[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq, are you saying you don’t have a horse in this Philippine race?[/quote]
I’ve had horse on my plate in Japan, does that count?[/quote]
Nah; that’s been cooked.[/quote]
I actually really like basashi, but tataki is awesome as well.
I wouldn’t call it “cooked”. More like lightly seared.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq, are you saying you don’t have a horse in this Philippine race?[/quote]
I’ve had horse on my plate in Japan, does that count?
[/quote]
As long as you admit that North Korea has not or is not building a bomb, they are attempting to build nuclear energy to bring their living standards up.
[/quote]
The fucking North Koreans. Ha!
Eating grass and bark three times a day instead of two would represent a significant improvement in their living standards.
First thing I’ll like to say is,americans who think that weakening america influence abroad and acceding to any condition for short term peace are greatly mistaken,many countries don’t like you and purposefully weakening your stance on global issues won’t make them like you better
Secondly I think your president loathes america and the ideals that she stands for,there has been an alienation of allies in order to please some other nations which won’t work. It will interest you to note that some analyst have seen iran drive for nuclear capabilities as a way to usher in the era of the twelfth iman
The only issue iran would have is deciding who to bomb first big satan(american) or little satan(Israel) but I believe Israel would find a way to defend herself while obama would give one of his fancy speeches
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
OK so I asked for evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapons program. All I got was a bunch of irrelevant answers, no one provided evidence nesccesary to prove what they claim.
Does anyone else remember another war where the other side supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and then they didn’t.
When people ignore history and ignore evidence a lot of people die. Lets smarten up guys.[/quote]
“Smarten up?” Ha ha ha ha!
“Ignore evidence?” LOL. You’re an expert. Here’s some for you to ignore.
47. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible
military dimensions to Iran�?�¢??s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.42 Since
2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of
undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities
related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Iran has dismissed the Agency�?�¢??s
concerns, largely on the grounds that Iran considers them to be based on unfounded allegations.43
48. The Annex to the Director General�?�¢??s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed
analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that
are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information is assessed by the
Agency to be, overall, credible.44 Since November 2011, the Agency has obtained more information
which further corroborates the analysis contained in the aforementioned Annex.
49. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran�?�¢??s obligations to take the steps
required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to
cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to
concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran�?�¢??s nuclear programme, including by providing
access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.45 As
indicated in Section B above, since the publication of the Director General�?�¢??s November 2011 report,
although the Board has adopted two resolutions addressing the urgent need to resolve outstanding
issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, including those which need to be clarified to exclude
the existence of possible military dimensions, it has not been possible to finalize the structured
approach document or to begin substantive work in this regard.
50. Parchin: As stated in the Annex to the Director General�?�¢??s November 2011 report,46 information provided to the Agency by Member States indicates that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments;47 such experiments would be strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development. The information also indicates that the containment vessel was installed at the Parchin site in 2000. The location at the Parchin site of the vessel was only identified in March 2011, and the Agency notified Iran of that location in January
2012.
I asked for evidence. That is not evidence.
If you can’t provide proof Iran is building a nuclear weapons program then maybe you shouldn’t say you can.
On a more serious note; what “evidence” do you need, Kareem?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
On a more serious note; what “evidence” do you need, Kareem?
Mufasa[/quote]
Any clear proof showing that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability. There is none. And all this chicken hawking by people not in the military who want to send my brother and other family members to kill or be killed in Iran over a bunch of hearsay really make me angry.
The same type of “leads” that tricked a bunch of uneducated gullible americans into supporting the Iraq war are now being touted about weapons programs in Iran. But there is simply no evidence, zero, zilch. And just because an American report stating american intelligence believes there is and has informants on the ground is put out here and there does not make it so.
They said the same about Iraq, the exact same things, the Russian intelligence service, British and American intelligence agencies all said Iraq had WMD’S and it was clear they were nowhere near capable of nuclear production, let alone any weaponised program that would allow an attack on foreign soil with nuclear power.
I just wish people could stick to the facts instead of posting idiotic one liners because they can not back up their claims. Of course when people go to die alone overseas because of these lies its not them or their kids so they can just sweep their former cheerleading of war under the carpet. But for some people it is more real than that.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
And all this chicken hawking by people not in the military who want to send my brother and other family members to kill or be killed in Iran over a bunch of hearsay really make me angry.[/quote]
Well, well. So it appears you have a horse in this race after all. Do you mean to say that your brother and other family members are in the US military, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Ah, then you wish for something that never was and never shall be on this forum, friend.
And as they say, if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
And all this chicken hawking by people not in the military who want to send my brother and other family members to kill or be killed in Iran over a bunch of hearsay really make me angry.[/quote]
Well, well. So it appears you have a horse in this race after all. Do you mean to say that your brother and other family members are in the US military, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Ah, then you wish for something that never was and never shall be on this forum, friend.
And as they say, if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call not wanting people to die for a war before there is proof for something as having a bias. I don’t have any love for the US government or the Iranian regime. They both suck. I just don’t get why people would want Iranians or Americans to die over hearsay with no solid proof. As if the last 12 years haven’t had enough of that.
And yeah I guess, also horse meat rules. Almost as good as crispy dog in K.O sauce with boiled rice and lager.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
On a more serious note; what “evidence” do you need, Kareem?
Mufasa[/quote]
Any clear proof showing that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability. There is none. And all this chicken hawking by people not in the military who want to send my brother and other family members to kill or be killed in Iran over a bunch of hearsay really make me angry.
The same type of “leads” that tricked a bunch of uneducated gullible americans into supporting the Iraq war are now being touted about weapons programs in Iran. But there is simply no evidence, zero, zilch. And just because an American report stating american intelligence believes there is and has informants on the ground is put out here and there does not make it so.
They said the same about Iraq, the exact same things, the Russian intelligence service, British and American intelligence agencies all said Iraq had WMD’S and it was clear they were nowhere near capable of nuclear production, let alone any weaponised program that would allow an attack on foreign soil with nuclear power.
I just wish people could stick to the facts instead of posting idiotic one liners because they can not back up their claims. Of course when people go to die alone overseas because of these lies its not them or their kids so they can just sweep their former cheerleading of war under the carpet. But for some people it is more real than that.[/quote]
“Evidence” is not equal to “Proof”. They are not and have never been equivalent. You can have evidence for a good many things you cannot prove. Therefore you need to get your language straight on what, exactly, it is that you are demanding be shown.
Any definitive “proof” that exists is highly classified, and as such if there is definitive proof for weapons intentions it exists in a place nobody on this forum can access. Therefore your claimed threshold is beyond anything civilians can get, unless they work for intelligence agencies and satellite imagery and wish to be held accountable for treason by divulging highly classified documents.
3)We are not going to invade Iran any time soon. There will be no civilian casualties, only highly isolated, secret, and military installations are looking into nuclear capability. We are not going to put any boots on the ground and there is absolutely no way we are going to bomb anything remotely close to any town–because Iran has isolated their facilities as much as possible in order to try to keep them secret.
The products of intelligence analysis are not certainties, but rather varying degrees of probability. If the United States followed your ridiculously stringent standards of evidence before undertaking its foreign policy, the smoking gun would indeed be a mushroom cloud (or more literally, seismic activity as a result of an underground nuclear test.) Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. That is indisputable fact that the Iranian regime itself had confirmed. You assert that it is not an attempt to bring Iran into the fold of nuclear weapons states, but rather that it is a peaceful endeavor to develop nuclear energy and facilitate economic development. There are many problems with this idealistic position.
You hold that Iran seeks nuclear energy. As you can hopefully see from the data provided in the link, Iran is an energy rich state. One would be inclined to ask why it pursues the development of nuclear infrastructure, which is extremely capital intensive, especially when the per capita income of its citizens is taken into account.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As far as economic development is concerned, Iran’s nuclear program has indisputably hamstrung it’s economy. The sanctions levied against Iran by the United States and its allies have had a devastating effect on not only the wherewithal of the Iranian regime, but upon the well being of its populace.
If Iran’s energy security is marginally impacted by the addition of nuclear energy infrastructure, and its economy has suffered greatly as a result of its nuclear program, why does it continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions? Iran seeks neither energy nor economic gain, but rather the preeminent goal of all states - security.
The Iranian regime believes that the Western world and its “lackeys” in the region seek nothing short of the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. Nuclear capability would provide a formidable deterrent to the United States and its allies, and to the numerous Sunni states in southwest Asia.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The products of intelligence analysis are not certainties, but rather varying degrees of probability. If the United States followed your ridiculously stringent standards of evidence before undertaking its foreign policy, the smoking gun would indeed be a mushroom cloud (or more literally, seismic activity as a result of an underground nuclear test.) Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. That is indisputable fact that the Iranian regime itself had confirmed. You assert that it is not an attempt to bring Iran into the fold of nuclear weapons states, but rather that it is a peaceful endeavor to develop nuclear energy and facilitate economic development. There are many problems with this idealistic position.
You hold that Iran seeks nuclear energy. As you can hopefully see from the data provided in the link, Iran is an energy rich state. One would be inclined to ask why it pursues the development of nuclear infrastructure, which is extremely capital intensive, especially when the per capita income of its citizens is taken into account.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As far as economic development is concerned, Iran’s nuclear program has indisputably hamstrung it’s economy. The sanctions levied against Iran by the United States and its allies have had a devastating effect on not only the wherewithal of the Iranian regime, but upon the well being of its populace.
If Iran’s energy security is marginally impacted by the addition of nuclear energy infrastructure, and its economy has suffered greatly as a result of its nuclear program, why does it continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions? Iran seeks neither energy nor economic gain, but rather the preeminent goal of all states - security.
The Iranian regime believes that the Western world and its lackeys in the region seek nothing short of the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. Nuclear capability would provide a formidable deterrent to the United States and its allies, and to the numerous Sunni states in southwest Asia.[/quote]
You are correct.
Of course the Western world and its lackeys (a pejorative term for allies, why did you use it?) would like to see the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Revolution is led by thugs and whackos. They’ve been responsible for a significant amount of terrorism against both Muslims and infidels since 1979. They’ve repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation.
If North Korea is the north pole of nutjob states then Iran is the south pole. Thing is, Iran is in the geographical and political position to be far more dangerous than North Korea. There is no such thing as a China to restrain them.
[/quote]
Apologies. I meant to put quotations around lackeys. I’m a terrible writer when I’m limited to my phone. Hopefully we can find common ground when it comes to the misinformed idealism of our new friend Kareem.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The products of intelligence analysis are not certainties, but rather varying degrees of probability. If the United States followed your ridiculously stringent standards of evidence before undertaking its foreign policy, the smoking gun would indeed be a mushroom cloud (or more literally, seismic activity as a result of an underground nuclear test.) Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. That is indisputable fact that the Iranian regime itself had confirmed. You assert that it is not an attempt to bring Iran into the fold of nuclear weapons states, but rather that it is a peaceful endeavor to develop nuclear energy and facilitate economic development. There are many problems with this idealistic position.
You hold that Iran seeks nuclear energy. As you can hopefully see from the data provided in the link, Iran is an energy rich state. One would be inclined to ask why it pursues the development of nuclear infrastructure, which is extremely capital intensive, especially when the per capita income of its citizens is taken into account.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As far as economic development is concerned, Iran’s nuclear program has indisputably hamstrung it’s economy. The sanctions levied against Iran by the United States and its allies have had a devastating effect on not only the wherewithal of the Iranian regime, but upon the well being of its populace.
If Iran’s energy security is marginally impacted by the addition of nuclear energy infrastructure, and its economy has suffered greatly as a result of its nuclear program, why does it continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions? Iran seeks neither energy nor economic gain, but rather the preeminent goal of all states - security.
The Iranian regime believes that the Western world and its lackeys in the region seek nothing short of the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. Nuclear capability would provide a formidable deterrent to the United States and its allies, and to the numerous Sunni states in southwest Asia.[/quote]
You are correct.
Of course the Western world and its lackeys (a pejorative term for allies, why did you use it?) would like to see the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Revolution is led by thugs and whackos. They’ve been responsible for a significant amount of terrorism against both Muslims and infidels since 1979. They’ve repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation.
If North Korea is the north pole of nutjob states then Iran is the south pole. Thing is, Iran is in the geographical and political position to be far more dangerous than North Korea. There is no such thing as a China to restrain them.
[/quote]
Apologies. I meant to put quotations around lackeys. I’m a terrible writer when I’m limited to my phone. Hopefully we can find common ground when it comes to the misinformed idealism of our new friend Kareem.[/quote]
Just because I disagree with you that Iran “should” get the Bomb or that you can apply a “Cold War theory” to the post Cold War asymmetric world doesn’t mean you’re not a very smart guy. I simply hold a different position (even though Iran holds the same goals as a rational actor–and you already know I think they are sub-rational which is another reason they should not be allowed to get the Bomb–it should not be allowed to attain its goals because they conflict with both ours and Israel’s goals, and I’m batting for the home teams.)
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
On a more serious note; what “evidence” do you need, Kareem?
Mufasa[/quote]
Any clear proof showing that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability. There is none. And all this chicken hawking by people not in the military who want to send my brother and other family members to kill or be killed in Iran over a bunch of hearsay really make me angry.
The same type of “leads” that tricked a bunch of uneducated gullible americans into supporting the Iraq war are now being touted about weapons programs in Iran. But there is simply no evidence, zero, zilch. And just because an American report stating american intelligence believes there is and has informants on the ground is put out here and there does not make it so.
They said the same about Iraq, the exact same things, the Russian intelligence service, British and American intelligence agencies all said Iraq had WMD’S and it was clear they were nowhere near capable of nuclear production, let alone any weaponised program that would allow an attack on foreign soil with nuclear power.
I just wish people could stick to the facts instead of posting idiotic one liners because they can not back up their claims. Of course when people go to die alone overseas because of these lies its not them or their kids so they can just sweep their former cheerleading of war under the carpet. But for some people it is more real than that.[/quote]
“Evidence” is not equal to “Proof”. They are not and have never been equivalent. You can have evidence for a good many things you cannot prove. Therefore you need to get your language straight on what, exactly, it is that you are demanding be shown.
Any definitive “proof” that exists is highly classified, and as such if there is definitive proof for weapons intentions it exists in a place nobody on this forum can access. Therefore your claimed threshold is beyond anything civilians can get, unless they work for intelligence agencies and satellite imagery and wish to be held accountable for treason by divulging highly classified documents.
3)We are not going to invade Iran any time soon. There will be no civilian casualties, only highly isolated, secret, and military installations are looking into nuclear capability. We are not going to put any boots on the ground and there is absolutely no way we are going to bomb anything remotely close to any town–because Iran has isolated their facilities as much as possible in order to try to keep them secret.[/quote]
I was asking for either.
There is less evidence of Iran building a nuclear weapons program than there was that Iraq had WMD’s. Do you remember all the evidence, witness testimony, turncoat scientists and supposed leaks that turned out to be CIA doctored lies?
Do you think maybe the CIA has a vested interest in getting us to go to war?
Also if any information will be kept secret and not known by anyone outside a small classified circle, why do so many people in this thread act like it is a known fact Iran are building a bomb, despite no solid, corroborating evidence and certainly no proof.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
I am not referring to the biological weapons that America sold to them, including anthrax etc. I am talking about the lie told to get the invasion going, that they had a nuclear weapons program on the verge of creating a bomb.
You know I meant this but are distracting from facing the facts that all that evidence the intelligence services supposedly uncovered was all lies, used to get the country in a war, with a vice president that was a Halliburton CEO, who happened to get into office and then America happened to go to war and drop insane amounts of bombs and they oh hey, wotcha know, Halliburton gets billions in no bid contracts to build it back up.
I mean jesus christ. Is there any clearer sign of corruption in a state than the last 15 years?
And now the same gullible people are chanting war from the edge of the abyss again, while rational people are face palming and wondering how much inbreeding is going on in their country that they are so easily lead to war over a complete pack of lies, time and time again.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
Also are you telling me then that the country that sold biological and chemical weapons to Iraq, which the nations dictator used on thousands of civilians, are the guys you trust to start or not start a war with Iran that could very well escalate into the next global war?
Really?
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
I am not referring to the biological weapons that America sold to them, including anthrax etc. I am talking about the lie told to get the invasion going, that they had a nuclear weapons program on the verge of creating a bomb.
[/quote]
Lol, wut??
The line going in was not a nuclear bomb. I have never heard that until just now. Not on Fox, or CNN, or Mother Jones, or anywhere and I was pretty hooked into the news cycle around then. Chemical and biological weapons are WMDs. And, as far as I ever saw in news, interviews, speeches, or intelligence reports (second hand, of course, in news outlets), it was always chemical and biological weapons.
I am not commenting on the desirability or justifiability of the war there, but the fact you seem completely confused.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
I am not referring to the biological weapons that America sold to them, including anthrax etc. I am talking about the lie told to get the invasion going, that they had a nuclear weapons program on the verge of creating a bomb.
[/quote]
Lol, wut??
The line going in was not a nuclear bomb. I have never heard that until just now. Not on Fox, or CNN, or Mother Jones, or anywhere and I was pretty hooked into the news cycle around then. Chemical and biological weapons are WMDs. And, as far as I ever saw in news, interviews, speeches, or intelligence reports (second hand, of course, in news outlets), it was always chemical and biological weapons.
I am not commenting on the desirability or justifiability of the war there, but the fact you seem completely confused.[/quote]
You don’t remember the yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
I am not referring to the biological weapons that America sold to them, including anthrax etc. I am talking about the lie told to get the invasion going, that they had a nuclear weapons program on the verge of creating a bomb.
[/quote]
Lol, wut??
The line going in was not a nuclear bomb. I have never heard that until just now. Not on Fox, or CNN, or Mother Jones, or anywhere and I was pretty hooked into the news cycle around then. Chemical and biological weapons are WMDs. And, as far as I ever saw in news, interviews, speeches, or intelligence reports (second hand, of course, in news outlets), it was always chemical and biological weapons.
I am not commenting on the desirability or justifiability of the war there, but the fact you seem completely confused.[/quote]
Allegations that Iraq had ordered centrifuges and aluminum tubes for nuclear purposes was one of the main initial lies that convinced many rational Americans war was worth the cost to eliminate a nuclear threat. It turned out that the ordered items were unsuitable for a weapons program and were rather for energy building purposes.
I am not lost, I just research things before I speak about them.
Family members of mine served int he gulf and I remember in the run up to the Iraq war my family members being convinced Iraq was building a nuclear weapons capability, it was all over the news, there were various high level people talking about it on the news and it was very much an integral piece of dishonest information the US put out in the long run up to the war that helped galvanise a lot of people.
Because a lot of peoples reactions to possible left overs of chemical and nerve weapons was well America should not have sold them to a dictator. But the ordered parts and the following allegations of Nuclear bombs and mushroom clouds was something that could not be blamed on the US, was scary enough to get lots of Americans panicking and also had the bonus of not involving American suppliers.