| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9189 Registered: 4-1997  |
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 815 Registered: 3-2005 |
Good. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3252 Registered: 9-2001  |
Not surprising. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2825 Registered: 5-2004  |
Very scary article, overall. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9190 Registered: 4-1997 |
Bush: Talk of Iran attack 'wild speculation' Reports suggest U.S. contemplating nuclear strike against Tehran http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/bush.iran/index.html
Unfortunately, Bush has no credibility being a known liar and Hersh was right about Iraq. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2826 Registered: 5-2004 |
Time to buy those oil stocks and futures again... Who has the largest North American and Northern European reserves? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9191 Registered: 4-1997 |
And gold, as the dollar will continue to weaken. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1082 Registered: 10-2004  |
We cant get this administration out of office fast enough. Now they are planning on nuclear war. Fools. Frankly it makes be quite ashamed of my country to know that we can seriously consider doing something so destructive and damaging just because we can. One thing that is bothering me about this also bothered me about our run up to the Iraq war is how in the world can these things be considered 'clandestine'? Iran has been a target of Bush and co. from the beginning. There was no secret there, I mean if we all knew about it how is it secret? | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3253 Registered: 9-2001 |
A Few comments: 1) Bush has zero credibility here or abroad on this one. Why does he even bother to waste his breath denying it? He should at least lie better, as in "We will exhaust all possible diplomatic solutions, but it is prudent to also consider our military options should diplomacy fail." 2) Iran does not have nukes yet, so I don't think an invasion would start a nuclear war. Lobbing nukes might bring in the Russians and would be an enormous crime against humanity, but we can do it with bunker-busters instead. How would a preemptive non-nuclear strike differ from Israel taking out Iraq's Osiris reactor? 3) Iran just tested a supposedly sonar-evading high-speed anti-ship missile, and some long-range missiles that can reach Europe. They are sure getting ready to not only take out Israel, but to take on a "Coalition of the Willing Part II". Wonder of W is considering this, after his fiasco with invading a much weaker Iraq? | ||
| mrmaplewood Citizen Username: Mrmaplewood Post Number: 326 Registered: 5-2001 |
This is his latest Bushstorm. Kind of like a brainstorm, but no brain. Yeah, we really need to use nuclear on Iran. It will really help with the war on terrorism. What is this administration thinking? I only hope it is a stupid trial balloon. He is so far down in the polls now that he can't advocate this Bushstorm without running it up a flagpole first. Is there a statue of Bush anywhere that we can have a tank pull down? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4710 Registered: 5-2001 |
Saying something is "wild speculation" is not the same thing as saying it's not true. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 816 Registered: 3-2005 |
ESL - how was Iraq weaker than Iran? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9192 Registered: 4-1997 |
Gulf War didn't do much for Iraqi army's equipment or morale. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3254 Registered: 9-2001 |
Iran is a more unified country with a stronger sense of coherence--its soldiers will actually fight for it to the death; its army is considered far superior to Saddam's (outside of the Republican Guard); it has far superior military technology, especially when you consider that the Iraq boycott was pretty darned effective; if we invade Iran, the Shiite majority in Iraq could easily be a fifth column or attack our flank. Iran is a far tougher military customer, and that is not even taking into account the political ramifications of invading Iraq. I think an invasion would be an even more impossible and fraught situation than we have in Iraq. I will answer my own question about a preemptive strike--because Iran would likely take out Dimona or another Israeli target in retaliation. Bush would be risking world war at that point. I am not even talking about nukes because that is so far afield as to be something only a real lunatic would seriously consider--W is a wrecklessly dangerous idiot, surrounded by equally doltish advisers, but I do not think he is at the point of complete lunacy, though many on this board would disagree and they might be right. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 559 Registered: 7-2005  |
I'm still terrified of North Korea. I rarely even look at the middle east anymore. Actually I'm more afraid of China..they could invade the U.S. and theyd win. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9193 Registered: 4-1997 |
Except there's not enough food here for them. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11176 Registered: 5-2001 |
I simply can't believe that the warhawks feel that if we drop a few bombs on them the Iranian people will rise up against their government and overthrow the Ayatollahs. Didn't they learn anything from Iraq? I also love the idea of using nuclear bunker buster bombs to destroy someone elses nucs. LOL | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4711 Registered: 5-2001 |
That's one where two big oceans still, and probably always will, protect us. They can lob missiles to their heart's content I suppose, and I don't mean to diminish how very bad that would be, but in order to actually occupy they would have to land hundreds of thousands of troops. That would mean huge convoys, over a couple of days, under our constant surveillance. One nuke, no more invasion force. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1652 Registered: 10-2004 |
I have to agree with Glock on this one. While everyone was freaking out about Afghanistan and then later Iraq, no one even bothered to notice (and if they did) care about North Korea dismantling their nuclear energy reactors to create nuclear bombs. I do feel that Iraq will do the same thing eventually. How could we stop them if we couldn't stop N. Korea? The future definitely doesn't look too bright. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13549 Registered: 1-2003  |
April 10, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Yes He Would By PAUL KRUGMAN "But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace. Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran — and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. "But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking. As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in. First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed. Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war — a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds — rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment. Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public. Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq. As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops." Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment. And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics. Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again? Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2827 Registered: 5-2004 |
ESL, the bunker buster bombs that they talk about in the article are nuclear. Apparently our conventional bunker busting munitions are not powerful enough to handle hardened underground facilities. The only talk I saw of using nukes in Iran was these - the ones designed to take out underground targets. Not those designed to destroy huges swaths of land and population. But any use of nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, would provoke an audible gap from the rest of the world, and would immensly alter the world for a VERY long time. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1184 Registered: 10-2005 |
Question for you opposed to the Iraq War: If we never went into Irag, would you be for or against going to war wih Iran? Just curious... -SLK | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3255 Registered: 9-2001 |
Yes, I am willing to say I would be opposed to going into Iran, as I was opposed to going into Iraq before we invaded. Not that that I am a genius at all, but I was telling lots of people during the run-up to Iraq that it was a huge strategic and tactical blunder, and I am sorry to say I was correct. I believe the same holds true with a potential invasion of Iran today. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5529 Registered: 8-2003 |
There was a not-much-talked-about poll late last year where the majority of the public favored trying to militarily take out Iranian nuclear facilities. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13550 Registered: 1-2003 |
I'd be against it, but it's easy for me, because I oppose just about every war. Still, hypothetical questions are not always meaningful. Now that we are in Iraq, how do you feel about the prospect of going to war in Iran? It's only fair that you answer that question. It's less hypothetical, and I've answered yours. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2828 Registered: 5-2004 |
cjc, However the article, if accurate, paints a picture beyond taking out Iranian nuclear facilities. It is about regime change, just as in Iraq. Given the quagmire that is Iraq, and the political differences in Iran vs Iraq, do you believe that the people of Iran would welcome us as liberators as those of Iraq were supposed to? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1083 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rastro - using nuclear weapons of any strength will result in needless killing of at least hundreds, perhaps thousands of human beings. After the initial blast the radiation will linger and kill many more innocent men, women and children. It will poison the air, water and food supply to animals and the radiation will cause the surrounding area to be unliveable for centuries. SLK - against. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 563 Registered: 7-2005 |
This is a good time for us to sit back, and watch "On the Beach". Possibly the scariest movie I've ever seen. "The war started when people accepted the idiotic principle that peace could be maintained by arranging to defend themselves with weapons they couldn't possibly use without committing suicide. " | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2830 Registered: 5-2004 |
Hoops. I understand that. I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons. I am differentiating between strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed to kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people, and tactical nukes, which have very different aims. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1653 Registered: 10-2004 |
That is an interesting question. I'm not really for any war and nuclear weapons are out of the question. Having said that... I think I would have prioritized N. Korea and Iran over Afghanistan and Iraq. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2834 Registered: 5-2004 |
Well, remember why we went into Afghanistan - the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. It was much easier to gain political consensus for invading Afghanistan than it would have been for any other country at the time. I do think N Korea is a problem, however I don't see them as the same threat for two reasons: First, proximity to an ally that is in danger. I do not believe that N Korea would nuke S Korea, whereas Iran has threatened Israel on an almost daily basis. Second, propensity to support terrorism that directly affects the US. While N Korea does have some ties to international terrorists, Iran has very close ties and state support for terrorist groups that routinely threaten the US and its allies. Additionally (I know I said two...), N Korea is not a lightning rod or spiritual leader for anyone outside the boundaries of the country. The conflict with Iran is as much religious as it is political. Whereas the issues with N Korea are almost exclusively political. There is a level of fanaticism that religion brings out that cannot be touched by nationalism. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1655 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rastro, do you know anything about N. Korea? The people are brainwashed at an early age by the government to hate America. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3257 Registered: 9-2001 |
Political Science by Randy Newman No one likes us-I don't know why We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try But all around, even our old friends put us down Let's drop the big one and see what happens We give them money-but are they grateful? No, they're spiteful and they're hateful They don't respect us-so let's surprise them We'll drop the big one and pulverize them Asia's crowded and Europe's too old Africa is far too hot And Canada's too cold And South America stole our name Let's drop the big one There'll be no one left to blame us We'll save Australia Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo We'll build an All American amusement park there They got surfin', too Boom goes London and boom Paree More room for you and more room for me And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town Oh, how peaceful it will be We'll set everybody free You'll wear a Japanese kimono And there'll be Italian shoes for me They all hate us anyhow So let's drop the big one now Let's drop the big one now | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1136 Registered: 9-2004 |
Video- http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep -animation.html Trying to scare Iran into talking? I think the rest of the world is nervously laffin at these dolts. Unless they really do want to start WWIII. Then NYC and WA DC become targets. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9195 Registered: 4-1997 |
Gold as hedge against a screwball US president?  | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 893 Registered: 2-2004 |
They sure aren't targets now. And to think all that overtaxed land will be uninhabitable once Iran smuggles one in. Don't worry, maybe I'll let some of you big city refugees sleep under my pines. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1139 Registered: 9-2004 |
DId gold have any value in the movie MAD MAX ? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13552 Registered: 1-2003 |
alleygater wrote: Rastro, do you know anything about N. Korea? The people are brainwashed at an early age by the government to hate America. We better remedy that. Let's invade, kill tens of thousands of people, and destroy their buildings and infrastructure. That'll get them to love us. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1086 Registered: 10-2004 |
Foj, thanks for posting that. Rastro, we have seriously underestimated the numbers of casualties in our conversation. According to the demo Foj posted the numbers are very likely in the millions. How could these morons contemplate that. Bush was on the TV yesterday saying how it was all just speculation and he was backpedaling as fast as he could off the idea that we would use nucular bombs. But still its in the plan and they refused to take it out. Nuclear warfare no matter how limited is unthinkable. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4198 Registered: 12-2001  |
Unfortunately, nuclear war is all too thinkable. And Homo sapiens will survive even a major nuclear exchange. It wouldn't be fun, but Mother Nature doesn't care if her children have fun as long as they survive. Strategies and approaches other than saying it is unthinkable are needed to prevent a major nuclear exchange. |
