BF2S Forums Iran holds enough uranium for bomb

FEOS wrote:

Actually, it doesn't.

Still waiting for some evidence that Iran are currently refining weapons grade Uranium. OP says they aren't.

Like we have with Pakistan?

Pakistan are currently onside, and I don't suppose the US is happy.

I'd say I've got a damn sight better understanding of what it was about than you.

I sincerely doubt it, unless you can see inside Dick Cheney's head.
Whatever micro-objectives you were given probably have no connection with the macro-objectives.
Since you swallow uncritically anything which comes down the command chain your 'analysis' and conclusions you drew from those micro-objectives are of little value.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-25 22:55:37)

FEOS wrote:

Nobody ever claimed they were currently refining weapons grade uranium.

You did

FEOS wrote:

How many of those countries are refining to weapons grade?

Oh, that's right. Just the last one you listed. (ie Iran)

FEOS wrote:

The problem is that refinement for power and weapons grade is exactly the same...just different timelines.

Process is the same, plants need to be configured differently for maximum efficiency IIRC.

FEOS wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what objectives we were given.

Like I said 'Whatever micro-objectives you were given probably have no connection with the macro-objectives.'

Pretty sure the objectives you were given and the real strategic ones don't line up at all, thats assuming you were really given any.

doesn't really work when the one you attempt to demean knows what they're talking about

LOL

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-03-02 04:13:20)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Nobody ever claimed they were currently refining weapons grade uranium.

You did

FEOS wrote:

How many of those countries are refining to weapons grade?

Oh, that's right. Just the last one you listed. (ie Iran)

And where did they find traces of weapons grade? Oh, that's right. In Iran.

Sorry to keep sticking to reported facts. I'll try to limit that from now on.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The problem is that refinement for power and weapons grade is exactly the same...just different timelines.

Process is the same, plants need to be configured differently for maximum efficiency IIRC.

You don't. It's simply time. Nothing else.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what objectives we were given.

Like I said 'Whatever micro-objectives you were given probably have no connection with the macro-objectives.'

Pretty sure the objectives you were given and the real strategic ones don't line up at all, thats assuming you were really given any.

Like I said before: you have no idea what you're talking about.

But you've never let that stop you before.

Dilbert_X wrote:

doesn't really work when the one you attempt to demean knows what they're talking about

LOL

Glad you find the truth humorous.

FEOS wrote:

You should just stop posting. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what objectives we were given.

We were given what are called "Strategic objectives" by the Administration. From those strategic objectives operational-level objectives, which then led to tactical tasks for the weapon system I was planning for. All tied back to those strategic objectives handed down from Washington. None of which involved taking Iraq's oil for Halliburton or any of the other nutter conspiracy theories you come up with. All of which involved rapidly securing suspected WMD sites and minimizing casualties on all sides (military and civilian, Coalition and Iraqi).

If the aim was to secure the WMD sites then why was a lot of the looting of WMD sites atributed to a failure to task military units to secure the sites?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/inter … .html?_r=1
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/ … acekeeping

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And where did they find traces of weapons grade? Oh, that's right. In Iran.

Need something to back that up.

And you need to read the links already provided.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You don't. It's simply time. Nothing else.

And a different system configuration, as noted in the OP.

As noted in multiple links provided, it is not a different configuration...it is simply more centrifuges running for longer. Same technology as they have now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Like I said before: you have no idea what you're talking about.

Unless you were in the oval office you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Its crystal clear the 'objectives' weren't objectives at all, since there was no actual plan to achieve the publicly stated objectives.

Perhaps you should read what you just posted the next time you claim that there were motives other than those publicly stated.

I know the strategic objectives we were given. I know the operational objectives and tactical tasks that were derived from those. That is what was executed. If there were other strategic objectives that weren't provided, there was no way for them to be carried out, as all the planning was done based on the strategic objectives provided. Your argument is nonsensical. And completely typical.

PF wrote:

If the aim was to secure the WMD sites then why was a lot of the looting of WMD sites atributed to a failure to task military units to secure the sites?

That was fairly well documented: Not enough forces to secure the sites and continue to search other sites. So, when sites were found that didn't have WMD, they were abandoned and the forces moved on to other sites. The aim was to secure the WMD...not the sites (I hope you grasp the distinction between the two).

Yes, leaving sites (suspected WMD or otherwise) unsecured came back to bite everyone in the ass...Gen Shinseki was fairly prescient on the issue of required numbers of troops.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ah whatever, the 'intel' on Iraq turned out to be entirely fabricated, no doubt the 'intel' on Iran will turn out to be fabricated.

No, it didn't. You can't prove any intel was "fabricated". All you can point to is intel that turned out to be wrong. That is a far, far, cry from being "fabricated".

Dilbert_X wrote:

I think FEOS' error is to assume he's important enough to be told anything of importance.

And your error is to assume that I wasn't told anything of importance.

I know for a fact that I wasn't told everything...but I certainly was told (and developed) a lot. Certainly enough to know what the overarching objectives were, the intel supporting targeting decisions and courses of action, and a lot of other things that you wouldn't have the first clue about. But please do continue to tell me what really happened. I'm always up for some good, inventive fiction to pass the time.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I know the strategic objectives we were given.

You're assuming the objectives you were given were the same as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfelds actual objectives.

That's all one can do. As I pointed out before (and you conveniently chose not to quote and respond to), the only objectives that were planned for were the ones we were given. If they had other objectives, there was no way for them to be acted upon if they didn't give them to anyone. So the argument that they had separate objectives that they hid from everyone else is nonsensical. If they hid them from everyone else, then there is no way they could have been acted upon, no way they could have been achieved...and therefore, were not true objectives.

I actually did see each and every strategic and operational objective. I had to, in order to figure out how the capability I was working with could best support the overall plan.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes, leaving sites (suspected WMD or otherwise) unsecured came back to bite everyone in the ass...Gen Shinseki was fairly prescient on the issue of required numbers of troops.

So why was his expert opinion overruled?

Because Rumsfeld was a douche.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why weren't the sites secured and equipment supposedly suited for making WMD allowed to be stolen?

Poor assumptions from Rumsfeld the douche. Remember, the Iraqis were supposed to welcome us with open arms...an assumption from Rumsfeld (actually Feith...another world-class douce) that, despite being questioned at the highest levels (Gen Franks and all the Joint Chiefs), was adhered to by the Administration. Not something you can get around.

And I already explained why the sites weren't secured.

Dilbert_X wrote:

All you can point to is intel that turned out to be wrong.

I can point to a total absence of solid intel, a good deal of weak and contradictory intel, a fair bit of fabricated intel and totally faulty conclusions drawn from this and presented as cast iron fact.

No, you can't. Only with the benefit of hindsight can you go back, ignore the context of the actual moment, and point fingers. At the time, there was little doubt that the understood situation was accurate...even France.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I know for a fact that I wasn't told everything

For once you're right
There is a big difference between military objectives and political objectives, pretty sure you only saw part of half of it.

But there is no difference between national strategic objectives and political objectives. They are one and the same. The military objectives are derived from those. As are the diplomatic objectives. And the economic objectives. And the informational objectives. Those would be the four elements of national power, all operating from the same set of national strategic objectives. That's basic unity of effort.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If they had other objectives, there was no way for them to be acted upon if they didn't give them to anyone.

Incorrect, they just gave you objectives which also had the result of achieving their real objectives.

Objective given to you:
Go bomb the crap out of Iraq, destroy their infrastructure, disrupt their ability to fight back, surveil the place for WMD.

Objective as given to the public:
Prevent Saddam giving WMD to AQ

Actual objective:
Look big on TV, distract attention from Afghanistan, acheive PNAC objective of fucking up the ME and making sure everyone there is scared shitless of having Operation Iraqi Freedom done to them with many thousands of tonnes of high explosive.

See how politics works yet?

Based on the tripe you wrote above, I've got a much better idea of how politics (and military operations) work than you will ever have.

What utter nonsense.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because Rumsfeld was a douche.

You say dimwitted clowns were in charge, I say evil scumbags, lets split it down the middle and call them evil clowns.

I don't equate incompetence to evil. I equate it to incompetence. You're simply projecting.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But there is no difference between national strategic objectives and political objectives.

There damn well is when you elect people who aren't patriots.

No, there isn't. And how do you know those men weren't patriots? Who the fuck are you to judge their inner thoughts and motivations--of which you have zero insight? I believe someone on this very thread mentioned something about "if you weren't in the Oval Office at the time, you have no idea what their real motivations were" or words to that effect.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What utter nonsense.

You're not familiar with how politicians work.

No. I just work in the Pentagon. With politicians. How could I possibly have any idea how politicians work?

I'm sure someone who lives in Australia and works in industry has a much better understanding of how American politicians work than an American who works with American politicians.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't equate incompetence to evil. I equate it to incompetence.

Its hard to believe someone could rise to such high positions, in multiple administrations, be a feted CEO of multiple technology companies and make many millions of dollars for themselves if they were incompetent.

Incompetence is situational.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even the average dunce would think twice about overruling his senior military advisors.
Either Rumsfeld was a halfwit, unlikely - see above - or he had some other agenda.

His agenda was that he thought he was smarter than his senior military advisors. Period. He was an arrogant incompetent.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, there isn't. And how do you know those men weren't patriots?

I'm going on their public actions, taking their country into two wars unconnected with US security but very expensive in lives and money and highly lucrative for the people pressing for them.

That's some dandy revisionist history right there. Suddenly Afghanistan has nothing to do with US security. Unfuckingbelievable.

Highly lucrative for the people pressing for them? Please show where those companies making money off of Iraq right now lobbied for war. Please. I'd love to see it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So if it's not in that article, it doesn't exist? Have you been living under a rock for the past five or so years?

Where is the evidence that it does? Facts not emotion plz.

Iran has been offered international assistance in getting a power-grade program up and running. They have refused. Why?

Same reasons everyone else wants their own nuclear program.

Security of energy supply
Moving up the value chain
So they can sell more of their oil
Ability to make bombs if they want to - as everyone else is apparently entitled to do except them.

If Israel can have nuclear energy and keep a nuclear arsenal there is no reason why Iran shouldn't, Iran more so really.

Maybe because they made public their wish that Israel is whiped off the face of Earth.     Gee uhhhhh wish to destroy another country + nuclear power (bomb) = No more Jews



You idiot it's only obvious they're gona use it. FFS are you that blind or do you just hate Israel?

Last edited by Bradt3hleader (2009-03-04 04:32:30)

Shahter wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So if it's not in that article, it doesn't exist? Have you been living under a rock for the past five or so years?

Where is the evidence that it does? Facts not emotion plz.

Same reasons everyone else wants their own nuclear program.

Security of energy supply
Moving up the value chain
So they can sell more of their oil
Ability to make bombs if they want to - as everyone else is apparently entitled to do except them.

If Israel can have nuclear energy and keep a nuclear arsenal there is no reason why Iran shouldn't, Iran more so really.

Maybe because they made public their wish that Israel is whiped off the face of Earth.     Gee uhhhhh wish to destroy another country + nuclear power (bomb) = No more Jews



You idiot it's only obvious they're gona use it. FFS are you that blind or do you just hate Israel?

orly? soviets made it so abundantly "public" that they wanted to nuke usa and they actually could, but you they are still there, as "free" and "brave" as ever. so, tell me, what's so different with iran today?

edit: ah, oops, you are swiss .

OMFG using the Swiss thing again eh???

I'M AMERICAN DAMN IT I'M AMERICAN HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?? (guess I'm not very well known on these forums...)

I've got duel citizenship but I currently live here so hence "Location" is Switzerland. Does that mean I'm ignorant and don't know what's going on in my country just because it's some few thousand miles away? FFS

Macbeth wrote:

sorry, nothing personal, I just had to.

Yeah ok sorry but people often use that against me and it gets annoying.

BTW I don't get mad on the internet I just like to CAP things so the guys with large E-dicks with STFU

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No. I just work in the Pentagon. With politicians. How could I possibly have any idea how politicians work?

You swallow whatever they say as gospel truth, thats the problem.

Again you prove just how little you know and just how selective your memory actually is.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Incompetence is situational.

No it isn't, anyway, Rumsfeld proved his competence in multiple situations, how could he, Cheney and Dubya suddenly choose to fuck up so badly in the face of all the expert advice.

Incompetence isn't situational? Really?

Is a surgeon a competent engineer? Or vice versa? That is an example of situational incompetence.

One can be very successful in business and completely fall flat in government. That's another example of situational incompetence.

Rumsfeld was one of the worst SECDEFs we've had in quite some time. He was incompetent on many levels. POTUS takes advice from his SECDEF and CJCS on military matters. Incompetent SECDEF=poor advice. Pretty simple...unless you're into ridiculously complex and unproveable tinfoil-hat conspiracies. In which case, you will never accept more realistic and plausible explanations. Like now, for instance.

Dilbert_X wrote:

He was an arrogant incompetent.

With an agenda.

Every person with an opinion has an agenda.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Suddenly Afghanistan has nothing to do with US security.

It never did, it was Saudis who attacked the US, not Afghans.

Saudis, Jordanians, and others made up the hijackers. It wasn't Saudi Arabia that allowed AQ to train in their country. It wasn't Saudi that provided sanctuary for AQ. And it wasn't Saudi that refused to turn OBL over when 9/11 happened. That was Afghanistan...the Taliban, to be specific.

So, to explain the utterly obvious for you: the Afghanistan War had (and still has) everything to do with US security.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Please show where those companies making money off of Iraq right now lobbied for war. Please. I'd love to see it.

You know who this guy is right?
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … cheney.jpg
You might want to read his bio.

I'm fully aware of his bio. Where did any company he was involved with lobby Congress to give Bush authority to invade Iraq? Go ahead. I'll wait.