Poll

Who Is Fulla Shit?

Fox66%66% - 42
Cnn33%33% - 21
Total: 63
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7067|Dallas
Two very biased articles on the subject of Iran:

CNN wrote:

WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produced enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion.

"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is strictly aimed at producing electricity, and the country has refused the U.N. Security Council's demand to halt its enrichment program.

FOX wrote:

WASHINGTON —  Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure, but is continuing to enrich uranium and could be capable of developing a weapon as early as late 2009, the U.S. intelligence community has concluded.

The "high confidence" conclusion was revealed in a declassified portion of a national intelligence estimate released Monday.

The new intelligence estimate "confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem," National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said in a written statement.

The findings are a change from two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran was determined to develop a nuclear capability and was continuing its weapons development program.
OK.........I officially hate the media in America.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6302|...
I can't choose they're both full of shit

give me a break who the hell wrote those articles and where did he get the information.

I choose CNN because they were actually able to write more about this.

Last edited by dayarath (2007-12-03 11:03:41)

inane little opines
David.P
Banned
+649|6577
Null but prepare for all the fox hate from cam and his leftie brigade.
suomalainen_äijä
Member
+64|6468
I rarely watch both
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|7020|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX
I'm going with they're both full of shit, and the truth is closer to the middle of the two.  And here's the Associated Press' (through Yahoo!) version of the article.  Seems to make a bit more sense than either of these two.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_ … an_nuclear

Not saying that this is the right one, just the one that seems to make more sense that the two offered.

Edit: you really should have put a both option...

Last edited by mcgid1 (2007-12-03 11:09:40)

mikeyb118
Evil Overlord
+76|6901|S.C.
According to the beeb... Similar report to CNN, So I vote Fox.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6302|...

mcgid1 wrote:

I'm going with they're both full of shit, and the truth is closer to the middle of the two.  And here's the Associated Press' (through Yahoo!) version of the article.  Seems to make a bit more sense than either of these two.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_ … an_nuclear

Not saying that this is the right one, just the one that seems to make more sense that the two offered.

Edit: you really should have put a both option...
Indeed that makes alot more sense but they are digging for uranium at a very high pace on industrial levels, I would estimate the time they would need for nukes alot shorter.
inane little opines
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

Well, here is the de-classified portion of the NIE report.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/03/iran.nie.pdf

Some key excerpts:
(all emphasis added by me)
This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.

This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran’s senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. We acknowledge the potential for these to change during the time frame of the Estimate, but are unable to confidently predict such changes or their implications. This Estimate does not assess how Iran may conduct future negotiations with the West on the nuclear issue.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.
Sorry for the amount of quotes, but it is necessary for the many automatons here feeling the need to express their thoughts with hyperbole and rhetoric instead of logic and fact.

I guess I am going to go with the idea that media outlets tend to spin stories in a way that promotes their agenda and perhaps allows them to increase ratings among the demographic they target.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-03 11:20:38)

mcgid1
Meh...
+129|7020|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Well, here is the de-classified portion of the NIE report.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/03/iran.nie.pdf

Some key excerpts:
(all emphasis added by me)
This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.

This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran’s senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. We acknowledge the potential for these to change during the time frame of the Estimate, but are unable to confidently predict such changes or their implications. This Estimate does not assess how Iran may conduct future negotiations with the West on the nuclear issue.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.
Sorry for the amount of quotes, but it is necessary for the many automatons here feeling the need to express their thoughts with hyperbole and rhetoric instead of logic and fact.

I guess I am going to go with the idea that media outlets tend to spin stories in a way that promotes their agenda and perhaps allows them to increase ratings among the demographic they target.
Great post, and it helps that the quotes the media chose to pull now have some real context with them.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6853|CH/BR - in UK

BBC rules!

The worst was the program I saw on CNN called "Is being gay immoral?"

-konfusion
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7018|US
Both!

Fox likes to slant one way, CNN the other.
Unless it is some topic that benefits news media in general--then the are biased the same way!
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6881|Columbus, OH
I don't trust the News entirely.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6947
Iraq taught me not to trust the news media since 2004
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Here is the NIE report from 2003.

https://i18.tinypic.com/6ug3biw.png

https://i5.tinypic.com/72rkx1g.png

https://i11.tinypic.com/80x1380.png

Edit: Der.. Ken pretty much posted the same. That's what happens when you don't refresh the page before you post.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6648|Twyford, UK
Fox are full of shit. CNN is just full of spyware.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

dayarath wrote:

mcgid1 wrote:

I'm going with they're both full of shit, and the truth is closer to the middle of the two.  And here's the Associated Press' (through Yahoo!) version of the article.  Seems to make a bit more sense than either of these two.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_ … an_nuclear

Not saying that this is the right one, just the one that seems to make more sense that the two offered.

Edit: you really should have put a both option...
Indeed that makes alot more sense but they are digging for uranium at a very high pace on industrial levels, I would estimate the time they would need for nukes alot shorter.
Why?

Oh and for the record, the only reason the CIA is confident of Iran being able to manufacture nukes is because the USA trained their scientists in the enrichment, powerplant and bomb-building processes.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6828|South Florida
Communist News Network (CNN)
15 more years! 15 more years!
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|7023|California

Mitch wrote:

Communist News Network (CNN)
Far from it, tbh.

Wheres the option C, as in all American Media is bullshit?
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6783|Somewhere else

stryyker wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Communist News Network (CNN)
Far from it, tbh.

Wheres the option C, as in all American Media is bullshit?
Exactly.   I wonder what the hell happened really.  Fox is obviously fucked from Rupert Goebbels- I mean Murdoch.

Then CNN comes around to try to counter balance, only to shovel up a pile of its own Bullshit.

Iran is under pressure the U.S. is going to invade, partially under false pretenses (as US policy dictates).  I think, in that situation, I would, as Iran, want a nuclear deterrent, something to say "fuck you, keep out".  I see thier arguement, and thier reasons.

But I don't think Iran is some unlocky recipient of U.S. Badgering.  Summing up that situation, well, since no one, group or nation can, is difficult,  But it doesn't help when the ignorant masses listen to one-sided propaganda for thier answers.

It just takes too much effort to actually search for the truth, I'll just obey and accept what you give me, what ever you can give me in the time between Dancing with the Stars and American Idol, because, really, I have important things like the Idol winner to worry about, not silly global politics.

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2007-12-03 13:33:57)

Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

An Australian has destroyed the American media. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6947
Paul Hogan
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7067|Dallas

Mitch wrote:

Communist News Network (CNN)
Ohh, HAHAHA YOU IS SO CLEVERS.

No.

Shut the hell up and GTFO.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina
I didn't bother voting on this one.  I just hope this news dashes any warring hopes the hawks have for Iran.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6858
Well Fox actually printed incorrect information with their 'late 2009' claim so I guess it's Fox.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Paul Hogan
Well yeah him too. I meant Murdoch though.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard