Politics > Politics-USA > Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"can_o_worms" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2006 11:10:03 AM |
| Object: |
Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?
According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of
the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:
http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President *****
Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in
response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more
than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of
Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several
senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is
being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared
to damage his career by posing any objections.
Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up? Especially considering that
several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites are in the middle of Tehran? So does this mean we are going to
nuke the capital of Iran? And in this case would we parachute in
exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial
administration? What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our
decision?
I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to
nuke Tehran if another 9/11." Can we get at least a bloody story out
of this? Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran
is over my breathlessness threshold. As if we needed another reason
to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...
The current issue of TAC also includes a sharp article by Christopher
Layne, arguing that, while failure is pretty much a fait accompli in
Iraq, there's failure and then there's failure. Getting out sooner,
as Layne argues, would make failure less detrimental to America.
Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, TAC's a pretty interesting mag,
particularly when compared to its intra-right-wing competition. I
mean, honestly, how much do we really need another Sufi partisan
article by Stephen Schwartz or another "Aha! NOW I've found The
Connection!" article by Stephen Hayes?
http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html
This article linked from: antiwar.com
(as are many posts seen in this NG)
--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science
STEPHEN M. WALT
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
.
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
08 Apr 2006 06:12:05 PM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up? Especially considering that
several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites are in the middle of Tehran? So does this mean we are going to
nuke the capital of Iran?
If we are attacked again, that is exactly what should happen, and
without delay.
And in this case would we parachute in
exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial
administration?
Why would we need to? There won't be anything left to govern and their
oil would be useless!
What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our
decision?
On the decision? nothing. On the rest of region? Depends on which
nuclear weapons are used, some are dirtier and heavier, others, more
modern weapons, lighter and less dirty if there is such a thing.
I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to
nuke Tehran if another 9/11." Can we get at least a bloody story out
of this?
What, you think a story about this will stop it? Most Americans agree
with it.
Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran
is over my breathlessness threshold.
Well don't worry too much about it. First, I doubt it would take a nuke
as we have plenty of very large bombs that would probably do the trick
if modified and delivered properly.Second, They are testing bombs that
can do as much damage as nuclear weapons on a small scale but are
conventional as we speak in the Nevada test range. This was announced
just last week. Also, If nuclear weapons were used, it wouldn't take
large nuclear weapons of the type you fear to do the job.
As if we needed another reason
to hope there's not a terrorist attack on the U.S...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
10 Apr 2006 03:14:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:12:05 -0500, nightwind wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
Umm, could the Emm Ess Emm pick this up? Especially considering that
several of the hardened suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites are in the middle of Tehran? So does this mean we are going to
nuke the capital of Iran?
If we are attacked again, that is exactly what should happen, and
without delay.
Oh? Let's assume that Osama really did the 9/11 trick all by his
lonesome. Let's also assume that he does it again. Now, why should
America attack Iran?
And in this case would we parachute in
exiles to run the place afterward, or attempt a colonial
administration?
Why would we need to? There won't be anything left to govern and their
oil would be useless!
Uhm, a few nukes wouldn't harm their oil a bit. That enormous reserve of
oil would then be fought over by all the world powers in the absence of
any local government.
What effect would the radioactive fallout have on our
decision?
On the decision? nothing. On the rest of region? Depends on which
nuclear weapons are used, some are dirtier and heavier, others, more
modern weapons, lighter and less dirty if there is such a thing.
I mean, surely the NYT and WaPo can find a lede here: "US has plan to
nuke Tehran if another 9/11." Can we get at least a bloody story out
of this?
What, you think a story about this will stop it? Most Americans agree
with it.
Really? Have you seen a poll that I haven't? If so I'd like to see your
cite for this is very difficult to believe even with the fools that voted
in the likes of Bush.
Sorry to sound breathless, but the prospect of nuking Tehran
is over my breathlessness threshold.
Well don't worry too much about it. First, I doubt it would take a nuke
as we have plenty of very large bombs that would probably do the trick
if modified and delivered properly.Second, They are testing bombs that
can do as much damage as nuclear weapons on a small scale but are
conventional as we speak in the Nevada test range. This was announced
just last week. Also, If nuclear weapons were used, it wouldn't take
large nuclear weapons of the type you fear to do the job.
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
As if we needed another reason
Yes, you need a very strong reason to wage war.
Duh.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 PM |
|
|
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same. In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq. They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
10 Apr 2006 09:11:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind <nightwind65@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same.
So you think Iraq and Iran gave marching orders to Osama Bin Laden ?
In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq.
They are funding pols in Iraq as are we. That's really about what
we've got on 'em in Iraq so far.......sort of like how Israel's lobby
does here in order to oppose anyone who opposes them in DC.
General Pace hasn't backed up Rumsfeld on those conjectures
concerning aid to insurgents although Franks used to somewhat.
They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Well you can count on all the Hicks in Israel's amen corner to be
all for it alright and that is a hell of a lot of people. They're
waiting for their talking point scare stories to buy into as we speak.
Congress is certainly gung ho on the idea.......as long as they
don't have to take responsibility for the ultimate decision with the
constitutionally required declaration of war.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/hersh-joint-chiefs-opposed-to-iran-nuke-attack-members-of-congress-gung-ho/
Or a more cost effective way to do that would be (whenever we are
able to bail our people out of predictably largely pro-Iranian leaning
Iraq) : We could just let the Israelis have at that preemptive strike
that they keep threatening to beat us to the task with.......But with
their souped up Mirages......not our F-18s....... Appearances you
know. After all, it is their neighborhood.......Got to consider the
U.S. citizenry first.....don't you think?
If we are using Israel as Noam Chomsky argues (but not with
anyone in a debate) ......That would be a natural !
--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science
Stephen M. Walt
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
11 Apr 2006 02:08:54 PM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind <nightwind65@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same.
So you think Iraq and Iran gave marching orders to Osama Bin Laden ?
Nope, But I think they were and are respectively a threat to our
security. I do think that Iraq was involved with Osama, and verified
according to his own documentation (i.e. Captured intelligence). But the
fact that Sadaam was paying suicide bombers to go and blow themselve up
tells me he was all for terrorism, at the very least, whether directly
involved or not.
In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq.
They are funding pols in Iraq as are we. That's really about what
we've got on 'em in Iraq so far.......sort of like how Israel's lobby
does here in order to oppose anyone who opposes them in DC.
It is my understanding they are at the very least providing technical
support to the terrorists, and probably weapons too, explosives and
such, maybe even manpower as well. If this is really true then, in my
opinion, let them have it without delay!
General Pace hasn't backed up Rumsfeld on those conjectures
concerning aid to insurgents although Franks used to somewhat.
You call them insurgents. Lets clarify that some. You mean baathists,
right? I am pretty sure that is who we are fighting for the most part.
They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Well you can count on all the Hicks in Israel's amen corner to be
all for it alright and that is a hell of a lot of people. They're
waiting for their talking point scare stories to buy into as we speak.
Congress is certainly gung ho on the idea.......as long as they
don't have to take responsibility for the ultimate decision with the
constitutionally required declaration of war.
Cowards is what they are without a doubt. They can't even agree on how
to control our own borders, afraid to take a real stand on anything
politically risky. There are a few who will, but the senate is as
worthless a body as I have ever seen!
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/hersh-joint-chiefs-opposed-to-iran-nuke-attack-members-of-congress-gung-ho/
Or a more cost effective way to do that would be (whenever we are
able to bail our people out of predictably largely pro-Iranian leaning
Iraq) : We could just let the Israelis have at that preemptive strike
that they keep threatening to beat us to the task with.......But with
their souped up Mirages......not our F-18s....... Appearances you
know. After all, it is their neighborhood.......Got to consider the
U.S. citizenry first.....don't you think?
Well, it would seem to me to be the better way, but however it gets
done, it needs to be done, and if nobody else will, then it is going to
be up to us. The last thing I want to see is islamists with nuclear
weapons.
If we are using Israel as Noam Chomsky argues (but not with
anyone in a debate) ......That would be a natural !
--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science
Stephen M. Walt
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 08:05:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:08:54 -0500, nightwind <nightwind65@yahoo.com>
wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind <nightwind65@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same.
So you think Iraq and Iran gave marching orders to Osama Bin Laden ?
Nope, But I think they were and are respectively a threat to our
security. I do think that Iraq was involved with Osama, and verified
according to his own documentation (i.e. Captured intelligence). But the
fact that Sadaam was paying suicide bombers to go and blow themselve up
tells me he was all for terrorism, at the very least, whether directly
involved or not.
Well there was correspondence alright but former CIA director James
Woolsey's claim of a more substantive mid-90s relationship just didn't
prove to be the case according to the 9-11 commision. (neoCON
fellow traveler Woolsey was also a lobbyist for Israel at one time)
Even Bush gave up the argument on that one.
In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq.
They are funding pols in Iraq as are we. That's really about what
we've got on 'em in Iraq so far.......sort of like how Israel's lobby
does here in order to oppose anyone who opposes them in DC.
It is my understanding they are at the very least providing technical
support to the terrorists, and probably weapons too, explosives and
such, maybe even manpower as well. If this is really true then, in my
opinion, let them have it without delay!
General Pace hasn't backed up Rumsfeld on those conjectures
concerning aid to insurgents although Franks used to somewhat.
You call them insurgents. Lets clarify that some. You mean baathists,
right? I am pretty sure that is who we are fighting for the most part.
Well I've heard conjectures regarding both Baathist and Sadr's boys
from both U.S. and British Military spokesmen but no one has yet
come up with solid evidence yet.
It wouldn't make sense for them to fund Baathist and generic
Sunni insurgents or foreign terrorists since their goal is a
pro-Iranian Shia dominated Iraq. I don't find conjectures of
that sort to be remotely credible yet.
Now when it comes to sponsorship of Shia militias (some of who
have worked with U.S. forces in counter-insurgency operations)
things get much more suspect. Many of the early Sunni victims
of Shia death squads were Baathist former pilots in Saddam's
regime and their names apparently were obtained from the list
of pilots who ferried aircraft to Iran during Operation Desert Sheild.
Iran already had some sort of influence with the Badr militia when
we invaded and they are now affiliated with the pro-Iran "Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" (SCIRI) which is the dominant
political party now......To make it messier: We may have trained
the policemen acting also as anti Sunni death squads. There are
also criminals and terrorists operating in police uniforms on the
loose in Iraq and no one is ever sure which is which.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1175055,00.html
Sadr's coalition actually campaigned as an anti Iran force in the
last election but pandering to anti Iran nationalism doesn't
necessarily mean he wouldn't take a handout or two from Iran.
Sadr's militia does have friction with the overtly pro-Iran Badr
militia and they might well be at war if not for the troubles with the
Sunni.............Do we have a headache yet?
They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Well you can count on all the Hicks in Israel's amen corner to be
all for it alright and that is a hell of a lot of people. They're
waiting for their talking point scare stories to buy into as we speak.
Congress is certainly gung ho on the idea.......as long as they
don't have to take responsibility for the ultimate decision with the
constitutionally required declaration of war.
Cowards is what they are without a doubt. They can't even agree on how
to control our own borders, afraid to take a real stand on anything
politically risky. There are a few who will, but the senate is as
worthless a body as I have ever seen!
I can't argue with any of that and wish the Libertarian party would
stop pandering to illegals. Hell that position is already taken
overtly by Democrats. I was with Buchanan through the '90s on
the immigration issue but no one was listening until the demographics
made it almost impossible to take the issue on substantively as
concerns illegals already in the country.
Perhaps your present efforts will get them to put the necassary
resources on the border anyway but the pols will need to be
watched on this.....most notably: whoever is President since he
has the final say on Federal Border Patrol resources and Bush
has refused to allocate what Congress has called for in the last
legislation that Congress wrote (sorry....no link cause I lost it)
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans."
Theodore Roosevelt
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/08/hersh-joint-chiefs-opposed-to-iran-nuke-attack-members-of-congress-gung-ho/
Or a more cost effective way to do that would be (whenever we are
able to bail our people out of predictably largely pro-Iranian leaning
Iraq) : We could just let the Israelis have at that preemptive strike
that they keep threatening to beat us to the task with.......But with
their souped up Mirages......not our F-18s....... Appearances you
know. After all, it is their neighborhood.......Got to consider the
U.S. citizenry first.....don't you think?
Well, it would seem to me to be the better way, but however it gets
done, it needs to be done, and if nobody else will, then it is going to
be up to us. The last thing I want to see is islamists with nuclear
weapons.
I'm not in a big hurry to see it either as is much of Europe. My big
difference with the administration on Iran is their publicly aired
threats for the benefit of AIPAC donors.....Indeed administration
people like U.N. ambassador John Bolton, V.P. Cheney or Sect. of State
Condi Rice shouldn't even show for "American Israel Public Affairs
Committee" conferences much less make publicly aired threats to Iran
from there.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Theodore Roosevelt
I also think that a U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq (formalized
by Clinton in '98 after carrot and stick pressure from neoCONs)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
has been counterproductive in dealing with the mullahs. It makes
it harder to get them to think that they don't need the nuke deterence
when we have 140,000 troops cooling their heels on Iran's
border....quite the opposite from the intent unless an Iranian regime
change is still a serious option with "Conservatives" or War Party # 2
Hell give it time. neoCONs might make a comeback and try it with
Iran someday.......They never give up.
If we are using Israel as Noam Chomsky argues (but not with
anyone in a debate) ......That would be a natural !
--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science
Stephen M. Walt
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
11 Apr 2006 08:52:06 PM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
Well, it would seem to me to be the better way, but however it gets
done, it needs to be done, and if nobody else will, then it is going to
be up to us. The last thing I want to see is islamists with nuclear
weapons.
I'm not in a big hurry to see it either as is much of Europe. My big
difference with the administration on Iran is their publicly aired
threats for the benefit of AIPAC donors.....Indeed administration
people like U.N. ambassador John Bolton, V.P. Cheney or Sect. of State
Condi Rice shouldn't even show for "American Israel Public Affairs
Committee" conferences much less make publicly aired threats to Iran
from there.
I agree in this respect, Threats should not be aired publicly from
anywhere. They should be told, once, and if they fail to heed the
warning, then the attack should happen in the dark of the night and
massively. We should not ever hear of it until well after the fact. That
is one of my biggest problems with the way this war has been prosecuted
and the way the President has handled it. Our every move has been
telegraphed in every respect well in advance giving the enemy time to
prepare. This is why WMD's have not been found in Iraq, and why the
enemy has been so effective at causing trouble.
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 09:54:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:52:06 -0500, nightwind <nightwind65@yahoo.com>
wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
Well, it would seem to me to be the better way, but however it gets
done, it needs to be done, and if nobody else will, then it is going to
be up to us. The last thing I want to see is islamists with nuclear
weapons.
I'm not in a big hurry to see it either as is much of Europe. My big
difference with the administration on Iran is their publicly aired
threats for the benefit of AIPAC donors.....Indeed administration
people like U.N. ambassador John Bolton, V.P. Cheney or Sect. of State
Condi Rice shouldn't even show for "American Israel Public Affairs
Committee" conferences much less make publicly aired threats to Iran
from there.
I agree in this respect, Threats should not be aired publicly from
anywhere. They should be told, once, and if they fail to heed the
warning, then the attack should happen in the dark of the night and
massively. We should not ever hear of it until well after the fact. That
is one of my biggest problems with the way this war has been prosecuted
and the way the President has handled it. Our every move has been
telegraphed in every respect well in advance giving the enemy time to
prepare. This is why WMD's have not been found in Iraq, and why the
enemy has been so effective at causing trouble.
Well the IAEA had all of Saddam's discovered stuff stockpiled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm
and that's where it stayed since Iraq's early intransigence concerning
UNSCOM inspections in the early '90s.......until IAEA personel was
investigating it in '03 before having to bail before we invaded.
It was systematically looted after the invasion (monitored by
satellite photo since the early '90s) and much of the uranium
recovered (not so high grade anyway as it turns out) IAEA
was, imo, negligent in not getting it completely out of the country
early on but there is no evidence any of it was touched between
'98 and '03.
More and more information (discounting blog ruminations from the
right) points to Saddam not wishing to risk a confrontation by
re activating any WMD programs since well before '98.
(I'd have to dig up the cites since I neglected to bookmark 'em)
His reluctance to cooperate with inspections at his palaces was
about the Clinton administration's CIA efforts to assasinate him and
misuse UNSCOM inspections towards that end. The official policy
of regime change was counterproductive in that case as well.
Evidence still points to the basic fact that UNSCOM inspections
were effective (after Saddam was busted by UNSCOM inspectors
early on) and that Saddam had not reconstituted WMD program's
since '92 as argued by IAEA cheif El Baradei throughout all of this.
neoCON and Lobby pressure was, imo, the reason that Clinton refused
to let UNSCOM inspections work their course. They just refused the
concept of lifting sanctions and letting UNSCOM inspectors continue
to disarm an Iraq run by Saddam. Perhaps that would not have been
an ideal situation but the most realistic one, imo and a hell of a lot
easier than what we've got now.
The biggest problem in dealing with Iran, after all, is the 140,000
troops, currently preoccupied in Iraq, that would be the first target
of any retaliation by Iran and that is probably why my header just
might be overstated.....I hope (but it got you guy's attention anyway)
I also think that a U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq (formalized
by Clinton in '98 after carrot and stick pressure from neoCONs)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
has been counterproductive in dealing with the mullahs. It makes
it harder to get them to think that they don't need the nuke deterence
when we have 140,000 troops cooling their heels on Iran's
border....quite the opposite from the intent unless an Iranian regime
change is still a serious option with "Conservatives" or War Party # 2
--
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science
Stephen M. Walt
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
13 Apr 2006 07:53:15 AM |
|
|
can_o_worms wrote:
Well the IAEA had all of Saddam's discovered stuff stockpiled
Well Saddam didn't seem to think so. According to the tapes that are now
being translated, Saddam was ready to reconstitute his WMD program as
soon as our attention was focused elsewhere. He was convinced that he
had fooled the UN into believing they had all the weapons stockpiled.
That is what I have been hearing anyway. The more they listen to this
stuff the more justified the President looks for doing what he did. I
have not had time to compile any links or anything yet to back this up
but I hope too get time to do this. I would really like to personally
read some of this stuff. If all that I have been hearing is
true though, and I think it is, the critics, as they usually do, have it
all wrong, which I must admit I am more inclined to believe anyway!
Also there is a former Iraqi air force general, Who is a member of the
current government, Minister or something, who has said, not only were
there weapons that were not accounted for by the IAEA, but that all of
the weapons were moved to Syria a few weeks before we attacked by
aircraft. His account is believed to be credible by most, and I have
heard nothing that discredits him. I do find it amazing that you barely
hear a word about it though from the main stream media.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm
and that's where it stayed since Iraq's early intransigence concerning
UNSCOM inspections in the early '90s.......until IAEA personel was
investigating it in '03 before having to bail before we invaded.
It was systematically looted after the invasion (monitored by
satellite photo since the early '90s) and much of the uranium
recovered (not so high grade anyway as it turns out) IAEA
was, imo, negligent in not getting it completely out of the country
early on but there is no evidence any of it was touched between
'98 and '03.
I think there was no evidence because they did not *want* to find
evidence. Saddam clearly thought he was smarter than everyone else.
More and more information (discounting blog ruminations from the
right) points to Saddam not wishing to risk a confrontation by
re activating any WMD programs since well before '98.
(I'd have to dig up the cites since I neglected to bookmark 'em)
His reluctance to cooperate with inspections at his palaces was
about the Clinton administration's CIA efforts to assasinate him and
misuse UNSCOM inspections towards that end. The official policy
of regime change was counterproductive in that case as well.
The biggest problem in dealing with Iran, after all, is the 140,000
troops, currently preoccupied in Iraq, that would be the first target
of any retaliation by Iran and that is probably why my header just
might be overstated.....I hope (but it got you guy's attention anyway)
I do not think our troops are as preoccupied as you might think. It
would only take a couple of hours to re-task them for Iran. I am sure
the pentagon is planning for this eventuality, now how effective the
plan is remains to be seen, as it always does in war. I also do not
think your header is overstated at all. It might well be the best
option. Better to take them out now, before they get any stronger, than
to wait until they have the weapons.
I also think that a U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq (formalized
by Clinton in '98 after carrot and stick pressure from neoCONs)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
has been counterproductive in dealing with the mullahs. It makes
it harder to get them to think that they don't need the nuke deterence
when we have 140,000 troops cooling their heels on Iran's
border....quite the opposite from the intent unless an Iranian regime
change is still a serious option with "Conservatives" or War Party # 2
Well to be honest I think regime change is still an option. There are a
lot of young people who want change in Iran. So I guess we will see.
But I agree that publicly announcing our policy in this regard is also
misguided. If this is really their goal, then they should send in small
teams to simultaneously cut the heads off the snake, provide the
catalyst for change, and watch to see where the chips fall. I think this
would be much more productive than stating our goals then seeking out
dissidents in a hit and run fashion, crossing our fingers and hoping for
something to happen.
Cheers
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Bush Lies and His Apologists |
13 Apr 2006 03:48:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:53:15 -0500, nightwind wrote:
can_o_worms wrote:
Well the IAEA had all of Saddam's discovered stuff stockpiled
Well Saddam didn't seem to think so. According to the tapes that are now
being translated, Saddam was ready to reconstitute his WMD program as
soon as our attention was focused elsewhere. He was convinced that he
had fooled the UN into believing they had all the weapons stockpiled.
That is what I have been hearing anyway. The more they listen to this
stuff the more justified the President looks for doing what he did.
The president acted unconstitutionally, there is no justification.
I
have not had time to compile any links or anything yet to back this up
but I hope too get time to do this. I would really like to personally
read some of this stuff. If all that I have been hearing is
true though, and I think it is, the critics, as they usually do, have it
all wrong, which I must admit I am more inclined to believe anyway!
Also there is a former Iraqi air force general, Who is a member of the
current government, Minister or something, who has said, not only were
there weapons that were not accounted for by the IAEA, but that all of
the weapons were moved to Syria a few weeks before we attacked by
aircraft. His account is believed to be credible by most, and I have
heard nothing that discredits him. I do find it amazing that you barely
hear a word about it though from the main stream media.
And somewhere in Brooklin a Jew is eating pork but I don't have a cite.
Cease attempting to rewrite history, Bush lied.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 02:24:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same. In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq. They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Cool. Why not act rather than talk? Why not enlist or go Merc rather
than just talk about "how it should be"?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightwind" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Optionin October |
11 Apr 2006 02:16:55 PM |
|
|
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same. In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq. They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Cool. Why not act rather than talk? Why not enlist or go Merc rather
than just talk about "how it should be"?
Already done my time, as has most of my family, Uncles, Dad, Brother.
Members of my family have been active military in every war this country
has fought from WWII all the way to Iraq. So if anyone has a right to
state how it should be it is us. And I'll tell you something, for a man
who claims to be retired military, you have very little faith in your
country and very little respect for the chain of command, your
commander-in-chief and your country! I remember when President Clinton
was president, I did not agree with his politics, but he was given the
respect of his position, and when he said march we marched and did not
question the order. Frankly I am tired of the same respect not being
returned by the left and other Bush haters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 06:31:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:16:55 -0500, nightwind wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:13:55 -0500, nightwind wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same. In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq. They have my permission to attack and if I were in control it
would have already happened a year ago.
Cool. Why not act rather than talk? Why not enlist or go Merc rather
than just talk about "how it should be"?
Already done my time, as has most of my family, Uncles, Dad, Brother.
Members of my family have been active military in every war this country
has fought from WWII all the way to Iraq. So if anyone has a right to
state how it should be it is us.
That's a cop-out.
I, too, served. My time was during Vietnam. The apparent difference
between us is that I learned from my experience to kill only when
necessary.
And I'll tell you something, for a man
who claims to be retired military,
Where did you get that assumption?
you have very little faith in your
country and very little respect for the chain of command, your
commander-in-chief and your country!
You got part of that screed right but most comes out your *****. Bush is a
criminal, only one of many in his family. No president should be followed
into criminal acts. Your obedience is the reason for the Nuremburg trials.
I remember when President Clinton
was president, I did not agree with his politics, but he was given the
respect of his position, and when he said march we marched and did not
question the order.
Irrelevant. Quit relating Bush to other military actions and view his for
what it is.
Frankly I am tired of the same respect not being
returned by the left and other Bush haters.
And ***** you very much too. Keep your assumptions to yourself and cease
trying to slime me. Your fantasies do not fit then you build a house of
cards upon them.
The left have thier problems but here we speak of Bush and the other
fascists of his administration.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "can_o_worms" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 08:14:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:31:45 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
you have very little faith in your
country and very little respect for the chain of command, your
commander-in-chief and your country!
You got part of that screed right but most comes out your *****. Bush is a
criminal, only one of many in his family. No president should be followed
into criminal acts. Your obedience is the reason for the Nuremburg trials.
I always ask if they are still active duty. If they are not: It is
their responsibility to scrutinize any war being contemplated.
I remember when President Clinton
was president, I did not agree with his politics, but he was given the
respect of his position, and when he said march we marched and did not
question the order.
Irrelevant. Quit relating Bush to other military actions and view his for
what it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Tactical Nuclear Attack on Iran is Definitely a Political Option in October |
11 Apr 2006 11:54:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:14:02 -0500, can_o_worms wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:31:45 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
you have very little faith in your
country and very little respect for the chain of command, your
commander-in-chief and your country!
You got part of that screed right but most comes out your *****. Bush is a
criminal, only one of many in his family. No president should be followed
into criminal acts. Your obedience is the reason for the Nuremburg trials.
I always ask if they are still active duty. If they are not: It is
their responsibility to scrutinize any war being contemplated.
Good point. I do not intend to distress active duty personel any more
than the already untenable situation they're forced to deal with.
At the same time inactive military have an obligation to dispassionately
and objectively review current events and judge those politicians who
direct our military into harm's way.
Especially when they, or their families, remain behind the lines in safety.
I remember when President Clinton
was president, I did not agree with his politics, but he was given the
respect of his position, and when he said march we marched and did not
question the order.
Irrelevant. Quit relating Bush to other military actions and view his
for what it is.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6bius_Pretzel?=" |
|
| Title: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 02:29:03 PM |
|
|
nightwind wrote:
You do not have my permission to attack Iran. Nor the permission of
anyone that I know. Involving my country in yet another useless,
unreasonable war is wrong and stupid.
I disagree with you entirely, both about our current war and a war with
Iran, which I believe is one and the same. In fact, I thought this
attack should have happened as soon as we knew they were meddling in
Iraq.
'Meddling'? Ask the Oil Nazis who's 'meddling'.
U.S. invasion responsible for deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "FED UP" |
|
| Title: Re: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 02:55:01 PM |
|
|
LBJ was the REAL alcoholic wacko with the finger on the button.
Drank a fifth of scotch a day. Like to walk around naked in the White
House and on Air Force One.
Since we all know about it......let's just skip the Kennedy's.
YIKES.
Let's just say the pill munching JFK danged near DID LAUNCH !!
Scared Kruschez so bad he declared JFK a "MADMAN!".
Don't you Libs talk to us about drugged out/alcoholic Presidents......
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6bius_Pretzel?=" |
|
| Title: Re: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 02:56:49 PM |
|
|
BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON!
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Veteran for Peace" |
|
| Title: Re: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 04:34:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1144785409.918748.276790@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Möbius Pretzel" <Mobius.Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote:
BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON!
send in the pretzels.
--
I'm unfettered,unbound,triumphant,glorious& splendid
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6bius_Pretzel?=" |
|
| Title: Re: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 04:56:13 PM |
|
|
A Veteran for Peace wrote:
"M=F6bius Pretzel" wrote:
BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON!
send in the pretzels.
Bush won't touch pretzels. He doesn't know how to chew them.
We'd have to trick him.
We need to make a pretzel in the shape of a big penis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6bius_Pretzel?=" |
|
| Title: Re: BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE BUTTON! |
11 Apr 2006 04:58:53 PM |
|
|
M=F6bius Pretzel wrote:
A Veteran for Peace wrote:
"M=F6bius Pretzel" wrote:
BUSH IS AN ALCOHOLIC WACKO WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON!
send in the pretzels.
Bush won't touch pretzels. He doesn't know how to chew them.
We'd have to trick him.
We need to make a pretzel in the shape of a big penis.
Preferably Jeff Gannon's penis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
