BBO Discussion Forums: Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? Iran and its nuclear capability

#1 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-January-28, 17:08

Can we afford to trust the same Ministry of Truth who brought us weapons of mass destruction, Nigerian yellowcake, and stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq with telling us the unbridled truth about Iran and its ability to create a nuclear program?

Here are some contradictory comments about that subjuct: (emphasis added)

Quote

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday January 28, 2007
The Observer


Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.



Quote

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.


Quote

'The reality is that they have got to the stage where they can run a small experimental centrifuge cascade intermittently,' said one Western source familiar with the Iranian programme. 'They simply have not got to the stage where they can run 3,000 centrifuges There is no evidence either that they have been stockpiling low-enriched uranium which could be highly enriched quickly and which would give an idea of a malevolent intent.'
Another source with familiarity with the Iranian programme said: 'Iran has put all this money into this huge hole in the ground at Natanz; it has put a huge amount of money in these P-1 centrifuges, the model rejected by Urenco. It is like the Model T Ford compared to a Prius. That is not to say they will not master the technology eventually, but they are trying to master very challenging technology without access to everything that they require.'



Doesn't sound so threatening from this side of the argument. This time around, shouldn't we insist Congress - as well as the entire world have full availability to all relevant factual information before any action is taken against Iran?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#2 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-28, 17:28

This makes the huge assumption that Congress would read it. They do not!
0

#3 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,752
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-January-28, 19:00

Here's a longer quote from the observer:

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.

. . .

The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network.

. . .

Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.

The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.

. . .

It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.

The escalating sense of crisis is being driven by two imminent events, the 'installation' of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and the scheduled delivery of fuel from Russia for Iran's Busheyr civil nuclear reactor, due to start up this autumn. Both are regarded as potential trigger points for an Israeli attack.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#4 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-28, 19:50

I just wonder how this 3000 industrial centrifuge purchase speeds up the process. I assume they bought spare parts and techs to show them how to run and repair them. I still think 10 years seems an unlikely long time for Iran to get a Nuke, assuming the will is there.

As I said before it seems Iran would have the right to make and sell nukes to whoever they want it.
0

#5 User is offline   macaw 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 1,981
  • Joined: 2003-February-14
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2007-January-28, 21:19

Maybe Dr. Emmett Brown sold them machine casings of spare pinball parts?

#6 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-28, 21:40

mike777, on Jan 28 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

I just wonder how this 3000 industrial centrifuge purchase speeds up the process. I assume they bought spare parts and techs to show them how to run and repair them. I still think 10 years seems an unlikely long time for Iran to get a Nuke, assuming the will is there.

As I said before it seems Iran would have the right to make and sell nukes to whoever they want it.

China helped North Korea with their nukes......what's up with that....?

If we confuse principles with policies....it tends to gloss over the facts. Rhetoric instead of reason. Emotion instead of even-handedness. Don't lose sight of the right to exist of each and every person and country in this wide world. Let them have their self-determination it will allow them to make their own mistakes and not have to extract the price in human lives where none was originally required.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#7 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,129
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2007-January-29, 05:23

Hmmmm ..... I recently agued in another thread that I wouldn't blame Israel for a preemptive attack. Thinking more about it, I'm not so sure. This sounds as if it would be a lot easier for the Iranian government to get nukes from some ex-Soviet state. Then again, why would the Iranians make these efforts (and denying foregin inspectors access to it) if it weren't because they intend to aquire weapons.

Another issue: do the Iranians really want nukes, and if so do they want to destroy Israel? The current Iranian president is a madman, but he doesn't have absolute power, and their's a fair chance that Iran will have a moderate government before they get nukes.

It occurs to me that the Iranian president and the U.S. government have identical goals here: both want as much hostility as possible because without hostility nobody would vote for them. Even if the Iranians don't expect to be able to aquire nukes, they might still want to pretend that they do. And even if the U.S. government isn't concerned about Iranian nukes, it might still want to pretend to be. I'd rather trust the Israelians, then, who are (at least partially) driven by a genuine desire to avoid getting nuked.

The again, what the ..... do I know about all this.
... I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. --- Zelandakh
0

#8 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-29, 06:13

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

What are Holland 18 year olds willing to fight for....anything? or nothing?
0

#9 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,129
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2007-January-29, 06:40

mike777, on Jan 29 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

What are Holland 18 year olds willing to fight for....anything? or nothing?

Yes, I happen to be a 40-yo red-haired mathematician whol lives in the Netherlands. I cannot say anything general about what 40-yo's think about Iranian nukes, what mathematicians think about Iranian nukes, what red-haired people think about Iranians nukes or what Dutch people think about nukes. All I can say is what I myself think about Iranian nukes which is not very much as I don't know much about it.

Last time I visites Zeeland (Dutch province that was partily flooded in 1953), I saw an inscription on a stone, saying that a number of young men saved the village by supporting the dike-gate with their own bodies. So apparently, some Dutch people were willing to fight against the water 53 years ago. More recently, a few peoples have been burning religious schools, churches, and moscues, there have been manifestations against a retirement reform, and there have been fights between football supporters. But most Dutch people prefer ranting to fighting. Like people elsewhere. Fortunately. Most of the World is peacefull.

Btw, the beach sand is too cold to stick my head into at this time of the year.
... I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. --- Zelandakh
0

#10 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-29, 07:11

ok we now know Holland is willing to fight once the world in not peaceful but not before :)

btw thanks for whatever you do for Nato.
0

#11 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,752
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-January-29, 08:01

mike777, on Jan 29 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

Another piece of idiocy from he who will not commit.

Your question is down right stupid because, as is often the case, you presents a false dichotomy. There are plenty of people who

(a) Don't want Iran to develop nukes
(B) Believe that military action against Iran would not be an effective way to halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Unfortunately, we're left with yet another of Mike's stupid little questions.

Whats truly remarkable about Mike his complete inability to ever offer any kind of concrete statement to a conversation. God forbid that he would every offer a prediction that folks could check back on 12 months down the road. For example, I was flabberghast that Mike recently commented that he was opposed to launching an attack on Iraq. Give the fairly bellicose / anti-Islamic tenor of so many of his thought experiments I was quite sure that Mike was a supporter of the Iraqi invasion.

Turns out that Mike believes that he was opposed to attacking Iraq and we have no way to check the legitimacy of this statement. Cause all Mike does is ask simplistic little questions. As least we know the depth of his mental processes.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#12 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2007-January-29, 08:06

I have read in some threads here about possibility to get nuclear weapons from one of the ex-Sovjet republics. In the fact, there are no more such weapons, they were removed from the teritory of Ukraina, Belarus and Kazahstan etc. in the early 90's and are located now in Russia, under full control of russian goverment.

Robert
Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
0

#13 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-29, 10:55

So we better invade Russia before they sell them to the highest bidder!!!

And if Iran decided to make transistors....or anything else for that matter....did the US ask permission to develop nuclear power...and weapons????
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#14 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-January-29, 12:15

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

Your question is down right stupid because, as is often the case, you presents a false dichotomy. There are plenty of people who

(a) Don't want Iran to develop nukes
(B) Believe that military action against Iran would not be an effective way to halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

it was just a question, richard... questions aren't stupid... btw, i think military action against iran would be an effective way to halt them... but i guess it depends upon what type of action and to what degree

Quote

Cause all Mike does is ask simplistic little questions.

i find most of his questions to be deep, not simplistic (for the rest of you - yes, i'm fully aware how wide open i just left myself)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#15 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,752
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-January-29, 13:53

luke warm, on Jan 29 2007, 09:15 PM, said:

it was just a question, richard... questions aren't stupid...

From my perspective, Mike doesn't ask questions to gain knowledge. Most of his questions look to be rhetorical devices; intended to frame a discussion. Moreover, these questions suggest a deeply biased and ignorant mindset. Hence, my original comment about the excluded middle.

I have no problem labeling the bulk of his questions as stupid (I do allow that they might be deliberately deceitful)
Alderaan delenda est
0

#16 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-January-29, 19:19

BTW, Helene, I love the look of redheads. ;)

Trying to get back to subject - the question again is how real is the threat of Iran gaining access to its own nuclear weapons program? Are we being deceived about those prospects in oreder to further warfare?

Helene, you hit on a terrific idea, and it was written about in the piece Hrtothgar posted - that Iran's claims of 3000 centrifuges going online are just Public Relations, that Iran is incapable of doing anything with these centrifuges. But by making the claim, they get hostility, which helps hold onto power - and besides, it makes it appear the government is actually doing something for fuel as they have alowed their oil-producing infratstructure to virtually rot.

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes? If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran.

I believe we can no longer simply tune in to CNN, Fox, ABC, or any other network, or read any newspaper and be assured of receiving factual information - not that anyone in the news is conspiring to present disinformation, but news is now profit driven whereas in the past T.V. news was a drain on the network; therefore, you have less money spent on digging out stories and more reliance on insiders - the insiders may well be spreading disinformation and the news organizations are simply reporting what they have been told.

I posted something the other day that was a critique of Iran's president's statement to "wipe Israel off the map." If my source was accurate, then this statement was never made verbatim. The president was quoting a speech of Ayatolla Khomeni first of all, and the translation was that Zionist ruling party of Israel should be "erased from the pages of time." There was no genocidal threat to it at all.

My fear is that misleading "labels" that are not accurate will have us at war - before we claim someone a madman, how about waiting until he proves that he is mad.

And Helene, as far as trusting Israel totally on this, keep in mind they have no oil reserves, either, so are just as much at risk for lost oil as is the U.S.

Truth is an elusive commodity these days - hard to determine - but still needed before war is begun.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#17 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-January-30, 05:44

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

BTW, Helene, I love the look of redheads. :huh:

she's *way* too young for you, oldtimer - and for me, sigh

Quote

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes?  If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran.

i don't remember saying that (though i might have)... but if i did say it, my acceptance of that policy would be based more on iran's own claims of how terrible a threat they'd be... at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#18 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-30, 09:01

Where is Rez Pahlavi when we need him most? Oh yeah, he's dead (the former Shah of Iran) another military dictator puppet installed and financed by the CIA and one of the many reasons why the US is so vilified and considered the Satan of the world in those parts. Iran has a fairly secular and quite advanced upper middle class society (although much of it is kept quiet and away from the "masses"). Much as the religious right would have us keep the po' boys down on the farm....elites maintain power through the manipulation of the masses.

Stone throwing from glass houses, anyone?
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#19 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,014
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-January-30, 20:19

Quote

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes?  If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran. 


i don't remember saying that (though i might have)... but if i did say it, my acceptance of that policy would be based more on iran's own claims of how terrible a threat they'd be... at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme


I could be wrong, too - and you are NEVER too old for redheads B)

The very point I am making, the question I am asking is in your last sentence:
"at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme"
From where does this information come? How accurately does it reflect the sayings of this man?

The very "wipe Israel off the map" comment has been discredited as a bad translation. Supposedly, the speech was comparing the fall of the regime of the Shah of Iran with Israel's current regime, and he quoted a speech by Ayatollah Khomeni in saying that this regime (meaning the Shah's in Khomeni's speech) should disappear from the face of time. The speech was talking about regime change in Israel and that the Palestinians who live there should take heart.

It is a considerable stretch to go from: Iran's regime under the Shah was changed, so take heart Palestinians that the Israel regime may also be removed from the pages of time - to - I am going to nuke Israel as soon as I can and "wipe Israel off the map." Bad translation or purposefully deceitful translation?

Like so many other "lies", this one has been repeated over and over until now it is accepted as truth - but is it?

See what I mean? Is this guy a real danger or has he been demonized by propaganda into something he really is not?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#20 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-January-30, 21:39

This whole administration is too dangerous to be considered laughable. They spin lies (as did so many before them) and then deny that they ever said what they did say.....(not quite so many before them) to sending troops to die for their quest for oil ( unfortunately too many did that)....I am not particularly crazy about Hillary, but she would be a refreshing change from the Bush leagues (boy there is an awfully sexist pun hanging around but I refuse to allow it life....lol)
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

Share this topic:


  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users