Iran only months away from having atomic bomb. by AURaptor

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a little caveat:

Quote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz (underground enrichment plant) to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be "a few months" away from a nuclear weapon.

A compromise deal that Iran has neither accepted nor rejected is for Russia to do the nuclear enrichment.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 7:32 AM

So, are we gonna send in some special ops undercover to gather intel, or better yet, destroy the nuke factory? Will we send in a stealth plane at night to surgically take the factory out?
No.
We'll ask for a show of hands in a nearby region. "Who wants to be heavily armed in our fight against the evil Iranians?"
"Me!" "Me, too!" "Me sword's by yer side!"
(BTW, these people hate us, or WILL hate us. But that's okay, another enemy for when Al-Queda tuckers out.)

See, I'm not against blastin' a bad guy, just wasting lives through stupidity, and targeting barns ("Damn, I coulda swore it was a WMD warehouse in the sat pic!). I want the present administration to do exactly nothing militarily; it's the only good decision they are capable of making at this time.
EDIT: Sorry, I mean, it's the only good decision they could make, IF they were capable.
*Sigh* Where's Rambo when we need him? He did one hell of a job in Afghanistan, I'll tell ya.

Chrisisall, impatient registered voter

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 7:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah, I know. It's that sabre rattling again. I predicted it was either going to be Syria (which as a target has a lot going for it - puny and an 'oops we must have gone over the border with Iraq' built-in alibi) or Iran (a much tougher proposition).

To mix my metaphors slightly, do you see the efforts to stampede the public in the works?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

To mix my metaphors slightly, do you see the efforts to stampede the public in the works?

Well, seein' as how we have total victory in Iraq...or will soon...
Or was that just a headline I saw...?

I'm a sheep! Somebody, TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!!!!

John Q. Chrisisall(Bahhh)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 10:21 AM

America loves a winner!

Well, folks have enough time to gear up their chant engines. Fill in the blanks later, I guess.

Muhammad El-Baradei lied!
_____________'s died!

Or some such nonsense.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 10:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

El-Baradei didn't lie. Your quote did. Iran is 2 months away from building a bomb - but only after the 2 years it takes to get their plant running. If they started today.

And there is no reason to think they have started.

That's what defines this whole stampede effort - Don't think! Don't wait! There is only months before DOOM! DOOM! We must do something now NOW NOW !

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Nothing to do with anything but I have a 6 week old kitten named "Stumpy" chasing after my fingers and running over the keyboard.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 11:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nothing to do with anything but I have a 6 week old kitten named "Stumpy" chasing after my fingers and running over the keyboard.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

Awww....thanks for the visual.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 11:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
El-Baradei didn't lie. Your quote did. Iran is 2 months away from building a bomb - but only after the 2 years it takes to get their plant running. If they started today.

And there is no reason to think they have started.

That's what defines this whole stampede effort - Don't think! Don't wait! There is only months before DOOM! DOOM! We must do something now NOW NOW !

If that's the case, then indeed, the headline I got that from mistated the story. But I'm not sure how far along the Iranian's plant is, because no one honestly knows. They agree w/ inspections, then they change their mind. I think they've agreed in principle to allow inspections again, but when ?

And I can understand the flip side of the coin....why do some States get to have nuclear power, while others don't. On the surface, that does seem unfair. But when a President of one country ( Iran ) opendly declares that another country ( Israel ) should be wiped off the face of the Earth, concern is warranted.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But when a President of one country ( Iran ) opendly declares that another country ( Israel ) should be wiped off the face of the Earth, concern is warranted.

On this we agree.
Be prepared, son. Always be prepared, that's my motto.

The Last Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nothing to do with anything but I have a 6 week old kitten named "Stumpy" chasing after my fingers and running over the keyboard.

It's little things like this that humanize the cold, deadly world of the RWED.

Chrisisall fuzzy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 11:55 AM

HERO

I found it interesting that media military analysts are saying the Isreal could not successfully take out the Iranian Nuke program. They say Isreal's air force simply lacks the ability to do it.

I think they need to look at a map. Sure its a long way, but they have to cross Jordan and Iraq to do it, but crossing Iraq isn't the obsticle is once was.

I think the Iranians have weighed in on the subject. News reports from today indicate that Iran is purchasing Surface to Air missiles from Russia. So new air defenses probably mean they expect to have their bomb fairly soon and they expect to get hit.

And for those who think Isreal can't do it, I'd suggest that they probably were saying the same thing back before they bombed Saddam's reactor in the '80s.

I also noticed someone suggesting the Iranians hate us. That aint so. They're not Arabs. The radical rebellion in 1979 created a state that does not reflect Persian culture or history. So while the radical clerics and most Iranians between the ages of 35 and 42 hate us, the military is traditionally moderate and today's students have engaged in pro-Democracy demomstrations in the streets of Tehran (mostly during the Iraq invasion and sporadically since then since they are violently oppressed). The radical clerics need the nuclear bomb, they to attack Isreal, because their tight-fisted grip on power is slipping and if they're not careful it'll be them lined up against the wall rather then agents of the Great Satan.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 12:32 PM

RIVER6213

*sigh*

I must be the only one in the western world who's not upset with Iran coming to age with a nuke of its very own.

Setting the stage for The-Earth-That-was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 2:05 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
*sigh*

I must be the only one in the western world who's not upset with Iran coming to age with a nuke of its very own.

*sniff* They grow up so fast, don't they!? The evil fanatical tyrannical countries, I mean. Just 20 years ago they were attacking invaders with horses and rifles, now they already have a nuke of their own. Bless. *sniff*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Another news item from today (AFP) is Iran issued a statement appearing to reject the Russian compromise. I can understand that. They need to enrich uranium for energy production. Having Russia perform the enrichment would be putting their energy future in the hands of foreign powers, just like (ahem) some western countries have done.

That makes inspections all the more vital.

Tsk. Iran, Iran ... What are you thinking?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 4:56 PM

SERGEANTX

I know it sounds scary, but one of these days nukes are going to find their way into the hands of some country actually crazy enough to use them. If it's a wealthier nation, they'll build a huge military and tromp all over the world, bullying their way into everyone else's business. It's a nightmare scenario, but it could happen.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 5:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Like bunker buster tactical nukes? Now who could that be ??

And it's nice to see you posting.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 5:09 PM

I actually know someone whose cousin is working on that plant. So I know how far along it is. They say they want to build nuclear bombs but they don't know jack about it. They're scared to death that the US is going to invade. They're looking for any option to buy a nuke outright, and there are many possibilities open, they also want to hire any nuclear expert they can get their hands on to hasten the effort. This is my personal intelligence, and I think it's factually correct. The word is that the Iranians think nothing short of ownership of a nuclear bomb will stop the pending and already planned US invasion, the site north korea as an example. And the invasion they think will level their country and be used as a pretext for stealing their oil, they cite Iraq as an example.

The Iranians are intelligent people. They have a struggling democracy which is sometimes unduly crushed by a powerful theocratic church, and a struggling capitalist economy which wants to compete in the global economy. They're not particularly interested in changing their religion or media viewing habits and not at all interested in being reduced to the stone age. They have taken what they see is the only course open to them.

Their overzealous president is in some ways a disaster, he is very hostile towards the US and Israel, but, and this is a big but, this is a result of circumstances and attitudes. We have been overtly hostile to Iran calling it a mysogenist theocracy and part of an axis of evil. We have threatened military action in the same vein as we threatened Iraq, and it became clear to the Muslim world that nothing Saddam could have done could have prevented the US Invasion. They now are convinced that if the US threatens them that we are hell bent on invading them and nothing they can do, short of getting their hands on a nuclear bomb, will stop us.

I want to take a minute to look at the other side of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and why this Iranian I know voted for him. He has pledged to prevent the clerics from banning political parties, have more free open debate, has already started to privatize previous socialized govt. controlled industries and has applied for membership in the WTO.

Sure, he has also promised a hard line against the US. This is bad from our perspective, but not from Iran's. Consider what we've done to Iraq, from the point of view of someone in the Iraqi govt. We took an oppressive yet stable govt. of a prosperous civilized first world country and converted it into Al Qaeda chaos resembling Afghanistan or Somolia. I remember when our attacks first started the Iraqi's first complaints were we knocked out their interstate highways and took down their cell phone networks, and now they couldn't get to their IT jobs. Now they complain that terrorists are blowing up food and water supplies and they are dying in the semi-arid rubble. If you were the govt. of Iran, would you want this to happen to your country?

No of course not. But wait, it gets worse. Iran is persuing nuclear arms and may use its nuclear power plant to do so, from what I hear they are. But, we signed a treaty giving them the right to have three nuclear power plants. So, the message we are sending now by saying they can't have those plants is this: America's word isn't worth jack. Is there anyone out there over here on the right who isn't a little ticked at this administration for sending that message to the world?

Okay. Now here's my solution:

1. Let Iran have its Nuclear power plants under the provision that there are international inspectors there 24/7 to make sure it is just making power.

2. Give an iron clad guarantee that as long as Iran remains a democracy and does not persue nuclear armaments we will not invade.

3. Offer to assist Iran should she be invaded by on of her potentially hostile neighbors. This may seem like an absurd offer, but consider the situation. Iran is completely surrounded by hostile powers with nuclear weapons.

Iraq and Afghanistan are US puppet states with nuclear armed US forces. Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgizstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbazhan, Armenia, Kazhakstan and Georgia are all former soviet satelite states, it's safe to assume they all have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is an islamic military dictatorship with an independent nuclear program and a nuclear arsenal. India, Russia and Israel are capitalist democracies with nuclear arms, China is a communist oligarchical dictatorship with a nuclear arsenal. The emirates of the arabian pennisula are protected by the United States and its nuclear arsenal. Any one of these countries could hit Iran with a nuclear device. The total list of immediate neighbors to Iran who do NOT have access to nuclear weapons: Syria, Lebanon, Turkey.

Sure it would be bad if Iran had nukes and used them against Israel. I just wanted to feed a little reality into this discussion. In terms of the types of political and economic systems we as a nation would like to see in the world, our enemy Iran is pretty much one of them, our ally pakistan is definitely not one of them.

So sure, there's reason for concern. We need a table at which this can be discussed with Iran, a table at which, us invading Iran is off the table as long as they don't have nukes, where inspectors and nuclear power are on the table. But it's important also to bear in mind that back before 2001 it was on the PNAC website with Dick Cheney's name right there as a supporter that we as a nation should invade and conquer Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, so any talk of this nature must also take into account that Dick Cheney had this idea of attacking Iran and three other sovereign nations before this Iranian president was even in office and before there was an Iranian nuclear program (again, I know this, I'm not guessing here) and also to take into accout that Mr. Cheney has already invaded two of those four countries he threatened, and has leveled one of these to the ground.

Just putting this all in perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 5:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
nothing they can do, short of getting their hands on a nuclear bomb, will stop us

This is the part I don't get. If Iran has only short-range nukes, and the US invades, the only place they will be able to blow up is - themselves.

Or do you think that they would threaten SA or Israel if they were attacked?

I agree with your analysis for the most part. Iran is one ME country where democracy has started on a course of mutual evolution with the existing culture and religion.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 5:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But to take SergeantX's analysis a bit further, sooner or later pretty much everyone will have access to at least a few nuclear bombs. Though, compared to the Russian and US arsenals it will not be MAD, it will be unilaterally assured destruction. Geeting blown to nuclear dust is a high price to pay for tweaking the giant's nose.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 5:53 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or do you think that they would threaten SA or Israel if they were attacked?

If the US were to invade Iran, I don't think the Iranian government would be awfully unhappy if, oh I don't know, somehow a nuclear weapon heading towards Israel were to be launched.

BTW, nice analysis dreamtrove.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 1:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And then Israel would have a good reason to launch several of their nuclear warheads at Iran.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 3:57 PM

GIXXER

Hmm... Anyone recall B. Liar's "45 minutes" that transpired to be quite a lot longer, what with said threat not actually exising as such?

If you use a similar time dilation factor, "months" should translate into, say 500 years, which is coincidental in an "Earth that was" way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:26 PM

Okay, I didn't really understand what Gixxer said, I think it was in code, B. Liar must have been blair, clever, bliar, but what video and huh? We don't get the close up focus on tony in the states. Enlighten us.

But to the rest of you. Thanks. I think that The think about a nuke is maybe you can respond or maybe you can't, re: israel, but you're leaving out a lot of other targets.

The US operates out of bases, mostly in the former soviet union, a lot of countries that don't want to be in a nuclear war. If those countries think getting a nuke hurled at them is a possibility, they will duck out and kick us out. If they don't, those nukes will be aimed at the bases, and will get our forces. 14 well placed nukes could take out the US forces in the middle east.

So, how's that anti-missile system coming along. I remember the whole SCUD-interception plan in the Gulf War I. For all the hype, there was only one (1) intercept of a patriot with a scud that occured. 146 scuds hit israel unhindered, and fifty some patriots also hit israel after botched launched. We really don't have any way to stop a missile. If Iran proved they coudl attack us with nukes, it would give us pause. They know that. Also, like me, they can't think of anything else that would give us pause.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 4:17 AM

GIXXER

You're not missing anything. Just the general appallingness of Blair's government. Nobody trusts them or believes a word they say. They swept to power in 1997 as an antidote to previous sleazy government, and seemed like a breath of fresh air. I'm still kicking myself for voting for them. Now, think of how popular George Bush is, and half it.

My recollection is a bit wooly, but the Iraq expedition was given added urgency by a phrase something like "...ready to unleash Weapons of Mass Destruction within 45 minutes..." which turned out to be less than entirely accurate.

Also I don't know if you got the story about The Dossier. This was a big authoritative intelligence report explaining why it was a good idea. Except that a lot of it was lifted (Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) from a ten year old student's thesis.

Er...that's written ten years before, not a junior... (Sorry, but it would be rude to pass up on a gag like that).

Look in Google with Dossier and Iraq, and you can still read the thing in its full dull glory.

I won't give you a direct link in case MI5 put a cap in my ass.

The name comes from general journalistic useage. If the article is at all critical, it's pretty universal practice for him to be referred to as Tony B. Liar.

F

(Cunning disguise, eh?) As good as Jayn'e hat and goggles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 7:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- You've obviously put a lot more thought into this than I have! Yes, the nukes could take out our bases in the Mideast. That would be do-able for a medium-range missile, I think.

This is Iraq redux. Iraq only had short-range missiles and no WMD. But folks just "clutched" over the fact that Iraq had ANY military capability. They made the emotional leap that if Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors then it posed a threat to "us". Basically, we view the Mideast as ours. ("MINE, MINE. ALL MINE!!!")

I wonder if people will be stampeded again. Iran has neither WMD nor long-range capability. It will not pose a direct threat to the USA for the forseeable future. The only reason why they pose a threat to our troops is because we put our troops in harm's way. And the only reason why our troops are in harm's way is because of oil. W/o oil, the Mideast would be an uninteresting sandy patch on the globe. And we can probably do w/o much of the Mideast oil through intelligent conservation.

One of the things I find curious is that the same people who support gun ownership (In the ideal society EVERYONE carries a gun and knows how to use it!) suddenly ditch that approach when it somes to nations. Seems to me that a nation surrounded by other nations that have nuclear weapons and credibly threatened by the world's only superpower really might want a few nukes of their own, just in case. I find it understandable as a defensive posture.
Of course, likely we will not allow any nation in the Mideast even a credible defense.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 9:07 AM

JAYTEE

Wow! The idea of a country full of terrifyingly stupid sand monkeys possessing nuclear weapons kinda scares the crap out of ya when ya stop to think about it. Maybe we should try Dubya's preemptive policy out on Iran and just nuke them into oblivion? It'd be a shame though. They produce the world's best caviar and most of the worlds crop of pistacios.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:35 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

wait, say-what? Iran says that we’re going to use the pretext of, “they are building a nuclear bomb,” to justify flattening their country, and to keep us from doing that they need to build a nuclear bomb.... because if they really have one we wouldn’t dare try and invade their country to try and stop them from using their nuclear bomb... because if we do they might have to use their nuclear bomb.
Who needs the CIA?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 12:21 PM

KHYRON

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 4:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 5:32 PM

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 and don't know how things really work can be put into place.

Or for that matter social militarism, having someone come in to a place like Iraq and telling them how to live their lives, I wouldn't want it happening to me here in NY, I wouldn't want OBL telling me how to live my life, and if it happened here New Yorkers would revolt, and so I can definitely see why they'd revolt.

But what I have real problems with is the means by which they've chosen to get there. Anyway, offer still open if anyone's interested.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 6:12 PM

America loves a winner!

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 7:13 PM

SERGEANTX

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 10, 2005 11:16 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:18 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2005 1:25 AM

CITIZEN

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 11, 2005 1:54 AM

HAOLEHAOLE

...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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2005 8:35 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 12, 2005 9:41 PM

FLETCH2

If this bomb is a threat Israel will deal with it, because like it or not they have a very basic world view "if it's a threat to us, kill it."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:46 AM

And, don't forget, WMDs in stockpiles so large that it makes the Al Qaeda war machine look like the tin foil army.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 1:40 PM

Bump for the hilarious thread title...

It's a lot of months after December 2005 now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 1:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Because here we are... 9 years and approximately 100 months later... and Iran still doesn't have an atomic bomb.

But if they did, I'd bet we'd ask them to use it on ISIS.

AmIright?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 1:59 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

New low, even for Chrisisall.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
New low, even for Chrisisall.

Why thank you.
I was just fishing for something amusing, and found this. I saw tons of stuff from AU saying that there's no climate change, no torture, etc. Warning not to say a recession's here but then he goes and posts this alarmist nonsense. It's just too funny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 2:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
New low, even for Chrisisall

Because isn't it just terrible when your own words get quoted???

SHEESH! HOW AWFUL!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
isn't it just terrible when your own words get quoted???

I was thinking of collecting stupid Rappy predictions & quotes, but I realised it would start to get merely repetitive & not funny. But this thread just begged for a bump.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 2:43 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Aurpator really is living rent free in your head.
To actually comb through the archive and dredge up a 9 y/o thread for the sole purpose of trolling.
What, run out of model glue or something?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 18, 2014 2:49 PM