Iran only months away from having atomic bomb.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 06:03
VIEWED: 8730
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does a country of "sand monkeys" with one or two nuclear weapons terrify you? If anyone should be terrified of anybody, THEY should be terrifed of US. After all, we've invaded the ME several times in the past few decades, we have troops and bases all over bloody hell, and we not only have about 3000 nuclear warheads we also have the ICBMs to deliver them. Every nation should have a credible defense. When we panic over some other nation's potential military capacity- even when that capacity could only be used locally or regionally- then we're just a panicked 800-lb gorilla that doesn't realize its own strength.
Let's not be a panicked 800-lb gorilla, OK?
I may be wrong, but I think Jaytee was joking. I think he was seeing it from the point of view that some inept cowboy-wanna-be (that happens be president) might have.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, I guess I need emoticons to help me out! 
But, in my defense, I don't know jaytee from other posts and people have said similar things all serious-like. Just call me serious.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This cracked me up
Quote:
" which turned out to be less than entirely accurate. "
In reality, Cheney was hell bent on fulfilling the pnac plan, and as the highest ranking member of pnac, as vpotus, Cheney was in a position to enact the plan published in the late 90s.
First an aside. Not a conspiracy theory here, guys, you notice the 'no theory' part? This was a published document, the targets and plan were on teh website and printed also in the chicago sun times with cheney's name on it, along with scooter libby, wolfowitz, perle and rummy. This is locked solid.
Moving on. The plan calls for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as stage one. this can then be used in cooperation with our allies, Isreal and Pakistan to put squash attacks on both Iran and Syria. It was all there in black and white, and now it's all here in blood and oil.
So, taking the FACT that we know what the objective is, was, and has always been, we can deal more appropriately with the situation.
No one panicked over the military capabilities of Iraq, except the people who bought the spin. North Korea has eight nuclear bombs and is run by a lunatic who has threatened to attack three of his neighbors, including us. He's also certifiably insane. He declared war on long hair. Hair longer than 2 inches isn't socialist, it's capitalist decadence. He's like Mao reborn. And we're worried about Iraq?
But it's not we, the united states, who hold that view, it's a Dick in the whitehouse.
I get you probably get this, but in case there's someone out there who doesn't get it, I thought I'd let them know.
Oh, there's something else here. PNAC on their website now says 'to make the world safe from the threat of global terrorism' blah blah blah. But I was a frequenter of the site before 9/11/01, and back then they said: 'in order to establish a globally dominant position in the world for the US to strategically press for items of American interest' by which they meant, I know because they published this earlier, that we could use control of the world's oil supply to hold energy hostage to press for democratic reforms.
Well, still not so bad. If you read what the members have written earlier, it's clear they like democracy because it's an easier mechanism to get a US friendly govt. in place. If you continue reading this is really about creating the one world state, global social revolution, new world order.
Not all of this is horridly horrid, but none of it is on the level anymore. Clearly, these guys, who used to be totally on the level about what they were trying to achieve, have decided that instead they want to lie about it.
Which is why I said to Lynch: if you want to discuss the geopolitical strategy here, I'd be welcome to.
What I'm not interested in is arguing on side against the other of this lie paradigm which was set up for the purposes of deluding the public, probably because they were afraid, and rightly so, that their conservative base would not get behind the idea of global social revolution, a la Leon Trotsky.
I know I'm repeating myself here. I just need to make sure everyone knows why were here, well the first reason they said, why we were going to be there, and this is the one I believe. It's not just about money, because if you look at Jeb Bush, and his alleged Medicare fraud in FL, where he allegedly stole $1B, he used that money to fund international terrorist organizations for the purpose of overthrowing pro-socialist states in central america in favor of more pro-american govts. So their not in it for the cash, they put all the cash back into the revolution, they're in it for the revolution.
I don't disagree with all of the ends, I'd like to see socialist pro-china states fall and democratic pro-american ones rise, I'd like to see a world without wmds.
I do disagree with some of the end goals, I don't like one world govt. which rules with and iron fist suppressing all possible dissent so that some cooked up fantasy utopia dreamt up by intellectuals who've never actually done anything an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This was a published document, the targets and plan were on teh website and printed also in the chicago sun times with cheney's name on it, along with scooter libby, wolfowitz, perle and rummy. This is locked solid.
Because if it's on the internet, it MUST be true.
Suppose it IS true, then what? Who do you side with? An Islamo-fascist state whose leader has declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth, or the freedom loving nations of the rest of the world?
Tough choice, huh ?
" 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:Quote:
This was a published document, the targets and plan were on teh website and printed also in the chicago sun times with cheney's name on it, along with scooter libby, wolfowitz, perle and rummy. This is locked solid.
Because if it's on the internet, it MUST be true.
That was on their website. Still is. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but it's NOT a conspiracy theory and it's not denied by any of them. Check it out if you can stomach it:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Quote:
Suppose it IS true, then what? Who do you side with? An Islamo-fascist state whose leader has declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth, or the freedom loving nations of the rest of the world?
Tough choice, huh ?
Fortunately, there are more than two choices. Always are, despite the rhetoric. The main thing is, both the 'islamo-fascists' and the PNAC-fascists are full of shit. Each would like us to buy into their culture-war, armageddon fantasies, but we really don't have to play by those rules. These people are insane and it's high time we told them to go fly a kite.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor. It was on their own home page, and it was also in the Chicago Sun Times. But thanks, this is where this debate should take place. Is this something worth doing?
The other indisputable reality is that most of these people were active members of one or more parties of the political left. But that in itself isn't a major issue. I would agree to anyone's 'so what?' response to that fact alone. But they had the same agenda then that they have now.
So. If they put forth this idea, as they did, to socialists and the democrats in the 70s and to Clinton in the 90s, as they also did, there was no need to disguise the agenda. But the idea of any agenda that includes social militarism is bound to be at odds with some people on the right, and so it needed to be re-framed in a way in which the right would be simpathetic. Hence the focus on information which was 'less than entirely accurate' whether it was intentionally so or not.
So,
It IS a tough choice. I don't think that it's an easy one at all. Most of the nations of the Earth, and their people, are appalled by what we're doing in Iraq. If you don't realize that this is a rock solid fact, you're just not very smart.
So, we have on the one hand, the devil who's your friend, Bush, and the devil who's your enemy, bin Laden. I would like another option.
Remember also, this idea of global positioning was something that these very same people were making lots of noise about in Vietnam, when most of them were members of the democratic party. It's something that they made a lot of noise about to reagan in the 80s, and to Clinton in the 90s. So pretending that this idea of global positioning is about Islamic terrorism isn't going to cut it.
Back to Iran fro a second, and the amazingly dumb things the president said (he may be their equiv. of g.w.bush.) Clearly this is something to oppose. Israel is there now, no reason for it to go anywhere. But let's take it in context for a moment.
1. Islamic countries now have something called "anti-zionist week" which is the last week of ramadan. The have jew-hating festivals at the end of it. (Yeah, what a lovely culture, I'm with you on that.) This is the sort of thing a leader says, and muslim leaders in particular are given to hyperbole, in order to rile up his crowd. Iran immediately apologized for the remarks. Iran isn't really going to attack Israel unless we invade, at which point they certainly will.
So, since we know we're serious about cornering Iran, and they're just blowing off steam, several questions come up:
1. Is it worthwhile to corner Iran? The country has 55 million people, a lot of mountainous terrain, and relatively little in the way of oil or natural resources.
2. If we decide that it IS worth cornering Iran, which if we do is more about having a solid muslim block and less about terrorism, then we have to ask, "is this the best way to do it?"
Overall, I tend to think that Iran is the closest to "what we want" in a muslim state, though far from perfect. It is also something that was more or less developed from within, not imposed by us from without. If we oppose a govt. it will always be seen as an American puppet regime, and the Iranian people will take it down at the first possible opportunity. We would do much better if we could have an iranian govt. recognized as legit by it's own people, which the current one is, and relatively pro-western.
Finally I think it would be nice to do this without having the rest of the world paint us as the new nazi undead. Since they're already painting us this way in the muslim world, south america and western europe, I think some damage control is necessary, and not feeding the idea would be nice before the east asians and eastern europeans think so also.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sgt. X,
Thanks for the back up.
Lynch does actually know this. He's posted articles from newamericancentury.org on this forum. I'm not so sure he has been reading it since before 2001, so he may not know that the terrorism thing is pure spin. My guess is he does know this. As a self proclaimed member of the military industrial complex, he's probably predisposed to think of the military solution, but I'm asking him to think outside the box on this one, or at least to make an honest case for the inside the box plan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The other indisputable reality is that most of these people were active members of one or more parties of the political left. But that in itself isn't a major issue. I would agree to anyone's 'so what?' response to that fact alone. But they had the same agenda then that they have now.
So. If they put forth this idea, as they did, to socialists and the democrats in the 70s and to Clinton in the 90s, as they also did, there was no need to disguise the agenda. But the idea of any agenda that includes social militarism is bound to be at odds with some people on the right, and so it needed to be re-framed in a way in which the right would be simpathetic. Hence the focus on information which was 'less than entirely accurate' whether it was intentionally so or not.
This here proves that PNAC and its members don't give two short f*&ks about left or right politics. Like the Nazis they'll latch on to whatever side they'll think will get them power and fulfil their self-serving goals.
That used to be the left in America (for whatever reason) now it's the right. Make's no odds what the parties they latch on to really stand for; they're just a spring board to power.
Hey Iran and Muslims aren't the only ones with fanatics; take a look at the extreme Religious Right of America, the BNP of Britain. Also take a look at the fact that both of these groups are gaining power in their respective nations.
But moving a bit further off topic I really don't understand the mind of the Fanatic, but that's probably because I'm not a stupid twisted maniac. Seriously fanatics justify their actions with all sorts of crap from their Religion that contradicts their own Religion.
Like this Anti-Zionism nonsense, when the Qur'an mentions quite clearly that Jews and Christians are 'people of the book' and are NOT infidels or 'fair game'.
The point is that in order to make fanatics you have to ignore anything that doesn't fit in too your narrow world view, like the fact that most of the actions of Muslim fanatics are banned by the Qur'an, or that this idea of Evolution contradicts the Bible. Or that the Truth doesn't give certain members of gov. the required excuses to invade whoever the hell they like.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...No cause for concern. None whatsoever.
... In spite of what "media military analysts" might think, Israel is quite capable of taking out anything in Iran they see fit to blow up.
... Two nations in the region have access to some of the United States' best weapons technology - Saudi Arabia and Israel (odd that, but that's how it goes I guess).
... And their pilots! Damn, those boys can fly. I remember the mock dog fights we "played" with the Israelis in the Med (I'm not a pilot, I WAS a military air controller)... They were knocking down our F-14 Tomcats and F-18A SuperHornets.... and some of those guys were flying F-4 Phantoms! 
(Vietnam era fighters sold "used" to Israel... the Israelis have a knack for adapting and improving stuff).
... Hell, they might just go ahead and nuke Tehran for that matter. Not that that's a good thing, I'm just saying, the US, by no means, has the last word on what's to be done.
... cheers
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HH,
good point. Israel is far from defenseless here.
Citizen,
The BNP is gaining power? I remember them getting 95 in one district. I'm not shaking yet. Anyway the problem isn't the bad people. We don't need to punish the bad people. Just take a certain ring of folks out of govt. The BNP, the christian right, they can be annoying, but they are just people who care about something different from me. I think anti-zionism is really about Israel and what it did to Palestine. If a muslim force invaded New York and took everything from Manhatten to Albany and then started leveling houses and walling off towns, the remaining New Yorkers might have an occassional anti-Mohammed Koran burning party. In fact, just that little time that some Sunnis took down a couple buildings has us still some upset.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME