Iran Nuke Program? Not so much

Just to be clear, we are agreeing that the NIE is basically the result of gathering and reporting as much intelligence from many separate departments and agencies and that it should be treated with as an honest portrayal of the findings, correct?

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

McGentrix wrote:

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

Um, most certainly not!

We base our actions upon a wedding of logic and information. The NIE provides us with the information part - and is rather fallible, see the NIE's leading up the the Iraq war. The Logic part is as important when it comes to determining the correct course of action for our society.

Can't you be a little bit less pathetically transparent, McG? It would be more interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

Um, most certainly not!

We base our actions upon a wedding of logic and information. The NIE provides us with the information part - and is rather fallible, see the NIE's leading up the the Iraq war. The Logic part is as important when it comes to determining the correct course of action for our society.

Can't you be a little bit less pathetically transparent, McG? It would be more interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Has the NIE or any other agency determined if Iran poses a clear and present danger to the security of the USA?

McGentrix wrote:

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

Um, most certainly not!

We base our actions upon a wedding of logic and information. The NIE provides us with the information part - and is rather fallible, see the NIE's leading up the the Iraq war. The Logic part is as important when it comes to determining the correct course of action for our society.

Can't you be a little bit less pathetically transparent, McG? It would be more interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

Um, most certainly not!

We base our actions upon a wedding of logic and information. The NIE provides us with the information part - and is rather fallible, see the NIE's leading up the the Iraq war. The Logic part is as important when it comes to determining the correct course of action for our society.

Can't you be a little bit less pathetically transparent, McG? It would be more interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Ok, I see. You agree with the NIE only so far as it agrees with your particular world view. Noted.

So, how do you justify that? Only trusting an NIE that coincides with your views? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you?

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Ok. I just wanted to be sure that we agreed in the viability of NIE's.

So, do you also agree that we should base our actions on the NIE? ( I do.)

Um, most certainly not!

We base our actions upon a wedding of logic and information. The NIE provides us with the information part - and is rather fallible, see the NIE's leading up the the Iraq war. The Logic part is as important when it comes to determining the correct course of action for our society.

Can't you be a little bit less pathetically transparent, McG? It would be more interesting.

Cycloptichorn

Ok, I see. You agree with the NIE only so far as it agrees with your particular world view. Noted.

So, how do you justify that? Only trusting an NIE that coincides with your views? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you?

Aw, jeez.

Do you guys ever have anything better then 'gotchas?' It doesn't seem so. It's more important to try rhetorical tricks then it is to build an actual case for what you believe in.

Per your above statement, you now think that we, err, I mean, Cheney, should back off his Iran nuke warmongering - and that, in fact, he has been wrong at best/lying at worst about it?

Cycloptichorn

If Cheney, or anyone else has information that has not been included into the NIE, then it should be included and evaluated.

Well my heart bleeds for all you war mongers who wanted to zap Iran. Because now you wont be able to. Must be so frustrating.

Just as i've been pointing out for a long time now, there is no military solution to the problem of Iran. As Churchill said jaw jaw is better than war war.

Finally Bush seems to understand...


(I did say "seems")

We are dealing with them. We are doing some huge trade deals. And will be buying Iranian oil in euros not dollars pretty soon.

Well my heart bleeds for all you war mongers who wanted to zap Iran. Because now you wont be able to. Must be so frustrating.

Just as i've been pointing out for a long time now, there is no military solution to the problem of Iran. As Churchill said jaw jaw is better than war war.

Finally Bush seems to understand...


(I did say "seems")

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well my heart bleeds for all you war mongers who wanted to zap Iran. Because now you wont be able to. Must be so frustrating.

Just as i've been pointing out for a long time now, there is no military solution to the problem of Iran. As Churchill said jaw jaw is better than war war.

Finally Bush seems to understand...


(I did say "seems")

I have never seen any source that attributes that statement to Churchill.
Do you have a source?

Also, Churchill didnt hesitate to go to war in Europe when it was neccessary.

He knew that there are times when military force is the ONLY option.

mysteryman wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well my heart bleeds for all you war mongers who wanted to zap Iran. Because now you wont be able to. Must be so frustrating.

Just as i've been pointing out for a long time now, there is no military solution to the problem of Iran. As Churchill said jaw jaw is better than war war.

Finally Bush seems to understand...


(I did say "seems")

I have never seen any source that attributes that statement to Churchill.
Do you have a source?

Also, Churchill didnt hesitate to go to war in Europe when it was neccessary.

He knew that there are times when military force is the ONLY option.

We aren't anywhere near that point, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well my heart bleeds for all you war mongers who wanted to zap Iran. Because now you wont be able to. Must be so frustrating.

Just as i've been pointing out for a long time now, there is no military solution to the problem of Iran. As Churchill said jaw jaw is better than war war.

Finally Bush seems to understand...


(I did say "seems")

I have never seen any source that attributes that statement to Churchill.
Do you have a source?

Also, Churchill didnt hesitate to go to war in Europe when it was neccessary.

He knew that there are times when military force is the ONLY option.

We aren't anywhere near that point, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

I wasnt trying to interfere in your argument.
I have seen several people on here attribute that statement to Churchill, and I was curious if anyone had a source for it, thats all.