Doesn't Iran Matter?

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

read it again.

I am not sure I understand what you mean Charles. It looks pretty clear to me that they thought in 2005 that Iran was making a bomb but in 2007 they thought they stopped in 2003. Both assessments can't be right.

the writers are intentionally vague - that way no one is on the hook for "but you said absolutely positively...."

let's take another look at the paragraph in question:

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

replace "high confidence" with "fairly certain"

replace moderate confidence with "we think" or "we believe"

and you get

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence fairly certain that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence fairly certain that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence we think/believe Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

in layman's terms, they are fairly certain that tehran halted the program in 2003 but it took them until 2007 to make that assessment, perhaps based on information that became available in 06 or 07. they also believe the halt lasted for several years, but have not much intel indicating that they have restarted said program or if the program is geared in that direction.

[GaryC 7]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

read it again.

I am not sure I understand what you mean Charles. It looks pretty clear to me that they thought in 2005 that Iran was making a bomb but in 2007 they thought they stopped in 2003. Both assessments can't be right.

the writers are intentionally vague - that way no one is on the hook for "but you said absolutely positively...."

let's take another look at the paragraph in question:

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

replace "high confidence" with "fairly certain"

replace moderate confidence with "we think" or "we believe"

and you get

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence fairly certain that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence fairly certain that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence we think/believe Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

in layman's terms, they are fairly certain that tehran halted the program in 2003 but it took them until 2007 to make that assessment, perhaps based on information that became available in 06 or 07. they also believe the halt lasted for several years, but have not much intel indicating that they have restarted said program or if the program is geared in that direction.

In other words they are guessing. And this is what we are basing our policy on? I still find it odd that we went to war on intel based in part from these guys and when it didn't work out the way they said it would that somehow it's all Bush's fault. But now that the NIE is saying what the pacifists agree with Bush should follow that assesment. The double, triple and quadrupal standards are making my head spin.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thanks for the explanation, Charles.

Gary, remember, these are the same clowns who were caught by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union.

[GaryC 7]

Thanks for the explanation, Charles.

Gary, remember, these are the same clowns who were caught by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union.

I don't know. I realize that when the CIA was all powerful they would pull some nasty sh!t but at least they usually got the intel right. Now it seems to be nothing but another political entity with it's own agenda. Makes me wish for the bad old days of cloak and dagger.

I just want to know if Iran is trying to get a bomb or not. If they are then because of their specific threats I want to see them bombed into the stone age. If they are not then containing them with sanctions is good enough. A lot is riding on the next few years. We gotta get this right!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thanks for the explanation, Charles.

Gary, remember, these are the same clowns who were caught by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union.

I don't know. I realize that when the CIA was all powerful they would pull some nasty sh!t but at least they usually got the intel right. Now it seems to be nothing but another political entity with it's own agenda. Makes me wish for the bad old days of cloak and dagger.

I just want to know if Iran is trying to get a bomb or not. If they are then because of their specific threats I want to see them bombed into the stone age. If they are not then containing them with sanctions is good enough. A lot is riding on the next few years. We gotta get this right!

Gary, ok. I agree with that completely. Now tell me... what if we, the people, have "moderate confidence" in the CIA's intelligence? Do we go to war on the basis of our "moderate confidence" or do we hold off? The price of getting it wrong is either killing people for no reason or getting killed. Pick your poison.

I wouldn't hold on my breath on our intelligence services suddenly taking their heads out of their behinds. That's a ways off. Iran is now.

[GaryC 7]

Thanks for the explanation, Charles.

Gary, remember, these are the same clowns who were caught by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Union.

I don't know. I realize that when the CIA was all powerful they would pull some nasty sh!t but at least they usually got the intel right. Now it seems to be nothing but another political entity with it's own agenda. Makes me wish for the bad old days of cloak and dagger.

I just want to know if Iran is trying to get a bomb or not. If they are then because of their specific threats I want to see them bombed into the stone age. If they are not then containing them with sanctions is good enough. A lot is riding on the next few years. We gotta get this right!

Gary, ok. I agree with that completely. Now tell me... what if we, the people, have "moderate confidence" in the CIA's intelligence? Do we go to war on the basis of our "moderate confidence" or do we hold off? The price of getting it wrong is either killing people for no reason or getting killed. Pick your poison.

I wouldn't hold on my breath on our intelligence services suddenly taking their heads out of their behinds. That's a ways off. Iran is now.

Moderate confidence isn't good enough. High confidence isn't good enough. We need to know FOR SURE. But lacking that, I would err on the side of our own survival. The way I see it is the government of Iran is the one that is causing all the confusion. They could easily stop this whole thing the way Lybia did. Say they are giving up any asperations for terrorism and WMD's, open up the whole country up for UN inspections and things would be live and let live. If we are forced to protect ourselves because the nutjob running that country likes to run his mouth about "wiping Israel off the map" and at the same time not allowing real conformation that he isn't trying for a bomb then I don't see how we can let him slide. So if it's a choice between them or us then I choose us. It's sad that it has to come to that but what choice do we have?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Moderate confidence isn't good enough. High confidence isn't good enough. We need to know FOR SURE. But lacking that, I would err on the side of our own survival. The way I see it is the government of Iran is the one that is causing all the confusion. They could easily stop this whole thing the way Lybia did. Say they are giving up any asperations for terrorism and WMD's, open up the whole country up for UN inspections and things would be live and let live. If we are forced to protect ourselves because the nutjob running that country likes to run his mouth about "wiping Israel off the map" and at the same time not allowing real conformation that he isn't trying for a bomb then I don't see how we can let him slide. So if it's a choice between them or us then I choose us. It's sad that it has to come to that but what choice do we have?

It's a terrible choice to make.

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

That's the point, though, isn't it? Attack unless we figure out with 100% certainty what's going on as Gary seems to wish we did is the most ridiculous and most dangerous approach imaginable. Simply because nobody will ever figure out with that kind of certainty what the others are doing. Hence, the whole world would be at war at all times.

It sometimes helps to use the head over the gut in international relations.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Moderate confidence isn't good enough. High confidence isn't good enough. We need to know FOR SURE. But lacking that, I would err on the side of our own survival. The way I see it is the government of Iran is the one that is causing all the confusion. They could easily stop this whole thing the way Lybia did. Say they are giving up any asperations for terrorism and WMD's, open up the whole country up for UN inspections and things would be live and let live. If we are forced to protect ourselves because the nutjob running that country likes to run his mouth about "wiping Israel off the map" and at the same time not allowing real conformation that he isn't trying for a bomb then I don't see how we can let him slide. So if it's a choice between them or us then I choose us. It's sad that it has to come to that but what choice do we have?

It's a terrible choice to make.

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

Like I said, Iran can stop this whole thing right now. All they have to do is let the UN have full access to every facility and this whole thing would go away. After all, they are the ones that are making threats against it's neighbors. Lybia set a very good example as to how to avoid situations like the one we had in Iraq.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Moderate confidence isn't good enough. High confidence isn't good enough. We need to know FOR SURE. But lacking that, I would err on the side of our own survival. The way I see it is the government of Iran is the one that is causing all the confusion. They could easily stop this whole thing the way Lybia did. Say they are giving up any asperations for terrorism and WMD's, open up the whole country up for UN inspections and things would be live and let live. If we are forced to protect ourselves because the nutjob running that country likes to run his mouth about "wiping Israel off the map" and at the same time not allowing real conformation that he isn't trying for a bomb then I don't see how we can let him slide. So if it's a choice between them or us then I choose us. It's sad that it has to come to that but what choice do we have?

It's a terrible choice to make.

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

Like I said, Iran can stop this whole thing right now. All they have to do is let the UN have full access to every facility and this whole thing would go away. After all, they are the ones that are making threats against it's neighbors. Lybia set a very good example as to how to avoid situations like the one we had in Iraq.

Libya....

And, again, if you were Iran, would you? Is it their fault our CIA sucks?

And they're making threats at Israel, since when is it our job to put American lives on the line for them?

[GaryC 7]

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

That's the point, though, isn't it? Attack unless we figure out with 100% certainty what's going on as Gary seems to wish we did is the most ridiculous and most dangerous approach imaginable. Simply because nobody will ever figure out with that kind of certainty what the others are doing. Hence, the whole world would be at war at all times.

It sometimes helps to use the head over the gut in international relations.

So what would you do? Take the nutjob that is running Iran for his word? Then what would you say when someone gets a nuke up it's azz? Sorry, I didn't want to make a mistake so I didn't do anything?

[Dan J 277]

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

That's the point, though, isn't it? Attack unless we figure out with 100% certainty what's going on as Gary seems to wish we did is the most ridiculous and most dangerous approach imaginable. Simply because nobody will ever figure out with that kind of certainty what the others are doing. Hence, the whole world would be at war at all times.

It sometimes helps to use the head over the gut in international relations.

So what would you do? Take the nutjob that is running Iran for his word? Then what would you say when someone gets a nuke up it's azz? Sorry, I didn't want to make a mistake so I didn't do anything?

Would you rather damage international relations and see the price of oil skyrocket? Not to mention, it would be a boon for recruitment of AQ and other terrorist groups.

Attacking Iran is not without its consequences.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Like I said, Iran can stop this whole thing right now. All they have to do is let the UN have full access to every facility and this whole thing would go away.

Yeah, that's what they told Saddam. Didn't work for him. Once the maniac at 1600 Penn Ave is replaced we might stand a chance at getting things back on track. The current occupant is a liability on foreign relations - not the least trustworthy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Is Israel the 51st state and no one told me?

[GaryC 7]

Moderate confidence isn't good enough. High confidence isn't good enough. We need to know FOR SURE. But lacking that, I would err on the side of our own survival. The way I see it is the government of Iran is the one that is causing all the confusion. They could easily stop this whole thing the way Lybia did. Say they are giving up any asperations for terrorism and WMD's, open up the whole country up for UN inspections and things would be live and let live. If we are forced to protect ourselves because the nutjob running that country likes to run his mouth about "wiping Israel off the map" and at the same time not allowing real conformation that he isn't trying for a bomb then I don't see how we can let him slide. So if it's a choice between them or us then I choose us. It's sad that it has to come to that but what choice do we have?

It's a terrible choice to make.

I don't think I'd be very happy if some foreign country wanted to infringe on our sovereignty because their intelligence was run by a bunch of clowns.

Like I said, Iran can stop this whole thing right now. All they have to do is let the UN have full access to every facility and this whole thing would go away. After all, they are the ones that are making threats against it's neighbors. Lybia set a very good example as to how to avoid situations like the one we had in Iraq.

Libya....

And, again, if you were Iran, would you? Is it their fault our CIA sucks?

And they're making threats at Israel, since when is it our job to put American lives on the line for them?

Since we are their allies and we have pleadged our protection.

We almost went to nuclear war with the USSR many times because either they didn't know what we were doing or we didn't know what they were doing. If we went to war then it would have been both our faults. Iran has it's future in it's own hands. If they really are not trying for a bomb then I would think they would allow an international inspector to come in and verify that. The fact that they are not makes for distrust and distrust leads to events that no one wants. They started the tension so it's their job to prove that there is nothing to fear.

Like I said, Iran can stop this whole thing right now. All they have to do is let the UN have full access to every facility and this whole thing would go away.

Yeah, that's what they told Saddam. Didn't work for him. Once the maniac at 1600 Penn Ave is replaced we might stand a chance at getting things back on track. The current occupant is a liability on foreign relations - not the least trustworthy.

Your selctive memory is breathtaking. Please butt out of the conversation if all you want to do is blame Bush.