The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Boon Mee · 05-12-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^Isn't this the same intelligence community that said Saddam had WMDs?

And he did.
Just schlepped 'em out to Syria before our boys arrived.
But don't tell ray and the usual crowd. They'd like to keep living the fantasy that Saddam was really not that bad a guy...

Hootad Binky · 05-12-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabang

plutonium does not exactly grow in the desert

But uranium does.

Quote:

Iran has 1,400 uranium mines, an official at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said here Monday.

AEOI Deputy Head for Nuclear Fuel Hossein Faqihian made the the disclosure in an address to a conference introducing the nation's nuclear technologies and achievements in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

"The mines are scattered in one-third of Iranian territory particularly in the central areas of Saghand, south of Bandar Abbas, Khashouri, Narigan and Zarigan," he said.

Iran has 1,400 uranium mines: AEOI official - Irna

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabang

Iran has the largest Jewish population of any ME country save Israel. They are unpersecuted, happy there

Quote:

Discrimination

Like other religious minorities in Iran Jews suffer from discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing.

Persian Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the eventual establishment of the new theocratic Islamic Republic posed many initial setbacks for religious minorities. Today, the Zoroastrian community in Iran is estimated by some to number some 22,000 - half the size of that in existence before the 1979 Islamic revolution.[1]

...In November 2005 Niknam was summoned before the Revolutionary Tribunal for objecting to derogatory comments made by an ultraconservative cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, and accused of spreading false news and disrespecting authority figures. Jannati, who is a close aide to the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had stated that non-Muslims "cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." Niknam condemned the comments as "an unprecedented slur against religious minorities."[2]
Zoroastrians in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabang

and even have a seat in Parliament- as do the Zoroastrians.

What actual political power these seats give Jews and Zoroastrians?

Be specific.

raycarey · 05-12-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

But don't tell ray and the usual crowd. They'd like to keep living the fantasy that Saddam was really not that bad a guy

yawn.

sabang · 05-12-2007, 11:14 AM

raycarey · 05-12-2007, 01:00 PM

what did bush know, and when did he know it?

taken from yesterday's news conference..

Quote:

Q.....on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT:....... I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was

so mcconnell comes to the president and says, "i've got new information on iran"....and the president doesn't ask him what it is? he doesn't ask if it is information that supports or undermines previous information? even for someone infamous for his lack of intellectual curiosity, this is hard to believe.

and here's the next question bush took...

Quote:

Q Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that.

does anyone really believe that?

Press Conference by the President

raycarey · 05-12-2007, 01:04 PM

here's cheney in mid-october....

Quote:

"the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. . . .

Vice President's Remarks to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

chinthee · 05-12-2007, 02:14 PM

I'm afraid the credibility of Cheney and Rice have been irrevocably damaged by this latest blunder. And, of course the chief executive has to take the brunt of it.

Looking forward to next year's elections, though not that much given the choices....

chinthee · 05-12-2007, 07:38 PM

Democrats incredulous over Bush's account of Iran report

Quote:

"Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" Biden asked in a conference call with reporters.

"I refuse to believe that," he added. "If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."

Democrats incredulous over Bush's account of Iran report - CNN.com

I really don't see how Bush is going to get out of this one. He's busted. He's not the teflon President.

Hootad Binky · 06-12-2007, 01:47 AM

The

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

16 intelligence agencies

involved are not going to do Bush & Cheney's bidding again, a la George Tenet, tell them what they want to hear and then have to take the fall over the results.

sabang · 06-12-2007, 08:19 AM

Amazingly (well not really) Cheney wanted this report withheld from the public too.

chinthee · 06-12-2007, 09:10 AM

This is a ringing endorsement that the US system of checks and balances is still alive and well. The fact that the intelligence services have said fuk u to Bush and let him and his admin take the fall from now on is quite a reassurance.

Achmadincrap is gloating like a bleating goat today claiming victory. I would say he's right.

chinthee · 07-12-2007, 08:14 AM

And...yet, this now this morning...

US wins support for new pressure on Iran

Quote:

NATO foreign ministers agreed to stay the course in seeking fresh measures at the United Nations to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment and reprocessing despite a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded the country halted it nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003.

US wins support for new pressure on Iran - Yahoo! News

keda · 07-12-2007, 08:24 AM

They prolly didn't want to waste the time and effort put into formulating the call for new pressure.

sabang · 07-12-2007, 08:45 AM

The Fact that the West doesn't like it seems almost a moot point now- do they like anyone in the ME except Israel being anything but reliant on Western technology anyway? China does not mind, and Russia is prepared to build a reactor for them.

Now it has been established that Iran was telling the truth, the same old economically viable reasons for them getting nuclear energy that applied all along come to the fore. I guess Israel remains the joker in the pack, but with a resumption in negotiations towards Palestinian statehood underway, I can't see any upside in them taking rash military action.

Given that it is an abysmal lack of internal refining capacity that is propelling Iran down this route, it is noteworthy that no western power has even mentioned the possibility of bribing Iran out of going nuclear by installing oil refining capacity for them. Which tends to support my contention that western foreign policy towards the ME is largely to keep them pumping oil, but technologically dependent.

It is also telling that the only ME nations the West is baying for a western style democracy are regimes they are at loggerheads with. We seem quite comfortable with the autocratic but compliant regimes in Saudi and the UAE.

chinthee · 07-12-2007, 05:25 PM

Iran Assessment Creates an Israeli Headache

Quote:

By TIM MCGIRK/JERUSALEM Fri Dec 7, 1:50 AM ET

Israeli officials were shocked and disappointed by the U.S. intelligence agencies' report downgrading the risk of Iran building nuclear weapons. That's because not only do some of the key conclusions of the latest National Intelligence Estimate undercut some of Israel's own assessments, they also seem to dim the likelihood of the U.S. taking military action against Iran's nuclear facilities - a step the Israelis had been quietly urging the White House should sanctions fail to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program. With the new U.S. assessment, one Israeli cabinet official told TIME, "It looks like this ends the military option against Iran for now. Israel won't attack alone. Iran's facilities are too many and spread too far apart."

Iran Assessment Creates an Israeli Headache - Yahoo! News

Texpat · 07-12-2007, 09:18 PM

Don't follow your logic Sabang...
Are you suggesting Iran, a soon-to-be nuclear capable country doesn't have the technology for refining oil?

The first major crack in the Saudi-US alliance will appear if/when Saudi shops elsewhere for it's military. They have damn near everything the US has, but newer.

After several decades of fragile partnership, the US has bugged out of Saudi too, which makes airfield access in Iraq even more strategically important. I characterize that partnership as fragile because Saudis never conceded a permanent western presence -- a fickle little name game that meant even into the 2000's we (US, UK, Fra) would go there and have to live in tents for 6-8 months at a time. Nothing permanent.

sabang · 07-12-2007, 10:40 PM

^ I believe they don't Tx. Refineries are big, complex affairs that require western contractors and technology to do a decent job of, and the US in particular and West in general has had an economic embargo against Iran stretching back quite a few years now. You also require aftermarkets for some of your by products (of which there are several) to make things worthwhile. There are some Iranian refineries in operation, built by foreign contractors, but Iran basically exports crude, and then buys some of it back as refined product.

You might say the embargo is selective- we are happy to buy their oil, and of course even happier to sell a fair bit back to them as refined product at a nice profit, but technology sharing is taboo. It is ironic, but Iran- a major exporter of oil- wants to become energy self sufficient.

Financing is another issue- great pressure is put on any foreign bank trying to finance technology or infrastructural development in Iran, and when you look at the respective size of the US and Iranian capital markets, and the amounts of capital sunk there, you can guess who the Banks will accede to.

Texpat · 07-12-2007, 10:50 PM

Makes sense. But then you have to wonder if it would make more sense to invest in refineries or nuke plants. But that's their decision and I don't see the IAEA or any diplomatic efforts putting up hurdles in that regard.

07-12-2007, 08:45 AM	#394 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:40 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,045	The Fact that the West doesn't like it seems almost a moot point now- do they like anyone in the ME except Israel being anything but reliant on Western technology anyway? China does not mind, and Russia is prepared to build a reactor for them. Now it has been established that Iran was telling the truth, the same old economically viable reasons for them getting nuclear energy that applied all along come to the fore. I guess Israel remains the joker in the pack, but with a resumption in negotiations towards Palestinian statehood underway, I can't see any upside in them taking rash military action. Given that it is an abysmal lack of internal refining capacity that is propelling Iran down this route, it is noteworthy that no western power has even mentioned the possibility of bribing Iran out of going nuclear by installing oil refining capacity for them. Which tends to support my contention that western foreign policy towards the ME is largely to keep them pumping oil, but technologically dependent. It is also telling that the only ME nations the West is baying for a western style democracy are regimes they are at loggerheads with. We seem quite comfortable with the autocratic but compliant regimes in Saudi and the UAE. __________________ To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

07-12-2007, 10:40 PM	#397 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:40 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,045	^ I believe they don't Tx. Refineries are big, complex affairs that require western contractors and technology to do a decent job of, and the US in particular and West in general has had an economic embargo against Iran stretching back quite a few years now. You also require aftermarkets for some of your by products (of which there are several) to make things worthwhile. There are some Iranian refineries in operation, built by foreign contractors, but Iran basically exports crude, and then buys some of it back as refined product. You might say the embargo is selective- we are happy to buy their oil, and of course even happier to sell a fair bit back to them as refined product at a nice profit, but technology sharing is taboo. It is ironic, but Iran- a major exporter of oil- wants to become energy self sufficient. Financing is another issue- great pressure is put on any foreign bank trying to finance technology or infrastructural development in Iran, and when you look at the respective size of the US and Iranian capital markets, and the amounts of capital sunk there, you can guess who the Banks will accede to. Last edited by sabang : 07-12-2007 at 10:46 PM.

05-12-2007, 11:14 AM	#384 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:40 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,045

05-12-2007, 02:14 PM	#387 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	I'm afraid the credibility of Cheney and Rice have been irrevocably damaged by this latest blunder. And, of course the chief executive has to take the brunt of it. Looking forward to next year's elections, though not that much given the choices....

06-12-2007, 08:19 AM	#390 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:40 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,045	Amazingly (well not really) Cheney wanted this report withheld from the public too.

06-12-2007, 09:10 AM	#391 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	This is a ringing endorsement that the US system of checks and balances is still alive and well. The fact that the intelligence services have said fuk u to Bush and let him and his admin take the fall from now on is quite a reassurance. Achmadincrap is gloating like a bleating goat today claiming victory. I would say he's right.

07-12-2007, 08:24 AM	#393 (permalink)
keda Senior Member Last Online: Today 11:58 AM Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 7,527	They prolly didn't want to waste the time and effort put into formulating the call for new pressure.

07-12-2007, 09:18 PM	#396 (permalink)
Texpat ฝรั่งพูดมาก Last Online: 02-01-2009 06:58 PM Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Nong Khai Posts: 10,212	Don't follow your logic Sabang... Are you suggesting Iran, a soon-to-be nuclear capable country doesn't have the technology for refining oil? The first major crack in the Saudi-US alliance will appear if/when Saudi shops elsewhere for it's military. They have damn near everything the US has, but newer. After several decades of fragile partnership, the US has bugged out of Saudi too, which makes airfield access in Iraq even more strategically important. I characterize that partnership as fragile because Saudis never conceded a permanent western presence -- a fickle little name game that meant even into the 2000's we (US, UK, Fra) would go there and have to live in tents for 6-8 months at a time. Nothing permanent.

07-12-2007, 10:50 PM	#398 (permalink)
Texpat ฝรั่งพูดมาก Last Online: 02-01-2009 06:58 PM Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Nong Khai Posts: 10,212	Makes sense. But then you have to wonder if it would make more sense to invest in refineries or nuke plants. But that's their decision and I don't see the IAEA or any diplomatic efforts putting up hurdles in that regard.

08-12-2007, 08:10 AM	#399 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033