UN talking about Iran nuclear restart...

[southsider2k5]

But talking about it is about all they are doing... They aren't even wanting to refer this to the UN sercurity council.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/09...iaea/index.html

[Kid Gleason]

Can we send them a few bombs to get them started? Our airmail still works...right?

[Balta1701]

Can we send them a few bombs to get them started? Our airmail still works...right?

Yeah...because the Iranian army slamming up against ours in Iraq is exactly what we need right now. It's been so easy occupying 25 million people...why not add another 68 million?

 

And also...thank Goodness we have a proven negotiator and a man who's willing to work diplomatically with people running things at the Security council right now.

[Kid Gleason]

Should I have used green??? Was that a little too confusing to be taken as sarcasm? Sorry kids...I guess.

[Balta1701]

Should I have used green??? Was that a little too confusing to be taken as sarcasm? Sorry kids...I guess.

It could still have been sarcastic and yet illustrated a deeper point. In fact, there are plenty of people out there who believe that to be the ideal next thing for the U.S. to do. I was merely trying to note that even if it were sarcastic...it's still a terrible idea.

[Kid Gleason]

I'm sick of the bastards, no doubt about it. If there was a way of using some form of a neutron bomb that could go off and just kill all the assholes, I would be all for it. But since innocent children and other types of people would be killed with a BIG bomb, I would say "no" to dropping anything. As of now. If the world keeps getting into a terrible situation, then maybe we look into the ending of Return Of The Living Dead for our answers.

Edited August 9, 2005 by Kid Gleason

[FlaSoxxJim]

All of this nuclear ambition being played out during the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is apparently only stunning and thoroughly depressing to me. Our President has done more in the last 5 years to fan the nuclear aspirations of rogue states than I would have believed possible.

 

In the wake of the Cold War, we should be continuing on a path of global arms reduction, and not considering adding 'tactical nukes,' "bunker busters," etc. to our military arsenal. These "low yield" devices will be capable of taking out 10 square city blocks. Very tactical. And for all the fear we have about nukes getting into the wrong hands, do we really think that bringing low yield nukes into the enemy's backyard (where they can be delivered via Howitzer) is a good idea?

 

In the wake of the Cold War, our president should not be threatening rogue states with either pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear first strike, and teh NeoCons shouldn't be floating the idea of nuking Mecca as a possible retaliation against the sane Muslim world if we decidethey haven't done enough to destroy their insane brethren.

 

Of course it's all about the NeoCon dream of Full Spectrum Dominance - being able to crush any and every potential adversary on the planet (pretty much everybody), either as part of a coalition or unilaterally. And somehow we are surprised by the nuclear ambitions of rogue states. This is not what we should be to the world. And trying to get there is going to bankrupt us. We're pretty much conceding the economic war to China - except that we will heve the ability to bomb them to rubble if we decide they deserve it. Maybe that's the plan?

 

Having succesfully emerged from the shadows of a world in which we all understood the realities of mutually assured destrustion as kids, we are now egging the world on to get back to that state.

Edited August 9, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

With all due respect... Oh please.

 

These countries have been trying to get their hands on nuclear weaponry for decades. Iran had a basically completed nuclear plant, way past what they have today, in October of 1981. Considering that the conservative President Reagan wasn't inaugurated until January of 1981, that is an incredibly effecient nuclear program if you ask me. I mean if they can build a nuclear plant in less than a year to counter the emergence of the neo-con movement, that is just the dedication that they have to counter our clear and presant danger to them. Besides that, once again, their history with a nuclear program dates way back before that, into the 1960's, long before there were US troops in any middle eastern country.

 

South Korea just didn't jump on the nuclear map either. Their atomic research program dates all of the way back to the 1960's with them importing former Soviet engineers into the country to try to build them a bomb. In the middle 60's Russia built them a nuke plant to enrich uranium with. It was sometime in the late 70's to early 80's that they began trying to convert this plant and technology into more "practical" applications.

 

If you want to look at more modern times it was actually 1993, or into the beginning of the neo-con Bill Clinton's term when North Korea withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. They did sign the nuclear agreement in 1994, but by this time US intelligence indicated that they already had enough nuclear material to build 2-6 bombs, thus rendering their stoppage in production kind of moot. Besides that, PRNK admitted that they had had a clandestine nuclear program all along, and had never stopped working in the nuclear realm all along in violation of every treaty they had signed anyway.

[FlaSoxxJim]

With all due respect... Oh please. 

 

These countries have been trying to get their hands on nuclear weaponry for decades.

 

Agreed. So let's make it easier for some of them by bringing in some cute li'l bunker busting nukes that will end up getting away from us some way or another. If we're losing track of billions of dollars at a time as well as munitions from supposedly secuired stockpiles, why not bring 'em some completed nuclear devices as well?

 

The GWOT is making the US and the world decidedly less safe, despite testaments to the contrary by the "willful blind" of the administration. Our misguided nuclear ambitions and clear threats that we're ready and willing to use nukes on our enemies is not making us any safer in that arena either.

 

Hopefully we'll see more dispondent insiders like ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer indicate what they really think: "Rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq."

 

The recent AP piece "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" did a good job of at least trying to cure spell it out. "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear."

 

The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'"

 

The point about ending unqualified support for Israel is likely a key to averting the next world war.

[southsider2k5]

Agreed.  So let's make it easier for some of them by bringing in some cute li'l bunker busting nukes that will end up getting away from us some way or another.  If we're losing track of billions of dollars at a time as well as munitions from supposedly secuired stockpiles, why not bring 'em some completed nuclear devices as well?

 

The GWOT is making the US and the world decidedly less safe, despite testaments to the contrary by the "willful blind" of the administration.  Our misguided nuclear ambitions and clear threats that we're ready and willing to use nukes on our enemies is not making us any safer in that arena either.

 

Hopefully we'll see more dispondent  insiders like ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer indicate what they really think: "Rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq."

 

The recent AP piece "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" did a good job of at least trying to cure spell it out.  "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear."

 

The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'"

 

The point about ending unqualified support for Israel is likely a key to averting the next world war.

 

So because other countries want to blow us off the face of the earth, we should stop trying to advance our own technolgy? Funny when I see more countries with the capability of attacking us, I would think more effective strategic weaponry would be more effective for adressing the problem, vs sending a couple hundred thousand 18 year olds over to the Korean pennisula to stop Kim Jung Il from doing, what the UN should be trying to stop him from doing. I don't think you want to invade PRNK, and I don't see that negotiations have been effective, as judged by their history of holding us hostage in exchange for what they need, and continuing their nuclear program dispite their agreements, so what is the solution there. Today's situation can't be blamed on this President, as it has been going on for something like 40 years, so the solution isn't new leadership either. Bill Clinton gave the Koreans everything they wanted, and they still kept working on nuclear weapons, so obviously appeasement didn't work either.

 

Unqualified support for Israel maybe, but there is no doubt we have to protect the only safe haven for Jews in the world. They are faced with countries on all sides of them who want to kill every single Jew they can get their hands on. For whatever reason not many countries feel that they need to protect the interests of Israel to exsist, and someone needs to do so. There is no doubt in my mind, if we withdrew support of Israel, that the countries would do exactly what they have said they would do, and carry out the mass extermination of the Jews.

 

And finally again, the invastion of Iraq had nothing to do with PRNK or Iran's nuclear program. They have both been working on these things for decades. Iran was estimated to be less than a year away from having a nuclear device in 1981 when Israel bombed their facility. What did bunker busters and Iraq's war have to do with that? Nothing. The continuances of nuclear programs in these countries have been going on for longer than I have been alive, and will continue to do so, even if we left Iraq, left Afganistan, quit buying oil, quit researching new weaponry, and so on and so forth. These people have wanted Jews dead for centuries, and American's dead for nearly as long, our forgein policy decesions aren't going to change any of that.