0
   

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:33 pm
Occom Bill did indeed believe Saddam aspired to WMD and still doesn't believe his arsenal vanished into thin air. I further believe that most of the world leaders privately agreed, but didn't see the threat as imminent as the U.S. did. Where the IAEA straight disagreed with Bush's assessment on Iraq, they seem to be on the same page regarding Iran. Even Russia and France, who stand much to lose in a World Vs Iran scenario, are reluctantly facing the facts and probabilities.

Edgar, the use of a handful of Nukes wouldn't result in a Nuclear Winter scenario and the fall out wouldn't be that dangerous. Bikini Atol, where many of our biggest weapons were tested (far more powerful than any these countries could likely produce) is still inhabitable today... and is actually a favorite spot for divers to visit. The doomsday scenario's only come into play with an all out exchange between Russia and the U.S. Outside of ground zero, nukes aren't as deadly as people tend to think.

I agree with Nimh that State-wise; the Soviets were much scarier than anything we face today. MAD is effective, but the potential for mistakes leading to escalation could have resulted in extinction. No terrorist or terrorist state can match that potential in the foreseeable future unless we allow them to. At the same time; the non-state threat of Nuke-use today is more likely to be realized. I don't share Nimh's confidence, or degree of it, when it comes to Khamenei acting rationally. I agree Ahmadinejad is more mouth-piece than leader, but his words remain the same and haven't been censured. I see it like Kim making his bolder statement's through the NK newspapers. Sure you can't quote him directly; but there is little doubt where the sentiments are coming from.

I do share Nimh's hope that Iran is mostly bluffing for position; but with a much lesser degree of confidence and find the wait-and-see position far less palatable.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:32 pm
nimh wrote:

But forsure - it takes some swallowing hard to trust on such an assessment ... If one's wrong...


I guess this is the bottom line for me. You can't be wrong.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:38 pm
So you've got to destroy every government you suspect (except N Korea) - and of course the ones your own government's in bed with.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:39 pm
...at the moment. Don't forget who our enemies used to be only some 60 years ago.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 09:11 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
So you've got to destroy every government you suspect (except N Korea) - and of course the ones your own government's in bed with.
I woudn't use the word destroy, no... attempt to alter maybe, but essentially yes. I'd exclude neither NK nor the governments we're in bed with, either.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 09:14 pm
That's a lot of altering as the years go by.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 09:19 pm
eb-- I guess it's obvious, but I'll say anyway--no, I don't suggest we bomb all of those countries.

I think Pakistan was a scary surprise, and this is one reason we're paying them UNGODLY amounts of money.

Paki and India are probably the scariest. Until Jiffy Pop Hair gets one.

But, eb. What should be done about Iran? If you knew they were approaching completion of the process. WWebD?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 09:51 pm
We must quiver. And rage with fear and trembling every time our government gets in a spat with someone. And then swat them down like flies.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:34 pm
You're great at the prose and the imagery, and satire...

I guess this translates to you don't believe they'll use them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 12:26 am
The only ones great at the prose and imagery are those that advocate the preemptive strike on countries they fear without much evidence that they are a threat to the US.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 12:55 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Occom Bill did indeed believe Saddam aspired to WMD and still doesn't believe his arsenal vanished into thin air. I further believe that most of the world leaders privately agreed, but didn't see the threat as imminent as the U.S. did. Where the IAEA straight disagreed with Bush's assessment on Iraq, they seem to be on the same page regarding Iran. Even Russia and France, who stand much to lose in a World Vs Iran scenario, are reluctantly facing the facts and probabilities.

Edgar, the use of a handful of Nukes wouldn't result in a Nuclear Winter scenario and the fall out wouldn't be that dangerous. Bikini Atol, where many of our biggest weapons were tested (far more powerful than any these countries could likely produce) is still inhabitable today... and is actually a favorite spot for divers to visit. The doomsday scenario's only come into play with an all out exchange between Russia and the U.S. Outside of ground zero, nukes aren't as deadly as people tend to think.

I agree with Nimh that State-wise; the Soviets were much scarier than anything we face today. MAD is effective, but the potential for mistakes leading to escalation could have resulted in extinction. No terrorist or terrorist state can match that potential in the foreseeable future unless we allow them to. At the same time; the non-state threat of Nuke-use today is more likely to be realized. I don't share Nimh's confidence, or degree of it, when it comes to Khamenei acting rationally. I agree Ahmadinejad is more mouth-piece than leader, but his words remain the same and haven't been censured. I see it like Kim making his bolder statement's through the NK newspapers. Sure you can't quote him directly; but there is little doubt where the sentiments are coming from.

I do share Nimh's hope that Iran is mostly bluffing for position; but with a much lesser degree of confidence and find the wait-and-see position far less palatable.


Ha. Told ya so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 06:15 am
The entire notion that such a situation can be "solved" by military action is incredibly witless. Neither the source of the revenue which funds research on weapons of mass destruction and the production of them goes away, nor does expertise in human form--just because some brainless cowboy goes yahooing in there and takes out a reactor or two. The wherewithal lies beneath the soil of the middle east, Persian included, and the human expertise is as wide-spread among the population as is the case with any human population.

The notion that Iraq will never again be a threat because Hussein is on trial now is as brainless as believing that because a cop laid for a burglar, and caught him, no more break-ins will ever occur.

The Persians and the Iraqis continue to possess the source of wealth and the expertise to produce weapons of mass destruction. Unless their nations are occupied and made puppet states of another nation or a coalition, it will not be ultimately possible to remove the putative threat. However, witless cowboy operations such as the one the Idiot in Chief carried out in Iraq do help assure the continuing animus toward us which makes terrorism attractive to those who justifiably believe they have nothing to lose.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 06:24 am
Of course. Nobody likes these people having such weapons. Nobody should like us having them. But they are there, and we had best find a rational way of dealing with it now, not ten years hence.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 06:32 am
You're probably right Setanta. Cops should probably stop arresting burglars because they can't catch them all. Rolling Eyes Witless? Brainless? Better descriptions for that blathering if you ask me.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 06:53 am
And your incorrect about Bikini OB. They tried moving people back there in the late 60's and early 70's and Since the Cesium 137 was so high, it tainted the food by uptake from the soil. The people were again resettled. Why anyone would want to go there after only 1.75 half lives of a nuclide with a half life of 30 years , is , in itself a type of insanity I usually hear from Rush Limbaugh. (I wouldnt go there on a bet without taking large doses of chelation chemicals (Prussian blue works for cesium). Youre " bending the facts" quite a bit.
I believe that the Marshall Islanders are mostly on Rongelap and spread out all over like the people of New Orleans.
AS FAR AS IRAQ AND WMDs.

Scott Ritter told us that the reason we didnt find any WMD's was that there werent any.Then the GOP savaged him as a "traitor with dealings with terrorists"
Subsequent to his statements ALL the "secret lab sites " had been accounted for as other than WMD centers and , as far as Nukes, Saddam would have left such a radioactive footprint that wed still see it, and since weve been screwing around in Iraq for about 15 years now, why is it that weve never found any traces of nuclear material of long lived isotopes.

The entire run up to a stupid war as this was a series of manufactured tales and outright lies.

Is this administration more corrupt than Harding? I think that history is leaning to "yes" Even more serious is that this corruption is so wide spread and permeable.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 07:00 am
In every way you look at it, the danger from Saddam Hussein was pretty low compared with other countries at the time of the invasion.

Going after Saddam Hussein at the time we did it is like someone stealing a million dollars from a bank and then when the police can't catch him, forgetting about him and going after someone who once stole a million dollars from a bank a long time ago and who has already paid time for it. The only justification the police have for going after the second one is that once he stole something so they think he must have surely stole something again and he can't prove he didn't.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 07:40 am
The driving force behind Bushie's War Presiduncy is the PNAC. Their blueprint for world domination is specific. Saddam had nothing to do with this war. "The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:aHt5M-bQ874J:www.sundayherald.com/27735+saddam+pnac&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&ie=UTF-8
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 08:49 am
Quote:


http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/15/wmd-irrelevant/

It appears the WMD argument was presented to feed on America's fears and ignorance. Without 9/11 this argument would be meaningless. After 9/11 any argument along this line would make gullible people believe in invasion.

What's amazing is that after all is said and done we still have people out there believing those WMD's are hidden somewhere, ready to be extracted and used to kill thousands of Americans.

O ya, lets not forget that Saddam Hussein helped plan the 9/11 attack with Osama bin Laden. They were bed buddies, working side by side to destroy democracy and the free world.

Damn, I beginning to sound like Americas answer to Truth and Ethics; Rush Limbaugh.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 08:58 am
WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz
By David Usborne
Independent Digital

Friday 30 May 2003

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 09:52 am
wingu wrote:
It appears the WMD argument was presented to feed on America's fears and ignorance. Without 9/11 this argument would be meaningless. After 9/11 any argument along this line would make gullible people believe in invasion.


Maybe it's possible many Bushie supporters doesn't realize the simple fact that Bush kept repeating "9-11" like some mantra to keep the American People in fear. It worked too - until recent times when his ratings shot below 40 percent. Maybe, the American People are beginning to wake up from their stupor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 09:37:15