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:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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 On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,509
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    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:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

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

    Hold him.
  5. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,167
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -1

    #11 Jersey

    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:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -26

    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:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +536 / 1 / -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:
    20,377
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +437 / 6 / -9

    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:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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:
    39,832
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +547 / 2 / -9

    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:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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:
    39,832
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +547 / 2 / -9

    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:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -26

    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:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    68
    Ratings:
    +200 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    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?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>