NIE Reports Iran Nukes Not So Much - Page 4

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 12-06-2007, 09:50 PM

We are no longer seen as a paper tiger.

We are now seen as a country that is militarily over extended and lacks the full support of other major democratic nations. We are seen as a country that will only get involved if there is some national interest to be had. If involvement will harm our relations with another country we depend on we will not get involved (Darfur and China's oil). Oh, and if you already have nukes, we will pretty much ignore you.

It has also been confirmed that, yes, the American people will not tolerate for long any conflict that causes American solders deaths and is not a clear and present danger.

Paper tiger doesn't sound so bad now. At least there might have been some doubt in the dictators minds before. Now they all have a good strategy on how to outlast. (I am only kinda kidding.)

**Tonk** · 12-06-2007, 11:34 PM

the NIE report in question was dated in 2004 or 2005, 2 years before the latest which said that Iran is still going at it and successfully enriched uranium pellets or something like that, but thats not the point... WHERE WAS THIS REPORT WHEN IT CAME OUT ALMOST 3 years ago, why did it just turn up now? There are many reasons that make this out to be a false report.... can you say 'Treason'? i only caught the end of a monologue about this on the radio, but it was explained much better than in the article linked (rush limbaugh or sean hannity, i forget which one)

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 12-06-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tonk

the NIE report in question was dated in 2004 or 2005, 2 years before the latest which said that Iran is still going at it and successfully enriched uranium pellets or something like that, but thats not the point... WHERE WAS THIS REPORT WHEN IT CAME OUT ALMOST 3 years ago, why did it just turn up now? There are many reasons that make this out to be a false report.... can you say 'Treason'? i only caught the end of a monologue about this on the radio, but it was explained much better than in the article linked (rush limbaugh or sean hannity, i forget which one)

Dude, you been drinkin'?

BeSiege82 · 12-06-2007, 11:52 PM

I want to point out something- any of the weapons grade material, any of those countries make, will not be feasably used for anything other than as a weapon.

AMosely · 12-07-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Also, I agree 100% that Bin Laden sought to chide the US into war, but Bin Laden wanted us to invade and lose in Afghanistan - I think that even at his most optimistic OBL never would have expected the gift of an American invasion of an Arab nation (Afghanistan is not an Arab nation). With the benefit of hindsight, it probably would have been advantageous for the US to have focused on Afghanistan without fooling around in Iraq; a thorough and decently quick tromping of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would have sent a strong message that the US will not be pushed around.

I completely agree with you here. Sadly, things seem to be slipping in Afghanistan, though I heard a report that NATO leaders claim this is because coalition forces are taking a more agressive stance. That does not explain the bumper opium crop, though. Afghanistan is a very, very hard country to fight in, and one that desparately needs to be secured (and this includes northern Pakistan).

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

The US will never invade Iran though (in the immediately foreseeable future), so don't worry about that. According to Luttwak, one night of air strikes are all that'd be needed. Of course, Iran might try some crazy stuff in the Persian Gulf / Straight of Hormuz in response, but even then we're talking about naval battles and ballistic missiles, not invasion and occupation.

I'm still worried. Even a 48-hour air strike (and from what I understand this is all that is planned) would have ramifications lasting decades to come that would bring a significantly increased risk of desparation attacks (long range missiles and Hezbollah rockets) on Israel, the US and their allies. Those attacks have a strong possibility of leading to even more war - something the region simply does not need and can not take.

**Tonk** · 12-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Dude, you been drinkin'?

even if i was, i would be smarter than any democratic politician in the country =P

Steeler · 12-08-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

The US will never invade Iran though (in the immediately foreseeable future), so don't worry about that. According to Luttwak, one night of air strikes are all that'd be needed. Of course, Iran might try some crazy stuff in the Persian Gulf / Straight of Hormuz in response, but even then we're talking about naval battles and ballistic missiles, not invasion and occupation.

Relying on a LeMay plan to neutralize an Iranian threat is pretty weak strategy, since it would carry all of the negative political consequences of an invasion without any chance of controlling the ground situation. We'd unite almost all of the disparate factions within Iran, ensure the stability of the Supreme Council, and mobilize most of their industrial state for war. We'd have to bomb them back into the bronze age to prevent a subsequent arms build-up, because if we didn't, Israel would.

We'd also bring down the economic wrath of Russia, and possibly OPEC (depending on how the Saudis react), resulting in a serious fuel crunch here in the states. And then there's the local political situation in Iraq. It's tough to reason for the benefits of starting a shooting war in a country adjacent to the one you're trying to pacify.

AMosely · 12-10-2007, 02:10 PM

I found this editorial to hit many nails on the head with very few words, explaining why the new 'mess-o-potamia' is an entirely different animal thanks to curious George.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilip Hiro

With his invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush diverged wildly from the policies of his two Republican predecessors: his father, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Both of them had proved erudite enough to maintain the zero-sum game between Iraq and Iran.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23412

**TheFatKidDeath** · 03-11-2008, 04:50 PM

Here's a story that probably won't get much attention given that Americans are pre-occupied with yet another meanlingless sex scandal. The top American Military commander in the Middle East is taking a early retirement in what is to be reported his differences with the Bush Administration in how to deal with Iran. From other articles I've read, he was not well liked in the Bush Administration and was seen as not taking a hard line approach and shown the door.

Scary stuff. I'm hope I'm wrong but this seems to be an ominious sign when realist and practical military leaders are asked to take "early retirement".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/wa...hp&oref=slogin

**Switchcraft** · 03-12-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Here's a story that probably won't get much attention given that Americans are pre-occupied with yet another meanlingless sex scandal. The top American Military commander in the Middle East is taking a early retirement in what is to be reported his differences with the Bush Administration in how to deal with Iran. From other articles I've read, he was not well liked in the Bush Administration and was seen as not taking a hard line approach and shown the door.

Scary stuff. I'm hope I'm wrong but this seems to be an ominious sign when realist and practical military leaders are asked to take "early retirement".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/wa...hp&oref=slogin

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said in his statement Tuesday, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is."

Associated Press

I think the reason it won't get much media attention is that the man at the center isn't willing to back the media's version of things. Note that in the NYT articles FatKid linked Fallon is not directly quoted at all.

12-06-2007, 09:50 PM	#46 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,130	Re: NIE Reports Iran Nukes Not So Much We are no longer seen as a paper tiger. We are now seen as a country that is militarily over extended and lacks the full support of other major democratic nations. We are seen as a country that will only get involved if there is some national interest to be had. If involvement will harm our relations with another country we depend on we will not get involved (Darfur and China's oil). Oh, and if you already have nukes, we will pretty much ignore you. It has also been confirmed that, yes, the American people will not tolerate for long any conflict that causes American solders deaths and is not a clear and present danger. Paper tiger doesn't sound so bad now. At least there might have been some doubt in the dictators minds before. Now they all have a good strategy on how to outlast. (I am only kinda kidding.) __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

12-06-2007, 11:34 PM	#47 (permalink)
Tonk Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Luck, WI USA Age: 22 Posts: 2,704	Re: NIE Reports Iran Nukes Not So Much the NIE report in question was dated in 2004 or 2005, 2 years before the latest which said that Iran is still going at it and successfully enriched uranium pellets or something like that, but thats not the point... WHERE WAS THIS REPORT WHEN IT CAME OUT ALMOST 3 years ago, why did it just turn up now? There are many reasons that make this out to be a false report.... can you say 'Treason'? i only caught the end of a monologue about this on the radio, but it was explained much better than in the article linked (rush limbaugh or sean hannity, i forget which one) __________________ **ikariam city:56:26-toastopolis-wine -click here -Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in an attractive and well preserved body; but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a beer in the other, body totally worn out screaming "YEEEHAW, WHAT A RIDE!!!" - my grandpa -Toasty/Tonk/Chair http://tgtonk.notlong.com -My New Rig: cpu: AMD 6400+ 3.2ghz dual core mobo: Asus Crosshair ram: 8gb (4x2gb) geil exotera 4-4-4-12 video card** MSI 8800GTS 512mb (g92)

12-06-2007, 11:52 PM	#49 (permalink)
BeSiege82 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: PA Posts: 1,219	Re: NIE Reports Iran Nukes Not So Much I want to point out something- any of the weapons grade material, any of those countries make, will not be feasably used for anything other than as a weapon. __________________ lTG-Irrl BeSiege82 A platoon leader in his own right... "Courage grows strong at the wound." "Virescit Vulnere Virtus." "{My grump-o-meter starts to make a high-pitched whine when I point it at your post, though.}" -- Axis Platoon Leader of Irregular's platoon Alpha

03-11-2008, 04:50 PM	#54 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,526	Re: NIE Reports Iran Nukes Not So Much Here's a story that probably won't get much attention given that Americans are pre-occupied with yet another meanlingless sex scandal. The top American Military commander in the Middle East is taking a early retirement in what is to be reported his differences with the Bush Administration in how to deal with Iran. From other articles I've read, he was not well liked in the Bush Administration and was seen as not taking a hard line approach and shown the door. Scary stuff. I'm hope I'm wrong but this seems to be an ominious sign when realist and practical military leaders are asked to take "early retirement". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/wa...hp&oref=slogin __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links