Why I Support Our Troops
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 9 of 10
I don't think the contigency plan thing is gonna get anywhere with the apologists. Lordy, we're talking about the Pentagon, they got plans written up to kill my cats if "the need should arise."
The point you don't seem to be getting, Opus et al, is that we're not trusted over there. We have betrayed the trust of the peoples of the Middle East a whole bunch of times and we have done nothing to regain that trust. I'm talking foolishness, why in the world should we try to regain their trust, right? Like puting Osama on the Oprah Show or some such. Okay then. Anyway, Bush knows they don't trust us, Bush knows they're scared of us. You all know he's threatening Iran and whoever else every chance he gets. You love it when he talks tough, and makes vague threats to "them." You all use "them" and "they" to mean half a dozen ethnic groups and crimial organizations across the globe and so does he. He knows it, they know it, I know it and you know it. Stop this foolishness, I say!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-
If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?
First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-
If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?
Well I found info on your quote myself,infact I found an online interview with the man who wrote the article.
http://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=118
An hour long ingterview with Philip Giraldi. On a pretty leftist site.
He ADMITS it's a contingency plan and ADMITS that just because the plan is drawn up that it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be used. His basic objection is THIS admin has the plan.
The host tries to debunk that Iran has nukes or a nuke program, Mr. Giraldi tells him, basically that isn't necessarily true.
This from a man who doesn't like the Bush admin.
The interview rambles on for an hour, covering various things that could be argued about forever. But for this discussion I'll stick with the info about the quote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want.
First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..
And while I fix the link, take a deep relaxing breath, and reflect calmly on how you managed to totally mangle a simple name reference. After all, that info is less complicated than an address. And if your brain can glitch on a simple name, what about the reliability of the rest of your information? Is it possible that your ability to comprehend is somehow fundamentally compromised?
EDITED TO ADD: Since you found the info independently (YAY for you. Too bad I can't play it on my PC) and you admit that the contingency plan exists (You do accept it's existance, right?) then we can skip all the BS about my source and whether the information is true and get to the heart of the question:
SHOULD we be preparing a contingency plan for an umprovoked nuclear attack on Iran?
Oh, and BTW, I just noticed that in a very roundabout way, we came back to personal responsibility and rationalizing horrors. Amazingly, we're on-topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want.
First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..
And while I fix the link, take a deep relaxing breath, and reflect calmly on how you managed to totally mangle a simple name reference. After all, that info is less complicated than an address. And if your brain can glitch on a simple name, what about the reliability of the rest of your information? Is it possible that your ability to comprehend is somehow fundamentally compromised?
EDITED TO ADD: Since you found the info independently (YAY for you. Too bad I can't play it on my PC) and you admit that the contingency plan exists (You do accept it's existance, right?) then we can skip all the BS about my source and whether the information is true and get to the heart of the question:
SHOULD we be preparing a contingency plan for an umprovoked nuclear attack on Iran?
Oh, and BTW, I just noticed that in a very roundabout way, we came back to personal responsibility and rationalizing horrors. Amazingly, we're on-topic.
When you use the daily(screw them)kos, for any type of reference that pretty much shows where your head is at, whether you are just passing on a link posted there or not.
I've never denied we have contigency plans for any and everything I've said that more than once. But no, I have no objection to the plan being drawn up. Until it's used, it's just a contingency plan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My reference was hardcopy American Conservative. My head was at providing a secondary source (dailykos) for your convenience! This must be a terribly difficult concept!
O: First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..
S: C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want
O: When you use the daily(screw them)kos, for any type of reference that pretty much shows where your head is at whether you are just passing on a link posted there or not.
Quote:Would you have objections to it being implemented?
But no, I have no objection to the plan being drawn up. Until it's used, it's just a contingency plan.
NOTE: Still on topic. YAAAY!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?
True. Iran has decided to meet its energy needs with nuclear power rather then the trillion barrels of oil it has underground. While nuclear power costs more I think we can all agree that the side effects are whats driving Iranian policy. In particular oil produces smog and greenhouse gasses which could affect not only Iran but causes acid rain in Afganistan's deserts. Nuclear power on the other hand is clean and results in weapons grade uranium which can be easily disposed of in selected locations (Tel Aviv, New York City, and so on). So its really all about making efficiant use of resources, something the Mullahs running Iran know all about.
As for Pakistan's program, it was entirely in response to India's program, and yes, we helped them, because the Soviet Commies were helping India. The Soviets needed a conunterbalence to China in the 70s and 80s, we then needed a counter to India (and later a conduit to Afganistani freedom fighters). Pakistan might be a Muslim nation, but their interests have always been tied to the Indian subcontinant rather then the Persian Gulf and Holy Land.
Pakistan does not engage in state-sponsored terrorism like Iran. Pakistan's government chose sides on 9/12/2001 and have been firmly in our camp ever since. The Pakistani people where always a question, however recent efforts by Al Queda to generate a grass roots civil movement fell flat on its face as dozens turned out to answer the calls for protest and nationwide strike (although to be fair it was nationwide, but a few hundred people protesting across the entire nation really insignifigant).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Would you have objections to it being implemented?
Shouldn't that depend on the details? Not just the details of the plan, but the circumstances under which it was used.
We had a detailed plan to attack the Soviet Union. We had many of them. Some even required us to shoot first (for example, if the Soviets were overunning Europe, we would have used nukes first to stop them).
I don't have a problem with Pentagon war planners planning out every scenario they can think of. Not only does it give them practice, but its practical. Say we are attacked and it was Iran, and we need to respond in minutes, not weeks, luckily we already have a response plan we can adapt to current circumstances.
But the use of nuclear weapons first, just because we woke up one morning ans decided to do it. Wouldn't happen. Especially given that we could destabilze and eliminate Iran's leadership and take out their WMD research sites, chemical weapons, air defenses, and launch an Iraqi style invasion from without or an Afgan style invasion from within, all without using such weapons or losing more lives then we've already lost in the current war, bout a thousand, spread out over a couple years. But no, we're all just going to be headed to work on Monday and suddenly nukes are dropping on Iran with no explanation or anything, not even the five minute warning. Thats just what Reagan did with the Soviets, so its what Cheney and Bush are going to do to. You know that, your just slingin mud.
You'd think after our nuclear war with the Soviet Union that America would learn to listen to Democratic and liberal warnings bout those awful Republicans.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
Would you have objections to it being implemented?
Depends on the surrounding factors, on the surface though, against.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, according to the person who leaked this, it would be after a terrorist attack on the USA. The point, apprently, would be to use the fear generated from such an attack to create support for something that we otherwise wouldn't even consider. Not that there's been any recent precedent ....
But it's nice to know that overall you wouldn't support it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME