Woah, you are shifting your argument.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:40 amMDlax. You're a smart man: there is zero chance you don't understand that your logic is based on a foundation of sand.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:34 amNo, I’m not expert enough or informed enough to know with high confidence that they are precisely accurate. I also have no basis to assume that they are flat wrong much less that they are just making it up out of whole cloth.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:04 amIt's NOT an error, my friend: this intel put a gun to Obama's head and the rest of the countries who signed the JCPOA almost a decade ago.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 10:00 am Sheesh, they have never said that ‘Iran Will produce a bomb in X months’, they have only said how close, how capable, they are IF they decide to do so.
I just don’t understand why you are being dense about that.
There’s lots to critique about IC but your logic is just flat wrong. You’re usually much more clear eyed as well as willing to admit an error.
So now that we did that, and Trump pulled out of it now four years ago, the gun is back from US intel.
And you're telling me.... politely..... that I'm stupid if I question the 2015 and 2024 Intel, and call both suspect.
i don't believe the intel was or is accurate, making it hard to know what to do next.
You DO think the 2015 and 2024 intel is accurate for reasons that I can assure you that you can't explain with logic.
I also wouldn’t have any basis to assume you don’t have accurate insights on spirits…
I am not objecting to generalized skepticism, I’m just objecting to the specious logic you asserted, that because they didn’t produce a bomb that meant the time to breakout assessment proved false. And that the current assessment is also wrong. Nope, really bad logic.
How do you know that the 2015 Intel was good? You don't. How do you know that the 2024 intel is good? You don't.
My logic is based on: it's been ten year since the original US intel assessment. That's a long time to not build a bomb. It's REASONABLE to assume that either their will or their ability to build one wasn't there back in 2015 when the initial Intel assessment was made. Sorry, but this is logically sound.
It's POSSIBLE that the JCPOA worked, yes. Very possible. But then you have to ask: what changed that they're working on a bomb again if the JCPOA worked?
Of course they decided to not build the weapon. It’s flat ridiculous to suggest they could not if they decided to do so.
The IC Never said they intended to do so, just that they had taken some of the necessary steps.
Your link is pretty darn clear on this.
It’s work that takes time to accomplish, but the steps are well known and they have the talent pool and access necessary.
I’m not arguing as to whether the deal altered a prior intention or whether leaving the deal caused another change in intention.
Just that claiming that the intel was necessarily not accurate because they didn’t build a weapon is entirely specious. You want to be skeptical, fine, just don’t claim proof that is so obviously bad logic.