Iran. I pray this isn't true....

[Black&Tan]

Holy crap....

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/

I'm not sure how biased ThinkProgress is (is there anyone unbiased nowadays!), but this appears to be a co-op piece with CNN, which I think lends a certain credibility to the story.

While I don't doubt scenarios have been created, but sending plans to the White House and putting naval forces on alert is alarming at best.

Please tell me this isn't happening again....

[iGary]

Holy crap....

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/

I'm not sure how biased ThinkProgress is (is there anyone unbiased nowadays!), but this appears to be a co-op piece with CNN, which I think lends a certain credibility to the story.

While I don't doubt scenarios have been created, but sending plans to the White House and putting naval forces on alert is alarming at best.

Please tell me this isn't happening again....

Yeah, I saw this at the airport last night. Kind of disturbing.

[Black&Tan]

Did anyone read Time magazine this week....they talk about how a war with Iran could play out. I've only read the extremely abridged version available online. According to ThinkProgress, they cite Time as the source for the naval readiness alert.

Are there any further details?

[Desertrat]

I've heard bits and pieces over the last couple of years that SF-type guys have been establishing contacts within Iran, talking to dissidents there. One of those "open secrets" that's known to the Iranian establishment as well as our people...

Purely guessing, but I imagine they're probably trying to find the locations of hidden nuke stuff.

'Rat

[Black&Tan]

Purely guessing, but I imagine they're probably trying to find the locations of hidden nuke stuff.

'Rat

That's exactly the substance of the interview with the colonel. Also, the colonel seemed to think military action was imminent. That may be alarmist, and calculated to give pause to Iran's President. Maybe not.

Today both Bush and the Iranian President are supposed to give speeches at the UN. What they have to say this time may be important.

When Bush and Congress increased the powers of the President, did they also address holding Congressional elections in a time of war? What would happen if the administration decided to invade/attack Iran in October?

[Sdashiki]

sigh.

bomb the colored people.

rinse.

repeat.

[Thanatoast]

I find the annoying part to be that both Bush and Amedinijad are going to be in New York and Bush (I don't know about Amedinijad) refuses to sit down and talk. How petty. Really shows how deep W's commitment to diplomacy is.

[miloblithe]

Well, to be fair to Bush, no US president has sat down with an Iranian leader since the 1970s. We don't have any diplomatic relations with their government.

[Sdashiki]

but, it would certainly help!

:rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

True, but lets look at the facts, Iran has had a clandestine Nuclear operation going for years and you dont do all this in secret for energy. I have no doubt that Iran is after weapons not energy so either open it all up for everyone to inspect or prepared to be bombed into the next Iran. The choice is easy. Its up to Iran.

[skunk]

True, but lets look at the facts, Iran has had a clandestine Nuclear operation going for years and you dont do all this in secret for energy. I have no doubt that Iran is after weapons not energy so either open it all up for everyone to inspect or prepared to be bombed into the next Iran. The choice is easy. Its up to Iran.You are omitting a few important factoids here, DHM. Firstly, Iran is not provably doing anything contrary to any agreement or treaty. It is ALLOWED to do what it is doing. This whole ultimatum-style approach has been cooked up out of nothing by your administration to foment a war. Don't fall for it. There are plenty of undesirable states with nuclear weapons, your own among them.

[mactastic]

True, but lets look at the facts, Iran has had a clandestine Nuclear operation going for years and you dont do all this in secret for energy. I have no doubt that Iran is after weapons not energy so either open it all up for everyone to inspect or prepared to be bombed into the next Iran. The choice is easy. Its up to Iran.
Would you allow Iran to inspect the totality of the US nuclear enrichment, research, energy and weapons programs?

[KingYaba]

It's pretty easy to take a guess and say the U.S. is conducting espionage. I would guess that the U.S. conducts espionage in North Korea too. Followed by many other countries for that matter. If that is the "military operation" this gentlemen is talking about.

I have also heard that there is talk about a naval blockade. You all are familiar with the Straits of Hormuz?

[Dont Hurt Me]

My main point was this was a pure weapons program until they were found out , now Iran is spinning this into something like Energy. Hey they want energy sitting on all that oil lets give them a hand but if they are going for the big one......sorry not with King George & the republicans it aint going to happen.

[Sdashiki]

The US is NOT the world Police. The fact that the govt wants to believe that as some sort of pseudo heroic thing, is just begging for trouble. And its here.


I dont care if Iran or ANYONE is making a nuke.

The awful and complete truth is this:

any person, state, country, faction etc, who launches a nuclear bomb on ANY and i mean ANY target on the face of the earth.....

is pretty much dooming us all.

if a bomb falls on the earth, EVERY SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER, superpower or otherwise, will launch theirs.

its just plain logicistics. launch a nuke, we launch ours, even if you didnt launch it at us specifically.

you cant drop a nuke, and expect not 2 or 200 more to fall. which is why I am not worried, because if one does fall, EVERYONE is doomed. not just those who were targeted.

[skunk]

if they are going for the big one......sorry not with King George & the republicans it aint going to happen.Oh yes it is.

[skunk]

you cant drop a nuke, and expect not 2 or 200 more to fall. which is why I am not worried, because if one does fall, EVERYONE is doomed.I've got stuff to do, yet.

[Sdashiki]

Then be like a normal human being, and go on with your life.

Worrying about nuclear winter pretty much froze (lol, coldwar play on words) this country into paranoia for about 40 years.

Worrying today about terrorists is bad enough.

SO, what does the media do, add the previous scare to the modern one.

TERRORISTS WITH NUKES!

But alas, I sincerely doubt anyone anywhere would drop a nuke, period.

[mactastic]

My main point was this was a pure weapons program until they were found out , now Iran is spinning this into something like Energy. Hey they want energy sitting on all that oil lets give them a hand but if they are going for the big one......sorry not with King George & the republicans it aint going to happen.
How are we going to stop them from getting "the big one"? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? That will only delay, not halt, their activities. Plus it will drive the program further underground into bunkers that may not even be susceptible to a nuclear strike. A bombing campaign makes it MORE likely that Iran developes nuclear weapons IMHO.

Ok, so ground troops? We're a little short of those these days. Maybe with a draft, but you know how popular that would make the adventure in Mess-o-potamia among the US citizenry.

Gonna rustle up a posse of the willing again? Doesn't seem like too many nations would be eager to fall in behind the US and contribute much more than the token forces they committed to Iraq. And I'm sure you are well aware that the "coalition forces" that invaded Iraq were almost entirely American and British.

I don't see a viable way to threaten or force Iran to curb development of their nuclear arsenal. Do you?

[skunk]

At least you knew where you were with the Old World Order.

[Black&Tan]

How are we going to stop them from getting "the big one"? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? That will only delay, not halt, their activities. Plus it will drive the program further underground into bunkers that may not even be susceptible to a nuclear strike. A bombing campaign makes it MORE likely that Iran developes nuclear weapons IMHO.



...and more likely they will want to come after us for a little bit of payback!

[benthewraith]

On the one hand I hope to God that we don't have war with Iran, on the other hand, I'd hope that our leaders are prepared in case we must. I don't want to be the one telling my children twenty years down the line that "WW3 was the most predictable war ever" as my grandparents do of WW2.

[Dont Hurt Me]

How are we going to stop them from getting "the big one"? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? That will only delay, not halt, their activities. Plus it will drive the program further underground into bunkers that may not even be susceptible to a nuclear strike. A bombing campaign makes it MORE likely that Iran developes nuclear weapons IMHO.

Ok, so ground troops? We're a little short of those these days. Maybe with a draft, but you know how popular that would make the adventure in Mess-o-potamia among the US citizenry.

Gonna rustle up a posse of the willing again? Doesn't seem like too many nations would be eager to fall in behind the US and contribute much more than the token forces they committed to Iraq. And I'm sure you are well aware that the "coalition forces" that invaded Iraq were almost entirely American and British.

I don't see a viable way to threaten or force Iran to curb development of their nuclear arsenal. Do you?Not really, but old George & his team of draft dodging buddies are probably planning 20 yrs of airstrikes that way George can be the longest serving president since Roosevelt.

[XNine]

Soooo. When does the mass-exodus to Canada start?

[Music_Producer]

Why the f@@k isn't Bush impeached yet? I can't believe all the red necks in this country who still love him and vote for him.. God, I would love to meet them all personally and teach them a lesson.

[KingYaba]

Why the f@@k isn't Bush impeached yet? I can't believe all the red necks in this country who still love him and vote for him.. God, I would love to meet them all personally and teach them a lesson.
So it's only "rednecks" who vote for President Bush? :rolleyes: Can you make another pathetic attempt to generalize? My father voted for President Bush, and he is far from being a "redneck." Secondly, this country only voted for him twice. (Apart from the governorship in TX)

What lesson do you plan to teach, mind sharing with the MR class?

So, how do you plan to impeach President Bush? Remember, if we the U.S. congress could not impeach Clinton for lying to congress, then good luck with the impeachment of President Bush. :rolleyes:

[Music_Producer]

So it's only "rednecks" who vote for President Bush? :rolleyes: Can you make another pathetic attempt to generalize? My father voted for President Bush, and he is far from being a "redneck." Secondly, this country only voted for him twice. (Apart from the governorship in TX)

What lesson do you plan to teach, mind sharing with the MR class?

So, how do you plan to impeach President Bush? Remember, if we the U.S. congress could not impeach Clinton for lying to congress, then good luck with the impeachment of President Bush. :rolleyes:

Thats the thing that shocks me more.. he was voted *twice* I don't plan on doing anything.. and I can generalize if I want to.. because generalization works when it comes to this country, unfortunately. Your dad voted for him? I wonder how he feels now.. or maybe he still has no regrets :rolleyes:

Edit - Never mind, you're in Texas.. I understand why he voted for Bush :)

[Music_Producer]

So, how do you plan to impeach President Bush? Remember, if we the U.S. congress could not impeach Clinton for lying to congress, then good luck with the impeachment of President Bush. :rolleyes:

Somehow what Clinton did didn't bother me one bit.. amused me actually. I wondered what the big deal was with everyone ganging on the poor guy. Sure, he made a mistake.. but I'd rather have a president who lies to Congress about a b***job than goes around attacking countries, and killing thousands of people, makes his own laws and gives a crap about this country and its citizens. Thank you.

[benthewraith]

Why the f@@k isn't Bush impeached yet? I can't believe all the red necks in this country who still love him and vote for him.. God, I would love to meet them all personally and teach them a lesson.

Do you realize how offensive the term "redneck" is? And what lesson would you teach them? One can misconstrue that as a threat. You almost act as if you're better than them. :rolleyes:

[KingYaba]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
Not everyone in Texas votes Republican. It may be shocking to you, but Texas has seen it's share of Democrat politicians too. :eek:


Dallas county had a 55% vote for Bush, 40% for Kerry. Something like that. You can see that purple shade on the map.

If you're wondering, I voted for Michael Badnarik. (Coincidently he's a Texan too ;) )

[MACDRIVE]

The awful and complete truth is this: any person, state, country, faction etc, who launches a nuclear bomb on ANY and i mean ANY target on the face of the earth..... is pretty much dooming us all.


Not everyone. ;)

http://www.copesan.com/images/American%20cockroach.jpg

[sushi]

Somehow what Clinton did didn't bother me one bit.. amused me actually. I wondered what the big deal was with everyone ganging on the poor guy. Sure, he made a mistake.. but I'd rather have a president who lies to Congress about a b***job than goes around attacking countries, and killing thousands of people, makes his own laws and gives a crap about this country and its citizens. Thank you.
Read this book:

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security

Available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Endangered-Long-Term/dp/0895261405

Monica is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our country ended up where it is at because President Clinton failed to do his duty when he was in office. He did not protect our country for 8 long years. President Bush is having to clean up what President Clinton should have taken care of.

[skunk]

Our country ended up where it is at because President Clinton failed to do his duty when he was in office. He did not protect our country for 8 long years. President Bush is having to clean up what President Clinton should have taken care of.You call this "cleaning up"????

[someguy]

President Bush is having to clean up what President Clinton should have taken care of.
Oh, Jesus Christ...

I'm NOT getting into this conversation any further than saying that what you just said is complete BS and represents the exact mindset that is leading this country... where it is headed... and you all know where that is.

[Sdashiki]

Not everyone. ;)

http://www.copesan.com/images/American%20cockroach.jpg

touche!

ps: bush was only voted in once, he won twice.

[gauchogolfer]

Read this book:

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security

Available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Endangered-Long-Term/dp/0895261405

Monica is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our country ended up where it is at because President Clinton failed to do his duty when he was in office. He did not protect our country for 8 long years. President Bush is having to clean up what President Clinton should have taken care of.

Buzz Patterson is a partisan hack for the Republicans, and his portraying his version of what took place in the Clinton White House as some objective truth is the height of hypocrisy. His books are similarly slanted, and in his TV appearances (with Hannity, for instance) he routinely presents misinformation as truth.

[sushi]

Buzz Patterson is a partisan hack for the Republicans, and his portraying his version of what took place in the Clinton White House as some objective truth is the height of hypocrisy. His books are similarly slanted, and in his TV appearances (with Hannity, for instance) he routinely presents misinformation as truth.
Just maybe, I have some other very reliable sources that what he says is true.

BTW, have you read the book?

[sushi]

Oh, Jesus Christ...

I'm NOT getting into this conversation any further than saying that what you just said is complete BS and represents the exact mindset that is leading this country... where it is headed... and you all know where that is.
Eight years of not directly confronting terrorism was not good for the country, nor the world. It allowed AQ to grow and flourish.

Numerous times during President Clinton's presidency did we have the opportunity to catch OBL, an other key figures -- or to take them out. However, this never happened.

[gauchogolfer]

Just maybe, I have some other very reliable sources that what he says is true.

BTW, have you read the book?

Yes, in fact I've read both his first book, as well as his newer one "Reckless Disregard". His appearances on Fox and Friends are routinely painful for me to watch. As to your other sources, of course I couldn't comment on that. My response is that quoting Buzz Patterson as a bastion of reliability is questionable in my view. Other information you may have may be more reliable. Sources are welcome :)

I guess maybe we should let this go, and let the thread get back on the topic of Iran.

[zimv20]

Numerous times during President Clinton's presidency did we have the opportunity to catch OBL
sources please. reputable ones.

[mactastic]

Eight years of not directly confronting terrorism was not good for the country, nor the world. It allowed AQ to grow and flourish.
Clinton's justice department convicted more terrorists than Bush's has, while Bush's bungling has led to far more terrorist recruitment than Clinton's actions.

Not bad for "not directly confronting terrorism". Plus, Clinton didn't throw $400,000,000,000 down a hole going after a fake "immediate threat to US national security".

Besides, isn't AQ headed up by a guy whom your guy claims to "not care so much about"? Talk about not confronting terrorism...

Numerous times during President Clinton's presidency did we have the opportunity to catch OBL, an other key figures -- or to take them out. However, this never happened.
I'd love to see you back this up without resorting to a conservative mouthpiece.

Or would you be convinced if I told you to take a look at Michael Moore's F9/11 as a straight-up critique of the Bush administration?

[Sdashiki]

I think he is referring to the CIA intelligence of pre-2000 that had the words OBL in it.

It is true that the US knew of OBL as a problem way before 2001, and knew of him as a friend before that.

So, the Clinton ADMINISTRATION, not Clinton, as a whole possibly dropped the ball.


but for god's sake, hindsight is 20/20, so there is nothing to discuss because its too late.

[mactastic]

Well Christ, if that's true then Bush dropped the ball for his first year in office, then picked it up for a while and put it down by declaring that catching OBL just "wasn't that important to him".

Besides, isn't that line of attack more of that "so's you're old man" that 'Rat has come after me for before?

Let's see 'Rat castigate Sushi for using that tactic...

[Sdashiki]

thats precisely what happened.

remember Condi's comment "Uhhhh, I believe it said OBL to attack US interests"

to the senate commission?


They knew, they didnt act, and used the "too much intel to sort thru" excuse.

Conspiracies abound and will probably for the rest of human history.

[atszyman]

Whatever happened to Bush being a uniter not a divider?

In February of 1993, roughly 4 weeks after President Clinton was sworn in the first WTC bombing took place. I don't recall a lot of bickering going on about how it was the fault of Bush I and Reagan's not confronting terrorism.

Bush's administration was hit by 9/11. It could have been any administration, and it was the result of years worth of foreign policy and isolationism dating back through Clinton, Bush, Reagan and almost every other administration prior. We don't blame Bush for causing 9/11. He has however bungled every effort to confront terrorism since.

Afghanistan went well, until diverting resources to go into Iraq. He also passed on a few chances to get Zarqawi before going into Iraq (link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/)). Iraq has had almost no victory definition or strategy and has become a recruiting/training ground for even more terrorists than we had before we went in. Bush has been quoted by numerous sources as "not being all that concerned" about Bin Laden.

The ball has been dropped by numerous administrations, however Bush has taken ball dropping to a whole new level....

[KingYaba]

sources please. reputable ones.
911 commission report

[mactastic]

911 commission report
Care to cite the relevant portions?

[KingYaba]

Care to look 'em up yourself, and prove me wrong? :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Read this book:

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security

Available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Endangered-Long-Term/dp/0895261405

Monica is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our country ended up where it is at because President Clinton failed to do his duty when he was in office. He did not protect our country for 8 long years. President Bush is having to clean up what President Clinton should have taken care of.Blame everything wrong on Clinton though he's been out of office for over 6yrs! You taking in the spew from Fox bias news? Maybe Dick & Bush should have listen to Clinton when they came into office but they didnt in fact they destroyed anything with Clintons name on it. 911 happened on George's watch, then George had to go after Iraq while telling us a zillion times Saddam = Bin Laden so here we are 5 years after 911 and Bush has turned off the unit looking for Bin Laden??? I wont mention Katrina,Oil,Haliburton,Iraq again .... come on you got to be blind not to see we have elected a looser.

[mactastic]

Care to look 'em up yourself, and prove me wrong? :p
That ain't how it works around here and you know it... :rolleyes:

[Josh]

911 commission report

There are more sources claiming the mass of that report is an entire crock than the report itself has pages.

You'll find more facts on the back of a cereal box than you will in the 911 commission report.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems a lot of people think that should one drop a nuke, the whole world will either be split in half and go slinging through space, get a new grand canyon and tilt out of orbit, or melt every body on the planet, leaving Earth in an atmosphere of falling ash and radioactive clouds.

Neither of that is true.

A nuke is just another bomb with a larger radius of impact. One nuke would have a hard type whiping out Rhode Island.

Nukes have been dropped before, and are blown up in testing underground. We're still here.


It isn't so much about removing nukes from other countries for the greater good of the world as it is to remove them as a strategy to lower our financial impact should we go to war with a country that harbors them.

[Sdashiki]

It seems a lot of people think that should one drop a nuke, the whole world will either be split in half and go slinging through space, get a new grand canyon and tilt out of orbit, or melt every body on the planet, leaving Earth in an atmosphere of falling ash and radioactive clouds.

Neither of that is true.

A nuke is just another bomb with a larger radius of impact. One nuke would have a hard type whiping out Rhode Island.

Nukes have been dropped before, and are blown up in testing underground. We're still here.

A nuke tested is not a nuke dropped.

A nuke dropped is not the end.

A nuke dropped causes more nukes to be dropped. (most likely)

Which ends up cascading into either ALOT of nuclear fallout OR a collapse of the civilization that was nuked, and its neighbors, which then feeds into larger countries and eventually the whole world is effected.

Do I mean one nuke will fry the world? yeah, sure, when I was 4.


Nukes were invented in the day of carpet bombing. When precision munitions were science fiction. Whereas before it took thousands of bombs to make sure you got your target, and most likely you hot alot more than just your target, today you can hit something and only that thing, no collateral damage.

Thus ended the need for nukes on the battlefield.

Today, as had been said, they are a deterrent.

So, actually going after a a nuke today, is, IMO, completely ill-advised and serves no purpose but to rattle the saber.

[Josh]

A nuke tested is not a nuke dropped.

A nuke dropped is not the end.

A nuke dropped causes more nukes to be dropped. (most likely)

<--SNIP-->

It isn't like a water balloon fight where if one kid busts out the super soaker, all the other kids are going to go get theirs.

Nukes a very, very expensive, and the countries that can afford them cannot afford many of them.

If one country drops a nuke, the others are not going to be like "Oh hey! Someone rang the nuke bell! On with the nukes!!"

They are going to think that country was very foolish, and is now at a more fragile and vulnerable state than before they dropped it.

To actually use a nuke is not only to admit defeat, but to welcome it whole heartedly.

Nukes are not something countries have for the situation of using them. They are something to say "well...we do have one, so....". They are bragging rights and, save for N.Korea, nothing more.

[mactastic]

A nuke is just another bomb with a larger radius of impact.
To be fair, it is a little more than that. Regular bombs don't kill after the initial detonation, and they don't leave large areas poisoned for years after either.

[zimv20]

Today, as had been said, they are a deterrent.
they've *always* been a deterrent. hiroshima and nagasaki were as much a warning to the soviets to stay out of the pacific as it was to cripple japan's industrial complex and demonstrate US' firepower.

[takao]

Nukes were invented in the day of carpet bombing. When precision munitions were science fiction. Whereas before it took thousands of bombs to make sure you got your target, and most likely you hot alot more than just your target, today you can hit something and only that thing, no collateral damage.


guess when the first radio remote controlled gliding bomb was used

the first infrared controlled surface to air defense missile

the first wire controlled anti tank missile


actually ww2 dive bombers were more accurate that most other rockets/guided bombs of the next 3-4 decades

[Sdashiki]

yeah, and the "Bat Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb)" worked just as well as the nukes.

:p


In todays one bomb, one target, nukes have no place.

we wanted the war to end, and Japan didnt, and it seemed like they NEVER did. So what would you do in that situation other than do the greatest damage you can at once.

it took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender.

[skunk]

we wanted the war to end, and Japan didnt, and it seemed like they NEVER did. So what would you do in that situation other than do the greatest damage you can at once.

it took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender.If simply causing damage was the aim, they could have fire-bombed Hiroshima like we did Dresden.

[MACDRIVE]

I'm not here to voice any opinions, I just want to hear from ALL of you as to whether or not you think Bush is going to attack Iran?

[KingYaba]

Most likely scenario: Israel attacks Iran for various reasons. Thus the good 'ol USA comes to their aid.

[pseudobrit]

If simply causing damage was the aim, they could have fire-bombed Hiroshima like we did Dresden.

I think we ran out of firebombs after Tokyo was wiped out.

[pseudobrit]

A nuke is just another bomb with a larger radius of impact.

That is complete and utter ********. It's a totally different monster from conventional explosives. It still generates heat and a shockwave, but that's about where the similarities end.

Nukes have been dropped before, and are blown up in testing underground. We're still here.

Tell that to the people who died from the blast or the fallout. Tell it to the fetuses who were miscarried or to the babies who got leukemia when fallout rained down over the eastern US during atmospheric testing. They're certainly not still here.

The first rule of nuclear warfare is you do not use a nuclear weapon.

[zimv20]

I'm not here to voice any opinions, I just want to hear from ALL of you as to whether or not you think Bush is going to attack Iran?
yes. in october.

[KingYaba]

The first rule of nuclear warfare is you do not use a nuclear weapon.
All the more reason to stop Iran ;)

[Music_Producer]

All the more reason to stop Iran ;)

All the more reason to stop the United States.

I am going to have the heartiest laugh when eventually it turns out that terrorists get a hold of a nuke.. via Pakistan, and not Iran, Iraq or any other country.

Oh, but we love Pakistan.. lets keep feeding them money and arms. Its going to bite back.. real hard.

[solvs]

Our country ended up where it is at because President Clinton failed to do his duty when he was in office.
So Clinton ignored a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" right before 9/11, 8 months after he left office? Clinton screwed up the occupation of Iraq? Clinton was more worried about Saddam than the guy who actually attacked us, who still walks free? Who we trained in the first place? Not saying he didn't make mistakes, but blaming it all on him and ignoring how horribly Bush has handled this WOT is the same partisan hackery used in the book you claim as proof. Which has been debunked as pure fiction just as "the Path to 9/11" was. Hindsight is 20/20, but what's Bush's excuse?

For the record, Clinton had Iraq managed. He never stopped bombing them. He even bombed them on the eve of his impeachment (draw your own conclusions here. They were under constant watch. The problems there, and in the rest of the ME had been going on for long before he ever got into office, but unlike the current guy, at least he wasn't making things worse. And for added irony, guess who sabotaged Clinton's anti-terror efforts for pure partisan reasons? Wasn't the Dems. ;)

[KingYaba]

This is being reduced to finger pointing. :(

[Sdashiki]

And I point it squarely on you:

the viewer

[Josh]

That is complete and utter ********. It's a totally different monster from conventional explosives. It still generates heat and a shockwave, but that's about where the similarities end.


Nah, not really. Might interest you to read up on them a bit. Fallout is an issue - but again, nukes are more about politics and threats than actually using them. It matters very little of what they are capable of, and any "facts" that simply focus on what a nuke "could" do is furthering the nuke propoganda. They want you to be scared, they want you to worry - the more you're scared of something, the more someone can threaten you and exert force just by having it.

No one alive today will ever witness a nuke dropped in war. Nukes are about threats, not use.

To nuke another country is to destroy your own, and every country, whether they habor nukes or not, knows this very well.

They aren't much of a threat if the other guy has them too, which is exactly why the US is going after other countries that have them. Ideally, the US wants to be the only country to have them.

And to be honest, though the US war machine is a terrible thing - and keep in mind that nukes are not meant for use - the US should be the only one to have them. We dont have them to use them (is that getting repetitive enough?) and we are one of the few countries who do not have to worry about terrorist regimes getting access to the nukes we have.

That's the key thing. Iran itself would not use nukes against another country, but what happens when a terrorist organization gets ahold of the nukes they have? THAT is when it becomes an issue. THAT is what the US wants to avoid, and THAT is why people support removing nukes from other countries.

Face it: nukes exist. They aren't going to disppear. The only thing we can do is make sure that they are not used, and that cannot happen if a bunch of countries in quarrels have them all pointed at each other. Only one country will end up with nuclear weapons, and I'd much rather it be the US than Iran or N. Korea.


Tell that to the people who died from the blast or the fallout. Tell it to the fetuses who were miscarried or to the babies who got leukemia when fallout rained down over the eastern US during atmospheric testing. They're certainly not still here.


I state that they have been dropped before and have been tested - and you say this? :confused:

It's not an opinion that one must be "dared" to "tell" someone. They have been tested, and that's a fact. I don't need to tell anyone - history has already done that.

But alas, as I've said, we're still here :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Irans president has been lying his arse off today saying they dont need or want the bomb yet the whole program was done in secret and still they dont let the inspectors just go anywhere they want in Iran. He is spinning tales as big as George spun when he took us into Iraq. If he's telling the truth then why all the underground stuff etc etc. Someone needs to slap the mohammad right out of him.

[Sdashiki]

If all nukes are is a deterrant.

WHY EVEN HAVE THEM, JUST LIE ABOUT HAVING THEM!?

[mactastic]

Irans president has been lieing his arse off today saying they dont need or want the bomb yet the whole program was done in secret and still they dont let the inspectors just go anywhere they want Iran. He is spinning tales as big as George spun when he took us into Iraq. If he's telling the truth then why all the underground stuff etc etc. Someone needs to slap the mohammad right out of him.
If no one at the UN could slap the christ out of Bush, what makes you think anyone will be able to do the same to Ahmedimijad?

[Black&Tan]

No one alive today will ever witness a nuke dropped in war. Nukes are about threats, not use.

To nuke another country is to destroy your own, and every country, whether they habor nukes or not, knows this very well.

They aren't much of a threat if the other guy has them too, which is exactly why the US is going after other countries that have them. Ideally, the US wants to be the only country to have them.

And to be honest, though the US war machine is a terrible thing - and keep in mind that nukes are not meant for use - the US should be the only one to have them. We dont have them to use them (is that getting repetitive enough?) and we are one of the few countries who do not have to worry about terrorist regimes getting access to the nukes we have.


Very interesting argument, however it does not take into account the fact that the current US administration is now actively looking at using nukes in a tactical environment:

http://www.slate.com/id/2082846/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52564-2005Jan31.html

The US has used nukes in the past and depending on the political/military scenario, can use them again.

[skunk]

Face it: nukes exist. They aren't going to disppear. The only thing we can do is make sure that they are not used, and that cannot happen if a bunch of countries in quarrels have them all pointed at each other. Only one country will end up with nuclear weapons, and I'd much rather it be the US than Iran or N. Korea.Why will only one country end up with them? :confused:
There is no way to make sure they are not used. Our best hope is to encourage dialogue as opposed to confrontation.

[Don't panic]

yeah, and the "Bat Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb)" worked just as well as the nukes.

:p


In todays one bomb, one target, nukes have no place.

we wanted the war to end, and Japan didnt, and it seemed like they NEVER did. So what would you do in that situation other than do the greatest damage you can at once.

it took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender.

that's very debatable. Of course they played a role in ending the war, but a lot of the rationale of the two bombs was to impress the soviets.
i am sure though that the japanese gave in quicker, but it seems to many that it was militarily not necessary (including gen Eisenhower and MacArthur and Adm Nimits and Leahy).

[Dont Hurt Me]

If no one at the UN could slap the christ out of Bush, what makes you think anyone will be able to do the same to Ahmedimijad?I dont but isnt it interesting how the biggest scoundrals end up in office here and abroad. Its clear he is a puppet of the Islamic Fanaticals just as George is a puppet to the corporations(while pretending to be a christian.) Real christians dont kill and to be christ like you would have to be a pacifist to a point . Had to say it because I get pretty sick of those saying Bush is a christian. He clearly isnt and if Jesus was around.....

[pseudobrit]

Nah, not really. Might interest you to read up on them a bit.

I have. Quite a bit. Enough to know that a nuclear weapon is not just "another bomb". I'm not sure what hysteria you're so sure everyone else is buying into, but I'm not talking about the earth splitting in two or the whole atmosphere catching fire.

It creates heat, a shockwave and kills people. Beyond that, it bears no resemblance to conventional bombs regardless of their blast radii.

I state that they have been dropped before and have been tested - and you say this? :confused:

It's not an opinion that one must be "dared" to "tell" someone. They have been tested, and that's a fact. I don't need to tell anyone - history has already done that.

But alas, as I've said, we're still here :)

I was responding to that statement alone: "we're still here". As a direct result of past nuclear weapons testing and past attacks, many people are not. So please, tell them they're "still here".