I-man:

How would a benighted cretin like RichyBlack educate anybody?

Your much acclaimed report claims that Iran halted its nuclear programme,just like Libya,after the Iraq invasion.The report says that Iran did this because of its calculation of the adverse consequences ensuing from continuation.That being the case,the Bush administration has broadly achieved what it set out.

The problem is,you are one of those paranoid frenzied Bush haters who believe Bush is the anti-Christ hell bent on war come what may.Faced with an NIE report which doesn't fit the meme of an administration hell bent on war,your recourse is to claim that the NIE report was released against Bush's wishes.This takes political analysis within the realms of sorcery because an NIE report couldn't be compiled without the White House's approval.

We have moved from claiming that Bush is the evil genius doctoring and editing intelligence reports to Bush is a powerless man who has no say over US intelligence reports.This is a desperate attempt to mould the facts to fit a storyline.

Blind-man, you fail to see. I'm still waiting for someone to put in a word for me to educate this neophyte!

The spectacle of him still groping in the darkness of his mental lethargy is becoming unbearable!

@Idupaul and I-man

please, you guys should stop this foolish talk. It's embarrassing.

Idupaul, how can you say Pakistan poses no threat to any nation? Perhaps India or Afghanistan?

And you description of the leader of a rogue state just paints the picture of George Bush. Besides, since the USA is the only country that poses a threat to every nation in the world, that must mean that it is currently the worst rogue state ever and fully armed too.


I-man, please stop peddling these stupid stories. Are you telling me that if Nigeria attacks and devastates Mali, civil wars will cease in Africa? Please brother stop this, it's shameful to be propagating such theories.

denex:

@Idupaul and I-man

please, you guys should stop this foolish talk. It's embarrassing.

Idupaul, how can you say Pakistan poses no threat to any nation? Perhaps India or Afghanistan?

And you description of the leader of a rogue state just paints the picture of George Bush. Besides, since the USA is the only country that poses a threat to every nation in the world, that must mean that it is currently the worst rogue state ever and fully armed too.


I-man, please stop peddling these stupid stories. Are you telling me that if Nigeria attacks and devastates Mali, civil wars will cease in Africa? Please brother stop this, it's shameful to be propagating such theories.

I-man, needs serious help. Just like a true neocon, he's spinning this story as a Bush administration success - after all the fear-mongering.

denex:

I-man, please stop peddling these stupid stories. Are you telling me that if Nigeria attacks and devastates Mali, civil wars will cease in Africa? Please brother stop this, it's shameful to be propagating such theories.

If Nigeria were to list certain W.African countries in an axis of evil unless they stop pursuing certain policies and then proceed to remove the Govt one of the listed countries,do you think its far fetched for a neighbouring country in that list to change its policies?

The essence of this thread is a report released which,inter alia,claims that the reason why Iran adopted a new course in 2003 was its appreciation of the adverse consequences it will face.Why are you now picking and choosing which part of the NIE you want to believe? If you don't believe them,why start the thread?

@Denex

I still dey respect your analysis,where you talk say China na democracy and im get similar electoral system as Britain .That was a real classic!

I-man:

If Nigeria were to list certain W.African countries in an axis of evil unless they stop pursuing certain policies and then proceed to remove the Govt one of the listed countries,do you think its far fetched for a neighbouring country in that list to change its policies?

The essence of this thread is a report released which,inter alia,claims that[b] the reason why Iran adopted a new course in 2003 was its appreciation of the adverse consequences it will face.[/b]Why are you now picking and choosing which part of the NIE you want to believe? If you don't believe them,why start the thread?

I-man, produce evidence that the statement in bold was in the NIE report.

This is how neocons spin simple facts to fit their distorted ideological agenda.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3001210.ece
Iran says that a newly published US intelligence report proves that its intentions for its nuclear programme are benign. So does Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations watchdog, who has greeted the report as if it confirms what he has always maintained – that a resolution of the row with Iran is within reach. However, the offers no reassurance; on the contrary, it supports fears that Iran could soon have nuclear weapons. It argues that Iran has been deterred from pursuing them mainly by the fear of US military action, a fear that has now faded.

Here is an excerpt from the Report:
[b]Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit
approach [/b]rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and
military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified
international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its
security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived
by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear
weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be

http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

@Richyblack

You can't start a thread about a report you are not even familiar with

You can't pick and choose which part of the report you want to believe.If Iran was compelled, by its perception of the costs of continuing, to halt the program,then those who are responsible for putting pressure on Iran will rightly claim that they were right in their polices.

I-Man

you are also guilty of misinterpreting the report.

By middle of this year, arround June, July, August, Condo Rice was busy going arround the world trying to get the World to sanction Iran for developing Nuclear Technology. What this NIE report simply means is that if at all Iran was even trying to develop Nuclear bomb it halted it in 2003,

1. So why is Gorge Bush lobbying the world to get a strict sanction against Iran 4yrs later

2. How many times will the Bush Administration attack another Nation based on false intelligence

3. And why is a justification of Bush's foreign policy stating that Iran has halted its nuclear programme released at a time when America was at the vanguard of getting the UN to sanction Iran for developing nuclear programme.

If anything this report has made President Amadenajad an international political MARTYR

I have been looking at you and just don't want to respond to some of your comments here, anybody who believe's that this NIE report is a justification of Bush's foreign policy will believe anything.

This report simply undermines President Bush's administration and was particularly released to demonstrate that Intelligence Agencies in America are fed up of Propaganda by the Bush Administration, it was also targeted at the war mongers in President Bush's administration because as it stands now they have no basis for their propaganda.

Did you see the Chinese reaction

China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, said "things have changed" and the push for new sanctions would need to be questioned

China and Russia now have enough reasons to block any UN vote for tough sanctions against Iran.

I know you will come back here copying every line of my comments and doing your normal half baked spin, but take it or leave it "this is a big blow for President Bush's America"

I laugh at you guyz who think Bushs mistaken
Bush is the right man. he nos wha hes sayin. he sees now beyond wha you may see in 50years.

i give you gusy 5years! Mark my Word!
5 years if America kools down, if the next president of US isnt as Bush. Russia and Iran will take the stage. they will not only police you but bomb you, crush you and bangabangala you. But God forbid

McKren:

I-Man
you are also guilty of misinterpreting the report.

Where?Obviously,you have issues with grammar.There is a major difference between ascertaining the content of the NIE and determining its implication.The former is clear,it is the latter that you seem to have a problem with.

1. So why is Gorge Bush lobbying the world to get a strict sanction against Iran 4yrs laterHuh

To the ignorant,a case for sanction is puzzling.The case for sanction is based on Iran's NPT obligations,which obligations Iran has failed to fully comply with.These obligations exist independently of what Iran's nuclear program is intended for.

3. And why is a justification of Bush's foreign policy stating that Iran has halted its nuclear programme released at a time when America was at the vanguard of getting the UN to sanction Iran for developing nuclear programme.

Here is a good explanation of it by a Bush critic-[url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html[/url]

If anything this report has made President Amadenajad an international political MARTYR

The report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but continues to engage in illegal nuclear proliferation in breach of its obligations.Iran's case was that it never had a weapons program.Its a bit like a report claiming that a man,who denys ever being a thief,has stopped stealing for a while but still engages in illegal acts which might facilitate future theft.Whether this is vindication is left for you to judge.

Why the report was released is a matter of speculation.Neither you nor I is a psychic,so speculating on the inner motives of the report's authors verges on voodoism.Its effectively voodoo analysis.

What is clear,is what the report states,that Iran has halted its program due to pressure,which pressure was applied in large measure by the Bush administration's policies.

McKren:

I-Man

I know you will come back here copying every line of my comments and doing your normal half baked spin, but take it or leave it "this is a big blow for President Bush's America"

GBAM!!!!!! I-man the twister and turner I hail oooo

I-Man

My brother you are simply learning how to do spin

If this report was ochestrated by President Bush's Government, Ehud Barack (Isreali defence minister) will be aware enough not to criticize the report openly.

Qouting "the Times" and telling me its a critic of President Bush is absolutely pointless because no matter how critical the Times is of Bush when it comes to foreign policy their priority will remain saving America's integrity at all cost.

@McKren

You are asking whether a US Govt report was "orchestrated" by the US Govt. I leave you to ponder that.

This is not the first time Israel will be critical of the US Govt.You are really clutching at straws.

Qouting "the Times" and telling me its a critic of President Bush is absolutely pointless because no matter how critical the Times is of Bush when it comes to foreign policy their priority will remain saving America's integrity at all cost.

This is pure drivel.The Times has long been critical of US foreign affairs whether its the My Lai massacre or the whole Vietnam debacle or Clinton's bombing of a factory in Sudan on account of its alleged use by Saddam and Al-Qaeda to produce chemical/biological weapons.

You engage in a lot of voodoo analysis,ascribing motives to people with the audacity of a witchdoctor.You not only know the motives of the NIE authors,you also know that of the Time's publishers.You effectively want to engage in a crass debate about inner motives. . . . .this is easy for you because motive is impossible to substantiate.You can dismiss opposing viewpoints by simply alluding to unverifiable motives.

You are asking whether a US Govt report was "orchestrated" by the US Govt. I leave you to ponder that.

So different institutions within a Government can not make comments or come up with reports not popular with the Presidency or that was not made at the instance of the Presidency??

I think you are underemployed, go and take over Condi Rice's Job cos you seem to beleive and know about President Bush's govt than his staff.

I-man:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3001210.ece
Iran says that a newly published US intelligence report proves that its intentions for its nuclear programme are benign. So does Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations watchdog, who has greeted the report as if it confirms what he has always maintained – that a resolution of the row with Iran is within reach. However, the offers no reassurance; on the contrary, it supports fears that Iran could soon have nuclear weapons. It argues that Iran has been deterred from pursuing them mainly by the fear of US military action, a fear that has now faded.

Here is an excerpt from the Report:
[b]Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit
approach [/b]rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and
military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified
international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its
security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived
by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear
weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be

http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

@Richyblack

You can't start a thread about a report you are not even familiar with

@ I-man,

I'm beginning to suspect that you're being paid to babble this kind of nonsense.

Your statement:
the reason why Iran adopted a new course in 2003 was its appreciation of the adverse consequences it will face

Your supporting evidence:
Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit
approach

How does international pressure equate to adverse consequence?

This is the problem with neocons like I-man, WAR is their DIPLOMACY.

International pressure to any sane person means diplomatic efforts to effect a resolution to a crisis. However, to neocons, international pressure means adverse consequence.

I-man, I know you lack the ability to reason lucidly, but I'll make this as simple as possible: international pressure is not equal to US bombs!

Wednesday, Dec. 05, 2007
[size=16pt]Why the Pentagon Is Happy about the NIE[/size]
By Mark Thompson/Washington

The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was the final factor in a military equation that now appears to guarantee that there will be no war with Iran during the Bush Administration. It meshes with the views of the operational types at the Pentagon, who have steadfastly resisted the march to war led by some Administration hawks. The anti-war group was composed of [b]Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Admiral William Fallon, who oversees the U.S. forces that would have had to wage that war. [/b]In recent months, all have pushed back privately and publicly, on the wisdom of going to war with Tehran. Indeed, the Pentagon's intelligence units were instrumental in forming the NIE's conclusions.

The U.S. military contributes nine of the 16 intelligence agencies whose views are cobbled together in NIEs: the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Naval Intelligence. Some critics have suggested that the military simply found a public way to quiet the drumbeat for war coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and his shrinking band of allies in the Administration.

There was no formal response from the Pentagon. It is evident, however, that the U.S. military, already strained by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has no appetite for a third war. That's true even if a series of strikes against nuclear and other targets inside Iran were carried out by the Air Force and Navy, the two services who have sat, somewhat frustrated, on the sidelines as the Army and Marine Corps has done the heavy lifting in the two wars now under way. Some Pentagon officials welcomed the new NIE as evidence that the intelligence community is not tied to ideology, as some critics argued was true during the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003.

Still, Pentagon officials made it clear that this was not a political move by the brass — that [b]the military's lack of desire for another conflict [/b]and the conclusions of the new NIE are coincidental. They stress that the military focuses on "intentions, not capabilities" when assessing threats, and that the final unclassified portion of the NIE warns that the intelligence community believes "with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."

Indeed, Secretary Gates, in Afghanistan this week, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community has "more confidence than ever before" that Iran had a nuclear-weapons development program, one that Iran continues to deny it ever possessed. He urged the international community "to join the United States in bringing pressure to bear on the Iranian government" to keep its nuclear-weapons efforts dead. This, he said, will help "ensure that what apparently was a suspension in 2003 becomes a policy of the Iranian government and that they agree to the requirements of the international community in terms of their enrichment program." Iran, he said, had merely suspended — not terminated — its nuclear-weapons efforts. Tehran continues to "keep its options open," he pointed out. "As long as they continue with their enrichment activities, then the opportunity to resume that nuclear weapons program is always present."

However, Gates left no doubt where he stands on how to proceed, saying that the revised NIE shows that non-military measures are the best way to curb Iran's nuclear program. "If anything," he said in Kabul, "the new national estimate validates the Administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic pressures to bear on the Iranian government to change its policies."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1691241,00.html

@Rickyblack

Good job sir, I was about to post same article myself.

Hopefully, Dick Cheney and co. would have to be forced to find another reason to bomb Iran.

naijaking1:

@Rickyblack

Good job sir, I was about to post same article myself.

Hopefully, Dick Cheney and co. would have to be forced to find another reason to bomb Iran.

@naijaking1,

You're welcome!

We must all watch and pray till January 20, 2009, when Bush, Cheney and the rest of the cabal of death leave the White House.

The startling change in the US intelligence assessment about Iran's nuclear programme is the result of a much more vigorous system introduced since the debacle over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction

The critics have their doubts

Not that everyone is impressed. President Bush himself picked up the doubts inherent in the NIE and said that Iran remained a danger.

The Israelis have already rejected the NIE finding, claiming that Iran has re-started its nuclear weapons effort.

And critics in the United States are attacking the authors of the report, Mr Fingar among them. The Wall Street Journal said he was one of three "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials" behind the NIE.

The Carnegie Endowment's Vice President George Perkovich also points out: "The NIE does not say that there should be any confidence that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, as required under the NPT (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)."

And of course there is no guarantee that this report will be any more accurate than the 2005 one. The history of intelligence is signposted by mistakes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7128963.stm

Someone came here yesterday accusing me of engaging in voodoo analysis, I guess the BBC is also engaging in voodoo analysis, the site referenced by Richyblack is also engaging in voodoo analysis.

I believe Nairalanders can now figure out for themselves who is engaging in voodoo analysis.

I laugh at you guys who think Bushs mistaken
Bush is the right man. he nos wha hes sayin. he sees now beyond wha you may see in 50years.

Whoever wrote this is a true leadership material, You have the ability to see beyond the crowd mentality of follwers.

It's easy to say such things when you're not one of those who has been killed or mained for life by his "brave" policies.

McKren:

So different institutions within a Government can not make comments or come up with reports not popular with the Presidency or that was not made at the instance of the Presidency??

Stop being an idiot,the NIE is made at the instance of the President.To say that the resultant NIE is not popular with the Presidency is mere voodoo analysis.We don't know,watching CNN doesn't give anyone an insight into the inner motives of either the report's authors or the President.

Did Bush's staff call you up and tell you that Bush is not happy with the report?

How does international pressure equate to adverse consequence?

This is the problem with neocons like I-man, WAR is their DIPLOMACY.

International pressure to any sane person means diplomatic efforts to effect a resolution to a crisis. However, to neocons, international pressure means adverse consequence.

I-man, I know you lack the ability to reason lucidly, but I'll make this as simple as possible: international pressure is not equal to US bombs!

You rant like an slowpoke.How do you know that "international pressure" exclusively refers to any particular policy tool?Did diplomatic measures against Iran commence in 2003? There have been diplomatic measures to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation since the late 70s under Carter.What new international pressure did Iran begin facing in 2003 that it hadn't faced before?

It was only until the election of Sarkozy for France and Merkel for Germany that Iran started feeling any serious international pressure.The EU's main objective in applying pressure on Iran was to stop war ensuing between the US and Iran.

The real question is whether the Bush Administration's policies have forced a change of heart in Iran.The reports conclusions are consistent with the idea that the Administration's policies have forced a reappraisal of Iran's nuclear policy.That point was made here in the article you carefully avoided:


Iran says that a newly published US intelligence report proves that its intentions for its nuclear programme are benign. So does Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations watchdog, who has greeted the report as if it confirms what he has always maintained – that a resolution of the row with Iran is within reach. However, the offers no reassurance; on the contrary, it supports fears that Iran could soon have nuclear weapons. It argues that Iran has been deterred from pursuing them mainly by the fear of US military action, a fear that has now faded.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3001210.ece

ok

Frustration is begining to set in, he has run out of ideas and will rather this whole debate turns into an abuse match.

Well it just confirms something to me, you are simply a baby that has been brainwashed. I think I rather leave this thread for you.


God knows why anybody will take I-man more seriously than CNN and BBC.

I-man the twister & turner,

In fact, after you na Nigeria1. carry go joooooooo!!!!!

I really pity you, your own brainwashing na die.

@I-man

I had to bring this here because you chose to.

please about the China democracy thing, can you please quote a Chinese website or newspaper or even government official saying that China is not a democracy? Or is it your dear "white" house that is feeding you with all these black lies?

People go out during elections and they elect their leaders into positions in various parties and then the leader of the party with the majority, which is the Communist Party of China, becomes President automatically. How the hell do you think Gordon Brown became Prime Minister? Is it not through the same process with the Labour Party having the majority?

The People's Republic of China has about 9 political parties. The Political Party that has had the majority is the Communist Party of China. Just like the Labour Party of the UK and the People's Democratic Party of Nigeria. Don't let American Propaganda continue to deceive you my boy. Political Parties in China include:

China Democratic League

Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party

China Zhi Gong Party

September 3 Society

China Democratic Party

Revolutionary Committee of the Koumitang (which has 30% of the seats in Parliament).


So my friend I-man, What is so undemocratic about China? Stop listening to propaganda and concentrate on facts.

@McKren

You are an idiot.Go to 1st page and see who started the slanging match between us two.Did CNN and BBC tell you that they think the NIE was released against Bush's wishes?

This is coming from someone who quotes fictional movies as historical sources "because Robert Redford is a successful businessman"

denex:

@I-man

I had to bring this here because you chose to.

please about the China democracy thing, can you please quote a Chinese website or newspaper or even government official saying that China is not a democracy? Or is it your dear "white" house that is feeding you with all these black lies?

Denex,seriously,the way you reason is appalling.Its like asking me to find one Egyptian newspaper or Govt official that doesn't think Mubarak is a dictator,or a N.Korean newspaper or Govt official that doesn't think the "Great Leader" is a dictator

Na you biko!So you are still arguing that China and the UK are similar democracies?

@I-man

why do you desire to hold a monopoly on spreading fiction?

denex:

@I-man

why do you desire to hold a monopoly on spreading fiction?

If you desire to "spread fiction", go ahead.You are already doing a great job trying to convince us that China is a democracy.I guess this is what they mean by "half-baked Nigerian graduates"

I-man:

Stop being an idiot,the NIE is made at the instance of the President.To say that the resultant NIE is not popular with the Presidency is mere voodoo analysis.We don't know,watching CNN doesn't give anyone an insight into the inner motives of either the report's authors or the President.

Did Bush's staff call you up and tell you that Bush is not happy with the report?

You rant like an slowpoke.How do you know that "international pressure" exclusively refers to any particular policy tool?Did diplomatic measures against Iran commence in 2003? There have been diplomatic measures to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation since the late 70s under Carter.What new international pressure did Iran begin facing in 2003 that it hadn't faced before?

It was only until the election of Sarkozy for France and Merkel for Germany that Iran started feeling any serious international pressure.The EU's main objective in applying pressure on Iran was to stop war ensuing between the US and Iran.

The real question is whether the Bush Administration's policies have forced a change of heart in Iran.The reports conclusions are consistent with the idea that the Administration's policies have forced a reappraisal of Iran's nuclear policy.That point was made here in the article you carefully avoided:


Iran says that a newly published US intelligence report proves that its intentions for its nuclear programme are benign. So does Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations watchdog, who has greeted the report as if it confirms what he has always maintained – that a resolution of the row with Iran is within reach. However, the offers no reassurance; on the contrary, it supports fears that Iran could soon have nuclear weapons. It argues that Iran has been deterred from pursuing them mainly by the fear of US military action, a fear that has now faded.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article3001210.ece

A crude attempt at sophistry!