Dohhh: the bastards really are Going Nuclear:

[billcoe]

Opps: Changed our mind. Gates, one of the mellowest of the Bush crowd, just reversed official US policy, about a day after the administration came out with the "Oh those pesky Iranians, they don't really have a Nuclear weapons program, they stopped that nonsense in 2003 or so."

 

Maybe knott. Link which contradicts Homer Simson:

 

Link

 

"Monday, December 10, 2007

 

Intel 180? Gates says Iran may have 'already' restarted its nuke program

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration, less than a week after the release of a controversial intelligence assessment, has suggested that Iran has renewed its nuclear weapons program.

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Iran may have resumed its nuclear weapons program. Gates cited the National Intelligence Estimate that Teheran, said to have halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, was capable of renewing the project at any time. "The estimate is explicit that Iran is keeping its options open and could restart its nuclear weapons program at any time — I would add, if it has not done so already," Gates said on Dec. 8.

 

 

 

In an address to the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, Gates played down NIE's assertion that Iran has not renewed its nuclear weapons program. In an address to delegates from 23 nations to the strategic conference, the defense secretary warned against "cherry-picking" the findings of the NIE. "The report expresses with greater confidence than ever that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program -- developed secretly, kept hidden for years, and in violation of its international obligations," Gates said. "It reports that they do continue their nuclear enrichment program, an essential long-lead-time component of any nuclear weapons program. It states that they do have the mechanisms still in place to restart their program." It was the first time a senior administration official differed from the NIE's conclusion. Gates, who said the U.S. focus toward Iran was "100 percent diplomatic and economic," did not explain how Teheran might have renewed its nuclear weapons program. Officials have stressed that the unclassified version of NIE did not contain the classified data that demonstrated Iran's nuclear weapons capability. NIE said it was "highly confident" that Iran has not restored its weapons program as of October 2007. Gates said he was "not confident" that an Iranian-U.S. dialogue would help moderate Teheran's policies. He said Iran must first take measures to assuage its Gulf Arab neighbors as well as Washington. "Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or the cost in the blood of innocents," Gates said."

[murraysovereign]

"Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or the cost in the blood of innocents," Gates said."

 

I thought that was the administration's policy. So now they're pissed because Iran is copying them?

[tvashtarkatena]

Welcome to the propaganda circus.

 

Please check your memory at the door.

Edited December 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

We've always been at war with Oceania.

[kevbone]

Welcome to the propaganda circus.

 

No shit......they are really grasping at straws......

[Off_White]

I see, there's no new intelligence, just an emphasis by the Bush administration on that portion of the report which says Iran could restart their program. Since they could, they may have already.

 

I think the National Intelligence Assessment of the United States may not be very flattering.

[tvashtarkatena]

The Earth might be hit with an asteroid. We should weaponize the space shuttle ASAP.

 

 

[joblo7]

what the fuck ...lets nuke em.... they MAY have weapons....i vote to invade and control their oil!!!

[pink]

lets have an orgy while we still can

[Dechristo]

Wasn't it the NIE report that bolstered thoughts of Iraq's nuclear capabilities/development before this latest military action?

 

edit: excuse me, "newkewler".

[tvashtarkatena]

The Iranians I've worked with have all been great folks, but if I have to hate them for my country, I suppose that's the sacrifice freedom sometimes requires.

[JosephH]

If they're running 3000 uranium enrichment centrifuges 24x7 like banshees and they have effective medium range, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, then the question of whether or not they do or do not have an 'active' weapons program, while interesting, is a bit mute. Putting a device together once they have the material for a few warheads may be difficult, but it's no longer 'rocket science' per se. Nothing about the report makes me terribly comfortable while those centrifuges are still operating.

 

But then it's a bit hard to get on Iran's case about nuclear proliferation when you've just cut a big nuke deal with India who is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I could almost tolerate even the radical right agenda that so co-opted mainstream Republicanism in the '90s, if only the humans behind it and the policies which express it weren't so completely and boldly hypocritical at every single turn.

[Serenity]

Yep.

 

That's pretty much the long and short of it. They are producing the materials at a rate which insures their nuclear weapons entry in the next couple of years.

 

With their records of global antagonism, directed belligerence traceable to their direct action intelligence directorate, combined with their hard line government they will probably ignite some hell in the next decade.

[tvashtarkatena]

No conflict is inevitable. The Iranians the U.S. share some important mutual interests: with stability in the Middle East on top of the list. In addition, the Iranian people are as fed up with their moronic leadership as we are with ours. Finally, it seems that we might have another opportunity to calm the Israeli Palestinian tensions down a bit; which would provide calmer atmosphere for productive negotiations.

 

This is an opportunity for direct dialogue between the U.S. and Iran; the most effective formula for reducing tensions and establishing a mutual way forward. Our overt threats to Iran and the defiant responses of their leadership can only lead us towards, not away, from direct confrontation, nuclear or otherwise. Given that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has only destabilized the region further and provided a vast playground for bomb makers, and that our economy is teetering, it seems like a conflagration in the region would not be anyone's interests. There will be no "OK, we beat up the bad guy and now things are all better", as our administration seems to suggest. Considering their track record so far, it should come as no surprise that they're off target on this one as well.

 

Detractors from this approach need only look to N. Korea; an even more intractable and culturally alien nation than Iran.

 

Personally, I'm far more worried about the much greater likelyhood that the U.S. will use tactical nukes unilaterally and set an extremely dangerous precedent than about Iran's nuclear program. When you scan the horizon for proven belligerants armed to the teeth with nukes, we're squarely on the top of the heap.

 

Returning to international nuclear disarmament rather than the development of more offensive tactical nukes and the provocation that comes with that would make me feel alot better about our future prospects for avoiding nuclear conflict in the future.

Edited December 12, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Serenity]

I'm all for the theory of keeping our enemies closer by engaging them in some way. Like it or not Iran has maneuvered themselves repeatedly into a position of relevancy. We should continue to play chess games with an eye towards the check mate. No need to make sudden herky-jerky movements around itchy trigger fingers.

 

The US is developing ballistic missile shields, there is currently no nation that maintains nuclear parity. A nuclear assault of any kind on US interests is a guaranteed strategic death sentence. Holding their nation hostage as a nuclear shield is the Iranians ace in the hole.

 

However, the fact remains that Iranian operatives acting under orders from Tehran kill Americans in directly targeted assassinations and kidnappings. This indicates a certain desire for Tehran to widen the conflict into an expanded low intensity manner.

 

They fail in that they are being shut down by a change in US policy with regards to Iraq. Engaging the Sunni's was the right thing to do from the get go, considering that Saudi has some reliability, and the Shiites are a minority in the wider Muslim world. Sadr is crapping himself, which is why he spends more and more time in Iran instead of on Iraqi soil. He knows he exists in Iraq because we allow him to exist. In the wars previous Sadr would have been gone a long long time ago. As early as 2003.

 

For reference the Karbala operation which involved 5 disposable armored SUV's valued at approx. 200K each, American uniforms, American weapons, 12-15 english trained operatives, reliable intelligence resulting in 4 American soldiers executed was a planned Iranian operation.

 

You deal with the government you have to deal with, and I don't see the Mullah's turning over anytime soon. Maybe in your Utopian pipe dreams, but that's not the real world.

 

Furthermore, your economic logic seems flawed in some sense. I would say the overwhelming cause of the teetering US economy is the demise of the inflated real estate market. This would have been caused by greed or perhaps misguided speculation, and has no direct relationship to foreign policy or the military industrial complex. The reality of the war machine is that it consumes less than 4% of the GNP. The reality of the failed mortgage industry is that it is bankrupting middle class America.

 

 

[Crux]

 

U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET 2008 FISCAL YEAR

 

[joblo7]

world domination is nasty business.

[Bug]

Furthermore, your economic logic seems flawed in some sense. I would say the overwhelming cause of the teetering US economy is the demise of the inflated real estate market. This would have been caused by greed or perhaps misguided speculation, and has no direct relationship to foreign policy or the military industrial complex. The reality of the war machine is that it consumes less than 4% of the GNP. The reality of the failed mortgage industry is that it is bankrupting middle class America.

 

Economics is clearly not your forte'.

The additional moneys directed for the Iraq war came out of the budget at a particularly bad time. Yes, there are other large factors but those only make defense spending that much less beneficial to economic recovery. For every dollar you tax, there is a multiplier of 5 (conservative) for its effect on the general economy. Conversly, for every tax dollar you put back into circulation there is a 5x multiplier on the Velocity of Transactions. These transactions are what we see as retail spending/ health. Retail spending is one of the 5 pillars of our economy and used as an indicator of consumer confidence.

Removing those moneys from the general economy and putting them in the hands of a few elite stockholders is what is known as Trickledown theory or Voo-doo economics as Reagan's advisor called it. It didn't pull us out of recesession with Reagan Bush and it will not now.

And that is not even going into the effect this kind of debt has on the value of the dollar.

[Bug]

I liked the rest of your post.

[tvashtarkatena]

Clarification: I never posited a cause for the teetering American economy. What is more relevant in this discussion is the affect a new war, a probably several new wars, would have on the U.S. debt burden, which is a major determinant for the availability of credit, which is a major determinant for economic health. Military spending has been the most significant factor in increasing our debt burden. It is squarely in the center of our economic woes.

 

Regarding the highly disputed Iranian operatives in Iraq: the Kurds, with our blessing and probable material support, have been killing Iranians on Iranian territory for well over a decade now. As insulting as it may be, that seems like a minor game of tit for tat better negotiated away than a justification for global conflagration.

 

The U.S. needs to take it's Zero Tolerance stick out of it's ass and do the following:

 

Accept that Hamas will need to be part of any Palestinian/Israeli peace negotations. This means that the counterproductive 'terrorist organization' list goes away in the face of modern day reality. Resolving this is central to any regional stability.

 

Begin several party talks with the Iranians included to establish a regional plan for a return to stability and figure out what the Iranians want in exchange for a pledge to keep their nuclear program on ice. The reality is that Iran will have a major influence over it's Iraqi neighbors long after we're gone. We're going to need to accept that reality, because there's really nothing we can do about it.

 

Disengage from the middle eastern oil tit as quickly as possible. If this means reducing military spending, and I don't see how it will not, so be it.

 

The mullahs in Iran may be there for some time to come, but I'm-a-dinner-jacket and his hard line buddies, who have fallen out of favor with even the Holy Ones, will probably not be in a job much longer. This presents a political opportunity.

 

The Iranians understand our military threat. OK, fine. It's now time for the U.S. to capitalize on the negotiating clout it's gained with that threat, preferably before our loony toon president leaves office and the opportunity is missed. Will that happen? Probably not. With the one notable exception of N. Korea, Bush has proven himself time and time again unable to play checkers, nevermind chess.

 

 

[builder206]

Furthermore, your economic logic seems flawed in some sense. I would say the overwhelming cause of the teetering US economy is the demise of the inflated real estate market. This would have been caused by greed or perhaps misguided speculation, and has no direct relationship to foreign policy or the military industrial complex. The reality of the war machine is that it consumes less than 4% of the GNP. The reality of the failed mortgage industry is that it is bankrupting middle class America.

 

Economics is clearly not your forte'.

The additional moneys directed for the Iraq war came out of the budget at a particularly bad time. Yes, there are other large factors but those only make defense spending that much less beneficial to economic recovery. For every dollar you tax, there is a multiplier of 5 (conservative) for its effect on the general economy. Conversly, for every tax dollar you put back into circulation there is a 5x multiplier on the Velocity of Transactions. These transactions are what we see as retail spending/ health. Retail spending is one of the 5 pillars of our economy and used as an indicator of consumer confidence.

Removing those moneys from the general economy and putting them in the hands of a few elite stockholders is what is known as Trickledown theory or Voo-doo economics as Reagan's advisor called it. It didn't pull us out of recesession with Reagan Bush and it will not now.

And that is not even going into the effect this kind of debt has on the value of the dollar.

 

During the terrible inflation, then stagflation, of the 70s, my father said that the bills from the Vietnam War were being paid. Wars seem to pump up an economy but it is only cash moving around to buy things that are wasted (bombs, fuel, uniforms, etc). No capital is produced. Even new war manufacturing plants are not true improvements to the capital structure, because of the nature of what they produce.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

During the terrible inflation, then stagflation, of the 70s, my father said that the bills from the Vietnam War were being paid. Wars seem to pump up an economy but it is only cash moving around to buy things that are wasted (bombs, fuel, uniforms, etc). No capital is produced. Even new war manufacturing plants are not true improvements to the capital structure, because of the nature of what they produce.

 

Bullseye. With the singular exception of WWII, when were were the only economy left standing, wars are a get rich quick scheme for a slice of the economy at the expense of the majority of the economy. In addition to much of the products made being destroyed, much of the production tooling, expertise, etc. that normally evolves continuously in the commercial world is thrown into the trash bin after the conflict is over. Pay a few Pauls now; a lot of Peters pay later.

Edited December 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Good thing we have a sound fiscal policy to pay for Iraq.

[Serenity]

Trash, you sound close to batting for the other team. All of your solutions center around appeasement of an enemy that has demonstrated time and time again it's willingness to kill Americans. I guess maybe you and I grew up on different sides of the hammer. I don't necessarily agree with the current administrations approach, but I am not privy to any of the high level information. Clearly there is something amiss that is worth sliding down the razor.

 

The thought that we will be out of Iraq anytime soon put's paid to your "when we're gone" theories. We're not going anywhere. Saudi Arabian influence will make sure of that.

 

Being that I've met Barzani and Talabani and no one seemed particularly interested in ruffling the Iranians because their Turkomen issues dominated sort of negates that theory. The fact that they have received support from the Iranians in the past also nullifies the theory of our erstwhile allies conducting super clandestine cross border incursions. Furthermore, the fact that Kurdish military commanders and politicians refused the initial Baghdad security push mission, citing lack of interest in becoming involved in Sectarian retardation further exonerates them from being used as pawns in US policy. The Kurds will do what the Kurds want to do, when they want to do it. They maintain stability of a vital oil rich region, and they know they are sitting on a gold mine. All it takes on their part is patience, and they are willing to deal with the US.

 

The US never left Korea, and maintains the better portion of a full infantry division (2ID + Corps Elements), plus an additional 2 combat brigades (Ft Lewis) as a QRF slash speedbump in immediate reserve. You seeing a pattern here of US involvement. Iraq is not Vietnam.

 

Cite your economics. Quoting dad is not reliable information. No offense or disrespect to your dad intended.

[Serenity]

Economics is clearly not your forte'.

 

What gave me away?