Discussion:
Bush's war of words can end up with a nuclear attack on Iran
(too old to reply)
Michael Laudahn
2006-04-19 15:48:18 UTC
Permalink
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp


President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.


US president George Bush considers an attack on Iran's nuclear power
installations as an alternative if diplomatic negotiations fail. He
made this very clear in the course of the preparations for the talks
with China's president Hu Jintao. At the same time, France's president
Jacques Chirac has stated that the international community will never
accept an Iran with access to atomic weapons.


The question of a direct attack against Iran is however very
complicated. Such an attack would require the use of atomic weapons.
'Conventional weapons can never reach so deep that they could hit
installations which are located deep under the surface. Is the target
sufficiently deeply located, maybe 50 metres below the surface, then
there is no other way for solving this taks than nuclear weapons', says
Jens Wirstam, nuclear weapons expert with FOI, Totalförsvaret's
research institution. 'Is the installation situated in an inhabited
region, then inevitably people will be affected', says he. 'This is
clear for everybody. They call them bunker busters, but their use can
never be sparing. That their effect reaches far deep doesn't mean its
surface effect will be reduced. Thus, the pressure wave along the
surface will be equally powerful, and a large area will be
contaminated.'


Iran's big enrichment facility is situated below the earth, but the
pilote installation - where the tests in question are supposed to take
place - is on the surface. 'If you want to knock this one out, you
don't need nuclear weapons. But then, it is possible that the USA know
things that we don't know', says Jens Wirstam. He sees no real reason
why the US should refrain from using certain military weapons that the
country is disposing of. 'This would be counter-productive. Their
purpose is to use them, or at least threating to use them.' It is not
trustworthy either, that Iran were planning to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes only. 'One must ask why Iran in such a case, in this
exposed situation, continues to drive forcefully forward, thereby
putting itself in opposition against the security council.'


Can the whole matter develop into a lengthy war of words? 'I think it
will be very difficult to reach a multi-lateral solution. Up to now,
the security council has only issued a vague so-called presidential
statement which Iran hasn't taken notice of. They seem to continue
trusting in China and Russia to continue standing on the brake. But to
what extent the world is ready to live with a nuclear-armed Iran will
also be a question for Sweden', says Jens Wirstam. At the same time, he
has problems imaging that the US will engage more in that region.


You don't think then that Bush is aiming at a grand finale for his
presidency? 'No. But to straighten out the situation in Irak would also
be a grand finale.' The development in Irak has until now played
directly into Iran's hands. Its biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein, has been
removed, and Iran's allies have simultaneously come to power.





--
.)
Unter blinden ist der einäugige könig.

http://worldimprover.net/

WICHTIG / IMPORTANT: islam-info:

http://historyofjihad.org/ - http://apostatesofislam.com/
Mel Rowing
2006-04-19 16:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Laudahn
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
Of course he so refuses.

To start excluding this that and the other is to immediately hand
bargaining chips over to ones opponent. The day one excludes the use of
nuclear weapons in any potential conflict is the day you can start
dismantling and disposing of them.

The aim of any bargaining is to keep your opponent guessing right up to
the end.

Back in Gulf War 1 Saddam Hussein had the option of using chemical
weapons against the coalition forces that kicked him out of Kuwait.
There is no doubt that he had them. He never used them and we can never
know why. One wonders whether he would have shown restraint had Bush
senior ruled out the use of the nuclear or any option before the
conflict broke out.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-04-19 16:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Of course he won't rule it out, but as deluded, criminal and
incompetent Bush is, i'd think he'd have to be absolutely insane
actually to USE Nuclear weapons. I can think of no action better
designed to destroy any chance of peace between the US and - well, i'd
say "the muslim world", but i think, more likely "the rest of the
world".

He's not that barking, surely?
hummingbird
2006-04-19 16:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Of course he won't rule it out, but as deluded, criminal and
incompetent Bush is, i'd think he'd have to be absolutely insane
actually to USE Nuclear weapons. I can think of no action better
designed to destroy any chance of peace between the US and - well, i'd
say "the muslim world", but i think, more likely "the rest of the
world".
He's not that barking, surely?
Yes he is. And he's not in control.
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-04-19 16:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Nah, i don't believe it. I agree he's not in control - but thats the
point - the people who ARE in control aim to be in control for a very
long time, and they don't particularly want to be in charge of ruins,
cowering from suicide bombers.

I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
hummingbird
2006-04-19 19:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Nah, i don't believe it. I agree he's not in control - but thats the
point - the people who ARE in control aim to be in control for a very
long time, and they don't particularly want to be in charge of ruins,
cowering from suicide bombers.
Use of nuclear weapons against Iran is not likely to destroy America,
unless you think Iran already has nukes.
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?

[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
John
2006-04-19 19:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by hummingbird
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Nah, i don't believe it. I agree he's not in control - but thats the
point - the people who ARE in control aim to be in control for a very
long time, and they don't particularly want to be in charge of ruins,
cowering from suicide bombers.
Use of nuclear weapons against Iran is not likely to destroy America,
unless you think Iran already has nukes.
I think it would transform the US. If not by the reaction of the rest of the
world then by the internal reaction of the American electorate.
Post by hummingbird
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?
[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
Iran isn't on the hitlist and it will get nukes. This is what Bush has
achieved.
hummingbird
2006-04-19 19:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Nah, i don't believe it. I agree he's not in control - but thats the
point - the people who ARE in control aim to be in control for a very
long time, and they don't particularly want to be in charge of ruins,
cowering from suicide bombers.
Use of nuclear weapons against Iran is not likely to destroy America,
unless you think Iran already has nukes.
I think it would transform the US. If not by the reaction of the rest of the
world then by the internal reaction of the American electorate.
That's possible. But those in control of M/E policy in Washington
haven't been too bothered by world opinion so far. The electorate
are unimportant since Bush won't be up for re-election.
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?
[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
Iran isn't on the hitlist and it will get nukes.
I disagree. IMV Bush & Co want regime change in Iran. As to whether it
gets nukes, time will tell. There's no certainty that they want them.
Post by John
This is what Bush has achieved.
Time will tell.
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
John
2006-04-19 19:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
I think it would transform the US. If not by the reaction of the rest of the
world then by the internal reaction of the American electorate.
That's possible. But those in control of M/E policy in Washington
haven't been too bothered by world opinion so far. The electorate
are unimportant since Bush won't be up for re-election.
The reaction would be against the whole Bush establishment. Like the
reaction to Vietnam.
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?
[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
Iran isn't on the hitlist and it will get nukes.
I disagree. IMV Bush & Co want regime change in Iran. As to whether it
gets nukes, time will tell. There's no certainty that they want them.
They may want regime change but they have very little to work with. The
religious Iranian regime is closed to them from within. With regards to
military action the truth is that Iran is more the victim than the
aggressor. They may try and spin the "wipe Israel off the map" but it really
doesn't amount to anything. They just have no justification to attack Iran.

Even if attacks are unlikely Iran will still want the security against
aggression that Nukes offer. In much the same way that Blair wants that
security, but of course the threat to Iran, while slight, is still a lot
more real than the treat to the UK.

So all in all we will have another bunch of nutters with nukes.
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
This is what Bush has achieved.
Time will tell.
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
abelard
2006-04-19 21:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
I think it would transform the US. If not by the reaction of the rest of the
world then by the internal reaction of the American electorate.
That's possible. But those in control of M/E policy in Washington
haven't been too bothered by world opinion so far. The electorate
are unimportant since Bush won't be up for re-election.
The reaction would be against the whole Bush establishment. Like the
reaction to Vietnam.
you have too high an expectation of 'public opinion'...most of it is
fashion and myth making
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?
[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
Iran isn't on the hitlist and it will get nukes.
I disagree. IMV Bush & Co want regime change in Iran. As to whether it
gets nukes, time will tell. There's no certainty that they want them.
They may want regime change but they have very little to work with. The
religious Iranian regime is closed to them from within. With regards to
military action the truth is that Iran is more the victim than the
aggressor.
ah, so you are swallowing the dippy socialist propaganda....
Post by John
They may try and spin the "wipe Israel off the map" but it really
doesn't amount to anything. They just have no justification to attack Iran.
clearly the reasons for your previous comments reside more in wishful
'thinking' than is sound analysis or observation
Post by John
Even if attacks are unlikely Iran will still want the security against
aggression that Nukes offer. In much the same way that Blair wants that
security, but of course the threat to Iran, while slight, is still a lot
more real than the treat to the UK.
better reorient your attention to reality and stop swallowing the
placebos of the fossil media....
Post by John
So all in all we will have another bunch of nutters with nukes.
at least you appear to have some grasp that iran is captured by nutters...

such is the world bliar/bush etc must confront....they don't have the
luxury of your illusions and cavalier response to the iranian loons...
that makes them realists...not 'nutters'

true madness is the refusal to face reality....
the determination to bury the head and to grasp at illusions....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John
2006-04-19 21:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
at least you appear to have some grasp that iran is captured by nutters...
such is the world bliar/bush etc must confront....they don't have the
luxury of your illusions and cavalier response to the iranian loons...
that makes them realists...not 'nutters'
true madness is the refusal to face reality....
the determination to bury the head and to grasp at illusions....
I explained to you over 3 years ago what would happen as a consequence of
the Iraq invasion : Iran developing nuclear weapons, Increased terrorism,
Increased Oil prices etc.

Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
hummingbird
2006-04-19 22:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
at least you appear to have some grasp that iran is captured by nutters...
such is the world bliar/bush etc must confront....they don't have the
luxury of your illusions and cavalier response to the iranian loons...
that makes them realists...not 'nutters'
true madness is the refusal to face reality....
the determination to bury the head and to grasp at illusions....
I explained to you over 3 years ago what would happen as a consequence of
the Iraq invasion : Iran developing nuclear weapons, Increased terrorism,
Increased Oil prices etc.
Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
You have our resident neo-con loon 'abelard' correctly assessed...
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
abelard
2006-04-19 22:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
at least you appear to have some grasp that iran is captured by nutters...
such is the world bliar/bush etc must confront....they don't have the
luxury of your illusions and cavalier response to the iranian loons...
that makes them realists...not 'nutters'
true madness is the refusal to face reality....
the determination to bury the head and to grasp at illusions....
I explained to you over 3 years ago what would happen as a consequence of
the Iraq invasion : Iran developing nuclear weapons, Increased terrorism,
Increased Oil prices etc.
Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
you are a fantasist....i see no point in attempting to communicate
with such a dedicated fantasist...

if you get your feet on the ground...if you can...
i may review my response.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John
2006-04-20 00:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by John
Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
you are a fantasist....i see no point in attempting to communicate
with such a dedicated fantasist...
Usenet is a bit like Groundhog day.
abelard
2006-04-20 01:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
Post by John
Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
you are a fantasist....i see no point in attempting to communicate
with such a dedicated fantasist...
Usenet is a bit like Groundhog day.
my concern is the real world and necessary political acts....
usenet is but a vehicle....

slobo has gone....madsam has gone...the taliban is broken....

the concern is now the timing and handling of another nest....

this is an ongoing campaign to modernise and remake the
middle east....
a campaign to disable a dangerous death cult....

that process is moving forward in a satisfactory manner despite
the squeals of the appeasers and the corruption of the bribees...
it is essential the west/free-world does not recoil or weaken....

the cult will continue to press its luck as long as it imagines the
west lacks purpose or will....
the job of the west is to disabuse that hubris

this is not a playground game or a common room bull session.....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mimus
2006-04-20 01:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
the cult will continue to press its luck as long as it imagines the
west lacks purpose or will....
As long as it can pay off Western politicians to hold their countries down
for it, you mean.

Like the House of Bush.
--
Overpopulation is a very serious problem, and over-immigration is a big
part of it. We must address both. We can't ignore either.

< David Brower
hummingbird
2006-04-20 07:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by John
Usenet is a bit like Groundhog day.
my concern is the real world and necessary political acts....
usenet is but a vehicle....
slobo has gone....madsam has gone...the taliban is broken....
Taliban re-asserting itself. Afghan drugs at record levels.
Bomb rocked US embassy in Kabul yesterday.

Things are going well eh?
Post by abelard
the concern is now the timing and handling of another nest....
Don't fret fraudelard ...the Bush nest is on the slide: opinion polls
sliding, senior personnel changes announced yesterday to keep the show
on the road, Bush becoming ever more incoherent, neo-cons squabbling
among themselves, Fujiyama switched sides. It goes on.
Post by abelard
this is an ongoing campaign to modernise and remake the
middle east....
In America's image. There speaks the new Messiah.

rest binned.
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
John Cawston
2006-04-19 23:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
at least you appear to have some grasp that iran is captured by nutters...
such is the world bliar/bush etc must confront....they don't have the
luxury of your illusions and cavalier response to the iranian loons...
that makes them realists...not 'nutters'
true madness is the refusal to face reality....
the determination to bury the head and to grasp at illusions....
I explained to you over 3 years ago what would happen as a consequence of
the Iraq invasion : Iran developing nuclear weapons,
Three and a bit years ago the Iranians got caught and admitted they had
been developing nuclear energy in secret for at least a decade and a half.
Post by John
Increased terrorism,
Which was already at appalling levels and had been so for decades.. it's
just that it wasn't particularly of interest to us in the West.
Post by John
Increased Oil prices etc.
Yep. But then, the "oil weapon" has been rolled out before when Muslims
get shirty.
Post by John
Perhaps you think these negatives are worth it because of the overall
weakening of the Arab nations and hence their effect on Israel? Perhaps you
think if you foster hatred between the Islamic world and the west Israel
will be safer?
It would be better to simply accept that this is a conflict that has
been building for 40 years. The Munich Olympics, various air plane
hijackings, blowing them out of the sky, assassinations, kidnappings,
the Iran Hostage Crisis, bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires,
the Lebanon tragedy, various bombings of US military barracks, 1st World
Trade Centre bombing and the USS Cole. All these outrages and many more
have largely gone unpunished until 911.

The notable thing about them is how widespread and diffuse many of them
were.. how hard to pin down to a state, a group, a people or a religion;
rather it's all of these in differing amounts. But 911 and Bali preceded
the the invasion of Iraq and are clearly watersheds in how the West now
perceives Islamic terrorism. The West simply could no longer ignore them
and the mayhem of the preceding decades without doing something about it.

Having publicly acknowledged these outrages and the need to do something
about it, the West has simply blown the lid off the need for the
terrorists to hide their hate, their rage and their contempt and now
they threaten us all publicly through the above groupings . They have
not been shy in promising our end and the ultimate triumph of Islam
throughout the world.

Rather than blaming Bush and the Jews, we would be better to put the
blame squarely where it lies and where it originated from.. Islam, the
religion that stopped evolving sometime around the twelfth century.

Something has to happen to get the religion and it's practitioners
growing again, and that wont happen through appeasement, diplomacy or
even moderation, rather through political and economic change.

JC
John
2006-04-20 00:11:03 UTC
Permalink
It would be better to simply accept that this is a conflict that has been
building for 40 years. The Munich Olympics, various air plane hijackings,
blowing them out of the sky, assassinations, kidnappings, the Iran Hostage
Crisis, bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the Lebanon
tragedy, various bombings of US military barracks, 1st World Trade Centre
bombing and the USS Cole. All these outrages and many more have largely
gone unpunished until 911.
Unpunished? Who did you punish after 911, Bin Laden?. Iraq and Sadam weren't
responsible. Apart from the Iranian hostages in 1980 Iran wasn't responsible
for this. Iran didn't station warships off the US coast and blow US civilian
airliners out of the sky.
The notable thing about them is how widespread and diffuse many of them
were.. how hard to pin down to a state, a group, a people or a religion;
rather it's all of these in differing amounts. But 911 and Bali preceded
the the invasion of Iraq and are clearly watersheds in how the West now
perceives Islamic terrorism. The West simply could no longer ignore them
and the mayhem of the preceding decades without doing something about it.
But Iraq wasn't responsible Sadam wasn't connected to Al Queda. Sadam was
essentaily secular. The Shias in Iraq and Iran were happy to see him go so
that Iraq can move into the Islamic fundamentalist fold.
Having publicly acknowledged these outrages and the need to do something
about it, the West has simply blown the lid off the need for the
terrorists to hide their hate, their rage and their contempt and now they
threaten us all publicly through the above groupings . They have not been
shy in promising our end and the ultimate triumph of Islam throughout the
world.
So you are going to kill any old Arab.
Rather than blaming Bush and the Jews, we would be better to put the blame
squarely where it lies and where it originated from.. Islam, the religion
that stopped evolving sometime around the twelfth century.
Something has to happen to get the religion and it's practitioners growing
again, and that wont happen through appeasement, diplomacy or even
moderation, rather through political and economic change.
Right not kill every Arab, kill every moslem. That'll show them.
Mel Rowing
2006-04-20 11:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
It would be better to simply accept that this is a conflict that has been
building for 40 years. The Munich Olympics, various air plane hijackings,
blowing them out of the sky, assassinations, kidnappings, the Iran Hostage
Crisis, bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the Lebanon
tragedy, various bombings of US military barracks, 1st World Trade Centre
bombing and the USS Cole. All these outrages and many more have largely
gone unpunished until 911.
Unpunished? Who did you punish after 911, Bin Laden?. Iraq and Sadam weren't
responsible. Apart from the Iranian hostages in 1980 Iran wasn't responsible
for this. Iran didn't station warships off the US coast and blow US civilian
airliners out of the sky.
That latter incident was a mistake for which due apology was made,
appropriate regret expressed and rightful compensation given.

The declared war is against terrorism not specifically Al Qaeda. Al
Qaeda mght well be currently the most prominent of the terror groups
but it is by no means the only one in jihad with the west.

Al Qaeda with its bases were openly and unapologtically being hosted by
the Afghan Taliban government.

When are you people going to realise that incidents similar to the
above cannot be ignored as eccenticities ad infinitum.

The achillies heels of terrorists is that they need funding and they
need secure bases. Secure bases cannot be set up in countries like the
UK or France since the governments of such countries would not tolerate
it. Terrorists therefore set up secure bases where governments are
either non existant, ineffective or indeed themselves terrorist as were
the Taliban and indeed as was Hussein's Baathist government.

With respect to Hussein there was also the question of the unfinished
business of 1991. He had openly, deliberately and defiantly broken the
terms of an armistice that he shouldn't have been allowed to have in
the first place. You can't cock a snook at the most powerful power on
earth without eventually picking up the tab.

What you always neglect to consider is that the invasion of Iraq was
indeed totally unnecessary because there is one man on earth who could
have stopped it. He now resides in a prison somewhere in Baghdad. Had
he agreed to open up the country to coalition forces that he couldn't
defeat then his people could have been spared most if not all of what
they have suffered since.

The real truth is that he subjected them to 30 years of mis-government
and terror before he was defeated and left behind the legacy we see
now.

There is another consideration.

If indeed we do have to fight terrorism, and it seems that there is no
alternative to that other than tolerating it, isn't it better to fight
it in the Middle East from where it originates or in the streets of
London, New York, Madrid or Paris for example.
Post by John
The notable thing about them is how widespread and diffuse many of them
were.. how hard to pin down to a state, a group, a people or a religion;
rather it's all of these in differing amounts. But 911 and Bali preceded
the the invasion of Iraq and are clearly watersheds in how the West now
perceives Islamic terrorism. The West simply could no longer ignore them
and the mayhem of the preceding decades without doing something about it.
But Iraq wasn't responsible Sadam wasn't connected to Al Queda. Sadam was
essentaily secular. The Shias in Iraq and Iran were happy to see him go so
that Iraq can move into the Islamic fundamentalist fold.
Having publicly acknowledged these outrages and the need to do something
about it, the West has simply blown the lid off the need for the
terrorists to hide their hate, their rage and their contempt and now they
threaten us all publicly through the above groupings . They have not been
shy in promising our end and the ultimate triumph of Islam throughout the
world.
So you are going to kill any old Arab.
Rather than blaming Bush and the Jews, we would be better to put the blame
squarely where it lies and where it originated from.. Islam, the religion
that stopped evolving sometime around the twelfth century.
Something has to happen to get the religion and it's practitioners growing
again, and that wont happen through appeasement, diplomacy or even
moderation, rather through political and economic change.
Right not kill every Arab, kill every moslem. That'll show them.
hummingbird
2006-04-19 22:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
I think it would transform the US. If not by the reaction of the rest of the
world then by the internal reaction of the American electorate.
That's possible. But those in control of M/E policy in Washington
haven't been too bothered by world opinion so far. The electorate
are unimportant since Bush won't be up for re-election.
The reaction would be against the whole Bush establishment. Like the
reaction to Vietnam.
I'm not so sure, there appears to be substantial public support for
Bush's stance on Iran. Americans seem to have learnt little from Iraq.
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
And I don't think a few suicide terrorists are likely to deter them
either ...it's mainly ordinary folk who suffer in those attacks.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I see Iran is on the cards, i saw that months before Afghanistan for
chrissakes, all they needed was an excuse (and this nutjob in charge of
Iran has given them the perfect excuse), but nukes? Nope, it really
would be America Vs The World then.
How so?
[FYI I also predicted Iran was on the hit list over three years ago.]
Iran isn't on the hitlist and it will get nukes.
I disagree. IMV Bush & Co want regime change in Iran. As to whether it
gets nukes, time will tell. There's no certainty that they want them.
They may want regime change but they have very little to work with. The
religious Iranian regime is closed to them from within. With regards to
military action the truth is that Iran is more the victim than the
aggressor. They may try and spin the "wipe Israel off the map" but it really
doesn't amount to anything. They just have no justification to attack Iran.
Justification has rarely influenced American foreign policy.
That the assumptions being made in Washington are widely false - eg
that the people will rise up against the mad mullahs - doesn't seem to
have much effect. It didn't w/r/t Iraq.
Post by John
Even if attacks are unlikely Iran will still want the security against
aggression that Nukes offer. In much the same way that Blair wants that
security, but of course the threat to Iran, while slight, is still a lot
more real than the treat to the UK.
But the point of American foreign policy is to somehow prevent Iran
from acquiring nukes (whether that's Iran's aim is unclear) for the
very reason that it would remain an independent sovereign nation and
that is difficult for the American Empire to accept.
Post by John
So all in all we will have another bunch of nutters with nukes.
Quite so.
A sane strategy would be to negotiate global nuke elimination.
But empire seekers are not sane people.
Post by John
Post by hummingbird
Post by John
This is what Bush has achieved.
Time will tell.
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
Harvey Wilson
2006-04-20 20:47:57 UTC
Permalink
There is no need for Bush to intervene, he should just sit back and
wait, then watch Israel and Iran nuke each other from the face of the
planet.

The end of two very troublesome nations, and two less problems for the
rest of the world to worry over.
mimus
2006-04-20 21:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Wilson
There is no need for Bush to intervene, he should just sit back and
wait, then watch Israel and Iran nuke each other from the face of the
planet.
The end of two very troublesome nations, and two less problems for the
rest of the world to worry over.
Wait until Mecca and Medina are downwind of Israel, please.
--
Nothing so illuminates the end as the means.

And the means is frequently the real end.
Michael Laudahn
2006-04-19 16:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Of course he so refuses.
To start excluding this that and the other is to immediately hand
bargaining chips over to ones opponent. The day one excludes the use of
nuclear weapons in any potential conflict is the day you can start
dismantling and disposing of them.
The aim of any bargaining is to keep your opponent guessing right up to
the end.
Back in Gulf War 1 Saddam Hussein had the option of using chemical
weapons against the coalition forces that kicked him out of Kuwait.
There is no doubt that he had them. He never used them and we can never
know why. One wonders whether he would have shown restraint had Bush
senior ruled out the use of the nuclear or any option before the
conflict broke out.
Thanks for your comment. My own thoughts were going in a similar
direction. You'll have seen that this was a translation of an article
in swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, not a statement of my own.

Have you seen my postings before? I think you have. Ok, I do this,
among other things, because I want to show anglo-saxons and especially
US americans along this alternative communication line that they
shouldn't believe everything their media tell them about (continental)
europeans. And even less what they get to hear from 'our' politicians,
who actually just pursue their personal 'stammtischpolitik' *), instead
of working in the interest of the people.


*) A stammtisch is a regulars' table in a pub where these drink lots of
beer, accompanied by 'political comments' of all kind -
'stammtischpolitik'.




--
Post by Mel Rowing
.)
Unter blinden ist der einäugige könig.

http://worldimprover.net/

WICHTIG / IMPORTANT: islam-info:

http://historyofjihad.org/ - http://apostatesofislam.com/
Mein Führer Bush
2006-04-19 17:16:38 UTC
Permalink
se
Get a job, you unemployed neo-Nazi.
DVH
2006-04-19 19:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Laudahn
Have you seen my postings before? I think you have. Ok, I
do this, among other things, because I want to show anglo-saxons
and especially US americans along this alternative communication
line that they shouldn't believe everything their media tell them about
(continental) europeans.
It's appreciated.
Ordog
2006-04-20 11:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Laudahn
Have you seen my postings before? I think you have. Ok, I do this,
among other things, because I want to show anglo-saxons and especially
US americans along this alternative communication line that they
shouldn't believe everything their media tell them about (continental)
europeans.
Shows how moronic you are nazi troll.The US media hardly ever mentions
Europe. The large majority of Shrub supporters do not even know where
Berlin or Zurich is on the world map.

But you want to capture attention. You need that desperately in order
to further your nazi agendas.
Propaganda! That's what it is.

And you want to stir up trouble?
Yeah!
You think, your war is not really over?

But....
When will you realise than you are not wanted with your nazi propaganda
war in aus.politics?
Get lost.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/neonazis.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/alliance/alliance14.html
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/br%7Dnaz.html
http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremism/White_extremism/American_nazi_...
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/racial.html

Herr König der Einaugigen!
Get lost. Verscheuche dich! Your Drittes Reich is never going to
happen. Hitler is long dead. So face up to it.
You won't convert anyone here!

Ördög
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
abelard
2006-04-19 19:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Laudahn
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
US president George Bush considers an attack on Iran's nuclear power
installations as an alternative if diplomatic negotiations fail. He
made this very clear in the course of the preparations for the talks
with China's president Hu Jintao. At the same time, France's president
Jacques Chirac has stated that the international community will never
accept an Iran with access to atomic weapons.
all as it should be.....
Post by Michael Laudahn
The question of a direct attack against Iran is however very
complicated. Such an attack would require the use of atomic weapons.
'Conventional weapons can never reach so deep that they could hit
installations which are located deep under the surface. Is the target
sufficiently deeply located, maybe 50 metres below the surface, then
there is no other way for solving this taks than nuclear weapons', says
Jens Wirstam, nuclear weapons expert with FOI, Totalförsvaret's
research institution. 'Is the installation situated in an inhabited
region, then inevitably people will be affected', says he. 'This is
clear for everybody. They call them bunker busters, but their use can
never be sparing. That their effect reaches far deep doesn't mean its
surface effect will be reduced. Thus, the pressure wave along the
surface will be equally powerful, and a large area will be
contaminated.'
what is this about 'surface contamination'?
how far can the recent technology now bury bombs before detonation?
it is obvious that the whole industrial stream to produce centrifuges
and mining facilities are potential targets...as are the idiot
scientists and technicians working on the task...let alone the
rather small coterie of usurpers who control the present
dictatorship in iran....
there will be no shortage of targets....

i would hope and expect western sources already know most of them.....

anyone at any level or part of the bomb production become
legitimate targets....
Post by Michael Laudahn
Iran's big enrichment facility is situated below the earth, but the
pilote installation - where the tests in question are supposed to take
place - is on the surface. 'If you want to knock this one out, you
don't need nuclear weapons. But then, it is possible that the USA know
things that we don't know', says Jens Wirstam. He sees no real reason
why the US should refrain from using certain military weapons that the
country is disposing of. 'This would be counter-productive. Their
purpose is to use them, or at least threating to use them.' It is not
trustworthy either, that Iran were planning to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes only. 'One must ask why Iran in such a case, in this
exposed situation, continues to drive forcefully forward, thereby
putting itself in opposition against the security council.'
they are engaged in a high stakes gamble for considerable power....
they are gambling the west won't act...just as madsam gambled...and lost.

this is about an attempt to change the furniture of world power politics

they are making the same errors other ambitious dictators have made...
that the west has gone soft....

iran is hoping to use nukes and third parties to threaten the west at will
Post by Michael Laudahn
Can the whole matter develop into a lengthy war of words? 'I think it
will be very difficult to reach a multi-lateral solution.
the number of free loaders in old europe showed that many are quite
content to attempt appeasement, bribery etc rather than pay any
serious cost....
but appeasement is always costly in the long run to powers that wish
to be taken seriously

the free world is a coalition but it is essentially ruled from washington.
Post by Michael Laudahn
Up to now,
the security council has only issued a vague so-called presidential
statement which Iran hasn't taken notice of.
the un has sidelined itself...
imv it will be increasingly ignored and replaced by a coalition of
willing democracies...
Post by Michael Laudahn
They seem to continue
trusting in China and Russia to continue standing on the brake.
it is in the interests of neither russia nor china to have a mad nuclear
theocracy....nor to battle with the usa....
thus far the are attempting to gain brownie points but in due course
they will be faced with cooperate or pay very grave costs...

do not confuse postures for home sheep consumption with serious
political decisions...
do not confuse manoeuvering for advantages with 'when the chips
start to fall' time....
when the chips start to fall serious powers will wish to come out
ahead....

most of what you see in the fossil media and among our wanabees
is wishful 'thinking', it will be allowed until the decisions get
serious...
up to that point it is feed the egos of the sheep mode....it makes
the sheep feel they matter and that means the sheep tend to
support the political leaders when the going gets tough.....
no real politician takes the likes of buzzy or hakky seriously
Post by Michael Laudahn
But to
what extent the world is ready to live with a nuclear-armed Iran will
also be a question for Sweden', says Jens Wirstam. At the same time, he
has problems imaging that the US will engage more in that region.
of course they will...this is serious....
will rome actually be prepared to swat the flies in iran in the face
of the immature caterwauling from appeasers and free loaders....
the free world depends on and hides behind the skirts of rome....

meanwhile the lunatics in iran are building rockets designed to
reach all europe...even sweden in the end....
they are also trying to build a network of infiltrators/spies/traitors/
fellow-travellers in your own back yards...there is no essential
difference between the power seekers of the m.e and the cult
socialists...
the methods are the same and you will have to oppose them or
be ruled by them...
you are going to have to make choices....

as bush has already warned you....

it is the nature of idiots that they want power without responsibility....
a high standard of living without work....
an insurance policy without paying the premiums....

meanwhile the kitchen is hotting up.....

as i have continually warned....irak is a tea party compared with what
could develop...

the romans knew the score...
let him who desires peace, prepare for war...vegetius

the greeks knew the score...
we make war that we may live in peace....aristotle....

many of the old fools in europe still think they can get by on dreams.

reality will come and bite you if you don't wake up....

thank god for america and bush....
Post by Michael Laudahn
You don't think then that Bush is aiming at a grand finale for his
presidency? 'No. But to straighten out the situation in Irak would also
be a grand finale.' The development in Irak has until now played
directly into Iran's hands.
no it hasn't..just the reverse....
it has signalled the west will act...and
it has established encampments on both sides of the maniacs...
Post by Michael Laudahn
Its biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein, has been
removed, and Iran's allies have simultaneously come to power.
that is just fossil media and softheaded bollox....
forget it and focus on disagreeable realities....

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2006-04-19 20:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
what is this about 'surface contamination'?
The prompt neutrons from a surface or buried detonation will generate
massive amounts of fallout as a consequence of direct activation of
isotopes in the surrounding geology.
Post by abelard
how far can the recent technology now bury bombs before detonation?
Not deep enough. Low 10s of meters tops. F=MA only gets you so far.



greg
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.
abelard
2006-04-19 21:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by abelard
what is this about 'surface contamination'?
The prompt neutrons from a surface or buried detonation will generate
massive amounts of fallout as a consequence of direct activation of
isotopes in the surrounding geology.
Post by abelard
how far can the recent technology now bury bombs before detonation?
Not deep enough. Low 10s of meters tops. F=MA only gets you so far.
thanx...on the ball and to hand promptly as ever....

how are neutrons generating radioactive isotopes....
i have read somewhere that 'neutron' bombs are designed to wipe
out life while making the area habitable again in short order...

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2006-04-19 22:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
how are neutrons generating radioactive isotopes....
The nucleus of a stable element will capture a free neutron and become a
heavier and unstable isotope as a consequence.
Post by abelard
i have read somewhere that 'neutron' bombs are designed to wipe
out life while making the area habitable again in short order...
Not really, a neutron bomb is still a thermonuclear device with all the
meaty goodness we've come to know & love about them.

They differ in that they are designed to release rather than contain the
neutron pulse which is generated by the fusion reaction.

As a consequence a 1kt tactical neutron bomb is lot more effective against
armoured fighting vehicles, than a 1kt fission device.

Tanks by design can deal with blast and heat, their crews however cannot
handle the enhanced radiation pulse, where neutrons will plough through the
armour as if it wasnt there.



greg
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.
abelard
2006-04-19 23:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by abelard
how are neutrons generating radioactive isotopes....
The nucleus of a stable element will capture a free neutron and become a
heavier and unstable isotope as a consequence.
Post by abelard
i have read somewhere that 'neutron' bombs are designed to wipe
out life while making the area habitable again in short order...
Not really, a neutron bomb is still a thermonuclear device with all the
meaty goodness we've come to know & love about them.
They differ in that they are designed to release rather than contain the
neutron pulse which is generated by the fusion reaction.
As a consequence a 1kt tactical neutron bomb is lot more effective against
armoured fighting vehicles, than a 1kt fission device.
Tanks by design can deal with blast and heat, their crews however cannot
handle the enhanced radiation pulse, where neutrons will plough through the
armour as if it wasnt there.
ok, but you haven't yet covered the prattle around leaving the area
'clean' after a few weeks....
also

you 'spoke' of
Post by Greg Hennessy
direct activation of isotopes in the surrounding geology.
how serious would this be as i would expect most of the potentially
irritating material that could be converted into seriously annoying
isotopes would be in very short supply...
eg not much iodine, cobalt or strontium but plenty al, fe, silicon etc....

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2006-04-20 09:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Greg Hennessy
Tanks by design can deal with blast and heat, their crews however cannot
handle the enhanced radiation pulse, where neutrons will plough through the
armour as if it wasnt there.
ok, but you haven't yet covered the prattle around leaving the area
'clean' after a few weeks....
Cleanliness is more a consequence of device detonation as an air burst
rather than anything intrinsic to the neutron weapon design. Even for a 1kt
neutron device, the destructive overpressure radius is several hundred
metres.

Yield for yield an enhanced radiation weapon has about half the blast
damage of a normal fission/fusion device.
Post by abelard
also
you 'spoke' of
Post by Greg Hennessy
direct activation of isotopes in the surrounding geology.
how serious would this be
Exceedingly, Even for a 'low' yield device, thousands of tonnes of fallout
will be carried up, a lot of this will fall back down locally, however
there will downwind fallout outside of the immediate area.
Post by abelard
as i would expect most of the potentially
irritating material that could be converted into seriously annoying
isotopes would be in very short supply...
eg not much iodine,
Enough to make iodine 131 ingestion a real issue for anyone in the
immediate locality over the next few days.
Post by abelard
cobalt or strontium
Strontium and Cesium are the ones to watch out for longer term.
Post by abelard
but plenty al, fe, silicon etc....
Add manganese, sodium and some others. Once a couple of weeks have gone by,
these will have decayed away, only the immediate blast zone will be 'hot'.


greg
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Inco Gnito
2006-04-20 10:24:19 UTC
Permalink
I wonder at what point will the peaceniks here accept that even the
nuclear card must be left on the table in dealing with the Iranian
issue. A nuclear Iran is such a threat to world peace and stability
that they must never be allowed access to such forbidden technology.

When an nuke courtesy of Iran gets set off in Jerusalem in line with A
Mad nejad's threats to annihilate Israel? What about London or New
York, (to them) "decadent" capitals of the world?
Post by Michael Laudahn
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
US president George Bush considers an attack on Iran's nuclear power
installations as an alternative if diplomatic negotiations fail. He
made this very clear in the course of the preparations for the talks
with China's president Hu Jintao. At the same time, France's president
Jacques Chirac has stated that the international community will never
accept an Iran with access to atomic weapons.
The question of a direct attack against Iran is however very
complicated. Such an attack would require the use of atomic weapons.
'Conventional weapons can never reach so deep that they could hit
installations which are located deep under the surface. Is the target
sufficiently deeply located, maybe 50 metres below the surface, then
there is no other way for solving this taks than nuclear weapons', says
Jens Wirstam, nuclear weapons expert with FOI, Totalförsvaret's
research institution. 'Is the installation situated in an inhabited
region, then inevitably people will be affected', says he. 'This is
clear for everybody. They call them bunker busters, but their use can
never be sparing. That their effect reaches far deep doesn't mean its
surface effect will be reduced. Thus, the pressure wave along the
surface will be equally powerful, and a large area will be
contaminated.'
Iran's big enrichment facility is situated below the earth, but the
pilote installation - where the tests in question are supposed to take
place - is on the surface. 'If you want to knock this one out, you
don't need nuclear weapons. But then, it is possible that the USA know
things that we don't know', says Jens Wirstam. He sees no real reason
why the US should refrain from using certain military weapons that the
country is disposing of. 'This would be counter-productive. Their
purpose is to use them, or at least threating to use them.' It is not
trustworthy either, that Iran were planning to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes only. 'One must ask why Iran in such a case, in this
exposed situation, continues to drive forcefully forward, thereby
putting itself in opposition against the security council.'
Can the whole matter develop into a lengthy war of words? 'I think it
will be very difficult to reach a multi-lateral solution. Up to now,
the security council has only issued a vague so-called presidential
statement which Iran hasn't taken notice of. They seem to continue
trusting in China and Russia to continue standing on the brake. But to
what extent the world is ready to live with a nuclear-armed Iran will
also be a question for Sweden', says Jens Wirstam. At the same time, he
has problems imaging that the US will engage more in that region.
You don't think then that Bush is aiming at a grand finale for his
presidency? 'No. But to straighten out the situation in Irak would also
be a grand finale.' The development in Irak has until now played
directly into Iran's hands. Its biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein, has been
removed, and Iran's allies have simultaneously come to power.
--
.)
Unter blinden ist der einäugige könig.
http://worldimprover.net/
http://historyofjihad.org/ - http://apostatesofislam.com/
Scuzza
2006-04-20 10:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inco Gnito
I wonder at what point will the peaceniks here accept that even the
nuclear card must be left on the table in dealing with the Iranian
issue. A nuclear Iran is such a threat to world peace and stability
that they must never be allowed access to such forbidden technology.
When an nuke courtesy of Iran gets set off in Jerusalem in line with A
Mad nejad's threats to annihilate Israel? What about London or New
York, (to them) "decadent" capitals of the world?
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.

But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes? What happened to "we'll never be first?" Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
Post by Inco Gnito
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear
weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
Inco Gnito
2006-04-20 11:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scuzza
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.
But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes? What happened to "we'll never be first?" Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
Regardless of your misgivings for Bush, let's face it: the odds of an
American nuke going off in Jerusalem/London/New York/Sydney or Auckland
are second to none.

The odds of an Iranian nuke going off? If the Iranians are allowed to
access the Forbidden Technology, I would say it is a finite chance.
Argue however you like, but we're safer with America, France, UK,
China, Russia, etc. having nukes than Iran.

And yes, I don't like the idea of India/Pakistan having nukes either,
but that is fait accompli.

Lastly, there is nothing wrong with power politics as long as you're on
the same team :-). In fact it is to your interests :-)
Chris X
2006-04-20 11:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inco Gnito
Post by Scuzza
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.
But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes? What happened to "we'll never be first?" Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
The odds of an Iranian nuke going off? If the Iranians are allowed to
access the Forbidden Technology,
"Forbidden Technology" .... ROTFLMAO !
Every nation in the world has a right to it. Live with it, Mooosey.
Inco Gnito
2006-04-20 12:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris X
Post by Inco Gnito
Post by Scuzza
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.
But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes? What happened to "we'll never be first?" Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
The odds of an Iranian nuke going off? If the Iranians are allowed to
access the Forbidden Technology,
"Forbidden Technology" .... ROTFLMAO !
Every nation in the world has a right to it. Live with it, Mooosey.
So by your logic Israel has a right to nuclear technology as well?

No, the only countries allowed access to Forbidden Technology are those
we allow. Which is not your buddies in Iran.
Chris X
2006-04-20 19:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inco Gnito
Post by Chris X
Post by Inco Gnito
Post by Scuzza
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.
But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes? What happened to "we'll never be first?" Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
The odds of an Iranian nuke going off? If the Iranians are allowed to
access the Forbidden Technology,
"Forbidden Technology" .... ROTFLMAO !
Every nation in the world has a right to it. Live with it, Mooosey.
So by your logic Israel has a right to nuclear technology as well?
Yes, Mooosey.
Post by Inco Gnito
No, the only countries allowed access to Forbidden Technology are those
we allow. Which is not your buddies in Iran.
Tough. They have it, and there's nothing you can do about it, Mooosey.
John Cawston
2006-04-20 11:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scuzza
Post by Inco Gnito
I wonder at what point will the peaceniks here accept that even the
nuclear card must be left on the table in dealing with the Iranian
issue. A nuclear Iran is such a threat to world peace and stability
that they must never be allowed access to such forbidden technology.
When an nuke courtesy of Iran gets set off in Jerusalem in line with A
Mad nejad's threats to annihilate Israel? What about London or New
York, (to them) "decadent" capitals of the world?
I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, either, but then I don't
like the idea of France having them, the ungrateful bastards, nor
India/Pakistan (what a cluster-fuck that is!), nor North Korea.
But I don't particularly like the idea of Bush having them either,
since he strikes me as about as sane as an emu on acid. Sure, I'd
probably prefer him to any ayatollah you care to mention, but that's
not really the point, is it? Where's the sense in nuking Iran to save
it from nukes?
Who sez anyone is going to nuke Iran.. no-one. When asked about it's
intentions the US has simply said that the preferred option must be
diplomacy but all options are on the table, as of course it must.
Post by Scuzza
What happened to "we'll never be first?"
That was never a part of US nuclear policy. In fact, the US proposed a
first strike on USSR forces in the event of a European invasion.
Generally, both sides publicly preferred to talk about MAD, rather than
discuss a pre-emptive strike. Again, it was dangerous to remove any
potential advantage of first strike from the table, so neither side
effectively did.
Post by Scuzza
Face it, man,
this is power politics pure and simple.
I guess so. More ominously, the bad guys appear to have settled on a
policy of "wait till Bush is gone", in the not unreasonable belief that
Bush is an exception to the weak presidents since Truman. Meantime, they
hope to make things as rough as possible now to scare the next president
into appeasement.

JC
Post by Scuzza
Post by Inco Gnito
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear
weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...