Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bush set to re-attack Iraq
#21
mr_yak,
"get real" is good, because I am and you are not. Are you aware, America is stationing some rockets in Polonia and Czech Republic, alledgedly to 'shield Europe from NK and Iranian nukes'? Seriously. Let's see, NK mothballs his one and a half nukes after that treaty last week. Had they tens of thousands as the USA do, there would have been an astronomically remote possibility of them attacking Europe, after they burn their arch enemies SK, Japan and America. With us they have no quarrel, after all. At the moment, they have no technology to shoot their nukes to Europe anyway.
Iran has no nukes at all and no ambitions to get any.
So, neither NK and Iran have nukes, let's stress it. What's this shield good for, then, apart from making some money for Lockheed or so? To give Russia one in the nose, to provoke them into some reaction that would start a new weapons race. BTW, that's not a NATO idea, but one between the USA and those two small countries in Eastern Europe, still frustrated about the former occupiers. Unfortunately, you cant' claim exclusive rights for a moronic leadership. Once more you threaten Europes peace and come closer to the day we need to get rid of you. Why don't you pack and bring your boys home?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#22
quadrat,

Glad to see that we are in such vigorous agreement. Europe is certainly not worth defending ... at this point it's just about unanimous! So please feel free to take Hans Blix (and Ahmadinejad's) advice. And meanwhile ... good luck with your Iranian project(s).

Back on topic ... and as long as we are agreeing with each other ... here are some more good reasons why a U.S. attack on Iran is a generally bad idea.
Reply
#23
BBC releases report on US plans to bomb Iran's nuclear program and destroy their military from the air. I could only hope this is true but I suspect Bush leaked this himself as sabor raddling. Trying to fool the Iranians. I suspect he still believes he can topple them from within.
Reply
#24
Hans Blix issued this little hissy fit over the weekend. As I said above, he's beginning to sound alot like Ahmadinejad in that both are asking for disarmament (from everybody else ... except Russia and China apparently as he/they refer specifically to 'Western' nuke programs). Frankly, I find Ahmadinejad to be a bit more credible than Blix.

From the article I linked in my earlier post, a much better solution would be for some "bad things" to suddenly happen to Iran's teetery infrastructure ... and the folks that are actively supporting it. Horrific suicide bombings are becoming more common place in that part of the world these days ... so why should Iran be any exception?

The secret 'Iran attack plans' are contingencies although the article calls them a 'fallback' ... which sounds alot more dramatic (generates more hits, sells more papers ... etc). The BBC article makes a big thing about the 'triggers' ... which we sure as hell better be making crystal clear anyway. Again, with the clear exception of the second trigger, I don't really see an attack on Iran as particularly feasable.
Reply
#25
Thanks to Mr Yak for that link to the statements by Hans Blix, which Shirley didn't sound like a hissy fit. Blix stresses a point that I keep making: if Iran, Iraq and North Korea are on the short list of the "Axis of Evil," why does Bush treat them so differently? Why has Bush (admirably) insisted on dealing with NK using multinational diplomatic talks, even while NK lied and cheated? Yet, both in Iran and Iraq, real diplomacy is verboten?

Nuclear arms proliferation is a proven fact, and many more nations are enroute to joining "the nuclear club" founded by the USA. My recent, quick review of the subject says the world contained about 70,000 nuclear bombs at the peak. The club has included Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA, Israel, South Africa, and Soviet satellite countries.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#26
Fit2BThaied Wrote:Blix stresses a point that I keep making: if Iran, Iraq and North Korea are on the short list of the "Axis of Evil," why does Bush treat them so differently? Why has Bush (admirably) insisted on dealing with NK using multinational diplomatic talks, even while NK lied and cheated? Yet, both in Iran and Iraq, real diplomacy is verboten?

Read the EU lament story above. Even the Euros are accepting the fact that their own diplomacy has been a moot point ... sanctions as well. Even THEY are starting to feel a little embarassed. I suspect they also may be realizing that they will be closer downwind of what's coming.

North Korea is starving ... and Kim is probably running low on cognac. Dear one is trading nukes for food ... and oil ... and probably a few luxury goods that we won't hear about for good measure. Iranian ambitions go far beyond the mere extortion value of nuclear weapons ... although I figure they will probably attempt some regional arm twisting long before they actually make the inevitable mushroom cloud. The left has to absolutely love that deal. They can call Bush an idiot for taking the same package as Clinton (except Clinton only did half of "trust but verify"), and at the same time rebuke him for not making nice with the Mullahs. Sweet!!

Fit2BThaied Wrote:Nuclear arms proliferation is a proven fact, and many more nations are enroute to joining "the nuclear club" founded by the USA. My recent, quick review of the subject says the world contained about 70,000 nuclear bombs at the peak. The club has included Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA, Israel, South Africa, and Soviet satellite countries.

Less warheads now ... and an increasing number of players ... and an exponentially increasing likelyhood of a kaboom in the next few years. I'm astounded by the NPT fans that can square the reality of the little Iran-Israel-Saudi Arabia anti-triad that's now being formed with their profound belief that the treaty is anything but dead, dead, dead as a door nail. Just try listening to an argument that an Iranian nuke will actually make the ME more stable ... and how they won't actually be in "techical violation" of the treaty by building weapons ... and these are the very same people who like to accuse Christian fundamentalists of "speaking in tongues"?! :roll: The same people who claim to want to rid the world of nukes are more than happy to conjure a scenario that involves a ME version of MAD that keeps everybody safe. Only MAD doesn't work with a mere handful of warheads ... and as the article above cites, the missile flight times are much, much shorter ... and the trigger fingers get much much twitchier. But I guess if the NPT folks can manage to smoke enough dope, they can convince themselves of anything that suits their fancy.

P.S. ... why didn't you include NK in "the club"? Was that simply an honest omission? ... or part of the new and strange effort to place the burden of proof on the U.S. (even after Kim has publicly declared NK a nuclear actor) before we can again have the 'honor' of providing them with food and oil?

Per quadrat's earlier comments, I guess I have to take it back ... apparently there are at least a couple of states in Europe that are still worth defending. More specifically to quadrats concern, the Russians have to feel pretty inadequate if they percieve their vast nuclear aresenal as 'threatened' by less than a dozen ABMs. But at least we can still agree that the U.S. should continue to bail from the more costly NATO venues.

Now here's something that actually might slow things down. It seems Tehran has begun stiffing Moscow.
Reply
#27
Some interesting comments by Gen. Keane, the commander of the reinforcements, can be found here.

There seems to be no connection between the title of the article and the text...

Worse, it seems that Gen. Keane believes Al Sadr to be a Sunni..... :roll: :?:
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#28
mv Wrote:Some interesting comments by Gen. Keane, the commander of the reinforcements, can be found here.

There seems to be no connection between the title of the article and the text...

Worse, it seems that Gen. Keane believes Al Sadr to be a Sunni..... :roll: :?:

I imagine they all look alike to some of us. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#29
My omission of North Korea from the list of members in the nuclear war was, indeed, a simple omission. One of my sources was a 2003 almanac.

I am not a leftie, and I'm against the use of nuclear weapons in warfare. Dr. Billy Graham is no pacifist, except on this issue: there is absolutely no moral justification for possessing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them. But we wouldn't want the right wingers to be concerned about Christian morals, would we? Shock
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iraq Was A Safer Place Without George Bush quadrat 67 13,738 05-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Bush Speech on Iraq Palladin 22 4,919 08-02-2007, 04:06 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)