of nukes and knowledge

[caspian_x]

By now, everyone knows about the 2003 NIE that said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program.

And if you watch the news or walk the blogosphere a bit, it's clear everyone is convinced that this is the correct intelligence and that the Bush Administration simply is looking for excuses to go to war with Iran.

Everyone, that is, except the British

Comments

[ikkarus01]

You know what we should do? Stay the hell out of Iran. If the Brits think we got it wrong (which is not surprising, given how badly we screwed up on Iraq), then they can drop some bombs over there.

You do realize that by agreeing with this assessment of the CIA, you are implicitly agreeing that we got everything wrong about Iraq, right?

[caspian_x]

You know what we should do? Stay the hell out of Iran. If the Brits think we got it wrong (which is not surprising, given how badly we screwed up on Iraq), then they can drop some bombs over there.

Tell me, would ANY amount of intelligence convince you otherwise? I mean, could we have a report that Iran has a nuke built, armed, and pointed at the US that would convince you that we need to do something? Or would you simply be skeptical of its authenticity?

You do realize that by agreeing with this assessment of the CIA, you are implicitly agreeing that we got everything wrong about Iraq, right?

Wow, that's a Superman-sized leap in logic there. I admit that our CIA intelligence is fallible. Not that everything they have ever done is wrong. Clearly, we had some bad intel on WMDs in Iraq, too. That doesn't mean every piece of intel they've ever produced is wrong. Yikes, talk about overcompensation...

[ikkarus01]

Tell me, would ANY amount of intelligence convince you otherwise?

Find some and we'll see.

Wow, that's a Superman-sized leap in logic there.

Not really. All I'm saying is that the report you are waving about has as its foundation a general mistrust of U.S. intelligence gathering, based in large part on its abject failure with regards to Iraq. I'm just pointing out that in your passion to grasp at any straw that would bolster an argument in favor of aggression towards Iran, you have unwittingly grasped onto the argument that basically states "Well, they were wrong the first time, so why should we believe them now." Which, logically speaking, I have no problem with. But you should.

[caspian_x]

You're reducing my point to an absurdly over-simplified and logically false conclusion. By saying that the 2003 NIE may have been incorrect, I am not saying "why should we believe them now". I'm saying that there may have been an erroneous report. You are driving my statement to an illogical extreme, which is that if one report is wrong, they all must be wrong. The only alternative your either-or fallacy would leave me is that everything the CIA has ever reported must be entirely accurate. Which we know is untrue. Both extremes are stupid and over simplified.

[k_sui]

Hoping tomorrow's thought will be something along the lines of "Ignoring news reports and commentary about foreign nuke intelligence (pro, con, neocon, Sean Hannity strikingly stupid and batty liberal) is a savvy move because honestly, who in the world think that we get even a 1/100 of the actually information?"

[k_sui]

Or actual information even

[caspian_x]

Well, that's true too, but honestly, the way people in the media and in blogs have been reacting, you'd think we just got a page out of Bush's diary that said "Dear Diary, the Plan to convince the world Iran has nukes when I know it really doesn't is going well. Yours, W."

[k_sui]

With the caveat that I honestly don't much of what his Administration has done and I think he's a tragically mediocre intellect . . .

Don't see him really jonesing for this fight with Iran. It was Cheney's influence that started us down this path. Ahmadinejad is a crackpot and could be regionally dangerous, but you could say that about a dozen other situations. It's our history with Iran that spooks the right wing. They were still in a World War II mindset when they installed the Shah. That kind of thinking still influences the neocons into this rigid good-evil crap. Bush is just along for the ride. And the left is just as loony as the right on Iran. They're probably just salivating for the opportunity to speak well of Ahmadinejad just to stick it in the neocons' collective eye.

The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[resk]

What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?

He's a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.

We get hysterical over a guy who doesn't have a single weapon, and nobody's proven that he's ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That's why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn't have a chance of having a weapon. That's exactly what we did with Iraq. I'm scared to death they're getting ready to do that with Iran.

The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very,

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[caspian_x]

Ever-quotable and ever-laughable.

Regarding point one, sorry, I disagree that appeasement is a better course of action. And what is exactly is this "agreement" going to say? That Iran can refine nuclear material as long as they pinky-swear to only use it for energy and not weapons? Right. Great.

Regarding point two, the analogy is flawed as ususal. Of course you have an interest as to how your next-door neighbor is doing. But the claim is that Iran is supporting insurgents, who are actively trying to bring instability to Iraq. We'd have an interest in protecting Mexico if Russia was invading and trying to take over. That's not what we're doing in Iraq. We're trying to stabilize the country so they can govern themselves. The elections held over there have proven that.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[k_sui]

That Iran can refine nuclear material as long as they pinky-swear to only use it for energy and not weapons? Right. Great.

If they choose not enter into an agreement, then they have that right. If they choose to develop nuclear weapons, then they have that right as well. Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me that we think we have a right to tell other sovereign nations what they can and cannot do.

Re: The ever-quotable Ron Paul

[caspian_x]

Well of course they *can* develop nukes regardless of what we say because we're a sovereign nation. But then, since that's a threat to our national security (mainly because their leader is a nutjob), we have the right to react how we see fit.