Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCIA refutes the neocon case

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Topic: CIA refutes the neocon case
    Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 02:01
...against Iran with expert opinion rather than the baseless neocon/zionazi tripe mirrored in the news you read every day.  I bet those leeches are fuming at this, which together with the IAEA's recent reports - the people who know - completely undermines this fascist neocon regime's plans for further mass murder and international chaos.

December 4, 2007 - 9:49 PM

Swiss react to latest Iran report

Irans%20Natanz%20uranium%20enrichment%20facility,%20as%20photographed%20earlier%20this%20year

Image caption: Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility, as photographed earlier this year (Keystone)

 

Related stories

Switzerland has acknowledged a new United States intelligence report that plays down the Iran nuclear threat, commenting that it favours a diplomatic solution.

The US report said with "high confidence" that it believed Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, but that the country was continuing to enrich uranium and was keeping its atomic options open.

 

This is in contrast to earlier US assessments that Iran was pushing ahead with its weapons programme, a charge Tehran has always denied.

 

However, US President Bush has insisted that Iran remains a threat to the world despite this latest intelligence and that the report was a "warning signal".

 

Reacting to the report on Tuesday, Swiss Foreign Ministry spokesman Lars Knuchel spoke of diplomatic solutions.

 

"The report supports the idea that a diplomatic solution must be found in this issue," Knuchel told the Swiss news agency.

 

Observers say that the Swiss diplomatic line is different to that of its European neighbours, many of whom such as France favour tougher sanctions against Tehran.

 

Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey has recently stated that Switzerland is a neutral land and has a duty to promote proper and direct diplomatic dialogue.

 

Switzerland represents US interests in Iran and is used as a go-between by the two sides. The US and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1980 after American embassy staff were taken hostage in Tehran.

 

Swiss role in Iran

 

However, what role the Swiss are taking in the Iran nuclear affair remains unclear.

 

Switzerland imposed sanctions against Iran earlier this year over the Middle East country's continued failure to halt uranium enrichment. This was in line with a United Nations Security Council resolution.

 

But Calmy-Rey has also held informal discussions with Iran's former national security chief Ali Larijani on the nuclear stand-off.

 

According to the media and diplomatic sources, there is a "Swiss plan" in existence, which calls for a simultaneous suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment programme and international sanctions. It has never been confirmed by the Swiss foreign ministry.

 

Washington has so far been critical of Swiss involvement in brokering a deal.

Whats%20this? What's this?

 

 

Combined assessment

 

This latest report on Iran, released on Monday, was the declassified summary of the combined assessment of the US's 16 intelligence agencies.

 

Iran praised the assessment, saying it welcomed Washington's move to "correct" its views.

 

For his part, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the new report "should help to defuse the current crisis" but said Iran should clarify some aspects of its past and present nuclear activities.

 

Analysts say the latest intelligence analysis will make it harder for those calling for military action against Iran to argue their case.

 

However, President Bush said that the report was still an opportunity for the international community to keep up the pressure on Iran to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium.

 

But according to Ulrich Tilgner, Iran correspondent for Swiss television, international pressure may now weaken and Russia and China may call for sanctions to be stopped.

 

He told Swiss television news that the report could greatly strengthen the Iranian government's position within the country.

 

swissinfo with agencies

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Swiss_react_to_latest_Iran_report.html?siteSect=105&sid=8496706&cKey=1196809797000&ty=st

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 08:04
Hello Zagros
 
I'm afraid this will not take Iran off the hook. The CIA already cleared Iraq of the same allegations and Iraq was still invaded. They are stil in danger of being attacked and if this report shows anything, it shows that these guys are even more determine now to strike Iran than ever. Bush made a news confrence which is a rare event because of this report.
 
If you really want to get info on what will happen to Iran, see the positions of the wannabe presidents. All of the top contenders, even those who already vehementally opposed such talk not 1 year ago are changing their stance and arguing for the importance of military choice to deal with Iran. War is coming, if not now, it will be later.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 11:36

Zagros, with these guys, reality is the last thing you should expect.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 13:45
Oh, I a have read other articles such as 'Bush says, nothing changes due to this'   but the significant thing is that their true nature is more exposed.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:17
Actually, if you really concentrate on what was said in the conference yesterday, you will notice a very disturbing thing that Bush said and I heard an analyst talk about it and it was that Bush said the problem with Iran is not just about enriching Uranium, it was about the "nuclear knowledge" that Iran posesses, which means that unless the 6000 scientist die suddenly, Iran is dangerous. Now This tells a lot about the designs of Bush and the proof of this is the wind of change coming in the European governments about Iran and the rising doub about the real intentions of the US.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:30
Yes, I have known about that for weeks.  He was essentially preparing grounds for war based on what's in people's heads, which means that he is intent.  This CIA revelation though makes their actions seem even more illegitimate.  I agree it may not have any consequence on teh end result but its symbolism is important nonetheless. 
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:35
Zagros.
 
This is not a matter of any report. Nor is it a matter of "legalities, technicalities or none more".
 
This is:
oil
economy
influence
power
religion
politics
east vs west
 
American Empire will try to conquer Iran. Its written in stone. The only problem is the Irani people arent stupid; so America is trying to figure out the best route of invasion. One that involves little to no American casualties.
 
 


Edited by Mughaal - 05-Dec-2007 at 19:22
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:50
You don't need to preach that to me .   As I already said it is important symbolically.  
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:53
I am not happy with the way you talked about Arabs in your last sentence Mughaal. That is a big over-generalization
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:53
Now, if the Arabs had brains, ones that they worked more than their stomachs and penises; theyd know how to play a good game of politics.


Moghul seriously, your generalisations are nauseating.  You should be more specific and do not use such vile innuendos and metaphors.  Like I have said before, you can put your point across just as effectively without resorting to profanity and insult.


Edited by Zagros - 05-Dec-2007 at 18:56
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 18:58
In short, and to risk offending: Arab nations are short sighted.


Edited by Mughaal - 06-Dec-2007 at 00:56
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:01
Hello Mughaal
 
If you mean by your comments above the rulers, than I salute you, but if you mean that all the Arabs are like that than I am very dissapointed by these insulting comments. The problem with the Arabs is that they are ruled by dictators who are surrounded by people who only know how to say yes. In every other dictatorship in the world, the dictator doesn't even have such control.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:05
So you make a sweeping generalisation about all Arabs when in fact whom you're referring to are the Arab political elite... well not all of them are as you describe them, the Syrian elite for example.  Secondly, what makes you think these leaders are stupid?  What if they are only thinking about their own PERSONAL situations? in which case they would be very clever AND devious - whatever happens they will have somewhere to go with their wealth, don't think they haven't contemplated their own possible paths of poltical demise.

I know what you're trying to say but there is no need in insulting a whole lot of people in saying it.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:24
Well, yeah, Arab governments.
And no government is good when the people in power are contemplating where they go once their country is invaded.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:40
Mughaal are there any smart people left on the planet? Let's see. Aside from your displeasure with American policies you have somehow called the Irani people stupid. Arabs are only good at digging for oil or investing in the stock market and soon their "retardom" will collapse. Which makes for a dumb group of people, muslims. Let me know if I missed anyone you might have mentioned.

Edited by Seko - 05-Dec-2007 at 19:40
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 23:28
No, Americans are intelligent but imperialistic.
 
Persians are smart; thats why Americas having a hard time with them.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 02:11
Ive met some meat head Persians and some very very smart Arabs, so i would suggest when using such terminology be allot more specific like 'the suadi regime' or 'Egyptian government' or something like that, even better address it to a certain action or policy. for example you cannot compare the level of planning, foresight in the UAE with Saudi Arabia or the politics of Jordan with that of Syria.

Edited by Leonidas - 06-Dec-2007 at 02:18
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 02:36
Video of Bush's Iran War Speech
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 19:19
I found this article to be rather candid:


Speaking truth to power on Iran
AddThis var addthis_pub = '';< ="text/" ="http://s9.addthis.com/js/widget.php?v=10">

 

Credibility of Bush administration sinks to new low after report demolishes bomb claims
Dec 06, 2007 04:30 AM
Haroon Siddiqui
Columnist

Just when it seemed that American credibility could not sink any lower, comes word from America's own spy agencies that Iran wasn't making the bomb that George W. Bush said it was.

So, "World War III" and "a nuclear holocaust" are not imminent.

That's good to know before he could've launched a war on Iran, unlike Iraq where he did, though Baghdad had no capacity to make the "mushroom cloud" that Condoleezza Rice said it did.

Given the new intelligence assessment, it's not Iran that's looking like a rogue state but rather the U.S., at least the Bush administration "running around like a mad man, blade in hand," as Vladimir Putin put it recently.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exulting in "total victory." Bush is struggling to maintain that he was not wrong. This is not a pretty sight.

What is comforting is that the American intelligence community has spoken truth to power. Unlike Bush, it has learned a lesson or two from Iraq: not to exaggerate and lie, and to admit when wrong.

The spooks acknowledge they were wrong to have said in 2005 that Iran was building the bomb when, in fact, they now think it had stopped doing so in 2003. If Iran does decide to build one, it won't be able to do so for some years.

This conclusion has several serious implications: It refutes the image, carefully constructed, of anti-American, anti-Semitic mad mullahs mixing ingredients in a secret nuclear shed.

The National Intelligence Estimate says simply: "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military cost."

In other words, Iran is not all that different from other nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency is fully vindicated.

It had found no evidence of a weapons program, a conclusion fully backed by Russian intelligence.

The UN agency has not even said that Iran had a weapons program prior to 2003, only that Tehran hadn't been forthcoming about its covert activities dating back to 1988 a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Last August, the agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, got Iran to agree to disclose details of that dark period. Last week, he said Iran is making "good progress."

He also said that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges (which enrich uranium) but that he could not guess Tehran's "intentions."

For his consistently nuanced position, he has been subjected to a smear campaign. He, in turn, has said that advocates of war are "crazies" something many leading Americans have been saying as well, and will say more loudly. Bush faces an uphill battle imposing sanctions on Iran tougher than the ones in place under two Security Council resolutions.

Veto-wielding Russia and China, already wary, are not likely to agree. Britain, Germany and France may try for European Union sanctions. But Italy and Spain have balked.

That would leave the U.S. to toughen its own sanctions, dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Bush's problem is not just with the nuclear program but rather that Iran refuses to be a client state. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah, and has carved out spheres of influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may pull out of the talks with the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, and deal only with the atomic agency in Vienna.

As for the Security Council resolutions, it argues that they are "illegal" Iran has not violated the nuclear treaty, which allows uranium enrichment. Iran temporarily suspended doing so (2004-2006) only as part of a deal: The European Union would get the U.S. to stop being hostile and negotiate a new relationship. When the EU failed, Iran resumed the program.

A compromise being floated is to have the enrichment done in Russia or by a consortium of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain).

If Iran can't work out such compromises with the atomic agency, it can do what North Korea did: pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and shut the door on UN inspections. This is the route that non-signatories Israel, India and Pakistan took to develop their own nuclear bombs by stealth. White House hawks, from Dick Cheney down, stand discredited. This is their second setback, the Annapolis conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict being the first. They lost an internal struggle to Rice, who convinced Bush to try for peace. Barak Obama is looking good and Hillary Clinton not. Believing a woman candidate must pander more to the war gallery, she has been belligerent on Iran, while he has said he'd deal directly with the Iranian leaders. Much of North American media have a lot to answer for. They've been an echo chamber of the U.S. administration on Iran, just as they had been on Iraq.

In conclusion, three thoughts:

While Iran's ruling clerics do understand carrots and sticks, Bush has little credibility to use either.

Instead of helping Iran's human rights activists and its strong civil society, he has only strengthened the clerical regime. "No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan repeated in Iran," noted Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading dissident, who spoke at the University of Toronto last week.

At a time when Canada could have played a bridging role, Stephen Harper has let relations deteriorate to the point that there's no Canadian ambassador in Tehran and no Iranian one in Ottawa at this time.

< ="" ="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/thestar/in-article;sz=468x60;ord=%27%20+%20ord%20+%20%27?" ="text/">Click%20here%20to%20find%20out%20more!http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/283053
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 19:27
Originally posted by Mughaal

Video of Bush's Iran War Speech


So all facts are irrelevant, everything must happen as Bush's gut desires.  Truly proves that he and his ilk are a bunch of blood hungry leeches like I've been saying for  the last four years.


Edited by Zagros - 06-Dec-2007 at 19:28
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.296 seconds.