Colin Powell: Iran Far From Nuclear Weapon

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Colin Powell:
Iran Far From Nuclear Weapon​



ALeqM5h3HCflCUuuT6cCKpNf2aAQswOWIQ

Former US Secretary of State General Colin Powell
addressing a symposium on "Opportunity and Crisis
in the Middle East" in Kuwait City on Sunday, Nov.
18, 2007. (AP Photo/Gustavo Ferrari)

Associated Press
By DIANA ELIAS
November 19, 2007

KUWAIT CITY (AP) — Iran is far from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and despite U.S. fears about its atomic intentions, an American military strike against the Islamic Republic is unlikely, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons, insisting it is for peaceful purposes only.

"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," said Powell, who was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.

A recent report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago.

Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict.

There is no base of support among Americans for such an action, Powell said, adding that the U.S. military already has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Powell was the secretary of state under President Bush from 2001 to 2005. In September 2004, Powell said Iran's nuclear program was a growing threat and he called for international sanctions.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hhx_TURxlqOeQdTUoILUjNdi2mRQD8T0J8400
 
Oh snap. CP is trying to get some respect back. I ain't convinced yet, but I am reading this S***!
 
\
Iran Much Closer to Nuclear Bomb
than West Admits​

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
November 19, 2007

Independent intelligence, military and scientific circles strongly suspect that Iran is a lot closer to a nuclear bomb than officials in the US, West Europe and Israel are ready to surmise in public. DEBKAfile’s sources report that this suspicion was strengthened by the discoveries made in Syria as a result of the Israeli attack of Sept. 6. Those discoveries led US nuclear experts to three conclusions:


1. If Syria with its relatively meager resources could aspire to a plutonium reactor, then Iran which is flush with oil revenue and has an advanced technological infrastructure must be much farther ahead in the same direction.

2. If Syria could hide its projected construction of a North Korean plutonium reactor for several years, Iran must be assumed to have an already fully-functioning reactor of this type hidden away even longer.

3. Additional data reaching the US and Israel indicate that the boast made by Iranian president Ahmadinejad - and confirmed by the IAEA - that Tehran has 3,000 working centrifuges for uranium enrichment masks the real figure, which most likely tops 5,000 or is even close to 7,000 working machines.​

Therefore, even if the Iranian nuclear industry is preyed by technical setbacks, it will be left with enough functioning machines to produce enough fissile material for at least two bombs a year.

Some intelligence experts expect Iran to spring the news on the world at any time soon of a breakthrough in its program or even a nuclear test. This tactic of announcing a fait accompli was practiced by Pakistan and North Korea, from both of which Iran’s nuclear program has drawn assistance.

The knowledgeable Israeli Air Force Colonel (Res.) Shmuel Gordon informed recipients of a private publication issued last week that, according to his information, Iran may have accumulated enough fissile material for two to four nuclear bombs.

The colonel refers to the small research reactor with “hot cells” which the United States gave to the shah of Iran in 1967 and which has since then been turning out 0.6 kilos of plutonium every year – a minute amount in Western terms, but in 35 years, Gordon points out, it would have processed 21 kilos – enough for two to three bombs.

Although the reactor is under IAEA inspection, there is no reliable information on the disposition of this product.

Col. Gordon provides chapter and verse for his reading of the state of Iran’s nuclear program.

In the past, China sold Iran 1,800 tons of uranium in gaseous and solid form. In January, 2007, after Iranian scientists learned to operate a small number of centrifuges, they began to assemble 3,000 which, says the Israeli officer, can produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb every 330 days.

Fissile material alone does not constitute a bomb. The next steps in the process are technically demanding and costly. In the 1980s, the father of the Pakistan bomb, A. Q. Khan, cashed in on his experience by establishing an international nuclear black market. When the Libyan nuclear program was dismantled two years ago, evidence was found that he had sold Iran detailed instructions with diagrams on how to manufacture a nuclear device and build nuclear warheads for missiles. Some of these documents were released last week to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Israeli colonel points out that while India, Pakistan and North Korea required 15 years of development before attaining a nuclear weapon and a missile for its delivery, Iran has been working on its program more than 15 years and its engineering, technical and technological infrastructure is superior to that of its three Asian predecessors. Iran produces airplanes, missiles and sophisticated ships and armaments. Tehran also has access to assistance from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea.

Two months ago, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the system was working. Tehran has consistently lied about its nuclear program. The truth was extracted only when there was no other choice. Only recently did the nuclear watchdog inspectors confess they had never been allowed to set foot in the underground facility at Natanz and were therefore unable to establish how many centrifuges were installed and when. At the same time, Tehran admitted that it aspires to have the round number of 50,000 centrifuges spinning the uranium gas into nuclear fuel, thereby producing a quantity for making a bomb every 20 days.

Whereas in Western terms, these figures may not be too scary, for Israel, the prospect of Iran’s Mahmud Ahmadinejad having two to four nuclear bombs to play with by spring 2008 is ominous enough to blow over all its security calculations.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1315
 
MCP,

Under "your" definition of lie, does it matter whether the person making the assertion (1) knows or believes the statement to be untrue; and (2) does it matter whether the false or inaccurate statement is issued, uttered or made with the intent to deceive ???

QueEx
 
MCP,

Under "your" definition of lie, does it matter whether the person making the assertion (1) knows or believes the statement to be untrue; and (2) does it matter whether the false or inaccurate statement is issued, uttered or made with the intent to deceive ???

QueEx
:hmm: bruh he knew it was bullshit- thats why he made the cia sit behind him to take the heat when it proved bullshit later on

powell-at-UN-feb03%20tenet%20negroponte-thumb.jpg
 
MCP,

Under "your" definition of lie, does it matter whether the person making the assertion (1) knows or believes the statement to be untrue; and (2) does it matter whether the false or inaccurate statement is issued, uttered or made with the intent to deceive ???

QueEx

The answer to your first question is yes it does matter.

Innocent lives both soldiers and civilians have been lose due to that 'lie. Colin Powell used the guise of outdated and lack of credible intelligence and also to hold up a vial of liquid at the UN to show to the world of the threat Iraq had posed. If he knowingly deceived the UN to sanction military action against Iraq then yes he should be held to account.

To your second question I would answer simply yes again. If you lie to someone and you are found not to be telling the truth, you should be bought to account for your actions....
 
MCP,

Under "your" definition of lie, does it matter whether the person making the assertion (1) knows or believes the statement to be untrue ???
The answer to your first question is yes it does matter.
Good. Do you have any idea whether Colin Powell knew the statements he made were untrue??? If your answer is yes, please provide us with the "Facts" upon which you rely to support that conclusion.


MCP,

Under "your" definition of lie, (2) does it matter whether the false or inaccurate statement is issued, uttered or made with the intent to deceive ???

To your second question I would answer simply yes again.
Good. Do you have any idea whether Colin Powell intended his statements to deceive anyone ??? If your answer is yes, again, please provide us with the "Facts" upon which you base that conclusion.

QueEx
 
:hmm: bruh he knew it was bullshit- thats why he made the cia sit behind him to take the heat when it proved bullshit later on

powell-at-UN-feb03%20tenet%20negroponte-thumb.jpg
I agree in toto that he had George Tenet sit behind at that appearance before the U.N. because the was relying, primarily, upon information supplied by the CIA. But whats your evidence that Powell knew the information supplied by the CIA to be bogus ???

QueEx
 
I agree in toto that he had George Tenet sit behind at that appearance before the U.N. because the was relying, primarily, upon information supplied by the CIA. But whats your evidence that Powell knew the information supplied by the CIA to be bogus ???

QueEx
Read the information that has come out since that event. All of it says Colin thought it was bullshit and had tenet sit behind him so he would not be out there on his own later on.

I dont know how u missed Powell's Aide coming out and telling the media they knew it was bullshit a year berfore the UN episode.

here's a link

The Man Who Knew
Ex-Powell Aide Says Saddam-Weapons Threat Was Overstated

Feb. 4, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml


Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.

The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program.

“Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn’t know what was happening,” says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

The dude is a scumbag and a liar. Scientists told Powell more than a year before that shit couldnt possibly be for nuclear weapons and he went back and lied to the UN. Or was Colin stupid enough to believe Cheney/Bush knew more about nuclear weapons than the experts?
 
Peace,

Why WOULD anyone listen? Isn't this the same cat who famously lied about Iraq having WMD at the UN? Colin Powell has zero credibility.

again....most of the intelligence for the wmd's came from CLINTON'S administration..

Why do everyone wants to forget the "other" president all the fucking time?
 
again....most of the intelligence for the wmd's came from CLINTON'S administration..

Why do everyone wants to forget the "other" president all the fucking time?

youre smoking crack

the main iraqi wmd liar from german intel came after Bush took power
 
Is it ??? Exactly what was that "Lie" ???

QueEx
You can watch the whole thing, which I advise or...skip to the 1:40 mark. Those words were uttered by Powel in the Spring of 2001 - BEFORE the 9/11 attack.

This should help...

Funny, how a year 1/2 later he all of a sudden finds concrete evidence. :hmm: He is lame and so is that sell out Condi.


[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/OjFrezxIMAQ[/FLASH]
 
(1) Makkonen - Sorry, I missed your last reply above. I'll get back soon; Just in after long day and too tired to read a long, serious article.

(2) Nyyyyyce. I'll check out the video (though you could have saved me some time by just saying/typing what it is you want me to see). Thanks for taking the time to respond.

QueEx
 
(1) Makkonen - Sorry, I missed your last reply above. I'll get back soon; Just in after long day and too tired to read a long, serious article.

(2) Nyyyyyce. I'll check out the video (though you could have saved me some time by just saying/typing what it is you want me to see). Thanks for taking the time to respond.

QueEx
Didn't feel like looking for actual text/cut/paste etc. Again, you can watch the whole thing for context OR just fast forward to the 1:40 mark. I tried to make it as easy as possible.
 
(1) Makkonen - Sorry, I missed your last reply above. I'll get back soon; Just in after long day and too tired to read a long, serious article.

(2) Nyyyyyce. I'll check out the video (though you could have saved me some time by just saying/typing what it is you want me to see). Thanks for taking the time to respond.

QueEx
its all good que - i wasnt sure if you were just prompting for more information to get posted and you were already familiar with this or really asking
I cant tell anymore :lol: plus I know you most likely were out of the loop on certain things with the whole Katrina thing etc
 
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose attack on Iran: poll
Dec 6 06:53 AM US/Eastern
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose their country launching on its own a military attack against nuclear installations in arch-foe Iran, said a poll published on Thursday.

When asked "should Israel alone attack the Iranian nuclear installations," 67.2 percent said no, while 20.9 percent said yes and 11.9 percent had no opinion, said the survey aired on public radio.

The poll questioned people after the publication of a bombshell intelligence report in the United States earlier in the week, which said Tehran had frozen its atomic weapons programme in 2003.

Israel has vowed to keep up its diplomatic offensive against Iran's contested nuclear programme despite the report, saying it believes Tehran has probably restarted an atomic weapons programme.

Widely thought to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel considers Iran its top enemy following repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.

Thursday's poll was carried out by Shivuk Panorama marketing group, questioning 562 people, and had a 4.5-percentage point margin of error. `

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071206105342.7v3gyiwa&show_article=1
 
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose attack on Iran: poll
Dec 6 06:53 AM US/Eastern
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose their country launching on its own a military attack against nuclear installations in arch-foe Iran, said a poll published on Thursday.


Of course they oppose an attack by their own country; they know full well all they have to do is push America into doing it. Slick mofos...
 
Last edited:
Whether he lied (which I believe he did) or was merely wrong in his previous assertion...that still results in loss of credibility...I mean even IF we grant that it was a mistake...it was a big ass blunder that cost millions of dollars and lives in the process...

If a doctor makes a mistake on a diagnosis that results in the death of a patient...STILL causes me to not want to seek his diagnosis in the future just as I would have if he lied on a diagnosis...

ya digg
I feel that way you feel that way, but the people who actually run things don't. I am not sure if you saw that Paul Wolfowitz (Iraq war planner & World Bank scandal) just got hired, AGAIN, by Bush, as a government advisor?!?!? The normal state of logic does not apply to them. Which is why we are perpetually F***ed politically.

Colin is positioning himself for something. Credibility makeover, another post - something. That disturbs me.
 
I feel that way you feel that way, but the people who actually run things don't. I am not sure if you saw that Paul Wolfowitz (Iraq war planner & World Bank scandal) just got hired, AGAIN, by Bush, as a government advisor?!?!? The normal state of logic does not apply to them. Which is why we are perpetually F***ed politically.

Colin is positioning himself for something. Credibility makeover, another post - something. That disturbs me.

Things like that dont surprise me in the least...its all about vested interests.

The entire World Bank and IMF...dont let me start...corruption runs rampant in politics...I dont take anything they have to say at face value White or Black...PERIOD.

BUT damn I thought I was cynical :lol: I dont think we're PERPETUALLY fucked...I think naturally the people wise up and regain control...in our lifetime naaaaaaaaaah :lol: but we will surely see improvements even if a smidge...
 
Things like that dont surprise me in the least...its all about vested interests.

The entire World Bank and IMF...dont let me start...corruption runs rampant in politics...I dont take anything they have to say at face value White or Black...PERIOD.

BUT damn I thought I was cynical :lol: I dont think we're PERPETUALLY fucked...I think naturally the people wise up and regain control...in our lifetime naaaaaaaaaah :lol: but we will surely see improvements even if a smidge...
Did you see Bush today talk about Iran and their nuclear program? I am far from cynical. Lead a coup in Iran in 1953, we have invaded Iraq, we have been posturing for war with Iran. Now the NIE stalled talks for a week, but your boy is at it again. I am a realist. But i find it funny that you think i make you look timid in that regard. Cool beans.:D
 
Did you see Bush today talk about Iran and their nuclear program? I am far from cynical. Lead a coup in Iran in 1953, we have invaded Iraq, we have been posturing for war with Iran. Now the NIE stalled talks for a week, but your boy is at it again. I am a realist. But i find it funny that you think i make you look timid in that regard. Cool beans.:D

Yeah its pretty hot actually...

No I've been here grinding studying all day...I can't imagine it was any real 'news' anyways...
 
Yeah its pretty hot actually...

No I've been here grinding studying all day...I can't imagine it was any real 'news' anyways...

no, it was not real news. the usual. being a "realist" i know this NIE will not derail Bush but for so long though.

Bush demands Iran explain nuke program

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday called on Iran to explain why it had a secretive nuclear weapons program, and warned that any such efforts must not be allowed to flourish "for the sake of world peace."


"Iran is dangerous," Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. "We believe Iran had a secret military weapons program, and Iran must explain to the world why they had a program."

Bush's comments came after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that it was "a step forward" that U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Tehran stopped developing its nuclear weapons program four years ago.

Ahmadinejad told reporters that an "entirely different" situation between the United States and Iran could be created if more steps like the intelligence report followed.

"We consider this measure by the U.S. government a positive step. It is a step forward," Ahmadinejad said.

"If one or two other steps are taken, the issues we have in front of us will be entirely different and will lose their complexity, and the way will be open for the resolution of basic issues in the region and in dealings between the two sides," he said.

Iran has said its nuclear program is peaceful, but until last week, the United States and Western allies had countered that Iran was hiding plans for a bomb.

"Iran has an obligation to explain to the IAEA why they hid this program from them," Bush said, referring to the nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Iran is dangerous, and they'll be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium," Bush said. "So I look forward to working with the president," Bush said, referring to Napolitano, the Italian leader, "to explain our strategy and to figure out ways we can work together to prevent this from happening for the sake of world peace."

Bush's comments amounted to a renewed effort to keep pressure on Iran after the release of last week's National Intelligence Estimate. That report found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and administration officials worry it could weaken their ability to build global pressure on Tehran to stop its uranium enrichment program.

That estimate cautioned that Tehran continues to enrich uranium and still could develop a bomb between 2010 and 2015 if it decided to do so.

It also concluded that it may be difficult to ultimately dissuade Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb because Iran believes such a weapon would give it international prestige and leverage to achieve its national security and foreign policy goals, the assessment concluded.

Iran is still enriching uranium for its civilian nuclear reactors that produce electricity. That leaves open the possibility that fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to produce highly enriched uranium for a warhead.

Napolitano said he and Bush broadly "share the same concerns, and we express a common commitment" on a variety of issues.

"We want to discuss, constructively, our positions on all questions in all tracks," he said. "We just want to give our contributions and our ideas on how to face, successfully, all threats, including the very serious threat of nuclear weaponization of Iran."

On Tuesday, diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are to discuss a draft plan for new United Nations sanctions against Iran. If passed by the Security Council, the plan would slap a third round of sanctions on Iran for defying international demands that it halt its enrichment of uranium.

"The agency report and the NIE are before the eyes of the international public opinion," Ahmadinejad said in Tehran on Tuesday. "There is no reason for the continuation of enmities and hostilities. The threats failed, they were not effective.":hmm:...:lol:

Bush took no questions from reporters after his meeting with Napolitano.
 
Yeah he's probably right. He didn't he say the same things about Iraq's WMD's?

But when I think about it-- and being completely honest with myself, I don't really want Iran to have a nuke either. If they did have one and we started seriously fucking with them like airstrikes and stuff I think they'd pull the trigger on the big one.They're a small country and might feel backed into a corner if we started with them. I've got folks on both coasts and in major cities. If he hit NY, DC, Boston we'd lose 1 million+ right out the gate. That is not cool:smh:
 
Yeah he's probably right. He didn't he say the same things about Iraq's WMD's?

But when I think about it-- and being completely honest with myself, I don't really want Iran to have a nuke either. If they did have one and we started seriously fucking with them like airstrikes and stuff I think they'd pull the trigger on the big one.They're a small country and might feel backed into a corner if we started with them. I've got folks on both coasts and in major cities. If he hit NY, DC, Boston we'd lose 1 million+ right out the gate. That is not cool:smh:

THIS is what they want from ya baybay FEAR.
 
Yeah he's probably right. He didn't he say the same things about Iraq's WMD's?

But when I think about it-- and being completely honest with myself, I don't really want Iran to have a nuke either. If they did have one and we started seriously fucking with them like airstrikes and stuff I think they'd pull the trigger on the big one.They're a small country and might feel backed into a corner if we started with them. I've got folks on both coasts and in major cities. If he hit NY, DC, Boston we'd lose 1 million+ right out the gate. That is not cool:smh:

The u.s. government will nuke an American city way before Iran does.
 
Back
Top