American Hiroshima: yes to if, no to when

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 11080
PAGE 9 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, July 25, 2005 3:45 PM

To be fair, it's not as if both "sides" are equally to blame. Although most Dems wilted before the Bush juggernaut, it wasn't the Dems who phonied up a pretext and attacked Iraq. I know I've brought this up b4 (D*mn it's depressing being right all the time when you expect the worst from your government and you get it) but according to that far far winger magazine, the one full of liberals baying at the moon and exchanging conspiracy theories... the American Conservative ...

Quote:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. ...As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

The Amercian Conservative requires a paid subscription. Thanks to the DailyKos for bringing that article to our attention. www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/22/164841/163

So...
Cheney is one half of Bush's brain (check mark)
9-11 was a pretext for invading Iraq (check mark)
They are planning to bomb Iraq no matter what (check mark)
Nuclear weapons will be used (check mark)

HERO

Monday, July 25, 2005 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.

Thats what they are supprosed to do. Plan contigencies. So that when the President says, "I want options." They can say, "here's one to blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan and here's one for the invasion and conquest of Iran oh and here's one for taking out Paris and blaming Disney..." and so on. Then the President can have them all mounted on a board and can toss darts (which is how Clinton decided to bomb Sudan a few years back, Bush is better at darts, so he nailed the bullseye labled Saddam).

H

SIGNYM

Monday, July 25, 2005 4:11 PM

How is it that attacking Iran is a logical contingency to a terrorist attack for which Iran bears no responsibilty? The same way that Saddam became our enemy even though he hadn't "taken the field in armed conflict" against us (or anyone)? Please explain.

HERO

Monday, July 25, 2005 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How is it that attacking Iran is a logical contingency to a terrorist attack for which Iran bears no responsibilty? The same way that Saddam became our enemy even though he hadn't "taken the field in armed conflict" against us (or anyone)? Please explain.

I'm sure that comprehenive war plans against (or inside of)Iran have existed fo decades. They probably range from small scale special ops missions, limited airstrikes, to larger mission such as seizing oilfields or the outright liberation of the entire nation. They are likely reviewed and updated periodically.

Such plans would exist without the need for any pretext. Therefore there is no "plan to invade Iran if there is a terrorist attack, even if Iran is not involved". There are merely plans. And if something happens, like a terrorist attack, then the plans are available and the political context can then be added.

So what your seeing is really something that always is going on, planning, nothing more. The rest, adding the political dynamic, is likely an unsourced addition to spice up a routine activity.

Or it could be a calculated leak meant to send a message to Iran. Maybe you'd prefer we be less subtle. Perhaps Bush on TV saying, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack launched by terrorists against any nation as an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Iranian nation."

H

SIGNYM

Monday, July 25, 2005 4:43 PM

The article is clearly not talking about comprehensive or generic plans. But perhaps you missed the part "...drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.... [which] includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. " Hero, you're not worth the time discussing this with. You havent' answered either question:

(1) How is atacking Iran a logical RESPONSE to 9-11 type act or terror?
(2) How did Saddam become an enemy when (by your defintion) he did not "take the field in armed combat" against us- or anyone in fact? Oh, and BTW
(3) WTF is the Islamic Republic? Is that your NEW enemy?

When you've answered my questions, I will continue this debate with you. Until then...

HERO

Monday, July 25, 2005 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The article is clearly not talking about comprehensive or generic plans.

Like I said. The article was unsourced. But since such planning is always going on the politcal context was added to an existing Pentagon function. I suggested two possible reasons. One was to spice up a story on a routine Pentagon function, the other is to backchannel a warning to Iran. Since Iraq made our policies clear with regards to terrorist supporting states, like Iran, I think this is more likely the former, a story about a routine function spiced up to make it a better read.

A war with Iran likely would not use nuclear weapons unless Iran used WMD's first (and if they did, we'd probably need a plan, so this is good). It would be far more effective to join in coalition with Iranian factions such as Iranian Kurds, moderates in the army, and pro-demorcratic students to engender an approach similar to Afganistan.

Having gamed out war in Iran (thanks to GDW's Third World War series), I can tell you, its no picnic, even without the Soviet intervention.

H

JOSSISAGOD

Monday, July 25, 2005 5:48 PM

As a very wise senator once said, ok senator Amidala from Ep. 2, if you offer the terrorists violence, they can only show violence in return. paraphrased from a deleted scene. As for an "American Hiroshima", it is possible that it may happen. it's unlikely terrorist cells have the technology to follow it through yet, and I sure hope it never happens. Also, I hope that none of terrorist cells have knowledge of this site.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 25, 2005 5:53 PM

I was curious how broading-ranging the reference to Islamic Republic is. It includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Muaritania, and the Comoros, and I'm not sure if that's the end of the list. I think we should have a contingency plan for invading the IR of Mauritania.

HERO

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was curious how broading-ranging the reference to Islamic Republic is. It includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Muaritania, and the Comoros, and I'm not sure if that's the end of the list. I think we should have a contingency plan for invading the IR of Mauritania.

In case you've never noticed, Iran is the short form. The formal name is the Islamic Republic of Iran. And your right, there are a lot of Islamic Republics. There are also People's Reublics, Federal Republics, Democratic Republics, United States, but not so many Grand Duchies.

H

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:30 AM

Quote:
Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

I know no one probably wants to hear this, but this statement above is why we need to all of us espeically everyone who supported the war in Iraq need to take responssiblity for whats happening there. what they supported and own up to the mistake.

attacking Iraq was not the appropriate resonse for what happen on 9/11... Iraq didnot have anything to do with 9/11 and attacking a courtry that wasn't even respossible for the terrorist attack was not only wrong but tragic, that means every individual every American citizen should take responssiblity for what our government did... for what WE LET THEM DO!! AND FOR WHAT HALF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DOWNRIGHT SUPPORTED!!! you can say you were hoodwinked, that you were an innocent victum of dishonesty, or that you were mad..whatever you want to claim ..but take resonssiblity..because what happened in Iraq in now all of our responssiblity wether we supported the actions or not. and we are all going to have to live with the consequences of Iraq.

Everyone should take heed of Congressman Ron Paul's words.... I don't think its currently to late for us to change whats happening..but if we as the people as representatives of our country don't take responssiblity and make our government who is unwilling to take responssiblity then yeah we are pretty much doomed, these people have a will a determination and a desire that we lack and they will succeed so its in our own best intrest to make it happen.

Its really sad, as I was saying in another thread, we can't even seem to come together, and make our own government take responssiblity for the crimnal acts they are committing right here in the good ole U.S.A...(Karl Rove treason) how in the hell are we going to solve our problems aboard

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE