All bets are off?
 

Dose this mean there will be no war? Or is there a bigger picture that we have yet to see.

The headline should read;

The US people appear "less determined" to invade Iran than previously thought, US intelligence officials finally concluded.

Primary source:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Haha, I would be surprised if that didn't have some truth in it.

I wonder how much public intelligence reports are "sensitive to public opinion".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Who about this headline?

Bush will let the next President deal with Iran

Wasn't this discussed in the "Enemy Within" thread? lol

What were the assesments from the US allies during the same period? I guess we'll never know will we?

Which Allies? :hmm:

Seems that the newly promised evening war reality-show is taken out of the program or is it only postponed due to lack of funding? :dead:

You know the axis of weasels. Example: Germany is Iran's largest trading partner.

I should imagine it's more a case of: 'Our analysts inform us that Iran appears more capable of shooting back at us than we initially imagined, and that's definitely a vote loser, so we'll shelve that idea, although we are still on the lookout for a suitable enemy armed with nothing more sophisticated than pointed sticks, but with large oil reserves - once we find somewhere that fits both these criteria, we'll be in business' :rotfl:

:D Chock

Shame on you....but I like it :rotfl:

How can you be sure the other guy appears no longer to desire a nuclear weapon just so he can continue to build it without a spot-light in his face?

As I said throughout the past 18 months: if you want them make to stop by military force, you will need nukes to really shut down any existing program with it's key componentns hidden deep inside mountains, and the surface. And if you want to use nukes, you need undoubtable evidence and proof in advance, not after the war.

So either they see no chance to get the public behind using nukes, or they have no real substantial evidence to legitimate that option, or both. I think the last is the valid option, since even if there would be solid evidence confirmed by non-american sources - the western public and the american public still would not forgive the first-use of nukes.

However, the situation is far from harmless, and I personally think Iran seeks nukes indeed. It's the only reasonable and realistic option for them, politicially, and I even must not go into any ideological discussions for concluding that.

If you want to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, we must attack Iran with nuclear weapons.
Because only with nuclear weapons can we halt the evil spread of nuclear weapons. Nothing kills the desire for nuclear weapons like being attacked with them.
Of course, if we can't see any building project, then it must be hidden inside a mountain. Nuke the mountains.
Who said politics isn't funny?

Waste gate - China and Japan are Iran's largest export & investment partners.