|
|
Today marks another day of protest in Iran after the Supreme Leader ruled that their elections were fair and balanced.
Will the action by the people bring about real change in the country?
Was the election rigged?
How will the situation resolve itself?
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(230 of 231)
Oct 11, 2009 11:15 PM
|
> I don't believe that most Iranians support
> Ahmadinejad anymore than I ever believed the majority
> of Americans voted for or supported W.
>
> A few of the many voting irregularities were the
> landslides in Moussavi's hometown and in his wife's
> hometown where he was wildly popular, and that Ajad's
> votes tripled in number from the last election is
> all by itself highly suspicious.
That it is and there is also the fear factor as concerns
the posted poll. Nevertheless, western and Saudi
governments are up to their old tricks in undermining
the government of Iran and are using "Facebook"
and "Twitter" in that effort.
Without adequate polling data, there is no way that
we should embark on any policy that assumes such
as we assumed that Saddam had reconstituted his
WMD programs.
We just sponsored an election in Afghanistan, btw,
in which 1/3 of the ballots are suspect and had a
UN whistleblower fired for pointing that out.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 10/11/2009 8:18 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
2,914
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(229 of 231)
Oct 11, 2009 1:49 PM
|
I don't believe that most Iranians support Ahmadinejad anymore than I ever believed the majority of Americans voted for or supported W.
A few of the many voting irregularities were the landslides in Moussavi's hometown and in his wife's hometown where he was wildly popular, and that Ajad' s votes tripled in number from the last election is all by itself highly suspicious.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(227 of 231)
Oct 10, 2009 2:27 AM
|
Most Iranians still seem to support Ahmadinejad,
which calls into question our assumptions that the
recent election in Iran was "stolen" and that the
turmoil afterwards wasn't engineered by the US and
Saudi governments who have, in fact spent hundreds
of millions of dollars to undermine the regime in Iran.
http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/09/23/most-iranians-support-ahmadinejad-and-nuclear-power-poll-finds/
That is a western conducted poll and I'm as guilty
as anyone else in joining in on those assumptions
without reliable polling data being available before
the recent Iranian election.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 10/09/2009 11:31 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(226 of 231)
Oct 2, 2009 4:06 AM
|
Downloadable MP3 interview.....Scott Ritter clears the hype on Iran's new enrichment plant
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter discusses the
overblown "gotcha" revelation of the "secret" Iranian
nuclear facility, how the wonkish debate over IAEA
Additional Protocol minutiae turned into accusations that
Iran is building nukes, the secret Saudi, UK and US
funding of opposition candidates in the Iranian election
and the likely disastrous results of a war with Iran.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,914
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(225 of 231)
Sep 28, 2009 8:57 AM
|
Thanks, JimEarl.
Very helpful information from you and RC, along with his technical knowledge.
"The new round of talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (China, the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany) is scheduled to begin on October 1."
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=204104
9/7/09 report from IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei...
"Also, Dr. ElBaradei answered accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran´s nuclear programme. "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/bog070909.html
|
|
|
Posts:
7,409
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(224 of 231)
Sep 28, 2009 2:22 AM
|
> With Iran admitting a secret nuclear plant, this
> brings up serious questions about the accuracy of
> NIEs. Isn't this what the world relies on for
> foreign policy decisions? Are they completely
> useless?
>
No they aren't. The NIE's assessments are just
that though.....assessments from 9 intelligence
services and not always based on 100% knowledge.
As I understand it, the assessment that Iran had
a nuclear weapons program up until 2003 was based
on intercepted communications of Iran's military hats
about a non-specific canceled military program that
they weren't happy to see canceled.....that's according
to former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter and
may or may not be the complete assessment.
Btw
Iran is who reported it's uranium enrichment facility
to the IAEA as they are required to do before they
begin to enrich uranium in it. They are NOT required
by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to report it
to countries who repeatedly threaten to bomb their
nuclear facilities before then.
More on this from Scott Ritter
|
|
|
Posts:
1,780
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(223 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 11:01 PM
|
RapidCreek,
That said, that's not a very good STORY. You REALLY need to learn how to sell you narratives better.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,914
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(222 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 1:04 PM
|
Thanks for the detailed explanation, RC.
Your 2nd paragraph had been my understanding from conversations and links provided here, but the foreign press about Russia and China threw me.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,652
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(221 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 12:23 PM
|
Let's see if I can explain this. The Iranian facility talked about today is a centrifuge process plant. There is no nuclear power generation in this plant. It is for enrichment of uranium. A gas centrifuge process is used, whereby a converted gaseous form known as uranium hexafluoride is released into a spinning cylinder. The force generated by the rotating cylinder separates U235 isotopes from the heavier U238 isotopes. U235 is weapons grade material which make up less than 1% of the of uranium. You can't build a bomb without U235, and as far as I know the IAEA has said that isotope is not being extracted. Also, as far as I know, Iran has around 13,000 gas centrifuges available to go on line. They would need around twice that amount running 7/24 for a year to extract enough U235 for one bomb. Then, of course, they have to take another year or two to weaponize if they haven't started that work already. Our National Intelligence Estimates tell us that they have not begun that work, and in fact gave it up years ago. Nukes are heavy, and will not fly on the current missiles that Iran has. You need to have a missile that delivers a 500 lbs. warhead some distance, and they don't have one. North Korea, though having built one, has not successfully launched one.
Now part of the problem is that people do not know what the process is, and a media more interested in hype isn't going to explain it to them. Another part of the problem is the Bush/Cheney "lie through their teeth" cabal, which told the people to be very afraid. Basically, Iran was called out today for not reporting a facility to the IAEA. That's it. Can they create a bomb? Sure, they have the manufacturing components and maybe even the intelligence. Are they REAL close? Absolutely not.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,652
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(220 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 12:03 PM
|
> I have to respectfully disagree, RC.
>
> The NIE was majorly wrong about Iraq WMDs in 2002,
> and they're wrong now about Iran.
The public part of the NIE said that Iran was not running a weaponization process. That process takes one to two years and has nothing to do with today's news. Period.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,914
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(219 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 11:38 AM
|
I have to respectfully disagree, RC.
The NIE was majorly wrong about Iraq WMDs in 2002, and they're wrong now about Iran.
"Today NIEs are the responsibility of the NIC...It is the job of the NIC to bring together estimative views... from theCIA...Defense Intelligence Agency, the four military services, the National Security Agency, the Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the intelligence units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Energy, and the Treasury Department. The directors of all of these organizations together constitute the National Foreign Intelligence Board, which reviews each NIE and must approve it before it is sent to the president and other national leaders."
http://www.answers.com/topic/national-intelligence-estimate
--
Edited by Gzndhyt at 09/25/2009 8:45 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
20,652
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(218 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 10:09 AM
|
> With Iran admitting a secret nuclear plant, this
> brings up serious questions about the accuracy of
> NIEs. Isn't this what the world relies on for
> foreign policy decisions? Are they completely
> useless?
No. The NIEs are not made wrong. And No, the world doesn't rely on them.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,914
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(217 of 231)
Sep 25, 2009 10:06 AM
|
With Iran admitting a secret nuclear plant, this brings up serious questions about the accuracy of NIEs. Isn't this what the world relies on for foreign policy decisions? Are they completely useless?
Anyway, it's refreshing and comforting having a president on the case with a timely, measured, intelligent response, in unison with our security council allies, France and Britain.
China and Russia have been the ones standing in the way of international sanctions, and then there's this article published yesterday from Reuters India...
"Stepping up pressure on Iran is not an effective way to persuade the country to halt its nuclear programme, China said on Thursday.
"However China, as well as the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany, told Iran on Wednesday to prepare a "serious response" by October 1 to demands it halt its nuclear programme, or risk the consequences."
http://in.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE58N2FP20090924
|
|
|
|
|
