Is there any REAL EVIDENCE that Iran is making nuclear bombs??

[LSK]

Repukes like to spread this around like this is a well established fact and common knowledge. But is there ANY EVIDENCE at all that they are actually trying to make a bomb???

Have they ever said that they intend to?

All I know is they have built a few centrifuges that CAN BE used to enrich uranium, but they dont even have enough of those yet.

Is there any evidence on them making nuke bombs?

[Jacobin]

1. No, but it is a certainty that Israel has at least a hundred of them

[Balbus]

43. It took one minute for a post on Iran to turn into a bash Israel post.

Is that a record for DU? Unfortunately it's not.

[Porcupine]

60. It's relevent for regional perspective. Also true.

I'm not aware that criticism of Israel is banned on DU. Could you please point out the section of forum rules where it says that?

[bananarepublican]

61. Try at least 650! By the way, who has Iran attacked lately? What about Israel? n/t

[intaglio]

2. Nope,

Indeed every independent report I have seen says they are not.

Hmmmmm could it be someone wants to bomb Tehran???

[MissWaverly]

3. No, everything that I have seen is on nuclear energy as fuel

they feel that they have a right to develop alternative energy sources.

[alfredo]

30. They have mismanaged their oil fields to the point where

they will have to have alternate energy sources. There was a story on that a couple days ago.

From what I was told, Iran's oil is a heavy crude. It's more expensive to refine and less desirable than the light crude.

[MissWaverly]

44. yes, and what if global warming forces a switch

Everybody had coal heat and then suddenly nobody had it, this could happen with oil, if
the weather destabilizes, it may force a halt in oil consumption, it would make sense
to have a plan in the works now.

[alfredo]

45. We encourged Iran to develop nuclear energy during the

days of the Shah.

Many of the oil states have been working to develop post petroleum economies. America thinks like a kid. They can't see the future. Everything is now. If anything America is hostile to progressive thought.

[MissWaverly]

46. we need grownups in charge

everything in America is a nod toward the different lobbies, we need a stable long term
policy which aids cooperation and sharing of resources, we need to be looking at developing
new fuels, new technologies rather than trying to act as the world's biggest bully, the
money we have squandered in the last 6 years, we could have tackled global warming with
it and help foster world peace, no, not us.

[alfredo]

47. The world cannot survive two more years of bush and the

mentality he represents. Yes we need grownups. We also need the grownups to give bush and his gang 20 year to life time out.

[MissWaverly]

51. my dream is that the Republicans will throw in the towel

admit 2000 and 2004 was stolen, taken their lumps, let Al Gore be president, let the
thugs be dealt with and put the grown-ups in charge.

[alfredo]

52. Dream on. Too much money and power at stake.

[MissWaverly]

53. If the Republicans don't move now, they are out for 30 years

once the truth comes out and it will.

:-)

[alfredo]

54. Didn't they say they would rule for 100 years? Seems like

people don't want Republican rule.

[MissWaverly]

58. they did rule for a 100 years

every minute they are in power seems like 100 years.

:-)

[alfredo]

59. I heard an interesting theory on why the campaigns have

started so early. Nobody wants to think about bush. The campaigns give us hope that bush will be gone some day.

[MissWaverly]

62. I have a friend who covers DC events

this person says that there is no mention of Bush at all, it's like he doesn't exist.

;-)

[alfredo]

65. Well today Mitch McConnell did his best to protect bush from

embarrassment. So he still has his lap dogs.

[MissWaverly]

67. well, I think the truth is rolling down the road

they can spin, weep, grimace, make pretty speeches but the facts are coming out and will
not be kind to the Bush enablers.

[alfredo]

69. As long as they go down before they destroy our country.

[MissWaverly]

70. I think they will, many of these people were cronies

they did what they did not because they were evil or mean spirited but clueless and completely unfit for the job they were assigned to do.

[alfredo]

71. You need to read John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience."

They are programmed to follow the dictates of an authoritarian leader like bush and cheney.

Today Ted Stevens (R) Alaska spoke of having to obey the president.

[MissWaverly]

72. I will add that to my reading list

I enjoyed his Worse than Watergate and frequently refer to it.

[alfredo]

74. I like his writing style.

[MissWaverly]

76. yes, and he was an example of what we want in government

not craven liars that we have now, they lie and lie even when confronted with the facts,
Tony Snow was on MTP with Tim Russert, when confronted with Pace's statement and the
White House statements on Iran involvement in Iraq, he said both statements were the truth.

[alfredo]

77. The neo cons believe in the "noble lie." Lying is justified if it

serves their purposes. Google "Leo Strauss noble lie."

Here's the first hit:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

[MissWaverly]

84. I know about Leo Strauss and his theories

but I do not agree with them, in the long term, much of what is happening in the world
right now is DUE to short-sighted US MEDDLING.

[alfredo]

85. Oh sure. His philosophy helps justify the meddling.

[MadMaddie]

4. Nope but apparantly there is evidence that Saudi Arabia is

involved in financing the other side of the insurgency and we are hearing nothing about it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. 28 pages blacked out from what was it? the 911 comission

report??


http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072603A.shtml
White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
By Dana Priest
Washington Post

Friday 25 July 2003

President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

These revelations are not the subject of the congressional report's narratives or findings, but are among the nuggets embedded in a story focused largely on the mid-level workings of the CIA, FBI and U.S. military.

Two intriguing -- and politically volatile -- questions surrounding the Sept. 11 plot have been how personally engaged Bush and his predecessor were in counterterrorism before the attacks, and what role some Saudi officials may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

To varying degrees, the answers remain a mystery, despite an unprecedented seven-month effort by a joint House and Senate panel to fully understand how a group of Arab terrorists could have pulled off such a scheme. The CIA refused to permit publication of information potentially implicating Saudi officials on national security grounds, arguing that disclosure could upset relations with a key U.S. ally. Lawmakers complained it was merely to avoid embarrassment.

[blm]

5. Last July, at a large Dem event in SC, Kerry told us that Bush would try and talk

the country into believing Iran has nukes, but he said ALL the current intel says they are 5 years away from nuclear weapon capability - so that would give the US at least 4 years to get the diplomacy right.

I think they aren't relying on the WH's word, and CIA analysts are making sure to get word to Dem senators what the UNFILTERED truth is.

[dflprincess]

6. Evidence? Since when does Bushco need evidence?

n/t

[Uben]

7. Don't you think they know

..that any nuclear launch would trigger annhilation of their country? The U.S. owns 90% of all nuclear warheads on earth with the technolgy to thread a needle with them!

Maybe it's the thought of Bush having the nuclear football that scares them.

[rpannier]

8. the administration says so

Isn't that the only thing you need to know?
I mean, they use only the latest impartial intel gathering devices:
1. a Ouija Board
2. Magic-8 Ball
3. The top people in the field of channeling the dead
4. They spoken to four drunks on a street corner and the unanimously say it's true.
5. Iranian dissidents who haven't been to Iran, nor have they had any contact with Iran in 20 years.

[Kutjara]

11. You forgot one:

6. God.

[Cleita]

56. LOL!

Truer than you think, especially the four drunks on the street corner, except that they were in Cheney's bunker.

[Zhade]

9. Not that I recall, no.

Pretty much everytime a conservative here pipes up with that lie, it's debunked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. No. But, there's no evidence that they're not.

Of course, the same could be said of Togo, Costa Rica, or The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

[sam sarrha]

13. NO ..and the centrifuges they have they'd need thousands and take years to get anything if they

could figure out how to use them..

[gravity]

14. I'm skeptical of Iran's intentions

I really don't see the need for Iran to be using nuclear power when they have huge oil reserves for all the energy they need. It just seems like a front to help research into nuclear technology which could lead to a bomb down the road. They have all the motive in the world, to deter attackers like the United States.

That being said, I think the US is just making things worst by threatening to attack Iran. They should handle the situation diplomatically instead of threatening with war, which gives Iran more incentive to develope nukes.

[LSK]

15. why would Iran want to consume its #1 export???

Simple economics dictate that they pursue nuclear energy. Also maybe they are in the peak oil camp and are looking towards the future like many are.

[PDJane]

18. The Islamic Council

Has decreed that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, and they run the joint, not Admenijhad. Read their constitution....the president doesn't have the power to make those kinds of decisions.

Moreover, they put their enrichment processes on the table when they tried to talk peace before Bush went into Iraq. Bush doesn't want to deal with a theocratic state, which seems more than a little hypocritical.

[magellan]

19. #1 reason to shift to alternative fuel supply: peak oil

Energy Bulletin - 19 Feb 2005

snip...

The subject of peak oil, the point at which the world's finite supply of oil begins to decline, is a hot topic in the industry.

Arguments are commonplace over whether it will happen at all, when it will happen or whether it has already happened. Simmons, a Republican adviser to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes it "is the world's number one problem, far more serious than global warming".

Speaking exclusively to Aljazeera, Simmons came out with a statement that, if proven true over time, could herald by far the biggest energy crisis mankind has known.

"If Saudi Arabia have damaged their fields, accidentally or not, by overproducing them, then we may have already passed peak oil. Iran has certainly peaked, there is no way on Earth they can ever get back to their production of six million barrels per day (mbpd)."

snip...

Iran shifting to nuclear power makes good economic sense. The less they use internally, the more they can sell on the global markets (with increasing profits), and they're also then ready for the day supplies run out.

[gravity]

20. Iran doesn't have to worry about peak oil

They have some of the worlds largest oil reserves in the world. It makes no sense to invest billions of dollars into research and the capital needed for nuclear power when you already have abundunt sources of energy ready for use. So far Iran hasn't made any electricity at all from the nuclear power form the billions invested, while the rest of their economy is a complete failure.

North Korea made the same reasoning for their nuclear program too. I really wouldn't trust Ahmadinejad's word that it is for peaceful purposes only. That guy is even crazier than Bush.

[magellan]

22. EVERYONE has to worry about peak oil

And reserves are always exaggerated nowadays. Iran may well only have 25-30 years of reserve crude oil and natural gas. But however much they have, it absolutely makes sense for them to invest as they have done in alternative energy sources, projects which, by the way, have been delayed/halted due to sanctions over the last couple of decades, not because they aren't genuinely interested in building nuclear power plants.

Just like it would make sense for the US to seriously invest in alternative fuel sources instead of invading/blackmailing other countries to control their oil. Eventually, it's going to dwindle and you and I won't be able to afford to fill our tanks no matter how many nations Bush** and subsequent like him rape and pillage. And predictions are that will happen sooner rather than later.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad any more than I trust Bush**. But only one of them has invaded another country unprovoked; only one of them has dropped nuclear waste-tipped munitions on innocent people.

[Strelnikov_]

27. The Persians have figured out that you need to build the energy infrastructure

of the future before the energy infrastructure of today is depleted.


They have been pumping oil out of Persia for, what, 100 years.

Iran doesn't have to worry about fossil fuel depletion. Laughable.

[gravity]

28. I doubt Ahmadinejad cares about alternative energy

I don't think that Ahmadinejad is the green type, or even economical in any sense. His government presently subsidizes gas at such a low price, that much of it just goes to waste hurting the enviroment and the economy, so they obviously don't care about conserving gas.

Its always possible that he is building nuclear power for the economy. I just think its incredibly more likely that they want to build nuclear weapons, instead of having a progressive energy policy. A nuclear power program is the perfect guise to cover up research, and Iran has plenty of oil and natural gas to supply all the electricity they need using cheaper technology. If you use 1/10 of the cynicism used against Bush onto Iran, it should become pretty clear what the real intentions are.

[Strelnikov_]

32. "If you use 1/10 of the cynicism used against Bush"

Oh my.

[Richard Steele]

37. Yup. Oh my indeed.

That one sets off the 'ol Spidey-sense.

[magellan]

39. Real intentions?

Do you enjoy letting the government frighten you into your beliefs? Do you understand the difference between suspicion and reality, and that by dismissing facts in favor of fear you're letting Bush** terrify you into what to think?

The US would be a lot better off if more Americans owned their own thoughts.

And don't lecture me about where to aim my cynicism; mine is based in reality. Suspicions are a far cry from VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, of which we have precisely NONE.

If we ever find INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, I hope it doesn't happen under Bush** because his half-a$$ed neocon-driven agenda defines "diplomacy" as the subjugation of the world to US interests by any means necessary.

[Poiuyt]

83. I hereby pledge to never be cynical about Bush again!

Come on everyone! Who's with Gravity and me?

[Strelnikov_]

31. Really . .

[gravity]

35. If the nuclear lobby says its true, it must be then

:sarcasm:

[Eugene]

73. Iran's oil sector is inefficient. Iran is on track for zero exports by 2015 if they don't act.

Iran may have plenty of oil in the ground, but output is falling
on mature oil fields and Iran has not invested in boosting
production. At the same time, Iran has fallen in love with gas-
guzzling cars. If they do not reform, growing demand will collide
with falling production.

Iran does need the energy and the government is building eight
nuclear plants to produce electricity. Nobody believes that Iran's
nuclear intentions are 100% peaceful, but Iran has a legitimate
need and a legal right to peaceful nuclear energy.

[BrewerJohn]

21. Iran is actually quite short on refinery capacity

So they are forced to re-import gasoline and other refined petroleum products. Developing nuclear energy would really be an energy independence move for them. The threat of economic sanctions which could cut off their imports only works to reinforce that pressure for independence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html

[gravity]

24. they just need to build more refineries

It is a hell of a lot cheaper than going for nuclear power

[magellan]

40. They are.

Two new refineries are being built, and old ones are being upgraded. But the existence of refineries or not doesn't guarantee indefinite availability of crude oil to refine.

[Richard Steele]

33. Economics. The value of that oil is going to SKYROCKET over the next decades...

Every barrel of crude they DON'T pump this year will be worth
many, MANY times more $$$ by 2050.

Continuing to use it themselves is economically equivalent to
building a power plant that burns tons of high-yield savings bonds.

[gravity]

34. Iran doesn't care about oil conservation

Continuing to use it themselves is economically equivalent to
building a power plant that burns tons of high-yield savings bonds.

Iran subsidizes gas very so cheap, $.35 a gallon, that they are just wasting gas. There is no incentive for people to conserve since gas at all, and a lot of it is just wasted. If they really cared about oil conservation, they would let their prices reflect global market prices giving incentive to conserve gas.

[Richard Steele]

38. Please consider your CONCERNS duly noted. Have a blessed day!

[magellan]

41. You simply don't know the facts

Under Ahmadinejad, Iran has decreased gasoline subsidies and is instead subsidizing up to 85% of the cost to convert cars to bi-fuel. It wants out from under the economic sanctions imposed on it for over two decades and knows to do that it must become energy independent. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that civilian use nuclear power is part of that equation.

Do we WANT an economically impervious Iran is another question entirely. We'd be on a much better footing to deal with that question if we got our own house in order first. Our lack of energy independence and investment in fuel alternatives has increasingly made us global aggressors and vultures. We're seen as bad actors for very good reason. If you don't understand that much then you'll never understand why Bush** has cynically called his WOT "The Long War".

Of course we can continue to militarily dominate and economically oppress others to get what we want as countless empires have in the past. But then we shouldn't whine when the chickens come home to roost.

[MadHound]

48. Umm, Iran's huge reserves are starting to slow down and run dry

They sensibly realize that oil isn't going to last forever, therefore they're going to plan ahead so that their switch over to another energy technoloy isn't sudden and catastrophic, unlike the direction the US is taking.

[Cleita]

57. They might be trying cut down on air pollution as well.n/t

[baldguy]

16. Valerie Plame would have been able to say.

[Sir Jeffrey]

17. The closest thing I have seen...

that could even be considered as "evidence" would be the Russian offer to enrich their uranium for them. Iran rejected the proposal outright and a lot of idiots seem to think that their refusal = admission of WMD program. I think their refusal = refusal to be bullied and at mercy to Russia for fuel sources.

Everything else is speculation and intel from shady sources.

[karlrschneider]

23. We have Satellite PHOTOGRAPHS

Look closely, you can see 3 or maybe 4 bombs right there!!!!11!1!1!!

[k_jerome]

25. i think they shined one of those csi lights on Iran and it lit up. nt.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. The people who brought you "WMD" don't need no esteeking evidence.

Just the same message to preview their intended actions.

So long as you understand that everything they say consists of laughter in our faces as well as "fuck you", you can understand BushCo transmissions perfectly.

We are doing nothing as they move on Iran, just as they moved on Iraq. We deserve the consequences for failing to prevent the causes.

[upi402]

29. Gates did a double pinky-swear

That should be 'nuf fer y'all.

[doublethink]

36. No. n.t.

[Balbus]

42. self-delete.

replied to the wrong jackass.

[tom_paine]

49. Maybe Colon Powell can show an hour of cartoon drawings to the UN

"This is what Iranian nuclear missles would look like..."

[Hatalles]

50. Bush referred to it as a "Weapons Program" in his Press Conference

Meanwhile, the Iranian public's line has been, "Nuclear Energy is our Right."


Q: You spoke positively about the role of diplomacy in North Korea, and you obviously gave it a long time to work. Where does diplomacy fit in, in terms of Iran, and do we have any leverage if we try diplomacy there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess you could call getting the EU3, China and Russia on the same page on a Chapter 7 Resolution successful diplomacy. I thought that was diplomacy. And it took a long time to get there. I mean, we're working hard to send a concerted message to the Iranians -- a focused, unified message that the world believes you should not have a nuclear program. And so this is a multilateral approach to try to get the government to alter its course on a nuclear weapons program.

I can't think of any more robust diplomacy than to have more than one party at the table talking to the Iranians. And we did so through the United Nations in this case. If they want us at the table, we're more than willing to come, but there must be a verifiable suspension of this weapons program that is causing such grave concern.

We'll continue to work with other nations. Matter of fact, I believe that it is easier for the United States to achieve certain diplomatic objectives when we work with other nations, which is precisely why we adopted the strategy we did in dealing with the Iranians.

[Cleita]

55. Considering we have no spies in Iran anymore since Valerie Plame

and her cover company Brewster Jennings was exposed, I would say they are making it up. I hope Congress demands solid intelligence on this because I'm sure they can't supply it.

[MadHound]

63. Actually, considering all of the satellites, overflights and drone missions that we send over Iran

We know perfectly well how far along Iran's nuke program is, which is barely out of the gate.

And any nuclear tech will tell you that even with 50,000 centrifuges spinning 24/7, it would be at least ten years before Iran has enough enriched material for a bomb. Uranium hexaflouride enrichment is a long, long process.

[Cleita]

64. So, if they know this much from air and space recognizance,

what's the problem? Is this worth letting mad King George IV start another war?

[MadHound]

68. The plan all along has been to start another war

The neo-cons have had this scenario laid out for nine years now, ever since the beginning of PNAC.

Why would the Dems go along on this one? Same reasons they went along on the last one, money and CYA, Their corporate masters, the same corporate masters of the 'Pugs, want endless war. There's money to be made for the select few, and screw the rest of the country. Also, these folks are still scared shitless about appearing "soft on terra" and such. Thus, to forestall such BS accusations, many Dems would go ahead and vote for war, even though they knew it was the wrong thing to do. Witness, after all, the IWR.

No, the real trick is to get that Iranian war going without having the people revolt, that is what our government is truly trying to finesse. Frankly I wouldn't be suprised to see another "terrorist attack" here in the US, which would be used both as an excuse to attack Iran and impose martial law. Yes, I know, I'm deeply, almost disturbingly cynical. Trouble is that my deep cynicism is regularly surpassed by the events happening in the real world.

[Emit]

82. They have spies

The MEK and sundry Iranian dissident groups. ;)

[TheBaldyMan]

66. none, all evidence points to the contrarry

including repeated statements from the Iranian government, incidently Iran is a member of the NPT unlike India, Pakistan and Israel.

[walldude]

75. What if they are? Can you blame them?

I know if I were them I'd be pretty freaked out..

[Aussie leftie]

78. My prime minister (John Howard) says

that nuclear energy is good for global warming, so Iran must be doing its bit for humanity.

[The Straight Story]

79. The real question is - do YOU trust their leader to be an honest man?

If so, then all you have to tell people is you see him as an honest guy and believe him - if he says they aren't making nukes, then they aren't.

Me - I don't trust most any leader to tell the truth :)

[shance]

80. If we are and Israel have nuclear weapons, then why in the world wouldnt they?

Where did this corporatized double standard come from? Of course from the media which is now being held hostage by those making money off of this war, which is actually more of a slaughter of innocent children and families.

Let those in OUR OWN Capitol of Washington D.C. begin taking some responsibility for these wars they are promoting creating and exacerbating. And let those of us as citizens hold our leaders who are putting us in harms way accountable.

Iran is just trying to defend itself, like we are against our own Government.

[Nutmegger]

81. Um they have photos with tiny dots.

That could be something, you know, and we have to fight them there so we don't fight them here don't cha know. Oh and Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil". And...something else...oh yeah, TERRA!