Welcome to PatsFans.com

Panetta: Iran is not making nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Titus Pullo, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Awwwww

    Now, I know this will upset some of our chickenhawks who love the idea of ever more explosions over ME nations. But hopefully we as a nation aren't gullible again and don't repeat history by making the same mistakes we did in 2002-2003 when the rhetoric was clearly fraudulent to anyone with their eyes wide open.

    US Defense Secretary Admits "Iran Not Trying to Develop Nuclear Weapon"
    Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: US Defense Secretary Admits "Iran Not Trying to Develop Nuclear Weapon"

    All the tin hats that disputed Ron Paul's position that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons can now hear the same thing from US Secretary of Defense. Please consider Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

    Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

    That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

    Paul is right... again.
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Poor little chickenhawks. They can go outside and cry with the Tel Aviv lobby and try to regroup. How is Israel going to be able to bomb Iran now? (Not that they ever wanted to). Poor John Bolton and JINSA. Now they have to come up with a new and even more dangerous threat so we can sell our weapons and continue arming the ME.

    Bolton, the chief proponent of attacking Iran (mostly on FOX) might be the King of All Chickenhawks:

    Bolton supported the Vietnam War and enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."[15] In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from."

    Really. He really said that out loud for the record. What a COWARD!
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    I saw this early this morning on Yahoo Finance...thought about posting it but got too busy.

    I'm extremely relieved over this.

    Now can we bring everyone home and close down half our bases?

    Time to cut military spending....not quite so simple, but necessary.
  4. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I couldn't kick John Bolton in the face fast or hard enough.

    Hold him.
  5. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Never going to happen unfortunately.
  6. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Jan 10, 2012
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Isn't Bolton being mentioned as a possible VP for Gingrich???

    War is good for the economy.. gets rid of the poor kids.
  8. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,384
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Details. Details are important:

    "Face the Nation" transcript: January 8, 2012 - CBS News

    ...

    Basically, the position remains unchanged. Eh...

    I like that both Panetta and GEN Dempsey both emphasized the importance of diplomacy over military action. It gives some fuel for the reformist camp in Iran to apply a little pressure on the conservative element there to engage the US. We'll just have to see. I don't expect a lot to come of this, other than forgettable domestic political talking points.

    If only Obama and Khatami had presided over their respective countries at the same time...
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Between Mish and Fox, I would say Fox has the more accurate headline, based on the full quote.

    “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

    When he says "nuclear capability" that's not some nuclear power "oh everything's going to be okay" thing. "A nuclear capability" means they can make, but have not yet made, a nuclear weapon.

    Regardless of how you feel about what the appropriate response is to the facts on the ground are, the facts -- according to Panetta -- are that Iran is trying to be able to make a nuke. They can't yet. Getting to the point where they can is not the red line, according to this quote. Pursuing the weapon itself is.

    My between-the-lines read is as follows:

    We can probably cite them as not yet able to put a bomb together within the next 10 months, then the election's over. Hopefully the Mishes of the world keep this off most people's minds until then.

    This is the sort of sweetness-and-light, god-is-in-his-heaven-and-all-is-right-with-the-world silliness that does nobody any favors.

    It's a real tough one: Iran wants a nuke. Without a war, we probably can't stop them from making one. I mean, by now they've got Norton on all the computers, so that won't work again, right?

    It's pretty clear from their little Hormuz maneuvers that they have quite non-nuclear ways of kicking the whole world in the nutsack, of course. And war with Iran would be pretty farking disastrous, if you ask me. More for them than us, I would add. But certainly no walk in the park for us either.

    The whole Iran situation is full of no-win. But it doesn't really help to pretend the problem just isn't there. It is -- Panetta was re-setting the popular impression of when, not whether, there's a crisis.

    PFnV
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Crisis?

    Here's two views of what the crisis is:

    Iran: The US is always breathing down our necks and has instantaneous capability to incinerate all of us. They occupy at least two bordering countries. They presume sovereignty over our territorial waters. They have high-ranking officials that believe they should wage war with us.

    US: Iran might want to get a nuke. They might want to control resources from their region. They are a potential threat to Isreal, who is kinda our friend.

    Which one is more valid and threatening?
  11. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Uhhh maybe the fact that Iran has stated its intent to wipe Israel off the map repeatedly?
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Why should we beleive Panetta, he is just another Rat Faced piece of political sh!t.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    That's not a fact. Because some nut politician who has a microphone says it does not mean "Iran" has it as an official policy. Do you believe that Iran would nuke Israel for simple idealogical reasons if...IF they had the ability? Why should our attention and military might be aimed at Iran? Because Israel feels threatened? If you were an Iranian military official, wouldn't the threat level from AmerIsrael be more real and immediate by a factor of 10?
    (Cue the Hamas/Gaza discussion in three...two...one...)
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Leave them alone let them fight it out, Israel can take care of themselves, the big thing the Liberals are worried about is that Iran will start a war and Israel will destroy the whole rotten country.
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Not quite sure how Israel would fight a war with Iran, without involving about 4-5 other nations..

    It is a geography thing..
  16. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There is an enormous difference between 20% uranium enrichment, and the 90% needed to weaponize.

    It's utterly astounding that you would side with the implied assertion from Fox over the literal conclusion from Panetta's own words. Especially considering your overall body of work here.

    I plan a point-by-point rebuttal to this post above, including the affects that sanctions continue to have on this nation... for now I have to work... But I will leave you with this important question:

    Assuming you accepted the "Oh noes! Saddam has WMD!!" tale was complete horse****, at what point between 2002 and 2006 was it crystallized for you? What was the moment; the piece of evidence that erased all doubt in your mind?

    Again:

    If they haven't even started trying, then they're years away, even if they wanted to. "Yet" is not a reason to risk $250 oil by playing games over Syria, or sending drones across the border.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Sending anything over the border would be a disaster. You just gotta ask yourself one question: What would Santa do?

    I think we should show people in the ME how to behave. We should give them gifts and be really nice. That might work better than threatening to bomb the sh!t out of them and theior stuff. Just a thought.
  18. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I would love to leave a comment but I won't since last time I talked on this subject I got raked over the coals....

    Its great to see Panetta, said what needed to be said....
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    We are always breathing down their necks? :rofl:

    Yeah, they're so afraid of us that they kidnap our citizens at the border, send their demented leader here to insult us in person and outright threaten to block Hormuz.
  20. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    He's not their leader... further, they threaten to block hormuz ONLY because the West is beating the war drums and maintaining crippling sanctions. Do you dispute this?
  21. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Here's a map. It's hard to find, I know, but if you go on Google Images....

    [​IMG]
  22. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    He was right about quite a few things it seems: The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012 - YouTube

    "No weapons of mass destruction over here, no weapons over there..." That clip of W, it's like deja vu all over again.

    What's so interesting to me is the incredible amount of support Ron Paul's getting from the troops and Iraq vets. Awhile back I posted a breakdown of his military support, it came from all branches but more from the Air Force I *think*-I forget.

    Anyway that video contains a lot of commentary by Iraq and Afghanistan vets, all branches, who strongly support Paul's stance on war which I find interesting.

    When an anti-war candidate garners as consistent and as much military support as Paul has, people should listen-there's a message there.
  23. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Right, he's a gameshow host who wasn't elected.

    Sorry, I can't say I share your ability to know exactly what those nutjobs are thinking or what motivates them.
  24. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    If you follow what has actually happened...

    Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun
    In other words, Iran chose "both of the above": i.e. wanted to create chaos in Iraq. Yup, sure sounds like they were cowering in fear.
  25. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The gear-shifting continues... It's like when claims of Saddam's mobile bioweapons labs were deemed fraudulent, conservatives responded with "that doesn't mean Atta wasn't in Prague with Iraqi officials!!"

    And the Soviets conducted covert operations during the Cold War, in response to our own... Would you have been sabre rattling against them as well?

    Put yourself in their shoes. When a super power that has called you "evil" and meddled in your affairs since 1953 has your country surrounded, with some two dozen bases on your border, at what point do you decide to start flexing some muscle? But, I guess only we - the world's "police" - are allowed to engage in pre-emptive measures.

    Iran also helped us corral the Taliban shortly after 9/11. Perhaps if the idiot king didn't ramp up the rhetoric against Iran, they wouldn't have gone back to 1979 mode as soon as we invaded their neighbor (you know, for reasons based on fraud and all... but nevermind that part).
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  26. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    It would appear that the ones doing the sabre rattling are the Iranians, unless you are claiming that what Obama has been doing is aggressive in some way.

    What is your angle here? That we fomented a rebellion in Syria so that the government would start killing people so that we could then be in conflict with an Iranian puppet state?

    I think we are just returning the favor. Aren't we officially the "Great Satan"? :p

    It is interesting how much mileage they have gotten out of Mossadegh. Are we allowed to remain upset about the taking of the embassy and hostage crisis in 1979 until the end of time?

    And does that include the period when Reagan was "giving" them weapons (per some on the board)?


    Maybe Iraq and Afghanistan were all about "surrounding" Iran...or maybe just Iraq was...or maybe there were other drivers (whether legitimate or not)...I think it is hard to argue that Iran was the entire focus of the last 10 years.

    They are free to do so...and will suffer the consequences. Israel is not the only place that can be "wiped off the map".

    I thought the idiot king let them get away into Pakistan? You think they were pissed that we overthrew a Sunni dictatorship?
  27. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    LMAO - "backing both sides... where could they have possibly gotten that idea?"

    :rofl:

    I'm sellin' arms to both sides now
    Iran, Iraq, but still somehow
    No-one's in charge that I recall
    I really didn't knowwww
    attt allllll
  28. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Pentagon chief sees Iran bomb potential in year

    >>>>Iran could develop a nuclear bomb in about a year and create the means for delivery in a further two to three years, the US defense chief said Sunday, reiterating President Barack Obama's determination to halt the effort. "The United States -- and the president's made this clear -- does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the CBS program "60 Minutes.">>>>

    Looks like either changed his tune or was misinterpreted the first time.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2012
  29. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I just read this article (below) and 2 minutes later I see this thread.

    :confused:

    Pentagon chief sees Iran bomb potential in year - Yahoo! News

  30. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

Share This Page