Obama KNEW All Along Netanyahu Was Right About Iran

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.

Why is it always 2-3 months away? Because that what it takes to make a nuclear weapon when you don't have the material already. They're essentially starting with the equipment but none of the refined materials. They have very little R&D time to create a weapon because the physics are well known and understood. Once you know how (and the information is everywhere) all you really have to do is get the appropriate purity and construct the weapon. The hardest part in making a nuclear weapon is in obtaining the raw material, that's where the 2-3 month estimate comes from. It takes time in order to get that raw material.

Phrasing it as 2-3 months from the bomb sounds scary when it's put like that. The other way you can put it though is they're starting from scratch. Or better yet, saying they're always 2-3 months away without ever moving up the time table is also saying they aren't actively attempting to build a weapon.

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: IAMTAT


4- yes , you're correct in your assumption .

Israel has the right to exist when they recognize palastinian's right to exist . as long as palestine and gaza are being bombed to oblivion , i don't think thats the case .

And you almost had us convinced.

But here you go, watch this interesting bit...

The Ottomans didn't even recognize the Palestinians...what does that say about Muslim brotherhood?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: IAMTAT

Despite popular belief, none of our presidents have been fools and Obama is no exception.

I can only imagine that a nuclear armed Iran is desirable somehow to this administration or as part of a long term projection by our military in general, ultimately inevitable.

I really don't get it but, I can see how it accelerates the showdown between sunni and shia, one of the possible explanations.

Obama is trying something different. Business as usual comes with the caveat that eventually there will be war with Iran over their nuclear program. One day they will seriously pursue a nuclear weapon (they'll claim for defense) and the US/Israel will attack them. This has the likely result of strengthening their claim of wanting to defend themselves, and could result in Russia or China overtly giving Iran nuclear weapons and it may even divide the US from traditional allies as we would look to be the aggressor

On the other hand, if we enter into a multinational deal with Iran, that has clear oversight we get to make Iran submit to a system where they cannot pursue a weapon. This deal will likely hold for a longer period of time than the sanctions and attack strategy gets us, which means we have more peace. Furthermore if war does eventually happen due to Iran violating the agreement, a multinational coalition to stop them will already be in place.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.

Why is it always 2-3 months away? Because that what it takes to make a nuclear weapon when you don't have the material. They're essentially starting with the equipment but none of the raw materials. They have very little R&D time to create a weapon because the physics are well known and understood. Once you know how (and the information is everywhere) all you really have to do is get the appropriate purity and construct the weapon. The hardest part in making a nuclear weapon is in obtaining the raw material, that's where the 2-3 month estimate comes from. It takes time in order to get that raw material.

Phrasing it as 2-3 months from the bomb sounds scary when it's put like that. The other way you can put it though is they're starting from scratch.

U stated that : 1- the hardest part in making a bomb is having the raw material
2- that's where the 2-3 month estimate comes from !!

wait a minute here ! so Iran had those raw materials since 1990s and we were 3 month away from making a nuke . that 3 month passed 27 years ago . so whats up now ?

Iran can build a bomb and it could build a bomb since 1990s , that mightbe true .

but here is another true sentence : WE DID NOT !

a reply to: IAMTAT

Still confused?

How can you be only 3 months away from having a Nuclear bomb for years?..and they still don't have it.

Better yet..when is "intelligence" anything but..

I can't be the only one that is exhausted with the Iran fear mongering?

For eff sake ...

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."

1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel's Mossad spy agency, says "Iran has to be identified as Enemy No. 1." Iran's nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times, "really gives Israel the jitters."

1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought" – about five years away

1998: The same week, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reports to Congress that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile – one that could hit the US – within five years.

June 2008: Then-US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicts that Israel will attack Iran before January 2009, taking advantage of a window before the next US president came to office.

www.csmonitor.com... 1992

a reply to: Sremmos80

If you are assembling a car and you stop just before tightening the last bolt, you are 30 seconds away from completion. A year later you will still be 30 seconds from having a car.

Did that really need explaining?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: haman10

OK.

When we start chanting death to this or that country in all our public speeches, you can take away our nukes. We don't want Iran to die; we want to be able to trust you. But trust is a little hard when we keep hearing your leaders chanting death to American and death to Israel.

Why should a country that keeps saying that have the means to do it?

If someone comes to me and threatens to shoot me in the head, should I hand him a gun?

How about that time a sitting president called for a new Crusade against the Middle East, and a known and popular general came out and said there was a plan in place internally to invade and conquer 7 countries in 5 years?

a reply to: introvert

Apparently everyone but you knows Iran wants nukes.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: IAMTAT


4- yes , you're correct in your assumption .

Israel has the right to exist when they recognize palastinian's right to exist . as long as palestine and gaza are being bombed to oblivion , i don't think thats the case .

And you almost had us convinced.

But here you go, watch this interesting bit...

The Ottomans didn't even recognize the Palestinians...what does that say about Muslim brotherhood?

I really don't care what old-times turkish empire thought about palestinians , cause it's irrelevant .

You are saying that we (israelis) don't recognize palestinians and yet you expect muslims to recognize you . its hypocrisy , don't you think ?

Palestine should enjoy their rights as well . you are bombing them out of existence .

stop bombing them , give them their lands back , stop the settlements and then work on a peace initiative .

After that , Iran might even be the first one to recognize you .

The POTUS isnt worried about Iran's nuclear state.

Why, because hes more worried about Isreals.

Irán is no threat, Isreal, however,is. Not only a foreign but a domestic threat.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ketsuko

Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

Becaaause… Iran hasn't done anything wrong?

Give it a rest.

And when they drop the bomb on Israel, what sanctions do you suppose we should lay on them again? Or do we go to war? Or do we just slap their wrists?

Tell us, after they drop the bomb on Israel, what other countries do you think they will hit next? What is stopping them from hitting England, France or Germany?

But I will tell you this, if Iran does try to bomb Israel, believe me the consequences will be swift and deadly. And then what neighbors of Iran are going to stand by and watch? India? Nope, India has nuclear weapons. Do you think India is going to go complacent? Once it happens, every Hindu in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are going to attack every mosque and kill a lot of Muslims.

I am not telling you some doom prophecy, I am being realistic. Do you really think India wants Iran with nuclear weapons?

Then as a neighbor to Iran, will Pakistan be capable of giving support? Islamabad will be hit by India. So what should we do to prevent this from happening? Maybe it is a good thing Iran hasn't done anything yet, because they sure have made an enemy out of India.

India's nuclear capabilities

India is the dark horse in this,

Iran Threatens India over halt of crude oil

As Tehran refuses to be paid in rupees, Indian companies have accumulated a debt of about two billion dollars since April, according to figures provided by the oil ministry to Iranian media. The possibility of India paying in gold for Iranian crude is one of the solutions under consideration, according to Iranian media.

Tehran refuses to be paid in rupees, and because of that rejection, caused India to owe billions. Germany helped pay the debt of India.

India is telling a different story about what Obama knows....

Despite the Islamic republic’s repeated denials over its nuclear ambitions, the United States and the European Union have targeted Iran’s banking, financial and vital energy sectors with unilateral measures.

India, the dark horse.

If Iran ARE making a bomb....which I doubt....Why do you and others think they are building one to bomb someone with ?
No other country gets accused of this when they build their bombs but for some reason people think Iran are going to build a bomb in front of the whole world then attack Israel !
Do you honestly believe they would even contemplate it ?
Why build ONE bomb and try to attack a country that has what,.....two hundred,...three hundred nukes.

The media and governments keep reminding us of the Iran, nuke thing so that we end up believing that's what they're up to.
It's all fear mongering in my opinion.

originally posted by: haman10
do you hear yourself mate ?

U stated that : 1- the hardest part in making a bomb is having the raw material

then you said 2- that's where the 2-3 month estimate comes from !!

wait a minute here ! so Iran had those raw materials since 1990s and we were 3 month away from making a nuke . that 3 month passed 27 years ago . so whats up now ?

please , don't even try to defend those hawkish and idiotic claims .

Iran can build a bomb and it could build a bomb since 1990s , that mightbe true .

but here is another true sentence : WE DID NOT !

I think you misunderstood me. I was making the claim that the 2-3 month estimates are a measurement of Iran's capability to build a weapon if they pursue one, but Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon which means they aren't pursuing one. The country has the knowledge to build one and seems to have the proper designs. Yet despite that a weapon isn't being produced. We know Iran has the centrifuges, yet they never have enough refined material. The centrifuges operating at 25% of max capacity would lengthen the time to make a weapon from 3 to 12 months (such as Stuxnet was supposed to do), yet that hasn't come to pass either.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the 2-3 month estimate is a way of saying "If Iran decides to go for a weapon, this is how long it will take them". It's not an extrapolation of current production but rather a measurement of how long it would take if things change. It's no different from taking a random person on the street and saying "This person is 4 years away from a Bachelors degree" when they're not even in university.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: haman10
do you hear yourself mate ?

U stated that : 1- the hardest part in making a bomb is having the raw material

then you said 2- that's where the 2-3 month estimate comes from !!

wait a minute here ! so Iran had those raw materials since 1990s and we were 3 month away from making a nuke . that 3 month passed 27 years ago . so whats up now ?

please , don't even try to defend those hawkish and idiotic claims .

Iran can build a bomb and it could build a bomb since 1990s , that mightbe true .

but here is another true sentence : WE DID NOT !

I think you misunderstood me. I was making the claim that the 2-3 month estimates are a measurement of Iran's capability to build a weapon if they pursue one, but Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon which means they aren't pursuing one. The country has the knowledge to build one and seems to have the proper designs. Yet despite that a weapon isn't being produced. We know Iran has the centrifuges, yet they never have enough refined material. The centrifuges operating at 25% of max capacity would lengthen the time to make a weapon from 3 to 12 months (such as Stuxnet was supposed to do), yet that hasn't come to pass either.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the 2-3 month estimate is a way of saying "If Iran decides to go for a weapon, this is how long it will take them". It's not an extrapolation of current production but rather a measurement of how long it would take if things change. It's no different from taking a random person on the street and saying "This person is 4 years away from a Bachelors degree" when they're not even in university.

Yes sir . i misunderstood your initial post .

as you know my first language is not english and despite trying real hard , i still have some issues . funny thing is , as a med student , they kick me real hard if i don't improve my skills : ) i should be able to connect with tourists .

Pardon me

I wish Iran would hurry up and get a nuclear bomb, then maybe the cries will stop since they will be too scared.

a reply to: lambros56

Did you see this little gem on Iranian tv?



I bet that had really high ratings. Maybe it is all just a fantasy, imagine though, all of you watching the bombing and destroying Israel, the stuff that good tv is made of.

And here is another one.

You guys really have entertaining movies and tv shows. Did you bring the popcorn?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: lambros56

Did you see this little gem on Iranian tv?

I bet that had really high ratings. Maybe it is all just a fantasy, imagine though, all of you watching the bombing and destroying Israel, the stuff that good tv is made of.


You guys really have entertaining movies and tv shows. Did you bring the popcorn?

i'm so sorry for using these words but you ooze hypocrisy ! as if hypocrisy is a dipping sauce and you're full of it !

those animations are made by private companies not the state TV .

meanwhile the israeli regime performs wargames on simulating an attack on Iran :

www.nytimes.com...

www.jpost.com...

An Israeli war game recently imagined the fallout from a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. David Patrikarakos reveals what he learned when he received exclusive access.

www.newstatesman.com...

Who is the real threat now ?

someone who makes animations or someone who spends millions of dollars on simulating an attack on another one ?

originally posted by: andy1972
The POTUS isnt worried about Iran's nuclear state.

Why, because hes more worried about Isreals.

Irán is no threat, Isreal, however,is. Not only a foreign but a domestic threat.

Its so true...Israel was ready to disband itself in 2005.

Do you know in exchange for what?

A piece of the United States.

Israel was willing to destroy itself if the exit plan included a permanent place within the American system and on November 8th, 2005, is when there plan was unveiled.

the only reason Israel still exists is because their plan failed in 2005 and they quickly had to go back to work on a project that they don't even want anymore.

Even now Netanyaho and his allies in the United States are working tirelessly to figure out the solution to destroying America and replacing it with a carbon copy that they created in 1974.

so, forgive me if I too consider Netanyaho and Israel to be potential existential threats to the security of Americans and the United States Government.

sure, they probably work hand in hand with Iran on this project, but in and of itself Iran is powerless and depends on Israel to take the lead.

Israel is the problem...the #1 problem for America.

My biggest problem with this Iran conspiracy.Is Israel has no concern over Pakistan. Could someone explain to me why this is the situation. Pakistan seems to be much more unstable.I do understand we do control the government there.and drone at will. To an extent.I've always thought that since the population is extremely anti Israel also.Id think Netanyahu would be paranoid.

a reply to: Theorbme

I couldn't agree with you more about Pakistan being more a threat to Nety than any other country because they already have the bomb, on the outside seem very unstable. However, they are supported by the CIA and the British plus receive huge amounts (I suspect) in bribery aid. It would only take some rogue group to infiltrate their facilities and beam up their missiles onto Israel which doesn't seem to bother Nety. Perhaps he doesn't have much faith in their nuclear deterrent so doesn't feel threatened - he'll have his reasons though.

I read an interesting point that Saudi could buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan anytime it wanted, however they declared war on the west by infiltrating mosques everywhere and putting their hardline wahabi imams in to 'spread the word' so their warfare is sly and stealthy.

Iran though just seems to serve Nety's ambition of keeping ordinary Jewish people terrified so that siege mentality protects Nety's hide and expansive ambitions.

Everyone bagging on Obama needs to understand the fake nuclear negotiations are simply a pretense for war with Iran. World War III already started, Americans just haven't figured it out yet.