Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US considering use of nukes in Iran

Iran Bush Administration Nukes 2006

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 02:57 PM

from the New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh:

Quote

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

Right here is the chance for all of you concerned over Valerie Plame to show some consistency. You're so concerned about Plume being endangered by her identity being revealed, right? Well let's see some concern for the soldiers that have been recklessly endangered by Seymour Hersh.

Now the Iranians will be scouring the countryside for these soldiers that have ventured into Iran, and what happens to them if they are caught? Beheading? Functioning electrodes? (Unlike the ones simulated by our soldiers at Abu Ghraib). All thanks to Seymour Hersh, who apparently places himself "above" the conflict, and thereby above the lives of our soldiers. Typical liberal mentality.

No, we can forget the lives of these soldiers. They don't matter a bit, compared to Valerie Plume possibly being outed by Bush. You see, that serves the all-encompassing agenda of "getting" Bush, and to the left, there is nothing more sacred. Certainly the lives of our soldiers merit zero consideration by Hersh and his allies.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 10 April 2006 - 02:58 PM.


#42 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 03:00 PM

I have to admit that I see a difference between unnamed, and possibly nonexistant troops' in Iran, and the naming of specific names.

Edited by Godeskian, 10 April 2006 - 03:00 PM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#43 rponiarski

rponiarski

    Still crazy after all these years...

  • Islander
  • 241 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:41 AM

View PostDenny, on Apr 9 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

While it may not be, it's funny how Seymour Hersh as an individual always turns out to be telling the truth.  His track record speaks louder than what journal his article is published in.

I saw him last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Seemed very convincing...and frightening. :fear:
Richard M. Poniarski
Everyone is entitled to live in the reality of their own choosing...

#44 rponiarski

rponiarski

    Still crazy after all these years...

  • Islander
  • 241 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:58 AM

Quote

1.) Alliances are man-made and can be man-unmade.  One of the Founding Fathers, I forget which, said nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.  Oil is a permanent interest of the U.S.   Jewish rule of Palestine is not.

Having Israel as an ally in the region is in the US interests. They provide a reliable presence in the area, a democracy (which we supposedly prefer to the dictatorships of the Arab "oil" states) that shares our values and supports us fully. Plus, while you are correct that one of the Founding Fathers (I think it was Washington, but I could be wrong), suggested that we not have permanent alliances, that was in the 18th Century. The world had changed a bit since then...

Quote

1a.) Israel is not an "ally" in the sense that we do not have a mutual defense treaty binding us to defend them.

Actaully, I do believe we do have a mutual defence pact with Israel. I seem to recall Richard Nixon setting US defences to high alert back in the '73 Arab-Isreali war and being ready to help Isreal if needed. Don't think things have changed since that time.

Quote

2.) Then you go and fight for Israel.  Leave the rest of us, who care no more about Israel than we do about Nepal, and our kids out of it!

Sad, isn't it. Willing to see a genocide rather than do something about it, even when that is within our capabilities. I hate that we are doing next to nothing about Darfur, but am glad we at least tried to stop the genocide in Bosnia. If I was president and didn't try to stop such things, I would not sleep well at all...
Richard M. Poniarski
Everyone is entitled to live in the reality of their own choosing...

#45 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 10:14 AM

I hate that people can be so narrow and self-centred that they can think of fellow humans as being worthy of death. The lack of empathy with the whole family of man, just because they are in another country or of another political or religious persuasion is what is most likely to kill us all.

It is time for people of good will all over the world to tell their leaders to stop this nonsense and let us live in peace for a change.
Andromeda, Star Trek (all shows) and Doctor Who franchise episode transcripts.


Just because I didn't post a reply doesn't mean I wasn't tempted to.

#46 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 10:33 AM

Even if we use tactical nukes against Iran, we're far from assured that we'll get everything important. Most of the knowledge and organizational competencies they've gained will likely remain intact ... and they'll just rebuild. What are we going to do -- nuke them every five to ten years? If we must escalate the conflict, better to only escalate it to the level of conventional weapons. Also, the report on the news I heard yesterday said that the military wants to take the nuclear option off the table. The military planners and generals only included it for completeness -- i.e. using nukes stands the highest chance of destroying facilities that are deep underground even if using nukes is a bad idea for other reasons.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#47 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 10:50 AM

If nothing else, using nukes would be a P.R. nightmare.  That word carries a lot of implications, and even if it's just "tactical nukes" or whatever, when people hear "nukes" they get a bad picture in their minds, and it scares 'em.  The world's not likely to sit quietly and listen to our explanations and justifications for using them.

I'm hoping our leadership is smart enough to realize that and think beyond only the battlefield implications of deploying such ordinance.  The intelligence of our current leadership, however, is unfortunately not something I'm willing to risk money on.  That's like putting a twenty on a horse named "Immortality"...

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#48 The Tyrant

The Tyrant

    R.I.P. Martin Landau

  • Islander
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 10:57 AM

This administration has already shown it will do 'whatever it takes' to carry out whatever objective it sets its mind to...if they come up with a tactical scenario that doesn't end in all out global nuclear annihiliation, you can bet they'll pull out all the stops (lega or not)to go through with it...

In the meantime, I'm just gonna sit outside with some SPF 1,000,000 sunscreen and wait for the mushrooms to bloom...

Edited by RichieTyrant, 11 April 2006 - 10:57 AM.

Hope springs eternal, and is eternally dashed

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem....
if you're powerless." - Drago Museveni

'God is a comedian playing to an audience afraid to laugh' - Voltaire

'It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.' - the Terminator, about Humanity.

"Who knew the divine was such a dissolute, horny drunk?  Although that would explain a hell of a lot about this series... " - Christopher, about Battlestar Galactica

#49 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:51 AM

Everybody's already covered what I would have said.

What a colossal idiot this President is. :barf:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#50 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:04 PM

Seymour Hersh, confirmed nut, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: "Do you believe based on the report you did for this article the president is now aggressively plotting military action, a preemptive strike against Iran?"

HERSH: "The word I hear here is "messianic." He actually thinks as I write that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think so he's overly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance and this is going to be his mission."

How terrible of El Rushbo to quote this wack-job accurately. Wacko liberals like Hersh think Bush is the nuke threat, not Iran. These people never change, and it's little wonder why we're fighting the war on terror entirely without their help or support, moral or otherwise. Not when they tell us that they think the President is a bigger threat than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.  :whistle:

-Ogami

#51 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:57 PM

If you have documentation that Sy Hersh is wrong, produce it.
Posted Image

#52 rponiarski

rponiarski

    Still crazy after all these years...

  • Islander
  • 241 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 04:12 PM

View PostOgami, on Apr 11 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

Seymour Hersh, confirmed nut, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:

-Ogami

Answer me one question. Why, when we are talking about a really significant piece of news, which pretty much has been confirmed by another source (The Washington Post), do you feel you need to call him a "nut" and "wacko"? This is serious stuff and I would be afraid if it was JFK, Johnson or Truman in the White House contemplating this, not just W.

I admit that some people have disparaged our leadership in personal terms. May have done it myself, as I feel our president is leading us into ruin, both financially and physically. But wasn't it W who was against the "politics of personal destruction"? Those who support him should think about that...  :nod:
Richard M. Poniarski
Everyone is entitled to live in the reality of their own choosing...

#53 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 04:39 PM

all this latest drivel we're reading is just ScarePress; yep you heard it right here.

that rhetoric from 'that man' is his posturing for his own public, and then what about ours?: you can't really expect the U.S. gov (or any other gov) to say 'we will never use xyz weapon we've developed for our deterrant warchest'

Of course there are contingency plans for another south asia invasion idea, and for limited nu'cear (is that what Carter always said?) deployment: there are certain people for whom it's their jobs to plan and file and brief: they'd be considered derelict and negligent in their duties if they didn't do it.

But for the press to announce 'the gov plans for nuke strike' when they observe these various things that must be made and filed: it's ScarePress

Israel says 'we will use xyz if provoked' and Iran says 'we will defend to the utmost if attacked' and all these other sayings, and U.S. 'has a nuke plan', duh! how could we ever not?? - it's just things that someone somewhere would be called wrong if not said. I often wonder how the news is every bit as much on what someone says as doings going on: what would the press look like, especially the tv ones, if they didn't report the sayings, only the doings? shall we try it for a month and see? :harper:

Ah Rhetoric, luv it, hate it, it's with us always.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#54 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:00 PM

View Postrponiarski, on Apr 11 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

View PostOgami, on Apr 11 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

Seymour Hersh, confirmed nut, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:

-Ogami

Answer me one question. Why, when we are talking about a really significant piece of news, which pretty much has been confirmed by another source (The Washington Post), do you feel you need to call him a "nut" and "wacko"? This is serious stuff and I would be afraid if it was JFK, Johnson or Truman in the White House contemplating this, not just W.

I admit that some people have disparaged our leadership in personal terms. May have done it myself, as I feel our president is leading us into ruin, both financially and physically. But wasn't it W who was against the "politics of personal destruction"? Those who support him should think about that...  :nod:

Um, W intended those comments for other people, not for himself.  You have to remember: IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're a Republican).
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#55 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 02:52 PM

View Postrponiarski, on Apr 11 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

View PostOgami, on Apr 11 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

Seymour Hersh, confirmed nut, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:

-Ogami

Answer me one question. Why, when we are talking about a really significant piece of news, which pretty much has been confirmed by another source (The Washington Post), do you feel you need to call him a "nut" and "wacko"? This is serious stuff and I would be afraid if it was JFK, Johnson or Truman in the White House contemplating this, not just W.

I admit that some people have disparaged our leadership in personal terms. May have done it myself, as I feel our president is leading us into ruin, both financially and physically. But wasn't it W who was against the "politics of personal destruction"? Those who support him should think about that...  :nod:





When you can't attack the words, attack the person.


Quote

Delvo:
t would be stupid NOT to consider using nukes. For one thing, "consider" doesn't equal "plan to do it"; it means knowing what your options are and comparing them to each other, possibly only to end up not doing some of them.


This is the gist of what the news was saying last night.

Edited by Kosh, 12 April 2006 - 03:23 PM.

Can't Touch This!!

#56 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 03:49 PM

I believe that all this diplomatic tension between US and Iran could also be simply nothing more than a show-off of the American power or even a diversion by the US in order to disrupt the public from issues more significant ,internal and external.So what if Iran obtains nukes?I do not think it will ever imagine to make use of them.US and Russia have so many nukes that they could do to Iran what they did in Japan x 1.000......

Edited by Zaugur Anasazi, 12 April 2006 - 03:50 PM.

Posted Image

#57 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 06:21 PM

View PostOgami, on Apr 11 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

Seymour Hersh, confirmed nut, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: "Do you believe based on the report you did for this article the president is now aggressively plotting military action, a preemptive strike against Iran?"

HERSH: "The word I hear here is "messianic." He actually thinks as I write that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think so he's overly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance and this is going to be his mission."

How terrible of El Rushbo to quote this wack-job accurately. Wacko liberals like Hersh think Bush is the nuke threat, not Iran. These people never change, and it's little wonder why we're fighting the war on terror entirely without their help or support, moral or otherwise. Not when they tell us that they think the President is a bigger threat than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.  :whistle:

-Ogami

^Do you possess evidence to the contrary? Because based on past performance, he IS the bigger threat.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#58 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 07:38 PM

it's not American power - The Iran gov are in the driver's seat on this and they know it, and so does everyone else. The press is full today on this, 'U.S. and allies cannot slow the Iran...' nuke ... who can stop them? the Iranians must be laughing in their Turkish coffees and Turkish pipe smoke in their streetside cafés; they know there's nothing anyone can do; they can just keep lying and building their stuff; pick your favourite six online newspapers. :cool:

We West must just decide how we're going to proceed now that Iran led by their mullahs and ayatollahs is about to be a limited regional nuclear power like Pakistan.


"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#59 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:13 PM

It makes me almost wish for the immediate post Cold War era with its optimism. Somehow I don't think the US and Russia are going to be putting together any joint air strikes like in Iron Eagle II but they could help rather than hinder the diplomatic process.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#60 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 05:39 PM

Here's an interesting article that touches on the planning and the possible consequences--expect more 9/11s--and ends with the question "how comfortable would you be with a nuclear-armed Iran in ten years?"

Not very. But if we're going to fight a major Middle East War on top of what we've got going on now, we'd better be damned sure we'll succeed in wrapping it up quickly.

Is war the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nukes?

http://news.yahoo.co...huffpost/019226

Quote

...according to Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, a pair of top Clinton-era counter-terrorism officials who write on Iran in the Times' Week in Review section. They recall that after the Iranian-arranged bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the administration debated how to react.

    At that point, the Clinton administration and the Pentagon considered a bombing campaign. But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States.

There is s similar situation today. If we bomb Iran, they'll respond, possibly by sinking tankers or trying to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, but more likely by using its global terror network, which is much more -- what's the word? -- real than Saddam's:

    Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field. The Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has a global reach, and has served in the past as an instrument of Iran. We might hope that Hezbollah, now a political party, would decide that it has too much to lose by joining a war against the United States. But this would be a dangerous bet.

So. We bomb. They retaliate. We escalate?

Forget defining a civil war. How many countries does it take to make a world war?

Well, we can count Britain out. According to today's Scotsman,  the British aren't up for a war with Iran:

http://news.scotsman...fm?id=577092006

Edited by Spectacles, 16 April 2006 - 05:43 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iran, Bush Administration, Nukes, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users