Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb

[billvon 3,120]

>Lots of people enjoy their freedom and safety but don't have the
>stomach for war through which it was earned.

And some enjoy their freedom and safety, but don't have the wisdom to see that those things are threatened by naked aggression against a country who is no threat to us. It is all well and good to defend your safety by attacking an intruder in your home; if you go around and pick fights with people in bars (on the idea that they might attack you later) you will sooner or later end up in the hospital.

The reason you and I are able to sit here on our PC's and have this discussion today is that some smart leaders managed to avoid World War III in the 50's and 60's. Would you call them fools for not fighting a glorious war against our enemies? Would you call them cowards for backing down?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

a country who is no threat to us.

Some are naïve enough to believe that.

Quote

It is all well and good to defend your safety by attacking an intruder in your home; if you go around and pick fights with people in bars (on the idea that they might attack you later) you will sooner or later end up in the hospital.

If it’s an isolated burglary incident, I’d agree. However, if you’re dealing with an organized network of burglars, it’s smarter to go after the ring. It’s smart to bust up the network and in fact hit them before they can organize and hit you. With the kinds of weaponry we’re talking about here, you’ll get an entire city annihilated if you wait till you get hit first (i.e. wait till the intruder is in your home before you fight back). That’s pre-9-11 thinking.

[billvon 3,120]

>Some are naïve enough to believe that.

Did you believe the USSR was no threat to us?

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Some are naïve enough to believe that.

Did you believe the USSR was no threat to us?

Sure I thought they were a threat to us. What's your point?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

I believe it would be this:

Quote

The reason you and I are able to sit here on our PC's and have this discussion today is that some smart leaders managed to avoid World War III in the 50's and 60's. Would you call them fools for not fighting a glorious war against our enemies? Would you call them cowards for backing down?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

Intimidation of whom? Defiance of whom?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Because now that the Gorelicks and the Torecellis of the Clinton era aren't around anymore to destroy our Intel gathering capability, we might start getting it right.

Ahh yes, every mistake by Bush's administration is really Clinton's fault.

Yep, and after 8 years of Clinton, Gorlick and Toreccelli destroying our Intel capability, 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush 1st term and it's all Bush's fault.

Tell me you don't really believe that.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

Intimidation of whom? Defiance of whom?

You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to have missile capability to deliver nuclear weapons? You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nukes at all given that they'd gladly share them with terrorists?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yep, and after 8 years of Clinton, Gorlick and Toreccelli destroying our Intel capability, 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush 1st term and it's all Bush's fault.

Tell me you don't really believe that.

I don't blame 9/11 on Bush at all. I think he has made mistakes prior to, and after 9/11, just like every other human being though.

It is a shame he sees himself as infallible though.

On top of that, if the intelligence industry wa sin such shambles and the intelligence industry is that important. Should he not have done more in the 8 months to try and rectify it?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

Intimidation of whom? Defiance of whom?

You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to have missile capability to deliver nuclear weapons? You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nukes at all given that they'd gladly share them with terrorists?

Hey what are you talking about? You mean you don't trust the Iranians with nuclear weapons? Why? Just because they sponsor groups like Hamas? I sure they will act responsible and not violate the UN rules. They might even begin to like the US if we just let them have their way.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The reason you and I are able to sit here on our PC's and have this discussion today is that some smart leaders managed to avoid World War III in the 50's and 60's. Would you call them fools for not fighting a glorious war against our enemies? Would you call them cowards for backing down?

I would not call them fools. That was a completely different situation. The situation of mutually assured destruction with the USSR and the cold war differ greatly from our issue with Iran developing nukes. Peaceful solutions are always preferred. However, you lose all credibility and respect if you're not willing to back up what you say when the time comes.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Hey what are you talking about? You mean you don't trust the Iranians with nuclear weapons? Why? Just because they sponsor groups like Hamas? I sure they will act responsible and not violate the UN rules. They might even begin to like the US if we just let them have their way.

yeah...Billvon would have us do exactly that. He'd prefer that we wait for them to become a powerful nuclear threat and hit us first before we take action. That's the kind of mentality that got the Trade Centers demolished and all those people murdered.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I would not call them fools. That was a completely different situation. The situation of mutually assured destruction with the USSR and the cold war differ greatly from our issue with Iran developing nukes. Peaceful solutions are always preferred. However, you lose all credibility and respect if you're not willing to back up what you say when the time comes.

I think the issue might be that just because you are willing to wage war at the drop of a hat, other countries are developing weapons faster to protect themselves.

I am willing to bet there is a fair percentage of the world population who thinks the US invaded Iraq for purposes other than the stated objectives at the time. That makes people sceptical and scared, thinking that maybe they could be next. When people get scared they star thinking about ways to defend themselves.

We all know you an bomb the heel out of Iran, that doesn't seem to help this situation though. There is a difference between not having the balls and thinking it is not the best course of action.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep, and after 8 years of Clinton, Gorlick and Toreccelli destroying our Intel capability, 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush 1st term and it's all Bush's fault.

Tell me you don't really believe that.

I don't blame 9/11 on Bush at all. I think he has made mistakes prior to, and after 9/11, just like every other human being though.

It is a shame he sees himself as infallible though.

On top of that, if the intelligence industry wa sin such shambles and the intelligence industry is that important. Should he not have done more in the 8 months to try and rectify it?

The amount of time required to get human intel in place to be able to gather the kind of Intel needed to prevent an event like 9/11 takes years to make any inroads. You don't just send a couple of CIA agents into Iraq and say "where do I sign up to be a terrorist?" One of the reasons out intel capability was so devestated is due to the restrictions placed upon it during the Clinton Admin.

Can you imagine the police trying to gain info on say drug dealers and being told they can't use informants who have a criminal record? Who else would have that type of info other than another criminal?

This is what the CIA had to contend with due to "DO Gooders" like Toreccelli and Gorelick. Do some research and you will see it is true.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

yeah...Billvon would have us do exactly that. He'd prefer that we wait for them to become a powerful nuclear threat and hit us first before we take action. That's the kind of mentality that got the Trade Centers demolished and all those people murdered.

Yup, you guys should have invaded Saudie Arabia a long time ago.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The amount of time required to get human intel in place to be able to gather the kind of Intel needed to prevent an event like 9/11 takes years to make any inroads. You don't just send a couple of CIA agents into Iraq and say "where do I sign up to be a terrorist?" One of the reasons out intel capability was so devestated is due to the restrictions placed upon it during the Clinton Admin.

Can you imagine the police trying to gain info on say drug dealers and being told they can't use informants who have a criminal record? Who else would have that type of info other than another criminal?

This is what the CIA had to contend with due to "DO Gooders" like Toreccelli and Gorelick. Do some research and you will see it is true.

I am not denying that. My question is: when did Bush reverse those principles? before or after 9/11? How long after he became president did he act on this?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

Intimidation of whom? Defiance of whom?

You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to have missile capability to deliver nuclear weapons? You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nukes at all given that they'd gladly share them with terrorists?

Nope.

Wouldn't be a good idea to let Iraq either. But they didn't. Why should we or anyone believe that Iran does?

Do you believe it's in the best interests of the world for us to invade every country that MIGHT do something bad in the future?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The amount of time required to get human intel in place to be able to gather the kind of Intel needed to prevent an event like 9/11 takes years to make any inroads. You don't just send a couple of CIA agents into Iraq and say "where do I sign up to be a terrorist?" One of the reasons out intel capability was so devestated is due to the restrictions placed upon it during the Clinton Admin.

Can you imagine the police trying to gain info on say drug dealers and being told they can't use informants who have a criminal record? Who else would have that type of info other than another criminal?

This is what the CIA had to contend with due to "DO Gooders" like Toreccelli and Gorelick. Do some research and you will see it is true.

I am not denying that. My question is: when did Bush reverse those principles? before or after 9/11? How long after he became president did he act on this?

What I'm trying to make you understand is that it is a process that takes years to fix. The problem is that the Clinton Admin. thought they could gather effective intel through solely electronic means and they feared the CIA and FBI sharing info. They grossly underestimated the value of human intel. You cannot just sit back and blame Bush for everything. Thats way too simplistic thinking and I don't think you are simple-minded like those who lack the critical thinking skills to recognise this.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Wouldn't be a good idea to let Iraq either. But they didn't. Why should we or anyone believe that Iran does?

You don't believe Iran has the capability and is now developing that capability? Everyone just making this up now? Do you really believe that??? It was concluded that Iraq had the plans and capability even if we didn't find what we were looking for. It will be very dangerous to let the storm keep brewing over there. They've continually demonstrated that they're dishonest with everyone in these matters.

Quote

Do you believe it's in the best interests of the world for us to invade every country that MIGHT do something bad in the future?

If it is determined that they have the demonstrated intent and capability to do us harm, I'm all for taking preemptive measures and fight them over there instead of over here.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What I'm trying to make you understand is that it is a process that takes years to fix. The problem is that the Clinton Admin. thought they could gather effective intel through solely electronic means and they feared the CIA and FBI sharing info. They grossly underestimated the value of human intel. You cannot just sit back and blame Bush for everything.

I agree with all that. There must have been a point in time where somebody made the decisions to change those guiding principles and gave a new guideline. When was that done?

[Gravitymaster 0]

I don't know.

[PhillyKev 0]

What intelligence is there that proves the accusations about Iran, and why is it more credible than the intelligence that was wrong about Iraq?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What intelligence is there that proves the accusations about Iran, and why is it more credible than the intelligence that was wrong about Iraq?

I don't know the details but I think it would be very irresponsible to not take the threat seriously. I'm not saying "Invade Iran Now!" I don't think anything is "proven" yet.