Why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...html?gusrc=rss

Guardian Unlimited

George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?

In an extract from his explosive new book, New York Times reporter James Risen reveals the bungles and miscalculations that led to a spectacular intelligence fiasco

moe.ron and tke start erasing this shit.

-Rudey

I say leave it up.

Rudey =\= bush censor

It's difficult to pull off being a social reject on campus as well as being a complete baboon on Greekchat, but you did it. Congrats.

-Rudey

1 - Violates TOS rules re: copywrites (should be linked, not reposted entirely)

2 - Poster does not add own comments

3 - Source is somewhat hilarious in its own right

I don't care if it stays up, but these kinds of threads add to the GC clutter as it is - we should encourage posting of all kinds of articles, but with some . . . content . . . as well?

Here's a BBC article discussing a similar situation (giving Iran the capabilty to create WMD's) in the U.K.:


BBC News
UK Sells Bomb Material to Iran

http://www.officialconfusion.com/Archive/iran/iran.html

Perhaps in the future if you are going to post a link to a BBC story - you might want to actually link to a BBC site...

BBC Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2275249.stm

Bush was sworn in about Jan. 20, 2001.

Any idiot would know that he did not control what the CIA did six years ago, and before he was President.

I think it was Hillary's former husband who was in charge.

...you can dowload the blueprints to build modern nuclear weapons off the internet. I remember looking at that stuff like 9 years ago in high school. There are plenty of indepth explations detailing exactly how to build it.

The problem comes in with getting the plutonium. That is a very difficult process that most nations cannot afford or have the brain power to produce.

I really don't think any president has control over what the CIA does.

Bush or Clinton or maybe just some overpaid CIA intelligence "expert" - I really don't care who it is from an ideological standpoint (I'm not a big fan of Clinton or Bush). But, I would like to know why we continually arm the states and organizations that we eventually deem to be our enemies. I mean... are we so powerful that the only way we can start a fight is to give a country the arms they need to be dangerous to us.

US: Here, take these weapons.

Iran: OK, but we hate you.

US: You all see them - they have WMD's

World Community: where?

US: Over there!

World Community: Oh yeah... I see them

US: Now we have to blow the fuc*ers away.

What militia do you belong to?

-Rudey

Bill Hicks was a stand-up performer and commentator who challenged this type of foreign policy by quoting the movie "Shane".

Jack Palance forces a small farmer to pick up a gun. "Pickitup, pickitup!" The man won't. "Pickitup!" He still won't, he's scared... and he's only in town to buy candy for the kids and a roll of gingham for his wife. Palance commands him: he picks it up. Kapow! Palance blasts him away. "You saw him," says Palance. "He had a gun."


Continuing in jest he would follow with somthing like...
Of course... All the US had to do was look at the receipt, Hicks said. As soon as the check cleared, they'd be goin' in to fight that little country in the name of God, democracy and whoever they currently liked.

His comedy was a little sensationalistic, but the overall message points to some very real problems with this type of foreign policy.


We gave Iran the capability they needed to create WMD's:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2275249.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...html?gusrc=rss

You keep posting this rubbish. Why???

1) The first link is England. Not the US.

2) The second link is to a book review.

3) This book evidently has all sorts of great CIA top secret stories. Either someone in the CIA is leaking all known details from every angle, or it's not accurate.

4) The author, James Risen, put out this book at the same time he wrote an article about the NSA spying on Americans. It's great that he was able to write an article to garner publicity for his book. It's great that James wrote the NSA piece in a negative light, but also admitted he knew about it for over a year and thus controlled the timing of its publication.

5) If you read the "story", the CIA gave them a faulty design that would get them off the weapons tracks. This had been done many times before. It was a Russian Scientist who told the Iranians that there was a problem with his design.

"Merlin was supposed to stunt the development of Tehran's nuclear programme by sending Iran's weapons experts down the wrong technical path. The CIA believed that once the Iranians had the blueprints and studied them, they would believe the designs were usable and so would start to build an atom bomb based on the flawed designs. But Tehran would get a big surprise when its scientists tried to explode their new bomb. Instead of a mushroom cloud, the Iranian scientists would witness a disappointing fizzle. The Iranian nuclear programme would suffer a humiliating setback, and Tehran's goal of becoming a nuclear power would have been delayed by several years. In the meantime, the CIA, by watching Iran's reaction to the blueprints, would have gained a wealth of information about the status of Iran's weapons programme, which has been shrouded in secrecy."


STOP POSTING THIS RUBBISH!

-Rudey

Do a little research... this information is everywhere.


How Iraq built its weapons programs
With a little help from ?:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night..._1_020917.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...678220,00.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Pe...t_its_we.shtml

I don't really care if its the UK or the U.S. arming these states - its a big problem either way.

Stop posting links. Make statements and provide the backing and the source.

And I care if the US gives it or if the UK gives it, because, NEWS FLASH, they are not the same country.

And so you're agreeing that your last post on the book review was rubbish now huh? That's why you dropped it and posted a bunch of random links?

-Rudey

O.K. ... do the research. This information is everywhere... Mainstream Conservative sources, liberal sources, alternative sources - choose your favorite brand- I dont care. There's really no legitamate debate on the issue except among those people who agree or dissagree with the policy of arming otherwise non-threatning states. Some justify the policy by saying the enemy of our enemy is our friend. (remember what hapened with Al Qaeda).

But sadly, it seems that we have merely armed these organizatins and states to the extent that has turned them into enough of a power to allow them to threaten us.

Thus, Bill Hicks' joke... of course we knew they had weapons... we checked the receipt. -




With the Guardian Unlimited story included:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...html?gusrc=rss

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...y_1_020917.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/stor...1678220,00.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/P...lt_its_we.shtml

Stop posting links. Make statements and provide the backing and the source.

And I care if the US gives it or if the UK gives it, because, NEWS FLASH, they are not the same country.

And so you're agreeing that your last post on the book review was rubbish now huh? That's why you dropped it and posted a bunch of random links?

-Rudey

Do you have a problem with what I am saying... Or is it with the various mainstream news reports that agree exactly with what I am saying?

Im curious.

Please check previous posts to see where I have made my assertion on the topic and then cited that assertion with various links. - and of course there's an endless amount of other information on the topic in many other places, if you care to do the research.

You claimed the CIA gave it and provided a link to a book review with a dubious story of the CIA trying to break apart Iran's nuclear program. You also said America gave it and provided a link to Britain.

Since then you keep posting links and nothing more.

You have some strange agenda and obviously can't even think through the things you post.

-Rudey
--Stop posting this rubbish

OK... if the CIA did allow weapons to be sent to Iran (an assertion that came from a credible source in the L.G. article), this would merely be consistant with what has hapened all to frequently throughout modern history. Namely, the US and other countries giving states the capabilty they need to be threatning to the developed world.

Sure... This recent CIA alligation is just that... an alligation - one that would be consistent with our an all too familiar recent history. (I ask again... do you remember the origins of Al Qaeda - hint: when they were fighting the Soviets).

There's really no legitamate debate on the issue except among those people who agree or dissagree with the policy of arming otherwise non-threatning states. Some justify the policy by saying the enemy of our enemy is our friend. (hint: like Al Qaeda)

Do you have a problem with what I am saying... Or is it with the various mainstream news reports that agree exactly with what I am saying?

*Im still curious.......


Again...
Please check previous posts to see where I have made my assertion on the topic and then cited that assertion with various links. - and of course there's an endless amount of other information on the topic in many other places, if you care to do the research.

Again, it's a book review.
Again, the author of the book isn't completely clean.
Again, the "story" can't be verified.
Again, the "story" says the CIA sent a fake bomb to get them to screw up and find out what they know.
Again, the "story" say a Russian Scientist told them the bomb was fake.
Again, the other link had to do with Britain and not us.

So really, do you have a problem with truth, facts, and logic or is it just a need for smear campaigns that drive you?

-Rudey

yeah right... now I understand. lol.

What questions spaz????

It's not just about the verifiable nature of it.

THEY GAVE THEM A FAULTY BOMB TO STOP THEIR RESEARCH AND TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY KNOW SO FAR.

ASIDE FROM THAT YOUR OTHER LINK SAYS BRITAIN GAVE THEM NUKE MATERIALS, NOT THE US

What are you not getting??????? I put it in Caps and bold just for you.

-Rudey

ridiculous

Here are my questions: - apearantly you are not reading what I am posting.

(I ask again... do you remember the origins of Al Qaeda - hint: when they were fighting the Soviets).

There's really no legitamate debate on the issue except among those people who agree or dissagree with the policy of arming otherwise non-threatning states. Some justify the policy by saying the enemy of our enemy is our friend. (hint: like Al Qaeda)

*Also...

Do you have a problem with what I am saying... Or is it with the various mainstream news reports that agree exactly with what I am saying?

*Im still curious.......


Again...
Please check previous posts to see where I have made my assertion on the topic and then cited that assertion with various links. - and of course there's an endless amount of other information on the topic in many other places, if you care to do the research.

Here's the evidence... or just find your own sources - I don't care.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story....html?gusrc=rss

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...y_1_020917.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/stor...1678220,00.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/P...lt_its_we.shtml

There is only one question in here so I have no idea why you used the word "Also". You have either no grasp of the English language or are a NUT JOB.

The only question is if I have a problem with you or the news sources. I would have no problem if you made an argument with claims and evidence.

You made no argument.
Your claims made no sense (ie Britain gave Iran nuke equipment so the CIA did).


What are you not understanding?

Are you married to senlable?

-Rudey

Make an argument and show the evidence with a clear link.

I am not going to go through 45 random links you found for the heck of proving you to have cerebral palsey.

-Rudey

its really simple to understand...

Here's my claim:

The US and the UK continually arm the states and organizations that we eventually deem to be our enemies.



Here's the evidence:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...y_1_020917.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/stor...1678220,00.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/P...lt_its_we.shtml

I left out the London Gaurdian Story because you don't like the alligation involved (however credible),


*IMPORTANT*
Having said that.... that article in NO WAY changes the validity of my claim OR... the validity of the other sources I use... or the thousands of others that are available if you took the time to find them.

You know there are liberal intellectuals that make effective arguments. Paul Krugman could convince you that the world is flat if he wanted to. The New Republic also has a lot of writers like that. Sometimes Daily Kos carries work that isn't rubbish.

At no times do those people create an article with links. That is what you do. I am not going to spend hours reading this just to respond to you. I opened them only to find half of them don't work and the other half are about Iraq. You are obviously out only to post links and spread BS.

As for the issue of arming both sides, it's something every nation has done. Right now, Iran is incredibly advanced in its nuclear technology because of China, Russia, and Pakistan. Those are the nations in the spotlight right now. So stop with the jibberish and go respond to comments on blogs instead of filling a website that isn't receptive to you with your jibberish.

-Rudey

You are giving me a tumor

-Rudey

thats ok ... I understand... I guess its easier not to read the reseach I provided. I appologize.

Again...

Here's my argument:

The US and the UK arm states and organizations that we eventually deem to be our enemies.



and... Here's the evidence:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...y_1_020917.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/stor...1678220,00.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/P...lt_its_we.shtml

Listen, I can't believe how many times I have to repeat this for you.

1) OpEds don't have one line and then provide 20 links. You do that.
2) Half of your links don't work and the other half are about Iraq or other nations.
3) Nations have been providing assistance to other countries since the beginning of time. If you want to talk about WMD, France built the Osirak reactors in Iraq that were bombed by Israeli F16s. EVERY NATION DOES IT.
4) Right now, Iran has achieved most of its success due to China, Russia, Pakistan, and North Korea.
5)www.positive14isretarded.com has also launched.

-Rudey

I did not realize that Opinion Editorials are the only credible source of informtion. I appologize once again.

I apologize to humanity for dealing with you.

You are writing an opinion. OpEds are opinion pieces with arguments and evidence.

You're a suspected terrorist anyway so the NSA is probably watching you.

-Rudey

That's not an argument, silly - it's a historical fact. Here's an argument:

There is nothing implicitly negative with arming states that later are deemed enemies. The inconvenience of fighting a better-armed foe in the future (using present-day technology and weaponry, which may be out of date in the future battle) should be, in an ideal game of intelligence and espianage, more than offset by the strategic gains in the short term present.

Also, considering the raw amount of foreign aid that goes to arms, it would seem that any sort of cost/benefit analysis would indicate that there is a low incidence of allies-turned-future-enemies, and an ABSURDLY low incidence of times those allies-turned-enemies have won the future battle.

I'll spare you the links this time.

I could not agree with you more concerning my first statement ( The US and the UK arm states and organizations that we eventually deem to be our enemies.) as being a fact. But... apparently with Rudey my point is still up for debate, thus I labeled it as an argument... for purposes of conversing with him.

However... I also feel diferently than you (perhaps) in the respect that I don't belive that this policy has been healthy (in many ways) for the developed world, especially the United States.

And... I would like to know why we continually push this policy that would arm these terrorist states.

I understand that sometimes the enemy of our enemy is our friend... but it more than often, it turns out that they both become our enemies... only now they can use the weapons we gave them to fight us.

You have got to be kidding me.

-Rudey