COL Gene COL Gene

NIE Report Says Iran Stopped Nuclear Program in 2003!

▼

NIE Report Says Iran Stopped Nuclear Program in 2003!

from JoeUser Forums



Bush has been telling the world we must stop Iran from going nuclear and our intelligence agencies say they ended their nuclear program in 2003. Last month Bush was warning about the grave danger from Iran and talking about WW III. The conclusions of our intelligence agencies and the Bush rhetoric are not in agreement. What does Bush say about the latest Intelligence that has been made public? He says it shows we are in danger from Iran.

There is something very wrong with Bush. No matter what the intelligence or facts are make no difference to Bush. He comes out with the same line. It is time Congress make it clear to Bush he can not attack Iran without a declaration of war against Iran by Congress! This man is dangerous!
politics
33,029 views 113 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
PARIS (Reuters) - Germany and France said on Thursday Iran's nuclear program was still a threat and the search for more U.N. sanctions should go on despite a U.S. intelligence report that Tehran was no longer trying to build an atomic bomb


How is Iran a threat if they are not making a nuclear weapon? That was the Bush argument as to why they were a danger. He said we could not allow a nuclear Iran. If they are not a nuclear power where is the DANGER?
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
PARIS (Reuters) - Germany and France said on Thursday Iran's nuclear program was still a threat and the search for more U.N. sanctions should go on despite a U.S. intelligence report that Tehran was no longer trying to build an atomic bomb


There will not be any more UN sanctions against Iran after the NIE report! If you believe Bush will get more sanctions against Iran you believe in the tooth fairy!
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
PARIS (Reuters) - Germany and France said on Thursday Iran's nuclear program was still a threat and the search for more U.N. sanctions should go on despite a U.S. intelligence report that Tehran was no longer trying to build an atomic bomb


oh look who wants to keep the sanctions on iran. germany and france, they must not be getting any money from iran like they did from iraq.


WWW Link
End of quote




bush isn't the only one saying it.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's the true farce of the incompetent press' coverage of the NIE Report Gene. The NIE said that it is still important to impose sanctions on Iran. But I guess your selective stupidity missed that part.

Just another example of how your hatred for the US is only matched by your love for those who kill Americans.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just another example of how your hatred for the US is only matched by your love for those who kill Americans.
If you really believed yourself, you'd report him to the FBI.
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you really believed yourself, you'd report him to the FBI.
End of quote


Loving the enemy and hating our troops isn't a crime. It is free speech.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?
Olbermann: We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22134108/from/ET/
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, December 07, 2007That's the true farce of the incompetent press' coverage of the NIE Report Gene. The NIE said that it is still important to impose sanctions on Iran. But I guess your selective stupidity missed that part.Just another example of how your hatred for the US is only matched by your love for those who kill Americans.


Bush made the case that it was the development of nuclear weapons that presented the danger from Iran. If they are not developing nuclear weapons as the NIE says, then HOW THE HELL are they a DANGER to the world’s most powerful nation? The answer is they are NOT ANY DANGER to the U.S. and we need to have our President STOP talking about WWIII.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
The answer is they are NOT ANY DANGER to the U.S. and we need to have our President STOP talking about WWIII.
End of quote


why we are in ww3


it is muslims(most not all) vs all non muslims.
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
we are in the process of winning in Iraq. and you want to run away so that we can lose.


yes Americans have died in this war. unfortunately that is what happens in a war.


this war is started back in the 70's.


our first battle in this war was in Lebanon. where the democrats tied the troops hands by restricting them to one bullet in their weapon. the result was the 500 dead marines.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
why we are in ww3


NOT EVEN CLOSE! IN WWII we had 16 Million people in our military at a time when our population was about 100 million. That would be equal to a 45 Million person military with 300 million people. We have a little over 1 million in our military! Our land military is about 750,000.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT EVEN CLOSE! IN WWII we had 16 Million people in our military at a time when our population was about 100 million. That would be equal to a 45 Million person military with 300 million people. We have a little over 1 million in our military! Our land military is about 750,000.
End of quote



in ww2 we had 16 million in harms way.


in ww3 we have 300 million in harms way.


size of the military doesn't matter.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
besides a world war is determined by the number of nations involved

ww2 there were 16 give or take depending on the year.


ww3 there isn't a nation not involved including the swish.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 08, 2007
NOT EVEN CLOSE! IN WWII we had 16 Million people in our military at a time when our population was about 100 million. That would be equal to a 45 Million person military with 300 million people. We have a little over 1 million in our military! Our land military is about 750,000.
in ww2 we had 16 million in harms way.in ww3 we have 300 million in harms way.size of the military doesn't matter.


Iran can not attack this country and no one with any sense would agree we are in WWIII today. The point is that since Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they are of little danger to the U.S.!
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we were to take some action that would unite the majority of the 1.2 Billion Moslems against us, THEN WE WILL HAVE WWIII!Bush and Cheney are the type of leaders that could accomplish that task!
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is that since Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they are of little danger to the U.S.!
End of quote


they are still researching them only under the heading of civilian use
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we were to take some action that would unite the majority of the 1.2 Billion Moslems against us, THEN WE WILL HAVE WWIII!Bush and Cheney are the type of leaders that could accomplish that task!
End of quote


too late this happened during the crusades
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 08, 2007
The point is that since Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they are of little danger to the U.S.!
they are still researching them only under the heading of civilian use


The difference between producing nuclear material for reactors and developing a nuclear weapon is like night and day.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
The difference between producing nuclear material for reactors and developing a nuclear weapon is like night and day.
End of quote




this is not what the experts say.


they say that the very things that need to be researched for civilian use is also what needs to be researched for military use.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they are not developing nuclear weapons as the NIE says, then HOW THE HELL are they a DANGER to the world’s most powerful nation?
End of quote


I don't know, why did the NIE specifically state that sanctions are still important? You put the NIE report up in our faces, but then IGNORE the parts that don't fit your agenda of hate.

Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is that since Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they are of little danger to the U.S.!
End of quote


If bin Laden & 20-odd recruits can be a danger to the US, something we have evidence to suggest (9/11), I think the virulenty anti-US and anti-Israel nation of Iran might qualify as a potential danger.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 08, 2007
The difference between producing nuclear material for reactors and developing a nuclear weapon is like night and day.
this is not what the experts say.


This is a subject I have personal experience with and I know the technology to produce 95% pure uranium and the complex nature of the triggers needed is not a simple thing to produce. Any country would most likely have a much easier time buying one of the tens of thousands of small weapons that are left over from the Cold War then to construct a weapon from scratch! Technology to produce a Fusion weapon (Hydrogen Bomb) is even more complex and only a few countries have that capability!
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a subject I have personal experience with and I know the technology to produce 95% pure uranium and the complex nature of the triggers needed is not a simple thing to produce.
End of quote




since you know so much about this subject then you know the civilian apps came from the weapons development.
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, December 09, 2007
This is a subject I have personal experience with and I know the technology to produce 95% pure uranium and the complex nature of the triggers needed is not a simple thing to produce.
since you know so much about this subject then you know the civilian apps came from the weapons development.


There is no question that the technology for nuclear power generation came from nuclear weapons development. However now that the process is understood it does not mean that just because a country has nuclear electric power generation that they also have nuclear weapons. I support the continued inspections of Iran's nuclear activities to make sure they ONLY produce Uranium of a purity needed for reactors and not for weapons.


The issue is that Bush and Cheney IGNORE the facts and push ahead with what they WANT regardless of the Intelligence. There was bad Intel about Iraq in 2002 but there was also a lot of GOOD Intel about Iraq in 2002 that said Saddam did not have WMD. Bush and Cheney IGNOED ANY AND ALL Intel that said Saddam did not have WMD. The Intel Bush and Cheney IGNORED was CORRECT! The Intel they used was WRONG!
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no question that the technology for nuclear power generation came from nuclear weapons development. However now that the process is understood it does not mean that just because a country has nuclear electric power generation that they also have nuclear weapons. I support the continued inspections of Iran's nuclear activities to make sure they ONLY produce Uranium of a purity needed for reactors and not for weapons.
End of quote




95% of what it takes to make a nuke weapon can be researched under civilian use.