Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

Recommended Posts

The centrifuges needed to enrich Uranium in Iran to create uranium used in n-weapons number around 1500 that run constantly over a year.These devices would create 44 pounds of enriched uranium theoretically.

Currently Iran runs around 164 centrifuges and are ONLY able to enrich urnanium on a level that allows no useage of the produced material in n-weapons. The level of enrichment is 1000 times to small for a n-weapon.

The knowledge and technology gap can not be overcome within the next years so I guess it´s pretty overdone to nuke them.

No matter if Bush stupid decides to use mini nukes or not, an attack with n-devices is an attack with n-devices. There will be longterm contamination and effects on the environment and people in Iran that can not be justified by the word "mini nukes". A mini nuke is still a nuclear weapon with all it´s side effects.

Following a history of unjustified attacks on other countries I´m quite sure that Bush will go for it, be it just for the elections in autumn and this will automatically make him the 2nd one in human history to use nuclear weapons against other humans.

Judged from a military perspective the use of mini-nukes is the most safe and sound solution for the US. This plan will have to be nicked through by Israel of course as the planes need to pass their territory for a safe passage way.

Just to remind you attack-fetishists. Iran is not even close to nuclear weapons right now. By bombing them with n-weapons the US would create an atmosphere of total retaliation worldwide. It´s not interesting for anyone how much damage the US mini-nukes will do, but the fact that the weapons used against Iran are nuclear and therefore parallels between Hiroshima and Iran will be drawn and put Iran into a victimized role which will only strenghten their political position.

There is a reason why Pentagon officials refuse the useage of mini-nukes on Iran, it´s the Bushy White House that wants to use them against the will of the Pentagon.

I guess it had to be expected that Big Boy Bush wanted to play with the real big toys oneday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post a source where he authorized the use of incendiary weapons in Fallujah ? No ? So they have not been used. Thank god....

To give you some hints:

SEYMOUR M. HERSH on the Iran approach

Quote[/b] ]Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder†bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of governmentâ€â€”for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ â€â€”the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,†the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes†could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,†specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.†The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.†He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.â€

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.†The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,†the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.â€

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it outâ€â€”remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.â€

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ â€

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.†He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,†the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.†The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,†the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.â€

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,†he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.†Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,†he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction†of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?â€

The installations in Iran leave little options for conventional weapons. If you want to attack the facilities you have to do it with nukes.

In context with the restarted US nuclear weapons program you´ll get the idea:

Quote[/b] ]At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)

America has built no nuclear weapons since 1990, while deactivating many. Nuclear testing stopped roughly a decade ago, as did development of tactical nukes. The tax money just appropriated for tactical nuclear weapons research is quite small in proportion to military spending. But the president's policies are a distinct reversal of prior administrations' slow, steady retreat from the nuclear brink. Bush has made clear his willingness to use nuclear weapons, even in so-called pre-emptive strikes against non-nuclear countries.

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations has been changed under Bush. Highlighted changes:

Quote[/b] ]A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

PDF Doctrine for nuclear operations

So yes, I´d say as long as Bush is president and took initiative on the nuke program and altered the doctrine he´s somewhat said that the useage of nukes is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The internal battle between traditional conservatives and the bolshevik rooted NeoConMen who took control of the the US republican party continues to cause real problems for those considering whether to ever vote republican again.

As well as the damage done to the republicans by the loss of trust after false claims made by the NeoConMen to start the Iraq war; many now see problems with the mess over US imigration law.

Quote[/b] ]How the GOP Lost Its Way

By Craig Shirley

Saturday, April 22, 2006; Page A21

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.

There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.

Major Republicans have taken to attacking others within their own party as unsophisticated nativists. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie warned populists to cease and desist from promoting "border enforcement first" legislation. "Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure," he said. And in a recent editorial, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol attacked populist Republicans for not recognizing the danger of "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party."

Conservatives see this kind of rhetoric as inflammatory, anti-intellectual and offensive. Far from being driven by xenophobia and intolerance, conservative populists are motivated by a profound respect for the rule of law and by a patriotic regard for America's sovereignty and national security. Upholding the rule of law and protecting our country's borders is important to conservative populists and to most Americans...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....93.html

Click link for full text of article

As the NeoConMen drag the US republican party further from the centerground of US politics many in the GOP no longer feel represented in a NeoConMen controled US republican party.

It is why one must consider the following question.

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]@Garcia

Don't forget the political consequences of some US president launching nukes.  He'd better have a damn good reason or he's toast.

If Bush haven't already managed to become toast, I'm really questioning the political knowledge of the american people. The guy should have had to work hard to make worse turnes on some matters. Besides, he would answer as any other fanatic christian when they get a tricky question about their actions: "God told me to do it!". If he says that, he'll have all his christian fanatic votes convinced he did the right thing.

Besides, as supah said, who would be left to ask questions anyway? Bush would possibly manage to mess up the launch so all that would be left would be some guys in Africa, anyone in space (though they would have a hard time getting back again) and some guy ice-fishing in the empty of "finmarksvidda" here in Norway...

Quote[/b] ]@Garcia: yes fun isnt it! Someone who claims devine guidance in attacking countries without solid arguments to support such military aggression calling someone else a dangerous religious extremist biggrin_o.gif

Indeed, but nobody cares about a christian extrimist, who tried using his power to keep a braindead woman alive, that got shitloads of nukes and hears voices in his head that tells him where and what to blow up next whistle.gif Muslims with some rather less deady bombs are much scaries crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walker the article you linked to is actually some what interesting. However, I am sick to death of your Joseph Goebbels,Tokyo Rose,Pravda,Baghdad Bob style of posting.

  Your post are written so close to the style of a Goebbles speech it's scary. Everything you post you sprinkle with such convoluted Walker clichés, like “The battle continues…†or “many are asking…â€, “we all know…†or “every one knows…†or my favorite oft used Walker cliché “It’s official…â€.

 Because if Walker has an opinion, It's official. I mean he is the minister of propaganda. wink_o.gif

 

 I've found the best way to read a Walker propaganda post is to simply replace the walker clichés such as they or them to Walker. As an example I’ll quote your previous post, only I’ll edit out the Goebbel style junk and replace it with “walkerâ€.

Changes are in bold.

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

The internal battle between traditional conservatives and the bolshevik rooted NeoConMen as Walker calls them,who in Walkers opinion have taken control of the the US republican party continue to cause real problems for Walker considering whether to ever vote republican again.(that is if he were American and could vote in their elections).

As well as the damage done to the republicans by the loss of Walker’strust after false claims made by the NeoConMen to start the Iraq war; Walker now sees problems with the mess over US imigration law..

As the NeoConMen drag the US republican party further from the centerground of US politics Walker no longer feels represented in a NeoConMen controled US republican party.

It is why Walker continually ask himself with obsessive compulsive regularitythe following question.

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can Walker feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

 There, isn't that better? When presented as it really is (your opinion and observations) it becomes a much more readable piece, as opposed to the usual propaganda piece in the style of Tokyo Rose or Baghdad Bob that you normally use.

 

Quote[/b] ]Everyone that said you cannot trust any politician. Clearly by definition they think the NeoConMen of TBA are untrustworthy.

 Just as I find any politician untrustworthy.

Quote[/b] ]I did not expect so many Republicans to agree but I am happy to see the US Republican party begininning the process of removing the NeoConMen from their party and from power.

 My friends and family who are liberal say I am a Right wing radical, my friends and family who are conservitive say I am a left wing extremist. Why do I mention this? Well because it's obvious you've labeled me a "Republican"  the same as you've labeled any one who has ever disagreed with you at one time or another. It's funny how little you know. I've never registered as a Republican, as a matter of fact I hate them with passion you could never dream to match.

 The difference from you and I is that I have that same hatred and loathing for the Democratic party as I do for the GOP. You waste all your hate and spite on the right and grant a complete reprieve to the left. You my friend have ignored the real problem and chosen a side. You are there for every bit as wrong and blinded as the right wing you so adamantly rebuke. I on the other hand have not chosen a side, the GOP and the Democrats are both equally disgusting in my eyes. There is that saying that the lesser of two evils is still evil. The saying is true, and there for I refuse to throw my lot in with the socialist left wing or the feudalist right.

I do not trust any political party great or small, they are all movements that seek gain and profit for them selves. There is no such thing as an honest politician. Politicians are the bane of mankind. They are suit wearing thieves and murderers, constitutionally legal Mafioso’s.

 So you go ahead and continue your targeted campaign against “TBAâ„¢ â€. Just realize that while your focus is turned on the neoconsâ„¢ that the “neosocialist™†are behind you getting ready to stick it to you.

 All I’ll ask you are two favors…

1.stop the Goebbel styled post

2. Don’t label me as part of your club or the other club. As far as the red and blue American gang war is concerned, I refuse to swear fealty to either side. If I had my way, they’d all be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to Sputnik Monroe

In the course of life one is exposed to people with different view points.

As a practical anarchist, and I have always made it clear on these forums that I am a practical anarchist, different points of view are a given.

If you want to know what my politics are go read some Robert Heinlein add in some Sun Tzu, a smidgen of Che Guevara, a bit of Churchill, some JFK and a splash of Nelson Mandela and that is about where I am.

I passionately believe in debate and in using it to put forward my point of view. If it upsets you well toughen up. The world is full of people far worse than me, I know because I have fought them most of my adult life.

Some of my friends were locked up in prisons for their views some were tortured or had members of there families tortured and had nervous breakdowns as a result. One was killed. Several lived through civil wars and lost members of their family.

I think, with respect, that as much as my words may grate up on you they do not fall into the same league.

Get used to it mate it is called freedom of speech it is one of the few boons of democracy.

Sputnik Monroe I am most careful not to label people if I have labeled you as a republican please forgive me it certainly was not my intention.

By definition as a practical anarchist I believe that everyone is in fact a practical anarchist, it is just they may not be aware of it. And of course as practical anarchists it is a given that we cannot all share the same point of view. It therefore follows that debate is fundamental to allow us to agree on anything at all. The obverse is obviously also true some times you just ain't going to agree.

So you then come down to the practical part of it: What must you do to effect agreement that benefits your point of view and who do you need to persuade?

In a democracy because of its weaknesses and its strengths you only have to persuade a majority. There for do not be surprised if your not part of the group one is trying to persuade; nor should you be surprised if you are one of those who one only seeks to nullify. This is the nature of democracy get used to it; it is the world you live in.

Getting back to the point of this thread and delving back deep into the realm of US politics.

The question you have to ask you self as a practical anarchist who occasionally votes republican is:

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that was the most coherent post I've seen from you yet.  Still you missed the point.

Quote[/b] ]I passionately believe in debate and in using it to put forward my point of view. If it upsets you well toughen up. The world is full of people far worse than me, I know because I have fought them most of my adult life.

 I'm not against debate or others having a different opinion. More or less what annoys me is the way you post. You post like a red commissar or as I mentioned before Goebbels.

 For example, some one might say: “From what I’ve been reading there seems to be dissent within group A about the actions of group Bâ€

 Now how you would have worded that would likely be for example: â€It’s official, the group A’s are on the verge of open revolt against the conniving GBA (group B administration). Many group B members are so in fear of the looming hearings on their actions that they’ve taken to peeing their beds at night. Many group A followers who have been disillusioned by the lying imperialistic GBA have taken to the streets.â€

 

 And you go on and one with such hyperbole statements like “they are doing this†or “many are thinking thisâ€. Quit using they and them so much and say the truth, you speculate. You can’t speak for “them†or “theyâ€.

Quote[/b] ]By definition as a practical anarchist I believe that everyone is in fact a practical anarchist

 I’m not going to jump on you for this one. Just thought I’d point out that most idealist believe that “the majority share my beliefs, they just realize it.†Hell I use to believe every one was a libertarian they just didn’t know it. That’s not true though, some people are simply tyrants.

Quote[/b] ]This is the nature of democracy get used to it; it is the world you live in.

 Trust me I’m use to the world I live in, with age and experience after shitty experience I’ve learned how the world works. Why do you think I’m so damn jaded and nihilistic? It didn’t happen over night.  I use to be incredibly idealistic, that part of me is long dead now. I still have my ideals and my beliefs, however I don’t lie to my self with the delusional thought that I can ever change the world. People always talk about the “good old days†and how could we bring them back. The truth is there has never been  “good old days.â€, the world has always been a shitty pyramid with a few jerks at the top ruling the bleating stupid masses. Today we have politicians and dictators, in the past we had Royalty and Lords.

 In the end nothing changes for the better. At least there use to be frontiers where one could leave “civilization†and rough it on their own. Now the entire world is saturated with way too many people. Every square inch of the planet is ruled and claimed by a nation. God how I wish there was some undiscovered land I could sail to and just live my life with out others dictating me. That isn’t an option in this overpopulated garbage dump we call earth, not any more at least. Your born under the yoke and you’ll die under the yoke. Yippee!

Quote[/b] ]The question you have to ask you self as a practical anarchist who occasionally votes republican is:

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

  Ok this isn’t even funny any more. Your starting to sound mental, I mean how many times can you repeat the same question to your self? Kudos on being able to reword the question every other post while still maintaining the same flawed meaning.

 I’ve answered it a million times so far. Answer: The same way you can trust any politician or despot.

 You aren’t seeing the big picture. You focus on the neocons™ as you call them. They are part of a much larger problem effecting the world. That problem is the politician.

  If tomorrow every single neocon was stricken dead and the rivers or the world ran red with their blood, nothing would be any different. The socialist would quickly fill the void and continue the good work of lining their pockets and enslaving the masses. Strike them all down and the fascist will take over, strike them down and you’ll get the Maoist, nothing will ever change. As long as there are people breathing air there will be lawyers, taxmen, politicians and rulers making life a living hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muslims with some rather less deady bombs are much scaries crazy_o.gif

You can say that again!

huh.gif

Errrrm...yeeees? And that proves what? It doesn't prove any of them got a bomb, no? So, they still don't got bombs that's as powerful as US' nukes, yes? Besides, they'll 1: probably never get nukes as powerful as US' 2: They'll very likely never get as many nukes as US.

Meaning, you still got a christian extrimist with more bombs that are by far more deadly than muslims...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muslims with some rather less deady bombs are much scaries crazy_o.gif

You can say that again!

huh.gif

Errrrm...yeeees? And that proves what?

That given time, nuclear weapons technology will spread to those that will threaten you.

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't prove any of them got a bomb, no?

Do you need to have a bomb to mass produce dirty nukes?

Just asking.

Quote[/b] ]So, they still don't got bombs that's as powerful as US' nukes, yes? Besides, they'll 1: probably never get nukes as powerful as US' 2: They'll very likely never get as many nukes as US.

Even with less powerful nukes, how much do you need to ruin New York............ or Chicago.......... or Los Angeles?

Just asking.

Quote[/b] ]Meaning, you still got a christian extrimist

Where?!

Where?!

Quote[/b] ]with more bombs that are by far more deadly than muslims...

It's not quantity. It's intent to use.

When someone does, what if they don't leave a calling card?

Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]That given time, nuclear weapons technology will spread to those that will threaten you.

And sooo? They still don't got the bomb.

Quote[/b] ]Do you need to have a bomb to mass produce dirty nukes?

Just asking.

Well, they still don't got the bomb, meaning they still got less deadly bombs than the christian extrimist, aka Bush.

Quote[/b] ]Even with less powerful nukes, how much do you need to ruin New York............ or Chicago.......... or Los Angeles?

Just asking.

Don't need much, but still, the christian extrimist, aka Bush, got enough to blow the whole world to pieces.

Quote[/b] ]Where?!

Where?!

Most known christian extrimist is Bush, possibly in the white house ATM.

Quote[/b] ]It's not quantity. It's intent to use.

When someone does, what if they don't leave a calling card?

Just asking.

Then you find who did it (and not the TBA way, bomb anyone who might have had a slightly chance of being guilty).

And Bush already stated that he is willing to use nukes, he's already said he's getting orders from god almighty and he's already started 2 wars cause of those orders. He is much more likely to fire off a nuke than Iran. If Iran does it, Irans leaders will be doing it knowing they will be headhunter for the rest of their life by USA and knowing Iran got very little time left without having US troops present. So they must be having a death wish and want to let US take their country. If Bush fires of one, he'll get fried in the newspaper and be stamped as the worst american president ever and the second guy who uses a nuke. But, oh, Bush is already getting fried quite a bit in the newspaper, he is already 9/10th on the way being stamped as the worst american president ever, and hey, he probably finds the thought of being the second guy launching a nuke exiting.

Only thing stopping him from launching is all the thingy that it got to be approved by 2 other ppl and all that, but TBA is so full of strange ppl that it might not even be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Iranians pbb wont mind being over run as their believes center on the return of the hidden mullah or some joker who will return after the end of the world has started who's reign will signal a time of peace etc. for everyone but especially for them. To the Iranians nuclear armageddon only speeds up the return of their "Messiah". Also, being a martyr for islam after a possible american intervention isnt such a sad end to those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]And Bush already stated that he is willing to use nukes, he's already said he's getting orders from god almighty and he's already started 2 wars cause of those orders.

Praying and claiming to be hearing some Divine voice are two different things.  I have never heard that Bush claims he hears a voice from God.  Please enlighten me on this.

Quote[/b] ]Then you find who did it (and not the TBA way, bomb anyone who might have had a slightly chance of being guilty).

We didn't bomb two nations that had slight chances of being guilty.  I'd say both of them had it coming, they were both very guilty.  Any further discussion on this will have to move to a different thread, though.

Quote[/b] ]Don't need much, but still, the christian extrimist, aka Bush, got enough to blow the whole world to pieces.

Gee, so does Russia.  So does France. So does England. So does Isreal.  So does Pakistan.  So does India.  So does China.

Quote[/b] ]Well, they still don't got the bomb, meaning they still got less deadly bombs than the christian extrimist, aka Bush.

Do you even want them to get the bomb?  Think about it.  The target of a terrorist nuke attack may not be the US.  It could be Isreal.  It could be England.  It could be France.  We don't want Iran having a nuke because of their close ties to terrorism.

Quote[/b] ]But, oh, Bush is already getting fried quite a bit in the newspaper,

Makes him great in my book wink_o.gif

-Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell, some guy claims, without proof, that Bush said these things and all of you latch onto that?

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

*sigh*

-Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, any Muslim country with nuclear weapons is a threat. Why? Because there is no moderate Muslim country in existance today. The ones that are considered "moderate" always contain a political battlefield populated by Wahabists and lesser Wahabists. The more Wahabist they are, the more support they get.

Don't try to pull an argument in the range of me being a racist or an ignoramous. Or at least, before you do, show me just one example where I'm wrong. Show me an Islamic country that is not a shit hole to live in, one where the leaders are responsible, one where everyone has equal rights.

There's a reason Iran wants nuclear capabilities, and it's not for "peaceful" purposes. Anyone believing that is very, very guillible and would probably believe Al-Jazeera.

Speaking of the Washington Post - They're FAR from being neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell, some guy claims, without proof, that Bush said these things and all of you latch onto that?

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

*sigh*

-Pilot

Innocent until proven guilty was blown away by Bush when he bombed Iraq for having something they couldn't prove they had... whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMD's were not the only reason we went into Iraq.  Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism.  Examples include monetary support of suicide bombers in Palestine and terrorist training camps within Iraq itself.

-Pilot

EDIT:

This is getting a bit OT for this thread.  We might want to move this part of the discussion to the Iraq thread.

EDIT EDIT:

Btw, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if Bush was wrong, what makes it right for others to do the same? Ted Bundy murdered people, does that give me a right to do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ] Show me an Islamic country that is not a shit hole to live in, one where the leaders are responsible, one where everyone has equal rights.

Indonesia.

Quote[/b] ]WMD's were not the only reason we went into Iraq. Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism. Examples include monetary support of suicide bombers in Palestine and terrorist training camps within Iraq itself.

WMD´s WERE the reason to go to war. The other reasons were just made up afterwards when it became obvious that the WMD claim was a pile of shit.

Rewriting history, eh ? icon_rolleyes.gif

Quote[/b] ]Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Haha, good one. Tell that to the thousands of iraqui civillians that got killed for the WMD lie or the hundreds of Gitmo prisoners. Innocent until proven guilty. Good joke for them, good joke for Bush.

Quote[/b] ] I'd say both of them had it coming, they were both very guilty.

Elobarate: sources, facts, keep them coming please.

Quote[/b] ]Gee, so does Russia. So does France. So does England. So does Isreal. So does Pakistan. So does India. So does China.

Gee, how many of those are currently involved in civillian eating wars like the US apart from russia with their chechen obsession ? And how many of them name themselves as the bright beacon of western democracies ? Get a grip.

Quote[/b] ]Do you even want them to get the bomb? Think about it. The target of a terrorist nuke attack may not be the US. It could be Isreal. It could be England. It could be France. We don't want Iran having a nuke because of their close ties to terrorism.

They are years away from a bomb. Even if they got it someday how should they deliver it ? With pigeons ? ICBM´s are not developed in a minute. Hysteria ?

Most likely the next terrorist nuke attack we will see are some shoulder drops from US planes on iranian territory. Preemptive, you know... the path to sucess, you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are years away from a bomb. Even if they got it someday how should they deliver it ? With pigeons ? ICBM´s are not developed in a minute. Hysteria ?

How about a Fiat ducato max driven across EU borders by some happy hezbollah wannabe-martyr?

Just read about shia religious history, anybody fanatic about that ought to be real big on the ultimate self-sacrifice.

Quote[/b] ]

WMD´s WERE the reason to go to war. The other reasons were just made up afterwards when it became obvious that the WMD claim was a pile of shit.

Rewriting history, eh ?

Well, they did keep drumming those but if you are going to bomb countries over handing money to palestinian militants there wont be much left unbombed in the middle east. yay.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]How about a Fiat ducato max driven across EU borders by some happy hezbollah wannabe-martyr?

Well of course there´s always the risk of such acts, but this doesn´t have to be a state sponsored action. Individuals can also perform actions like that, even within the US. Remember the Oklahoma bombing. A dirty bomb can be produced much easier by an individual group than a government run facility. Given the fact that it´s incredibly easy to get hands on russian nuclear material it would be madness to use iranian nuclear material in such as it will be traced in seconds and Iran would be vapourized. Along with the neighbouring countries btw.

The real problem the US have with Iran is that a lot of iranian guys are already working in Iraq in a wide range of positions. Iran has a lot of spies in Iraq, among the armed forces, the police, the governmental institutions and they are widening their influence. Iran lately even offered the US intel about Iraq´s inner affairs as they have a more accurate picture as they have more people in better positions. I don´t know if you can remember me saying some years back that the longtime goal for Iran will be to annex or unite with Iraq. Right now we have a situation where this get more and more likely. Iraq´s people are pissed by the US forces and polititians who live in denial of reality and the security situation has deteriorated so much that militias get more and more people as they feel that noone else is really defending them. Along with the tribal problems you get the perfect ground for islamic helpers. In this case Iran. The others are just to lazy and don´t want to get involved really. The US fail to do the job and the only one offering help is Iran.

That´s the problem. Even Rumsfeld now twists again and says that Iraq war and Afghanistan war are absolutely needed to keep Iran low. He forgot to tell though, that the destabilization of Iraq by his own forces is the reason for a reaffirmed Iran. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ] Show me an Islamic country that is not a shit hole to live in, one where the leaders are responsible, one where everyone has equal rights.

Indonesia.

Wow! You found one! Sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

Well of course there´s always the risk of such acts, but this doesn´t have to be a state sponsored action. Individuals can also perform actions like that, even within the US. Remember the Oklahoma bombing.

I think DIY nukes are bit too far off in the future.. yay.gif

Quote[/b] ]

A dirty bomb can be produced much easier by an individual group than a government run facility.

Yeah, because it would be the most senseless waste of tax dinars ever to use dirty bombs even by goverment standards. Dirty bombs are probably the most overrated weapon ever made.

Quote[/b] ]

Given the fact that it´s incredibly easy to get hands on russian nuclear material it would be madness to use iranian nuclear material in such as it will be traced in seconds and Iran would be vapourized. Along with the neighbouring countries btw.

Part of the problem is that Iran might also profilirate their goods to other countries. Not fun to find that you have been fighting in the wrong country.. say for 4 years? Still, dirty bombs are still least of my worries. And of course there is the fact that applying pressure to Iran ("uh guys.. could you stop violating human rights and sponsoring terrorist groups?") will get tad harder if they get nukes.

Quote[/b] ]

The real problem the US have with Iran is that a lot of iranian guys are already working in Iraq in a wide range of positions. Iran has a lot of spies in Iraq, among the armed forces, the police, the governmental institutions and they are widening their influence. Iran lately even offered the US intel about Iraq´s inner affairs as they have a more accurate picture as they have more people in better positions. I don´t know if you can remember me saying some years back that the longtime goal for Iran will be to annex or unite with Iraq.

Not that I would feel very patriotic after 30 years of Saddam either.. yay.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Wow! You found one!

I didn´t even think hard...

Maybe we should check Israel´s people on extremists. There are none right ? icon_rolleyes.gif

Check your own politicians. Have a try with the one in coma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×