know And they have had a bad record regarding the development of accurate insights into erratic societies like No Korea, Irag, Iran. They would never make public statements of any kind without first assessing how this info would create moves on their chess board...or would that be chess boards?
I think the concept of Strategic Ambiguity is extremely intriguing. You don't have to have a bomb if the whole world believes you have the bomb. Whether it's US Intelligence, State Dept, or Iran....the same question comes to mind. What do they want us to believe, and why?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 9:22:22 PM
|
Sounds like dejavu all over again. Saddam claimed he had no WMD but made no attempt to prove he didn't. The inspectors found nothing. We believed faulty "? cooked?" intell and went to war. 4500 American military dead, 3000 American private contractors dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, and one trillion down the drain...all because we refused to accept the actual evidence. Are we about to do it all over again?
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2012 10:30:00 PM
|
I loved your last statement....so true!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answer to The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/27/2012 6:49:27 AM
|
If they want nukes ... tell them to keep moving in the direction they are and just try and to block the Strait of Hormuz and we will send them a few nekes and they can see how they work.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Answer to The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/27/2012 12:52:58 PM
|
Bombing iran
Nobody
should welcome the prospect of a nuclear-armed iran. But bombing the place is
not the answer
Feb 25th
2012 – The Economist
“A decision to go to war should be based not
on one man’s electoral prospects, but on the argument that war is warranted and
likely to succeed. iran’s intentions are malign and the consequences of its
having a weapon would be grave. Faced by such a regime you should never
permanently forswear war. However, the case for war’s success is hard to make.
if iran is intent on getting a bomb, an attack would delay but not stop it.
indeed, using Western bombs as a tool to prevent nuclear proliferation risks
making iran only more determined to build a weapon—and more dangerous when it
gets one.”
“That does not mean the world should just let iran
get the bomb. The government will soon be starved of revenues, because of an
oil embargo. Sanctions are biting, the financial system is increasingly
isolated and the currency has plunged in value. Proponents of an attack argue
that military humiliation would finish the regime off. But it is as likely to
rally iranians around their leaders. Meanwhile, political change is sweeping
across the Middle East. The regime in Tehran is divided and it has lost the faith
of its people. Eventually, popular resistance will spring up as it did in 2009.
A new regime brought about by the iranians themselves is more likely to
renounce the bomb than one that has just witnessed an American assault”
“is there a danger that iran will get a nuclear
weapon before that happens? Yes, but bombing might only increase the risk. Can
you stop iran from getting a bomb if it is determined to have one? Not
indefinitely, and bombing it might make it all the more desperate. Short of
occupation, the world cannot eliminate iran’s capacity to gain the bomb. it can
only change its will to possess one. Just now that is more likely to come about
through sanctions and diplomacy than war.”
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Iranian nuclear problem
|
|
Date:
|
2/27/2012 7:08:11 PM
|
No...have you?
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Tuscaloosa
Login
|
Home
