Do you believe Iran / Nukes?

[garybeck]

I was watching Olbermann tonight. He did a story about Iran Nukes. I was a little disturbed because I paid close attention to where the evidence was coming from, and oddly, they said that "US Intelligence Experts" say they are 5 years from a nuke.

Where have I heard this before?

A part of me was saying to myself, you're being paranoid. this is Olbermann. And look, the international community is all in agreement. The UN is getting involved.

The other part of me is saying, how are we supposed to know when to believe shit like this anymore? How much of it is exaggerated? Where is the real hard evidence? Are we going to find out 3 years from now that some of it was fabricated?

what do you think?

[bananas]

1. What evidence? They haven't even shown any fake satellite photos.

What evidence are you talking about?

[garybeck]

3. they say there is evidence but I haven't seen any...

that's sort of my point.

[bananas]

20. As Maxwell Smart would say:

"It's the old "say there's evidence when there isn't any" trick"

[bpilgrim]

17. ditto

more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[radwriter0555]

2. Roger Daltry said it best, didn't he? "Don't get fooled AGAIN!!"

But I don't think this is about war, this is about wag the dog. Some bad bad shit is going down in the bush regime, there are more indictments every day and more scandals every hour. They need something to distract from their corruption, no matter what the cost.

Karl Rove is DESPERATE.

[garybeck]

4. unfortunately I think people are getting fooled again

every time I hear a report on this, it's like this time, "they" know for sure. almost as if the Iranians admit it. they say the president of iran keeps threatening israel. but do we get to see the exact translation of what he said? and geesh, it's on Olbermann... I think I've even heard it on AAR news. what is going on here?

[applegrove]

5. I cannot figure out who is a bigger liar. Could be the Iranians

are kicking up a fuss and taking it to the hilt - not because they plan on being invaded - but because they want to create nationalism within Iraq.

I just don't know.

The Iranian PM started talking anti-Israel in the lead up to the Iraqi election where religious Shias seem to have won again.

Could just be that.

I hope it is a smoke dance. Rather than reality.

I have no idea.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. The Iranians announced it

They opened the plant back up, broke the UN/IAEA seals, and announced they were going to develop their nuclear energy capability.

But five years from a nuclear bomb? It's possible, but who knows?

Also, having a bomb and using a bomb are two different things.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this story.

--p!

[garybeck]

8. Right, I think the question is

whether they are going for energy production or bomb production. the seals are broken, that seems to be undisputed.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. The Iranians are going to push this as far as they can

IMHO, of course.

And I think the ability to build a nuclear bomb is secondary. The fact that they can process uranium into fissile material will put enough of a scare into the international community. Perhaps they can "borrow" one from Pakistan, detonate it, and claim it's an Iranian bomb.

As to whether they want to have nuclear energy capability -- that's also secondary. They've joined The Nuclear Club. That's what matters to them. I can't say I blame them, but the Iranian leadership isn't exactly peace-loving.

Then again, are we? Our own recent behavior calls that into question.

They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. America (i.e., George Bush, by speaking for America) has lost its bully pulpit, and we would be unable to answer a military challenge without reinstituting the Draft. Iran can use its nuclear "threat" as a way to avoid accountability for its horrendous human rights violations and to claim moral superiority over the USA and Europe. They can poke us in the eye at will now. And it's almost certain that they'll be able to cadge a lot of goodies out of China, Russia, and other selected countries around the world.

If Bush has only restrained his raging hard-on for Saddam Hussein -- and his inclination to lie and call it Patriotism -- we wouldn't be in this position. It would still be an unpleasant turn of events, but Iran wouldn't have the upper hand.

--p!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. If I were being threatened by a much larger nation armed with nukes....

...and led by people that should be locked away in nut-houses, I would do everything I could to protect myself.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of DUers that seem incapable of understanding that line of thought.

[garybeck]

7. HERE is the latest story on Iran Nukes. How much of it do you believe?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/12/iran.nuclear/index.html

snip

Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility this week, insisting it only wants to develop a civilian nuclear power program in accordance with international law.

snip

it seems the breaking of the seals is not really in dispute. however, they are claiming it is only for nuclear power production. who are we supposed to believe?

note, there's a 9 minute interview with the spokesman from Iran on the CNN link.

[DanCa]

9. The real moral behind the story cry wolf

You cant tell the same lie twice and get away with it. Of course Ive been lied to so much I dont know anymore.

[garybeck]

10. morning kick

[rman]

11. Either way i don't think it's reason to attack Iran

The US isn't being attacked because it has nukes, why should any other nation?

Ah yes: "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys". Well, that's just propaganda.

[Loonman]

12. Yes, Iraq was the paper tiger

Iran is the real deal. That's why Saddam bluffed about having WMDs. Iran is hevily armed, and has a highly trained and well motivated military, unlike Iraq ever had.

[yodermon]

13. Olbermann

You do know that the original title of "Countdown" was "Countdown - IRAQ", right?
During the run-up to the war that was.

The title of that show nauseated me and I could never watch him because of that.

I've since come around, and realize his show is something of an oasis in the sea of the Corporate Media wasteland. However, I can never forget (A) that he, like the rest of the CMC (save Knight-Ridder) did NOT question the existence of iraqi WMDs, dropping all qualifying language like "alleged" when discussing them; and (B) that war profiteer General Electric signs his paycheck, and he does after all work for their progaganda division, and if the content of his show ever negatively impacts their bottom line he'll be yanked off the air faster than you can say militaryindustrialmediacomplex.

excuse me while i'm a bit cynical.

sorry for the rant, carry on.

[garybeck]

15. thanks, that is not a cynical rant, it is justified skepticism.

[bryant69]

14. Iran is a potential problem.

A problem that has been worsened by President Bush's actions over the last few years.

But what kind of threat are they really? It's hard to say.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Where's the category for "It's ALL a NeoCon fabrication"??

[garybeck]

21. that would be the yellow bar

Most of the info is being fabricated