View Full Version : What will be the next excuse for Iran?
Well folks, guess what....Iran effectively quit it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.).
The Bushies have been using the possibility of Iran having a nuc as an excuse to bomb Iran into the stone age. This begs the question, seeing as their latest lie (yes, and it was a lie) has gone up in smoke, what will be their next excuse?
Pebbles
12-04-2007, 01:26 PM
Iran may not be building nukes now, but that doesn't mean they won't.
It's Clinton's fault.
The Iranians were responsible for 9-11.
When they stop using the Dollar for oil transactions.
Why not -- we're already in the neighborhood.
The Iranians (Shiites) are supplying "Al Qaeda" (Sunnis) with weapons.
All the excuses we can think of here at work!!
Iran may not be building nukes now, but that doesn't mean they won't.
It's Clinton's fault.
The Iranians were responsible for 9-11.
When they stop using the Dollar for oil transactions.
Why not -- we're already in the neighborhood.
The Iranians (Shiites) are supplying "Al Qaeda" (Sunnis) with weapons.
All the excuses we can think of here at work!!
Pebbles, exactly how is Iran deveoping Nuclear Power Clinton's fault. The first reactor built in Iran was under built with the Advise and Consent of the United States back in the 1970's, and as I recall Clinton was not President at the time.
How exactly are the Iranians responsible for September 11, 2001. Usama Bin_Laden was living in Afghanistan at the time, under the protection of the Taliban.
While I find what you wrote to somewhat funny. It is bit of a stretch.
The U.S. dollar is weak and most countries are switching to the Euro to support oil prices.
Pebbles
12-05-2007, 12:10 PM
Pebbles, exactly how is Iran deveoping Nuclear Power Clinton's fault. The first reactor built in Iran was under built with the Advise and Consent of the United States back in the 1970's, and as I recall Clinton was not President at the time.
How exactly are the Iranians responsible for September 11, 2001. Usama Bin_Laden was living in Afghanistan at the time, under the protection of the Taliban.
While I find what you wrote to somewhat funny. It is bit of a stretch.
The U.S. dollar is weak and most countries are switching to the Euro to support oil prices.
This was a poll of excuses my co-workers could think of for: What will be the next excuse for Iran?...Title of this thread! It was a bit of a stretch! Not to be taken so serious.
spare_change
12-05-2007, 03:09 PM
Well done, Pebbles.
Lest we make a grave error in judgment, the following info is provided as background.
In the world of intelligence, very few things are concrete. They are usually the result of a collection of seemingly unrelated information that, when collated together, give an impression of what is true and what isn't.
A simple example is this: At Army Base XYZ, the number of personnel leaves has increased significantly above the norm. In addition, it is noted that the consumption of beer and bar girls downtown is up, as well. It is also noticed that there has been an increase of train traffic into the base, with empty trains leaving. When this is coupled with the newspaper article about one of the units conducting training in the desert, there is a high confidence that the unit is preparing to deploy, and the intelligence community would report it as such.
Intelligence reports rarely are factual in nature; rather, they are summaries of observations, analyses, and intuition. Because there usually is no positive, concrete evidence, the intelligence community has developed a confidence scale -- how confident they are that their conclusions are accurate. The scale looks something like this:
Full confidence - a series of concrete facts that definitively validate the conclusion. Aerial photos would be an example.
Extreme confidence - a series of concrete facts, coupled with assumptions and observations, that result in a strong confidence that the conclusion is correct, but lacking definitive proof. Analysis of aerial photos, that when coupled with human intelligence reports, led the analyst to believe a specific scenario, would be an example.
High confidence - a series of assumptions, based on observations and analyses, that the conclusion is probably accurate, but lacking either definitive proof or sustantiating evidence. Human intelligence reports from two or more trusted sources without any other evidence would be an example.
Moderate confidence - a conclusion based on unvalidated inputs from a single recognized and trusted source, but lacking any substantiating evidence or conclusions
Low confidence - a conclusion based on the observation of activities that, if tied together, could support the hypothesis, but if viewed otherwise, could result in an entirely different conclusion.
As I watched the mainstream media trumpet this supposed revelation about Iran's nuclear program, it was interesting to note that what the NIE actually said was that there was a high confidence that the Iranians had stopped their nuclear expansion program in 2003, but only a MODERATE confidence that they had not restarted it in 2005. The last part of that statement got lost in the administration bashing.
As for Army Base XYZ, there is an inspection planned next week, and the soldiers have been furiously preparing for it... thus, the increased consumption of beer and bar girls, blowing off steam because the pressure is on at work. In addition, several went on leave in order to avoid the rigors of the inspections and exercises sure to come. The trains? That was just resupply after the desert training exercises. So much for high confidence.
Barkiss
12-05-2007, 05:51 PM
Spare...are you really a female named Mary Matalin?
spare_change
12-05-2007, 06:22 PM
Spare...are you really a female named Mary Matalin?
Sorry -- it's the teacher in me. I hate to see people make leaps of logic based on an erroneous knowledge base.
Barkiss
12-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Sorry -- it's the teacher in me. I hate to see people make leaps of logic based on an erroneous knowledge base.
Don't be sorry...You know I agree with you, but can never present it as well as you do...
Beside...better to be Mary than James..;)
spare_change
12-05-2007, 06:32 PM
Don't be sorry...You know I agree with you, but can never present it as well as you do...
Beside...better to be Mary than James..;)
I dunno ---- you seen that ass on that boy???
Barkiss
12-05-2007, 06:33 PM
I dunno ---- you seen that ass on that boy???
Everytime he talks...
spare_change
12-05-2007, 07:03 PM
Everytime he talks...
LOL -- I thought the answer was "No, but I saw the one standing beside him."
Pebbles
12-07-2007, 06:47 AM
Sorry -- it's the teacher in me. I hate to see people make leaps of logic based on an erroneous knowledge base.
Everyone has the right to give their opinion!! Even if you think its based on an erroneous knowledge base. Not everyone has your opinion.
oldandnaked
12-08-2007, 08:13 AM
Well folks, guess what....Iran effectively quit it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.).
The Bushies have been using the possibility of Iran having a nuc as an excuse to bomb Iran into the stone age. This begs the question, seeing as their latest lie (yes, and it was a lie) has gone up in smoke, what will be their next excuse?
Most intelligence reports are like the Bible. If you look hard enough, you can find something in there that supports your position.
The good news about this latest report is that Congress has an excuse for not going to war if Bush/Cheney should push us in that direction. Unlike the last time when they feared for their jobs because anyone voting against the war was painted unpatriotic by the administration.
mrdiscreet
12-09-2007, 09:02 PM
Iraq Redux: Bush's Reasons for Attacking Iran Are Already Changing
A. Alexander, December 9th, 2007
Does anyone remember the ORIGINAL reason that the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq? Was it the fake charge that Saddam possessed "weapons of mass destruction," the completely false allegation that the dictator had close ties to al-Qaeda, or was it the ridiculous lie that Hussein had something to do with 9/11? It has been so long ago now, that it is hard to remember if the fakery, the falsehood, or the lie came first?
In a sense it doesn't really matter because the fake stuff, the false things and the lies quickly morphed into more bogus charges, more phony allegations and more untruths. Once it became obvious to everyone except FOX News and Rush Limbaugh that Iraq didn't have "weapons of mass destruction," Iraq didn't have any ties to al-Qaeda, and Iraq was never-ever involved in 9/11; the Bush administration quickly changed their reasons for having invaded a country that had done absolutely nothing to the United States, a country that had never posed a threat to the American people, and a country that didn't even possess the military wherewithal to threaten U.S. national security.
So, all-in-all, people really shouldn't feel bad that they can't remember the ever-changing, ever-shifting rationalizations -- both pre and post-invasion -- that the Bush administration rattled off in its desperate and pathetic attempt to justify their lunacy. After all, there were just too many reasons given. No person could possibly remember them all. One of the administration's favorite post-invasion lies was that Bush and Cheney did what they did because Saddam was a bad guy. The reasons simply multiplied from there, but nobody really remembers any of them.
And guess what? The Bush administration is doing it all over again ... with Iran.
Only a few short days ago, the nation's 16 intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. That revelation sort of took the "umpf" out of Bush and Cheney's war scheme. By the next day, however, Mister Bush's favorite handpicked General, David Petraeus, was linking violence in Iraq to Tehran. Of course, General Petraeus and Mister Bush make these charges without ever having produced ANY real -- independently verified -- evidence to support their claims. Then, by Saturday of that week, Bush's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, demanded that Iran give a full accounting of all its "terrorist" activities.
According to the New York Times, Gates insisted that, "Iran is a grave threat to regional security, even without nuclear weapons, and called on Tehran to account for the full range of intelligence describing its support for terrorism and instability around the world."
Wow! Who knew that Iran is, with an economy smaller than the State of California, responsible for supporting and financing all the "instability around the world."
Uh-oh ... sounds like the war is still on!
Oh! Wait! Sorry! Did someone think that Mister Bush wanted to bomb Iran because he claimed Tehran was working on a nuclear weapons program? No! No! No! Mister Bush is seeking to attack Iran because its government is responsible for ALL THE INSTABILITY in the world.
At least that is the excuse being offered this week, but don't worry ... it'll change and change again, and again, and again.
spare_change
12-09-2007, 11:11 PM
Everyone has the right to give their opinion!! Even if you think its based on an erroneous knowledge base. Not everyone has your opinion.
Wow! Do I ever disagree. A person is allowed to be ignorant? A person is allowed to make life and death decisions based on erroneous knowledge without a corresponding responsibility to attain all the information available? Sorry, I don't think so -- a person has the responsibility as a citizen of this world to be as knowledgeable as possible. Stupidity is not an excuse -- it's a reason.
Frankly, I don't care who or who doesn't have my opinion. But, I think we all have a responsibility to attempt to correct errors in fact so that others can base their opinions (and I truly don't care what it is) on the truth, and not on disinformation, half facts, and intentionally deleted information.
spare_change
12-09-2007, 11:13 PM
You know, it amazes me that the NIE that was supposedly used as the basis for going into Iraq has been so thoroughly discredited, but yet, now that it is politically expedient, everyone wants to treat the current NIE as if it is gospel. You're trying to assign black and white values to a very gray world.
Iwantutowantme
12-09-2007, 11:57 PM
As I have said before. IT was the POLICY of this adminsitration to go to war with Iraq and it is the POLICY of this administration to go to war with Iran. It doesnt make any difference to them how they get there, they are going to twist and shake anything and everything to get their policy to happen. We have to quit playing these "dumb and dumber" games and wake up. GGGeeeeehhhh!!!!!!!
Pebbles
12-10-2007, 07:40 AM
Wow! Do I ever disagree. A person is allowed to be ignorant? A person is allowed to make life and death decisions based on erroneous knowledge without a corresponding responsibility to attain all the information available? Sorry, I don't think so -- a person has the responsibility as a citizen of this world to be as knowledgeable as possible. Stupidity is not an excuse -- it's a reason.
Frankly, I don't care who or who doesn't have my opinion. But, I think we all have a responsibility to attempt to correct errors in fact so that others can base their opinions (and I truly don't care what it is) on the truth, and not on disinformation, half facts, and intentionally deleted information.
Spare,you seem to be in a world of your own!! :whee: :whee:
spare_change
12-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Spare,you seem to be in a world of your own!! :whee: :whee:
Personal attacks, Pebbles?? Tsk, tsk! When you have nothing else ....
Obviously, that seems to be true -- since I want people to look at all sides of an issue before determining what they think about it, rather than those who insist that you fall in line with their way of thinking, and try to influence you by only stating half the argument, misstating important facts, painting wild conspiracy theories when the truth can't be manipulated, and leave out important information.
You know, it amazes me that the NIE that was supposedly used as the basis for going into Iraq has been so thoroughly discredited, but yet, now that it is politically expedient, everyone wants to treat the current NIE as if it is gospel. You're trying to assign black and white values to a very gray world.
It is not that the current N.I.E. (National Intelligence Estimate) is any more credible than the one used as an excuse for the Failed Invasion of Iraq, it's that the Bushie's are working so hard to deny the N.I.E. now that is has been made public.
More than one (01) agrees with the statement that Iran is longer actively seekin nuclear weapons. Further, the Bushie's wanted to go to war with Iraq. They did everything they could to insure that they went to war with Iraq, and now that the Occupation is costing upward of Two Trillion Dollars ($2,000,000,000,000,000,000.00), the United States Military is broken, our troops facing Fifteen (15) Month Tours of Duty, troops who lost arms and legs in combat only to be warehoused in rooms with mold and vermin; are the American People saying "NO!!" in a very loud and clear voice.
This was a poll of excuses my co-workers could think of for: What will be the next excuse for Iran?...Title of this thread! It was a bit of a stretch! Not to be taken so serious.
I know, I was hoping to the man on the grassey knoll get some blame too.
Wow! Do I ever disagree. A person is allowed to be ignorant? A person is allowed to make life and death decisions based on erroneous knowledge without a corresponding responsibility to attain all the information available? Sorry, I don't think so -- a person has the responsibility as a citizen of this world to be as knowledgeable as possible. Stupidity is not an excuse -- it's a reason.
Frankly, I don't care who or who doesn't have my opinion. But, I think we all have a responsibility to attempt to correct errors in fact so that others can base their opinions (and I truly don't care what it is) on the truth, and not on disinformation, half facts, and intentionally deleted information.
Sorry spare, but on this one you are wrong. The right to an opinion is not always based on fact, but on a personal belief.
Taking what you've posted, I would say that for the most part you are not entitled to an opinion. I do not agree with you, I find most of what you write to be based on erroneous articles or mis-information. Facts are always open to interpretation, including yours. Your opinion is exactly that, your opinion. You have a right to that opinion, but based on what you have written, it seems your saying that you do not.
yaser
12-10-2007, 05:50 PM
Well folks, guess what....Iran effectively quit it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.).
The Bushies have been using the possibility of Iran having a nuc as an excuse to bomb Iran into the stone age. This begs the question, seeing as their latest lie (yes, and it was a lie) has gone up in smoke, what will be their next excuse?
Wait and see.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.