In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 03:29:10 AM |
|
|
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
J.
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 03:55:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 02:24:22 PM |
|
|
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
Realistic.
J.
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
22 Aug 2004 01:09:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:24:22 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
Realistic.
LOL! I missed you Jean. You're really funny sometimes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Blunt" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 03:00:44 PM |
|
|
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:GdsVc.22021668$Id.3649883@news.easynews.com...
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
Realistic.
It's called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
J.
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%
255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are
convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's
atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we
will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli
reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning
nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against
Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads.
Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 03:47:42 PM |
|
|
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
Oh yes you can count on the same. The US would never use nukes to stop
the potential fabrication of nukes. But the Us would never spread
nuclear technology like the only Muslim nuclear nation did. There is a
vital reason that it is imperative to stop this. And it is to avoid the
otherwise unavoidable use of it, not the opposite.
You would need to know about intelligence. It is not by letting
terrorists sympathizers (terrorists creators and financiers), get on
with screwing over the IAC and making their own nukes that you will
achieve what you (pretend to) seek for the world, in this case.
9-11 woke me up. You are still sleeping. You need to wake up. With your
way, the use of a nuke would be the wake up call.
J.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:GdsVc.22021668$Id.3649883@news.easynews.com...
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
Realistic.
It's called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
J.
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
In an election year to
Iran threatens pre-emptive strikes
A correspondent in Doha, Qatar
August 20, 2004
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10500303%
255E2703,00.html
IRAN has hit back at hawkish US comments over its nuclear program,
warning it reserves the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against
US forces in the Middle East to prevent any attack on its atomic
facilities.
The Islamic state also warned Israel it would be responsible for the
"terrifying consequences" of any attempt to knock out the facilities,
which it insists are solely for peaceful purposes such as electricity
generation.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Iranian
Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in an interview with Qatar-based
satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera.
His comments further raise the temperature as the United Nations
nuclear watchdog prepares to release a crucial report on Iran some
time in the week beginning September 13.
On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the
International Atomic Energy Agency report should refer Iran to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
He said the Islamic nation, a member of George W. Bush's "axis of
evil" could make enough bomb-grade material in 12 months to produce a
nuclear weapon.
"We cannot allow Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.
But Mr Shamkhani said: "Some military commanders in Iran are
convinced
that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not
their monopoly.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the
Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
strength (for Washington) at our expense."
Asked about the possibility of a US or Israeli strike on Iran's
atomic
power plant in Bushehr, he said: "We will consider any strike against
our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we
will
retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation
without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
Earlier, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted
in the Iranian press as saying Tehran would strike the Israeli
reactor
at Dimona if Israel attacked the Islamic republic's burgeoning
nuclear
facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant it should
permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and
keeps its nuclear weapons," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said.
"Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this
move."
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at Bushehr is seen
by the US and Israel as a cover for nuclear weapons development, and
Tehran clearly fears a repeat of Israel's missile strike against
Iraqi
nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Dimona, in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads.
Israel
has a policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear program.
AFP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
21 Aug 2004 04:12:16 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<NrtVc.309581$165.48180@news.easynews.com>...
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
Oh yes you can count on the same. The US would never use nukes to stop
the potential fabrication of nukes. But the Us would never spread
nuclear technology like the only Muslim nuclear nation did. There is a
vital reason that it is imperative to stop this. And it is to avoid the
otherwise unavoidable use of it, not the opposite.
Well it has not yet, but is still the only nation to use said weapons
on another nation, besides the changes now going through will probably
see biological weapons being used far more effective.
You would need to know about intelligence. It is not by letting
terrorists sympathizers (terrorists creators and financiers), get on
with screwing over the IAC and making their own nukes that you will
achieve what you (pretend to) seek for the world, in this case.
9-11 woke me up. You are still sleeping. You need to wake up. With your
way, the use of a nuke would be the wake up call.
J.
I reckon using an engineers brief "make the minimum for the maximum"
so go for volatile areas like fault lines and geological areas.
No snooze function there!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
21 Aug 2004 06:06:26 PM |
|
|
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<NrtVc.309581$165.48180@news.easynews.com>...
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
Oh yes you can count on the same. The US would never use nukes to stop
the potential fabrication of nukes. But the Us would never spread
nuclear technology like the only Muslim nuclear nation did. There is a
vital reason that it is imperative to stop this. And it is to avoid the
otherwise unavoidable use of it, not the opposite.
Well it has not yet, but is still the only nation to use said weapons
on another nation,
Yeah, when they invented it. Jeez, they used to test it afterwards being
around it as a big show without protection. This changed a lot after
they realized the real aftermath. They thought it was like any big bomb
then.
besides the changes now going through will probably
see biological weapons being used far more effective.
The more reason to stop the terrorists sponsor nations from acquiring any.
You would need to know about intelligence. It is not by letting
terrorists sympathizers (terrorists creators and financiers), get on
with screwing over the IAC and making their own nukes that you will
achieve what you (pretend to) seek for the world, in this case.
9-11 woke me up. You are still sleeping. You need to wake up. With your
way, the use of a nuke would be the wake up call.
J.
I reckon using an engineers brief "make the minimum for the maximum"
so go for volatile areas like fault lines and geological areas.
No snooze function there!
LB
?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
22 Aug 2004 01:19:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:06:26 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<NrtVc.309581$165.48180@news.easynews.com>...
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
Oh yes you can count on the same. The US would never use nukes to stop
the potential fabrication of nukes. But the Us would never spread
nuclear technology like the only Muslim nuclear nation did. There is a
vital reason that it is imperative to stop this. And it is to avoid the
otherwise unavoidable use of it, not the opposite.
Well it has not yet, but is still the only nation to use said weapons
on another nation,
Yeah, when they invented it. Jeez, they used to test it afterwards being
around it as a big show without protection. This changed a lot after
they realized the real aftermath. They thought it was like any big bomb
then.
huh? You don't think all those tests they conducted in the Arizona
desert showed them the "real aftermath"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
22 Aug 2004 01:16:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:47:42 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
This news article underscores the danger of using a first-strike,
preemptive offensiveness as the central mantle of our nation's National
Defense Policy.
If we think we have the right to knock down the potentiality of a threat,
perceived as near or immediate, then other nations are more likely to feel
justified in using the same against us (or our allies).
This is why I support, as does the Green Party, a reversal of the policy,
enacted by Bush. We must return to a defensive policy, or risk wider scale
warfare. Kerry has yet to address this issue with specifics.
The question is: would a nuke warhead be used, or conventional ordnance?
Israel preemptively destroyed the Iraqi nuclear project in (I believe)
1981. There was no retaliatory response, at least conventionally.
Conventional plane-launched missile warheads were used.
I don't think we can count on the same scenario every time preemption is
used. If you want to gamble your future on this insane policy, fine.
We'll ship you off to Mars where you can preemptively destroy each other.
Or, should I say we'll rocket Guernon, et al, back to their home planet?
(Get your snipper out, Jeano).
Dr. Blunt ------ Pissing down Guernon's fascist throat since 1998.
Oh yes you can count on the same. The US would never use nukes to stop
the potential fabrication of nukes. But the Us would never spread
nuclear technology like the only Muslim nuclear nation did. There is a
vital reason that it is imperative to stop this. And it is to avoid the
otherwise unavoidable use of it, not the opposite.
You would need to know about intelligence. It is not by letting
terrorists sympathizers (terrorists creators and financiers), get on
with screwing over the IAC and making their own nukes that you will
achieve what you (pretend to) seek for the world, in this case.
9-11 woke me up. You are still sleeping. You need to wake up. With your
way, the use of a nuke would be the wake up call.
9/11 woke you up? Unfortunately it was a misconception on your part.
9/11 was a "wake-up call" alright, a wake-up call that citizens are
being manipulated. Read the evidence sometime, will ya? I don't
believe you can be so naive...well, maybe I can, but that is besides
the point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 05:51:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
:O
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
21 Aug 2004 05:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> Spat the Words
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
:O
Looks like the 'PreEmptive Attack' Bush doctrine is catching
on. We continue to lead the world by example.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Blunt" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 06:35:49 AM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvin@galaxy.com> wrote in message
news:opsc01ripuld1pme@pc...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
:O
But you know "they" will.
Dr. Blunt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 07:13:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:51:08 -0400, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
Oh yeah. I nearly forgot about the "Law of Guernonism". That changes
everything. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Blunt" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 10:28:06 AM |
|
|
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:bjqbi0948c7uhqc5npo2k9vm8nfor3gn9r@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:51:08 -0400, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve
the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
Oh yeah. I nearly forgot about the "Law of Guernonism". That changes
everything. ;-)
Yeah, Jeano's gonna' dismiss all this as "lies" and will, again,
inexplicably accuse you of being an anti-semite, an idiot and unfit for
posting.
Dr. Blunt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking a Leaf out of the Bush Doctrine |
20 Aug 2004 08:21:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:13:42 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:51:08 -0400, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvin@galaxy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:25 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:10 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
So? He has only conventional forces. He is a big bully.
Imagine what the ayatollah would say if he had the bomb.
Excuse me? He's a "big bully" because he only has conventional
forces? What does that make a nuclear power attacking a
"conventional" enemy then, hmm?
You're completely missing the point.
We, the civilized West, are on the side of Right.
We are carrying out God's will here on Earth. So only we can reserve the
right to preemptively strike at the enemies of God.
God has given us the job to deny Iran nuklar weapons.
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
Oh yeah. I nearly forgot about the "Law of Guernonism". That changes
everything. ;-)
LOL ... "Law of Guernonism" ... from now we'll have to refer to this in
helping others connect his dots.
LOL ... this could possibly be the best chuckle for the day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
