We're gonna nuke Iran!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, February 28, 2026 17:47
VIEWED: 4913
PAGE 1 of 7
....that's the plan?
Chrisisall, just throwin' the ball...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
....that's the plan?
Chrisisall, just throwin' the ball...
FIRE! Yelled Chrisisall, in the crowded theatre.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The Emperors new clothes are altogether the finest ever seen" Said AURAPTOR from amongst the adoring crowd.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell yeah! Everyone knows the third time is the charm. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki we've been itching to go for the trifecta. Sixty+ years is a long time to wait. Some of our nukes are getting up there in years and what good is a weapon if you don't use it? Nuke 'em til they glow and shoot 'em in the dark.
Oh. Sorry. That was the three year old in me talking.
Time to make him sit in the corner and let the adults have a discussion.
First off, I know nothing about Iran. So maybe it's better if I quote from some people who know the topic in much greater detail:
Quote:
from http://www.antiwarpetition.com/
Mr. President:
We the signatories of this letter have dedicated our lives to studying the Middle East and it is in that capacity and as concerned citizens that we write to strongly oppose and warn against the military option in Iran. As the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran, concerns about future dual use of nuclear technology ought to be addressed in face to face negotiations. Such alternative venues as coercive diplomacy and military action will lead to further militarization and pressures on civil society at the expense of the democratic movement in Iran. The extreme right of the political spectrum of that country will be the sole beneficiary of such policies. The catastrophic regional and global consequences of escalating this crisis will not serve the interests of the United States, the course of democratic development in Iran, or the cause of global peace.
Okay. Okay. So maybe they're showing a little naiviety by assuming that this adminstration is interested in the cause of global peace.
Or maybe it's better to quote from a professor in Middle East History:
Quote:
excerpted from http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Warning: The link goes to a page with graphic images of the effects of war.
...
As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives.
Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?
What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble.
It is obvious that powerful political forces in Washington are fishing for a pretext to launch a war on Iran, and that they are just delighted to have Ahmadinejad as cartoon villain and pretext. But they had a moderate, reforming president in Mohammad Khatami for 8 years, and just blew off all his overtures to the West. Iranians organized big candle-light vigils for America after September 11, in sympathy!
Washington never gave the reform movement the slightest encouragement, perhaps in hopes that the Iranians would be forced to turn right again and form a proper object of US hatred. If so, they got their wish last summer, when Ahmadinejad used the same dirty techniques to get elected as had George W. Bush.
All the warmongers in Washington, including Hitchens, if he falls into that camp, should get this through their heads. Americans are not fighting any more wars in the Middle East against toothNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
"The Emperors new clothes are altogether the finest ever seen" Said AURAPTOR from amongst the adoring crowd.
A poster makes the claim that the U.S. is going to nuke Iran, and I offer up my view that such a view is absurd. Then, YOU make a crack about the Emperors new clothes, insinuating that I'm the blindly loyal one here.
I'm the one who's saying there is no reason for or purpose served in attacking Iran, and you try to paint ME as being a myrmidon for...who ? Not the President. He's not the one mouthing off about wiping a nation off the map, is he?
Does that seem right to you?
Soupcatcher -
Quote:
I wish I could be confident that the warmongers won't get a war with Iran. But it's starting to look a lot like 2002/03 again. The administration has got the hurry up offense in place. And the Project for a New American Century did have something to say on the topic of Iran.
Warmonges? If ever there was a overblown, inaccurate use of a word, that would be it. Iran 2006 is looking NOTHING like Iraq 2003. Iran hasn't (openly) attacked 4 of her neighbors yet, hasn't had 17 UN resolutions against it, hasn't had 10+ years of inspections and sanctions.....But I guess you're ok w/ Iran's talk of obliterating Israel, denying the NAZI holocaust ever happened.....,etc . And you call who the 'warmongers' ??
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not the President. He's not the one mouthing off about wiping a nation off the map, is he?
No AU, you're absolutely right. Bush hasn't said a thing about the 'Nuclear option' and Iran:
Quote:
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush0
9.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html
Quote:
New Yorker: Bush appears to prepare to nuke Iran
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813941.php
Nope, no threats of using Nuclear weapons by GWB what-so-ever.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
There's this guy in an Air Force uniform that hangs out with the President. He has a whole suitcase full of plans like this. Doesn't mean anybody wants to use them.
Our policy on nuclear weapons has never changed. We will not be the first to use them (except in defense of Europe should the Soviet's manage to 'break through'). We will likely remain the last to use them. That means if Iran nukes anybody we will destroy Iran. Good policy that.
The Pentagon would be remiss if they failed to brief the President on all his options. I'm sure they have plans to send in special ops guys to blow the site from inside. They have plans for many small bombs from carrier based planes or a few really big bombs from planes here in the US. They have plans for seizing the site with an air assault, or using Marines, or using a tank division, or using Iranian rebels, or using the Iraqi Army, neutralizing everything with an EMP. I bet they have a plan for doing nothing and using economic sanctions to enact political change. I recently heard of a Democratic plan to give in to Iranian demands in exchange for the promise of peace (its known as TAB-OP the 'Turn Around and Bend Over Plan').
Didn't anybody read the article on Drudge a few weeks back about Las Vegas being pissed because the military was about to test the most powerful conventional bomb ever made, more powerful then some nukes. We'll use something like that. All the bang...no mutant babies.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor.
You were offering up your view, I was merely countering it with one of my own.
The trouble with you Bushite fanatics is.......
Oh never mind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If our policy on Nukes hasn't changed then why did we do a simulated nuke in nevada just recently? I mean, I'll give credit where credit is due...thank god they didn't use a real nuke, but that's more a matter of public outrcry.
From my understanding, (and I'm no expert so if you have some facts on that to dispute this, I'd like to hear them), we detonated a bomb so big, so heavy that we don't have bombers capable of holding such a weapon, meaning...the only likely reason to test such a weapon, would be to do some comparisson -
It's not a crazy leap to suggest that Nuclear 'options' are definitely on the forfront of their collective mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME