PDA

View Full Version : Iran claims full nuclearization within a year


Sam L
Nov 19th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday said Iran would celebrate the completion of its controversial nuclear fuel program within Iran's current calendar year, which ends on March 20.

"With the wisdom and resistance of the nation, today our position has stabilized. I'm very hopeful that we will be able to hold the big celebration of Iran's full nuclearization in the current year," the hard-line president told reporters during a press conference.

The hard-line president also claimed that the international community was caving in to Teheran's demands to continue its nuclear program.

"Initially, they (the US and its allies) were very angry. The reason was clear: They basically wanted to monopolize nuclear power in order to rule the world and impose their will on nations," Ahmadinejad said.

"Today, they have finally agreed to live with a nuclear Iran, with an Iran possessing a nuclear fuel cycle," he said, without elaborating.

:rolleyes: Can somebody please do something about Iran? :rolleyes:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:39 PM
Sam's posts are part of the USA campaign to demonize Iran and to further "justify" another invasion:


http://neocon-watch.blogspot.com/2006/08/israels-attack-on-lebanon-was-dry-run.html



Can somebody do something about the neo-KKKonivers?

Grachka
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:32 PM
:rolleyes: Can somebody please do something about Iran? :rolleyes:
I very much doubt you are referring to the environmental effects of extending nuclear power, so I would advise you to attempt to convince your own government to pursue a policy of nuclear 'disarmament'. Therefore, you won't appear morally bankrupt when lecturing to other countries of the desperate need to do the same. :)

Lord Nelson
Nov 19th, 2006, 06:59 PM
I very much doubt you are referring to the environmental effects of extending nuclear power, so I would advise you to attempt to convince your own government to pursue a policy of nuclear 'disarmament'. Therefore, you won't appear morally bankrupt when lecturing to other countries of the desperate need to do the same. :)

Speak for yourself as well. The samething can be said about your country. As a matter of fact the samething can be said about my country.

Grachka
Nov 19th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Speak for yourself as well. The samething can be said about your country. As a matter of fact the samething can be said about my country.
Where in my above post did I state that I supported the UK position? Nowhere. I am opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear power and have argued against their existence in the UK and elsewhere. It also takes on a great moral potency given that they are all stationed in the Clyde.

There is quite an obvious hypocrisy of arguing against nuclear enrichment activity in Iran, demonising them for being a danger to the world, when maintaining or going through the process of replacing your own nuclear weapons, which the US and UK are both guilty of. The only surprise is that people are still surprised when Iran fails to accede to The Good Side's demands.

Lord Nelson
Nov 19th, 2006, 07:29 PM
nuclear energy for civilan use though is something to consider. It does not emit any carbon dioxide, ths could be a factor in combating global warming. The only inconvinience is the nuclear waste but this could be buried deep underground.

Grachka
Nov 19th, 2006, 07:50 PM
nuclear energy for civilan use though is something to consider. It does not emit any carbon dioxide, ths could be a factor in combating global warming. The only inconvinience is the nuclear waste but this could be buried deep underground.
The public does not want nuclear waste buried near them, so it remains to be seen whether they can find anywhere to accept them without outrage. Even if they find suitable sites, there is not a limitless number, so it is not a sustainable solution. This has been so proved in Finland, the birth of the burial theory that Mr Miliband is basing the UK policy of waste disposal on.

This is not even touching on the continual danger that having nuclear power stations presents. Two nuclear power stations have closed down recently due to various pipes leaking radiation (!) whilst another is operating at limited capacity due to maintenance problems. Not only does that show the unreliability of the nuclear supply, but also how the level of danger rises with each new station built.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:02 PM
Stop THEM!!
Geez.

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:22 PM
More likely closer to 5 years, unless they're receiving outside enrichment assistance.

Re: nuclear waste disposal...
I don't understand why countries don't collaborate on an inexpensive and efficient method of intergalactic disposal. For instance, jettison(ing) nuclear waste into the sun? :shrug:
:devil: :angel:

Okay, don't laugh. It sounds quite feasible on paper. :tape: :lol:

Parsley
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:36 PM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday said Iran would celebrate the completion of its controversial nuclear fuel program within Iran's current calendar year, which ends on March 20.

"With the wisdom and resistance of the nation, today our position has stabilized. I'm very hopeful that we will be able to hold the big celebration of Iran's full nuclearization in the current year," the hard-line president told reporters during a press conference.

The hard-line president also claimed that the international community was caving in to Teheran's demands to continue its nuclear program.

"Initially, they (the US and its allies) were very angry. The reason was clear: They basically wanted to monopolize nuclear power in order to rule the world and impose their will on nations," Ahmadinejad said.

"Today, they have finally agreed to live with a nuclear Iran, with an Iran possessing a nuclear fuel cycle," he said, without elaborating.

:rolleyes: Can somebody please do something about Iran? :rolleyes:

Someone from Israel companing about another country's nuclear program is funny. They are still trying to build some nuclear weapons whereas your country ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons.

Scotso
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Time to attack.

Sam L
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:56 AM
Sam's posts are part of the USA campaign to demonize Iran and to further "justify" another invasion:


http://neocon-watch.blogspot.com/2006/08/israels-attack-on-lebanon-was-dry-run.html



Can somebody do something about the neo-KKKonivers?

I'm hardly a neocon. LOL!

Infiniti2001
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Sam's posts are part of the USA campaign to demonize Iran and to further "justify" another invasion:


http://neocon-watch.blogspot.com/2006/08/israels-attack-on-lebanon-was-dry-run.html



Can somebody do something about the neo-KKKonivers?

You don't say ---:( check this article out.

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons
Agence France-Presse

Sunday 19 November 2006

Washington - A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.

But the administration's planning of a military option was made "far more complicated" in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb," he wrote.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running paallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Hersh wrote, adding the CIA had declined to comment on that story.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis and said the White House had been hostile to it, he wrote.

Cheney and his aides had discounted the assessment, the official said.

"They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official was quoted as saying, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.

"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."

The United States and other major powers believe Iran's uranium enrichment program is ultimately aimed at producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Iran insists it will use the enriched uranium only to fuel nuclear power stations, something it is permitted to do as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The major powers have been debating a draft United Nations resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran's failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.

On Wednesday, Israel's outgoing US ambassador Danny Ayalon said in an interview that Bush would not hesitate to use force against Iran to halt its nuclear program if other options failed.

"US President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program," Ayalon told the Maariv daily.

Israel, widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, views Iran as its arch-foe, pointing to repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the map.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906Z.shtml

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:57 AM
I'm hardly a neocon. LOL!


Israel already has nukes so why worry about Iran?

In fact, the USA under Bush signed a nuclear accord with India much to the profound dissatisfaction of Pakistan.

If you must spread your message of hate, why not spread the 'wealth' to all?

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:59 AM
Israel's outgoing US ambassador Danny Ayalon said in an interview that Bush would not hesitate to use force against Iran to halt its nuclear program if other options failed.



And why doesn't anyone stop the Israeli warmongering aggressors?

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 03:31 AM
India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile

The Associated Press

By ARCHANA MISHRA

November 19, 2006

India successfully test-fired a medium-range nuclear-capable missile on Sunday, days after its rival Pakistan launched a similar missile.

The Prithvi missile was fired into the Bay of Bengal from the test range in Chandipur in the eastern state of Orissa, the official said on condition of anonymity as he is not allowed to reveal his identity under ministry rules. The test comes three days after rival Pakistan carried out a similar test of its nuclear-capable Ghauri missile, also known as the Hatf 5.

The competing missile tests came after the countries concluded a crucial round of peace talks in New Delhi aimed at resolving their differences, including the thorny issue of their territorial dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Peace talks often come under criticism from hard-liners in both India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars _ two of them over Kashmir_ since independence from Britain in 1947.

Sunday's test was 'routine' and 'part of the country's air defense exercises,' Press Trust of India news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying.

India routinely test-fires missiles it is developing for military use, as does Pakistan. Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Sunday that India had informed Pakistan ahead of time about the test, as is standard between the nuclear rivals.

On Saturday, district authorities in Chandipur evacuated around 2,750 villagers living near the missile testing range to two large shelters about a mile away, PTI said.


More people have died because of the continued India-Pakistan conflicts than have died because of Israel-Palestine troubles. Isn't it time to disarm these countries as well as Israel?

Reckoner
Nov 20th, 2006, 04:24 AM
You don't say ---:( check this article out.

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons
Agence France-Presse

Sunday 19 November 2006

Washington - A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.

But the administration's planning of a military option was made "far more complicated" in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb," he wrote.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running paallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Hersh wrote, adding the CIA had declined to comment on that story.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis and said the White House had been hostile to it, he wrote.

Cheney and his aides had discounted the assessment, the official said.

"They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official was quoted as saying, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.

"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."

The United States and other major powers believe Iran's uranium enrichment program is ultimately aimed at producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Iran insists it will use the enriched uranium only to fuel nuclear power stations, something it is permitted to do as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The major powers have been debating a draft United Nations resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran's failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.

On Wednesday, Israel's outgoing US ambassador Danny Ayalon said in an interview that Bush would not hesitate to use force against Iran to halt its nuclear program if other options failed.

"US President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program," Ayalon told the Maariv daily.

Israel, widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, views Iran as its arch-foe, pointing to repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the map.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906Z.shtml

I was just about to post this.

Iran is harmless. They are loving these nuclear talks because it makes them look big and well, I don't think I have to explain why the US is reaping the benefits...

BUBI
Nov 20th, 2006, 07:05 AM
Iran 'regime' change: It's stronger
Nov 19, 2006
C.B. Hanif, Palm Beach Post

No credible Iran analysis can contradict the assessment of Abbas Milani, director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution, that America missed a major opportunity when former President Mohammad Khatami's democratic reform program failed several years ago.

"Then President Bush gave the 'Axis of Evil' speech and froze relations," Dr. Milani said, "and now, the U.S. is trying to get back to where it could have been five years ago easily when the regime was at its weakest point." Worse, he said, is that the results of the invasions of Iraq by the United States and Lebanon by Israel "have made the regime as strong as it has been in 27 years."

Dr. Milani expressed no love for what he repeatedly called "the regime" during his talk with members of the Trotter Group of African-American columnists (trottergroup.com) at our meeting hosted by the John S. Knight fellowship program at Stanford University last week.

But the U.S. has little clue about what is going on in Iran, he said, and administration officials admit it. There are no agents and no intelligence, just the "vacuum" that is being filled by such groups as the MEK, or People's Mujahedeen Organization. That's the group which the State Department has called a terror organization and which fought on Saddam Hussein's side during the Iran-Iraq War.

Dr. Milani, who heads the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford, said that while the Iranian democratic movement, which could be an agent for change, has been weakened through union purges and press crackdowns, the regime is being bolstered by $70-a-barrel oil.

In that context, "American policy with Iran is truly incredible," since Iran's hard-line regime "is truly isolated from the people except for one issue." That would be nuclear technology. "It is our sovereign right" is the view of Iranians, he said.

"So the West is fighting the regime where it is strongest." And while "forcing democracy in Iraq is not gonna happen," he said, Iran still has a democratic movement and the most Internet-savvy populace in the Mideast outside Israel. "If Iran had gone democratic of its own volition, we would much more likely have seen a democratic Mideast." With its hard-liners convinced that Iran "can get a better deal by standing firm on the U.S.," he said, "we're in for a long, dark night."

The former University of Tehran professor, who was jailed with others for protesting the taking of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in 1979, said the last time the U.S. had a long-term strategic Iran vision was before the Iranian revolution.

Asked whether he thought Iran would sell nukes to terrorists, Dr. Milani said he was much more worried about that happening through Pakistan. "If you look, Iran's has been a very cautious regime." For example, Iran gave Hezbollah a limited number of missiles for Lebanon's conflict with Israel, he said, and even fewer that could hit Tel Aviv, with no permission to use the latter. The problem, he added, is that with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "on record as saying Israel should be wiped off the map, Israel is not waiting for the 1,000-to-1 possibility and nothing is going to reassure them."

Yet even while noting that an Israeli official days earlier had said that an attack on Iran's nuclear research sites was not off the table, "I don't think it is possible," Dr. Milani said, "because Iran is not Iraq." Israel had an agent inside and knew precisely the location of the Baghdad nuclear site it unilaterally destroyed in a 1981 raid, he said, while Iran has 300 different sites, many dispersed in population centers, which he estimated would take two weeks of air sorties to destroy.

Dr. Milani confirmed the prevailing sense that there is "no doubt that the regime wants the bomb. Not to give it away," he added, "but to protect itself against the U.S. pressuring it." For Israel to unilaterally attack "the regime," would be "to consolidate it for the next 30 years," he said. "I doubt Israel is that foolish. But I thought it was impossible for Israel to be so foolish in Lebanon, where it has absolutely created a monster."

His sense is that President Bush knows it might be "his China for Nixon if he gets something done on Iran. But I think Iraq will be his legacy and will go down as one of history's greatest mistakes. The 'Axis of Evil' was pure stupidity." He sees the promoters of that idea hoping for diplomacy to fail and for an invasion in the Bush administration's last days, which he considers "the greatest mistake for this country and Iran."

That's a view undoubtedly shared by what he said are the estimated 700,000 to 800,000 Iranians living here. They are "far more educated than Americans at large," are owners or board chairs or senior execs at companies ranging from eBay to Google, and, having become extremely successful, now want to share political power, he said. And Washington should pay attention to their desire for a democratic Iran.

In 1950, Dr. Milani noted, Iran was the first country in the Muslim world - his old-style first-syllable emphasis was notable - to recognize Israel As non-Arabs, the Persian Shiites are natural Israeli allies, he said. Contrary to current U.S. policy, it all sounds like a recipe for getting along.

Yet he also cited a book in which former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres said the world was headed toward regionalism, with a European Union dominated by Germany; the Americas dominated by the U.S.; Asia dominated by Japan (the Chinese would say that was then, and this is now); and a Mideast dominated by Israel.

On that last idea, it's clear that regardless of who prevails there, Iranians have another thought.

RVD
Nov 20th, 2006, 08:17 AM
All very interesting articles.
Thanks! :wavey:

The damage down by the Bush administration is incalculable.
Well, he wanted History to remember him. And man will it ever. :o :tape:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Milani opposes the current government of Iran. Believing him is tantamount to accepting Benedict Arnold over George Washington.

Sam L
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:02 AM
I'm hardly a neocon. LOL!


Israel already has nukes so why worry about Iran?

In fact, the USA under Bush signed a nuclear accord with India much to the profound dissatisfaction of Pakistan.

If you must spread your message of hate, why not spread the 'wealth' to all?

You have a problem with Israel having nukes? Did you not say once that you have Jewish ancestry or something? I find that surprising. Israel needs to defend herself. There are countries surrounding her that would rather Israel didn't exist. Israel isn't about to invade them and start an Empire. But the others will get rid of her if they get a chance. So please!

I don't know much about India. But I'm concerned about an axis of evil country possessing a nuclear weapon. They won't be afraid to use it for terror purposes. :mad:

For once, why don't you and others stand for the lives and rights of the Judaeo-Christian world and stop treating it like it's your enemy?

:wavey:

mc8114
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:20 AM
Controversial topic,

nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy that exists, it will help to minimize/mitigate the destruction of the ozone layer at a very high pirce of course ;) 'cause it's way more expensive than the oil and gas treatment/refining processes.

The main problem with it is the disposal of the radioactive materials, no matter how many feet down the thing is buried, I personally wouldn't like to live in a place near a radiactive disposal ...

There's also the matter of safety and security in the plant facility ... Remember Chernobyl accident in 1986.

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:47 AM
I'm hardly a neocon. LOL!


Israel already has nukes so why worry about Iran?

In fact, the USA under Bush signed a nuclear accord with India much to the profound dissatisfaction of Pakistan.
If you must spread your message of hate, why not spread the 'wealth' to all?

:) :yeah:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:51 AM
You have a problem with Israel having nukes? Did you not say once that you have Jewish ancestry or something? I find that surprising. Israel needs to defend herself. There are countries surrounding her that would rather Israel didn't exist. Israel isn't about to invade them and start an Empire. But the others will get rid of her if they get a chance. So please!

I don't know much about India. But I'm concerned about an axis of evil country possessing a nuclear weapon. They won't be afraid to use it for terror purposes. :mad:

For once, why don't you and others stand for the lives and rights of the Judaeo-Christian world and stop treating it like it's your enemy?

:wavey:

only axis of evil countries are the Anglo-Saxon ones plus Israel :rolleyes:
now you'll be clueless on who i mean :lol:

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:58 AM
You don't say ---:( check this article out.

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons
Agence France-Presse

Sunday 19 November 2006

Washington - A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.

But the administration's planning of a military option was made "far more complicated" in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb," he wrote.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running paallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Hersh wrote, adding the CIA had declined to comment on that story.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis and said the White House had been hostile to it, he wrote.

Cheney and his aides had discounted the assessment, the official said.

"They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official was quoted as saying, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.

"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."

The United States and other major powers believe Iran's uranium enrichment program is ultimately aimed at producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Iran insists it will use the enriched uranium only to fuel nuclear power stations, something it is permitted to do as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The major powers have been debating a draft United Nations resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran's failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.

On Wednesday, Israel's outgoing US ambassador Danny Ayalon said in an interview that Bush would not hesitate to use force against Iran to halt its nuclear program if other options failed.

"US President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program," Ayalon told the Maariv daily.

Israel, widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, views Iran as its arch-foe, pointing to repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the map.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906Z.shtml

All very interesting except that Seymour does not work for the CIA. He is a regular contributor to the New Yorker wich obviously is anti Bush administration and thus not very credible as a source. We only have his word that he has CIA documents in hand and no CIA person was interviewed for this article. That say quite a lot about validity of Seymour who has made controversial statements before which have never been proven.

Kunal
Nov 20th, 2006, 12:51 PM
and btw...i think china is going to give pakistan a similar deal.....

the deal between india and US....will most importantly give india the ability to tap into the the civilian nuclear energy....which is critical to for a country whos energy demands are ever increasing

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Criticism of Hersh

Hersh's supporters regard him as a dogged and fearless journalist who uncovers important news stories. His detractors see him as a liberal whose stories are often ideologically motivated and of questionable reliability.

Those who criticize Hersh's credibility especially point to allegations Hersh has made in public speeches and interviews, rather than in print. In an interview with New York Magazine, Hersh made a distinction between the standards of strict factual accuracy for his print reporting and the leeway he allows himself in speeches, in which he may talk informally about stories still being worked on or blur information to protect his sources. "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people... I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say." [11] The New Yorker, where much of Hersh's current print reporting appears, rigorously fact-checks all of its writers.

Some of Hersh's speeches concerning the Iraq War have described violent incidents involving U.S. troops in Iraq. In July 2004, during the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal, he alleged that American troops sexually assaulted young boys:

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.[12]

In a subsequent interview with New York Magazine, Hersh regretted that "I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly...it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful." [13] In his book, Chain of Command, he wrote that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract interpreter at Abu Ghraib, during which a woman took pictures. [14]

At a Columbia University speech given by Hersh in June 2004, author Rick Perlstein reported

[Hersh] said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children and women prisoners, as the cameras run." [15]

In an interview with KQED host Michael Krasny on October 8, 2004 [16], Hersh reports speaking with a first lieutenant in charge of a unit stationed halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border.

His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them. "He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents. Don't you read those stories when the Americans say we had a combat maneuver and 15 insurgents were killed?'"

In a speech at McGill University in October 2006, after describing a video he had seen in which U.S. troops, following an attack on their convoy, had fired upon and killed a group of nearby soccer players, Hersh offered the assessment that "there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.” [17]

Hersh's speeches describing these incidents are not part of his body of print reporting and therefore not subjected to the fact-checking and independent verification given to his print stories.

Scotso
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:41 PM
What we need to do is start a war between Iran and Pakistan or something.... that should give us a few years to think things over.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:24 PM
What we need to do is start a war between Iran and Pakistan or something.... that should give us a few years to think things over.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sam L
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:28 PM
only axis of evil countries are the Anglo-Saxon ones plus Israel :rolleyes:
now you'll be clueless on who i mean :lol:

Well as far as I know you live in an Anglo-Saxon country? No? Why are you standing on the side of the enemy? :rolleyes:

Why are you rolling your eyes at Iran and Pakistan going to war when you know you wouldn't be if it were UK and US going to war with each other. What's your agenda?

samsung101
Nov 20th, 2006, 03:37 PM
Silly. This is all propaganda. Come on now.

So what if he gets nukes, it's all for energy only.
Really.

Iran is a nice nation, their prez. is a cool guy.
He's just misunderstood. Mike Wallace told me so.

Sy Hersch tells us Iran does not have this ability.
It is fluff. The CIA knows it, Bush knows it, it is
all bologna. For years, we've known. This Iran
prez. guy, he's just rattling his sword.

Really.

The New Yorker and Vanity Fair wouldn't lie would they?

Intelligence tells us.

The same intelligence groups that gave faulty info to Bush and
Clinton and Bush I, and then bailed and pointed fingers once
their work errors were exposed.....they don't have a great
track record these days. Foreign and domestic..we prefer
hindsight intelligence anyway.

Good old fashioned 'CYA'.


The NY Times knows better...it's all a ruse.


Does it matter anyway?

If we the American public cannot handle the Iraq War, or the
Afghanistan War, with the ups and downs that come w/war, and
the negatives press that comes w/it, and the death toll...what
makes us think we can do anything about Iran. It's a far more
dangerous nation to try to deal with militarily.

We had 12 years of info on Iraq, and people still think Bush
did it in a few weeks on a whim for oil bucks. Why would any
President bother to do anything w/ Iran, of either party. It's
too late.

Get over it, we have to live with nuclea North Korea and a nuclear
Iran because as a nation we didn't want to deal with it - we haven't
much since 1979 with any success. Why change that now.

We told the world on November 7th we do not have the national
will to fight anything longer than a tv season...nor do we have
the stomach to put up with death or injury, even if our soldiers
are willing to do the dirty work...and we don't have the will to
stand by a president for a long period of time in a ground or
combined ground/air/sea war. We did a Spain. That's not
going away, our enemies around the world know how to make
us jump, and they know how to make us jump as high as they
want us to.

Iran orchestrated the Iraq insurgents, they pay them, train them,
supply many of them....if we can't beat 10,000 of them in Iraq
due to the lack of public will at home, what makes us think we
can do anything about Iran, ever.

Parsley
Nov 20th, 2006, 03:45 PM
After the last elections I'm sure attacking somewhere won't be on Bush's agenda soon.