Login/Sign Up




Is US and Isreali speculation about the Iranian uranium enrichment prgram irresonsible considering recent "official" contradictions?
Politics


Iran 'has no bomb-grade uranium'
Iran has no weapons-grade uranium, US officials say, contradicting earlier reports by military commanders in Washington and Israel.

National Intelligence director Dennis Blair told US senators that Tehran had only low-enriched uranium, which...
vancam
Mar 10, 2009
3 votes
6 debaters
3
3


+ Add Argument

2
Yes


thoughtprocess
Mar 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course it is. I would compare the situation with the lead up to the Iraq war. There are those in government who are making accusations and then trying to build intelligence around those accusations. What is supposed to be done is to assess the intelligence first and come to your conclusions based on the intelligence.

Israel and the U.S. have a very unhealthy and dysfunctional relationship. We have helped Israel become a nation that relies on terror and violence against opposition instead of balancing strength with diplomacy.

Well if Israel decided to preemptively attack Iran unjustly you can bet there will be blind support from the U.S. government. This revelation should show people how dangerous all our speculative accusations are.

 
thoughtprocess
Mar 11, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

What's up Watchman, long time no debate.

The comparison that I made with the lead up to the Iraq war is perfectly sound. I am not aware of the other countries intelligence reports but I am aware of ours. Michael Scheuer, former head of the Bin Laden unit pre-911 and special advisor to the same unit post-911 went through all the evidence the Bush administration had on Iraq and could not understand how they came to the conclusions they did. He felt it had to either be complete ineptitude or that the intelligence agencies knew what the administration wanted and made sure they gave them what they needed to invade.

The same kind of propaganda that was disseminated about Iraq has been fed to the public about Iran to build up hatred and fear. I think Iran has a disgusting backwards government but I do not fear them. In the event that they ever launched an attack on the U.S. they would be annihilated. I do not want them to acquire nuclear weapons but all these threats by the U.S. and Israel only serve to move them and all the other Islamic regimes right in that direction.

Now as for Israel. No one in their right minds would see what Israel has done to the Palestinians and think they are going to lay down like good little children and submit. I do not agree with some of the tactics the Palestinians use but it is to be expected. It was the same in Algeria with the French and any other area where you have a brutal occupation. Watch the testimonies from the former IDF soldiers that describe what they would do to the innocent Palestinians in terms of murder and house demolitions. Read the human rights reports. It is an indisputable fact that Israel is torturing the Palestinians. I am not ignoring facts my friend it is you that has to ignore the facts to come to your conclusion.

You are in the minority. Beyond the brainwashing media in the U.S., that won't even mention the word occupation when reporting on the conflict, you see the real picture. Just tell me why it is that the entire world wants Israel out of Palestine. I know you think the entire United Nations is biased but that is just silly. Every single country in the world votes for Israel to withdraw from the territories. The truth is so obvious that it is really tragic so many have died for something so insane.

 
thoughtprocess
Mar 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Xan come on now you are smarter than that. Of course the U.S. votes with Israel in the U.N. I didn't even think I needed to mention that because it is such a well known fact. I did not lie so don't make silly statements.

What you obviously fail to realize is that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, save a few Pacific Islands, votes AGAINST ISRAEL. Do you not see any significance in the fact that the votes on resolution 242, to have Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, are almost completely against Israel?! Every year! For over 20 years!

That means the whole world, approximately 150-160 countries, vote in favor of implementing Resolution 242. The U.S., Israel and a few Pacific Islands vote against; approximately 7 countries total. Okay ... 160 countries against 7 countries ... hmmmm yeah Xan people like you are right and the rest of the world is just wrong. Is that it? Get real.

And if you want to talk about actual lies you should go back and read your nonsensical post about Barak Obama and ACORN being the cause of the financial downfall.

 
littleminx
Mar 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

About your #2 statement.

YOU are very misinformed...Our CIA and FBI both informed Pres. Bush that there was no evidence that there were WMD were there.

President Bush said - "The EVIDENCE indicates that
Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program
... Iraq has attempted to purchase high strength
aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas
centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for
nuclear weapons." - President Bush.

....... This story leaked out and was reported by
Judith Miller in the New York Times. It has turned
out to be complete bunch of CRAP. Department of Energy
officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the
tubes could not...NOT.... be used for enriching uranium.

So to make things more clear, The White House also
claimed that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium
from Niger and that this was evidence of a renewed
nuclear weapons program.

HOWEVER, BIG however, Bush had been informed by
intelligence officials months before his speech
that the sale never took place and that the
documentary evidence had been "forged"

The CIA s Duelfer s Report Iraq concluded that
Iraq:


* HAD NO WMDs.
* had no . . . strategy or plan for the
revival of WMD after sanctions ended
* Iraq failed to acquire long range Iraq's
nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf
War.
* Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared
chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no
credible indications that Baghdad resumed
production of chemical munitions thereafter.
* In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG
found NO evidence that Iraq possessed, or was
developing BW agent product systems mounted on
road vehicles or railway wagons.

*****The CIA, FBI and BRITISH intelligence have found
no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. *****

 
littleminx
Mar 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Hum...well I beg to differ...here is a time line of everything. If you want I can give you the actual reports and the site with all the info.


* January 2, 2001 - Niger Embassy is robbed of
worthless documents, perfume, stationery and
stamps.

* Summer 2001 - Reports of the documents reporting
an attempted sale of yellow-cake to Iraq are given
to the CIA.

* February 2002 - Wilson was sent to Niger by the
CIA after Cheney requested that the uranium sales
story be investigated.

* February 2002 - Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told
Wilson that she knew about the allegations of
uranium sales to Iraq and that she felt she had
already debunked them in her reports to
Washington. After a thorough study, Wilson
concluded there was no evidence that a sale had
happened and that it would be extremely unlikely.

* March 2002 - Memo from State Department states
"Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq unlikely" and
points out serious flaws in the Italian
documents.

* March 9th, 2002 - Wilson report given to White
House.

* September 2002 - In a closed Senate hearing, CIA
director George J. Tenet and his top weapons
analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts
about the uranium story. The State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise,
called the claim "highly dubious."

* On or before October 7, 2002 - CIA Director George
Tenet argues "personally to White House officials,
including deputy national security adviser Stephen
Hadley, "that the Africa uranium claim should not
be included in Bush's October 7 speech because the
allegation is based on only one source.

* January 28, 2003 - After much discussion with the
CIA, Bush uses this story about uranium in his
State of The Union speech. GO FIGURE.....

************ Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa". The phrase "the British Government has learned" is used so they can try to argue that technically Bush didn't lie. Since the British government did receive that false information.........

* Early February 2003 - IAEA receives copies of the
documents purporting a sale of uranium to Iraq
from Niger. (FindLaw - letter from the IAEA to Rep
Henry Waxman)

* March 7, 2003 - In a speech to the UN, Mohamed
ElBaradei of the IAEA reports that they have
concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these
aluminium tubes were not likely to have been
related to the manufacture of centrifuges and that
"documents" - which formed the basis for the
reports of recent uranium transactions between
Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic".
(IAEA)(UN)

* March 19, 2003 - Bush invades Iraq.

......This is all TRUE...you may look it up. All the dates and the names are in the correct order. :-)

 
littleminx
Mar 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274

Check these videos out too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvdgP-J8O6I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmakyb5bZec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJK6ApCcKPo

I have a lot more if you need more....

 
thoughtprocess
Mar 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Oh and thanks for posting the article Van, I haven't been checking out the news lately and would have probably missed this one.

 
vancam
Mar 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

"Now, here I am going 'out on a limb' and presuming that 'irresonsible' somehow means that any 'worries' are 'misplaced' and 'ought to' be dismissed."

Yes you are out on a limb. Irresponsible, in the sense that I wrote it, means that the contradicting statements being given could lead to confusion over an issue that has the potential to turn into a very horrible war.

Much like the "confusion" over WMDs in the case of the current conflict in Iraq.

 
frankiej4189
Mar 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
All i will say about this, because i dont know enough about it, is that i smell an Iraq 2.0..well 3.0 after Obama invades Afghanistan.

This is a clusterf**k. Of course Israeli intelligence is going to say that Iran has dangerous weapon technology, of course they are. Israel is looking for any excuse they can find to get rid of the constant threat to their people so i wouldnt be suprised if Israel came out and said that the entire middle east had enriched uranium. For whatever reason, the US is of course going to have intelligence that says similar things to Israeli intelligence. This hellbent attitude on bringing down Iran is a little confounding. IMO, the US and Israel should be left out of this discussion. The two nations have too much invested when it comes to this kind of stuff, and the past 7 years or so is making me a little skeptical. IF IF IF Iran does have dangerous weaponry and plans to use it on Israel or the US or whoever, then maybe it would be best if a 3rd party inspected Iran. This situation needs a moderator and i think the UK filled that position. If a neutral party like the British says that Iran doesnt have anything, then i think thats what the US and Israeli's should think as well.

 
+ Add Argument

1
No


watchman81
Mar 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

Right now I don't know that we're sure exactly how much nuclear material Iran has, but what we do know, is that they are producing more and more. Regardless of whether or not one thinks that Iran should be producing this material is irrelevant. It is clear that they are continuing to produce it.

The comparison to the lead up to the Iraq war is ridiculous.

1. No one is saying that Iran has nuclear weapons. The concern is that they plan on building them. Even the countries that are friendlier towards Iran are concerned about this.

2. The intelligence for Saddam's WMD's was not built around accusations. Multiple countries' intelligence agencies indepedantly came to the same conclusion our CIA did. England, France, Russia, Jordan, and Germany all believed that Saddam had WMD's based on what their own intelligence agencies had found. France and Russia were both against the US invasion of Iraq, so obviously, their intelligence could not have been built around accusations.

The statement that Israel is a nation that relies on terror and violence against opposition can only be made if one ignores the facts. Anyone with common sense who actually looks at the history of this conflict can see that it is the Palestinians who resort to terrorism to achieve their aims. It is the Palestinians who wish to destroy Israel. Israel's only aim is to destroy terrorism and live in peace.

 
xanthippa
Mar 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Now, here I am going 'out on a limb' and presuming that 'irresonsible' somehow means that any 'worries' are 'misplaced' and 'ought to' be dismissed.

I really could not be bothered about 'official contradictions'. That is just the 'political' dimension - full of screw ups and politicking and 'spin'. In other words - a bunch of lies!

I prefer to stick to 'facts' of any situation.

The type of reactor used by the Iranians has the 'capability' to produce 'radioactive material' that can be 'refined' to become weapons-grade 'radioactive stuff'. Yeah, it will take a little work - not a 'direct' line - but a pretty easy path to achieving, none-the-less.

Call me crazy (you will not be the first), but I think that 'religious fanatics' are NOT 'reasonable people'.

I think that it takes at LEAST a 'mild' case of mental illness to believe that you TRULY are on a 'Mission from God'.

Yet, when people start telling you they 'believe' that they ARE on a 'mission from God', I think it is 'unwise' (to say the least) to not take the assertion of their belief seriously. After all, there are many mental illnesses which affect one's ability to 'reason logically' or to be 'in touch with reality'!

On the other hand, there are several mental illnesses which - at various stages - will actually accentuate one's 'charisma' and determination (while focusing their intent and efforts). This, paradoxically, has led to a number of 'mentally ill' people coming to positions of 'power' throughout history - even current history.

It is a sort of 'honest megalomania' which drives some mentally ill people (syphilis being ONE of MANY examples) beyond their 'normal' limits - yet, the 'honesty' (they REALLY MEAN IT) of the affected person often 'converts' a large number of followers - regardless of the unreasonableness of the message spouted... These people DO achieve unbelievable things!!!

Religions are particularly 'vulnerable' to putting highly charismatic - even if mentally unstable - individuals into positions of significant influence.

Frankly, I think that is the case of Iran - fanatical, charismatic 'religious leaders' are put into position of ultimate power there. And, to be an 'Iran-style mullah' (please, explain the expression - I am aiming at 'comprehension of principle' here, not specific wording), I am convinced one has to be - at some level - divorced from reality. In other words, mentally ill.

No, I am not bashing Islam.

I think that ANY 'major' religious leader has to be either a 'calculating, manipulative crook' or 'mentally ill'. And, I think that in the case of the influential Iranian clerics, they are not 'pretending' or corrupt - so, they are NOT hypocritical power-grubbing politicians. Not at all.

Yet, that leaves me with the other option: to be who they are - if they are not just corrupt - they MUST be mentally ill. At least, on SOME level. They certainly cannot be 'men of reason' - that would be anathema to being a 'religious' leader!

So, regardless of who says what... This kind of 'hot' material under the control of mentally ill people....that IS a SERIOUS reason to worry!!!

Think about it - please!

 
xanthippa
Mar 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

You are factually wrong.

WE voted in favour of Israel.

IF you intend to make such 'wide-sweeping' statements, please, do make sure they are not lies!!!

 
watchman81
Mar 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

Thoughtprocess....

Yes it has been awhile! Did ya miss me? I'll try to respond to your point later, but I thought I'd get the Minx's now.

"YOU are very misinformed...Our CIA and FBI both informed Pres. Bush that there was no evidence that there were WMD were there."

Yes, there were some reports that said Saddam had no WMD's, but most of the CIA and FBI reports, as well as those from the other countries indicated that he DID have the WMD's. The fact that there were reports that disagreed with what most of the intelligence said does not mean that the Bush Administration based the intelligence around their accusations.

"HOWEVER, BIG however, Bush had been informed by
intelligence officials months before his speech
that the sale never took place and that the
documentary evidence had been "forged" "

If you looked a little deeper into this issue, you would find that Bush NEVER used this forged documentation as his evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium. If you look at Bush's exact words, he never states that he has DOCUMENTARY proof that Saddam had attempted to buy Uranium in Niger. He states that British intelligence indicated that Hussein had attempted to buy the Uranium. The British had indeed informed the US of what Saddam was doing, but was not using the document in question as evidence. Both the US and the British knew the document was a forgery.

Also, the Duelfer report does not prove that Bush shaped the intelligence to support his accusations. Especially since it was written AFTER the invasion of Iraq when it was "clear" that there were no WMD's.



 
watchman81
Mar 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

Well hook me up sista! Give me the website and all that good stuff. I'll get back with ya.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong