Bush set to nuke Iran over weapons. UK Paper claims

[Matt W]

Quote by: Mr.V But you guys just hear "Bush, Iran Nuke" and you freak out, you don't stop to contemplate worst case scenario.

Wrong, Mr.V. You are the one contemplating a 'best' case scenario. A 'simple' nuke and it's all over, right? Do you never stop to take off your own blinders and consider what the rest of the world will think, regardless of reasoning and arguments presented by America? Newsflash - it won't work like that.

Stop ranting and start thinking. :rolleyes:

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

And they will only strike strategic targets avoiding contaminating the oil fields. And the Iranians are going to cry and run up the white flag.
Dream on, they'll fight until it become the US (and which ever allies they can muster) commiting genocide.
The whole region is still far too unstable. Though Bush and the rest of the shrubs in the whitehouse are truly mad enough to believe its worth commiting another generation of US youth to death.
Watch to see how fast US troops pull out of Iraq and Afghanistant, then just maybe.

Of course the trigger of Iraq's little religous skirmish might cause the bigger fuse to be lite. Though that might depend on which group Shia or Sunni the US funds and gives weapons too.

I wonder whose bought war rights? CNN FOX and the drinks Coke or Pepsi.

[Scribbler1]

The problem here is a few people have this attitude where:

If you disagree with me you hate Bush
If you base your opinions on hatred of Bush your reasoning is flawed.
If your reasoning is flawed...I win. <yay>

Now, where is the error in logic here?

[Osborn F Enready]

Matt W said: Wrong, Mr.V. You are the one contemplating a 'best' case scenario. A 'simple' nuke and it's all over, right? Do you never stop to take off your own blinders and consider what the rest of the world will think, regardless of reasoning and arguments presented by America? Newsflash - it won't work like that.

I say:
I resoundingly concur. Only a fool would think that would do ANYTHING TO HELP ANYTHING.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I'll just hope to God I am dead wrong and we don't see half of Isreal and Iran glassed by a nuke exchange.

If Isreal wasn't armed to the teeth (thanks to U.S, mostly), we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why don't we play mediator with an honest thought towards fairness?

[Mr.Vicchio]

You're right Clarence.. Isreal is teh agressor in the Middle East, they launch wars on thier enemies to wipe them off the face of the map..

History, it's what's forgotton.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You're right Clarence.. Isreal is teh agressor in the Middle East, they launch wars on thier enemies to wipe them off the face of the map.. History, it's what's forgotton.

That's not what I said and you know it. As far as history goes, the western world is reaping what is has sown. Constantly medalling with questionable intentions. Iran's history? Forget it.

Maybe it's time for these nations to forget the past lest their future be doomed to turmoil and strife. Like all arguments, everyone is right and wrong to some degree.

I think the best way to deal with the problem is obvious, Vic. Wipe Isreal off the map so there's nothing tleft to argue about. :confused:

[rmnunez]

I doubt nukes (tactical or of any other nature) will be used on Iranian targets if they refuse to abide by NNPT and IAEA conditions. The "bunker-busters" are not needed to erradicate any local nukes. Nukes don't automatically detonate when destroyed by an attack. Why wouldn't conventional warheads be adequate to reach a hypothetical underground uranium storage site? Given the nature of the stuff, wouldn't it even be more advantageous to simply destroy its access point?

only strike strategic targets avoiding contaminating the oil fields

Can anyone confirm whether radioactive petroleum is particularly harmful when burned?

I'd like to know why anyone forecasts Iranians will pose a greater challenge than the Pathans or Babylonians, and Yugoslav partisans before them.

The military is overextended they tell us, but less than a third is deployed overseas and the interventions follow in rapid successful sequence, soon the empire will control all the world's precious oil reserves, the North Sea, Mexico and even Nigeria, are in relatively 'friendly' hands and the rest is relatively insignificant, Chavez can be dispatched with a coup.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio ... I mean M.A.D. was crazy but it worked.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isreal HAS nukes and WILL respond, M.A.D.

C'mon V, you can't have it both ways. Does MAD work or not? Why wouldn't an Israeli policy of MAD towards Iran work just as well?

[iHu]

Face it, NOBODY is allowed to fu-k around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States. That's ALL this will ever be about. Go with Ockham's razor on this one.

We've been tryng to bring Iran to heel for 53 years and as long as they have oil, we're not about to stop. The CIA's run out of options b/c they've already tried big takedowns (1953), instigated ousters and they have no traction left to foment a coup because today's Iranian government are the burning embers from the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. So let's get them seething and wanting to pepper us with dirty bombs furtively dispatched to Al Qaida operatives. Let's escalate, sure, great. The GWB admin is at the zenith of its hubris when it believes none of its moves will bring unintended negative repurcussions, or lets their potentiality influence the balance of reason and decision making. Hubris is repaid, eventually.

I can't wait to see how many of us swallow the media's next sloppy spoonful of White House "intelligence," A fascinating place where gossip and rumor are now the truth you have been promised, designed to nuzzle and feed your utterly idle lack of memory. This is not an administration whose word you can even take at any value, let alone face value. The value of words is so warpd in their possession that it renders the dictionary itself useless for interpretation.

[weasel]

Without a doubt, using a nuke would make things a lot less sticky compared to another Iraq (although I'm sure the UN wouldn't approve). By nuking them first, we could also potentially avoid a much worse 9-11.

[jose]

Quote by: weasel Without a doubt, using a nuke would make things a lot less sticky compared to another Iraq (although I'm sure the UN wouldn't approve). By nuking them first, we could also potentially avoid a much worse 9-11.

who Israel? i´m right there with you

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: weasel Without a doubt, using a nuke would make things a lot less sticky compared to another Iraq (although I'm sure the UN wouldn't approve). By nuking them first, we could also potentially avoid a much worse 9-11.

But on the other hand, nuking Iran would likely bring ALL the Arab states together with the potential of a LOT of 9/11s.

I don't think you can reason with fanatics but neither do I think attacking Arab countries, one at a time will make us any friends either. It WILL, however, cause a few countries over there to wonder if THEY are next. The idea of a preemptive strike can work both ways and terrorism is cheap.

Nuclear, conventional or otherwise, it has to come from a REAL coalition of countries (not this last bullshit one) or the UN. It can NOT be the US again. Not alone.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: iHu Face it, NOBODY is allowed to fu-k around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States. That's ALL this will ever be about. Go with Ockham's razor on this one. We've been tryng to bring Iran to heel for 53 years and as long as they have oil, we're not about to stop. The CIA's run out of options b/c they've already tried big takedowns (1953), instigated ousters and they have no traction left to foment a coup because today's Iranian government are the burning embers from the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. So let's get them seething and wanting to pepper us with dirty bombs furtively dispatched to Al Qaida operatives. Let's escalate, sure, great. The GWB admin is at the zenith of its hubris when it believes none of its moves will bring unintended negative repurcussions, or lets their potentiality influence the balance of reason and decision making. Hubris is repaid, eventually. I can't wait to see how many of us swallow the media's next sloppy spoonful of White House "intelligence," A fascinating place where gossip and rumor are now the truth you have been promised, designed to nuzzle and feed your utterly idle lack of memory. This is not an administration whose word you can even take at any value, let alone face value. The value of words is so warpd in their possession that it renders the dictionary itself useless for interpretation.

Let me initiate the standing ovation for that post. That pretty much says it all.


Like all the really great policies of the past, these will start paying off right after the next investment. I mean, if we keep throwing money at the problem, it'll be solved eventually, right?


You would think these guys learned something from the Democrats they critisized for so many years. The one lesson I was sure they had retained from all of that time scrutinizing the opposition was that investing in failing ventures time, and again never pays off. ( Unless your aim is to create a nightmarish bureaucracy.)

[rmnunez]

nuking Iran would likely bring ALL the Arab states together with the potential of a LOT of 9/11s.

I don't think so. Critical lefties insist this would be the case, just as they insisted intervention against Afghanistan and then Iraq would surely spur an international and militarily solidarious response from other Arab or Muslim governments. Critical lefties misread Arab and Muslim character, solidarity is not their strong suit either.

[Matt W]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think so. Critical lefties insist this would be the case, just as they insisted intervention against Afghanistan and then Iraq would surely spur an international and militarily solidarious response from other Arab or Muslim governments. Critical lefties misread Arab and Muslim character, solidarity is not their strong suit either.

Perhaps, rmnunez. But the very use of a nuke would alienate the US from Europe, most certainly, where a lot of those 'critical lefties' you speak of with scorn are in power. I doubt even the UK (regardless of whether Blair is in power still at the time) could comfortably support it. Then there's China & Russia. China gets an awful lot of oil from Iran - and destabilising Iran is an attack on that supply. America would do best to revert to the old 'speak softly, and carry a big stick', rather than out & out force.

[another day]

Why does a nuke need to be used? Why couldn't they just bomb the nuclear sites with conventional bombs?

There must be a reason?

As for this whole issue, Im on the fence. On one hand, I hate how the US is controlling the globe and trying to dominate through force, on the other hand, Iran is looking pretty damn evil lately.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Bush set to nuke Iran over weapons. UK Paper claims http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html Here ya go!

For the best results, Philip Sherwell ("Telegraph"s reporter) needs to consult his findings at the nearest psychiatric facility, only. I wish him luck :-)