Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
....that's the plan?

Chrisisall, just throwin' the ball...

---

Quote:

---

from http://www.antiwarpetition.com/
Mr. President:

We the signatories of this letter have dedicated our lives to studying the Middle East and it is in that capacity and as concerned citizens that we write to strongly oppose and warn against the military option in Iran. As the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran, concerns about future dual use of nuclear technology ought to be addressed in face to face negotiations. Such alternative venues as coercive diplomacy and military action will lead to further militarization and pressures on civil society at the expense of the democratic movement in Iran. The extreme right of the political spectrum of that country will be the sole beneficiary of such policies. The catastrophic regional and global consequences of escalating this crisis will not serve the interests of the United States, the course of democratic development in Iran, or the cause of global peace.

---

Quote:

---

excerpted from http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
Warning: The link goes to a page with graphic images of the effects of war.

...

As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives.

Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?

What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble.

It is obvious that powerful political forces in Washington are fishing for a pretext to launch a war on Iran, and that they are just delighted to have Ahmadinejad as cartoon villain and pretext. But they had a moderate, reforming president in Mohammad Khatami for 8 years, and just blew off all his overtures to the West. Iranians organized big candle-light vigils for America after September 11, in sympathy!

Washington never gave the reform movement the slightest encouragement, perhaps in hopes that the Iranians would be forced to turn right again and form a proper object of US hatred. If so, they got their wish last summer, when Ahmadinejad used the same dirty techniques to get elected as had George W. Bush.

All the warmongers in Washington, including Hitchens, if he falls into that camp, should get this through their heads. Americans are not fighting any more wars in the Middle East against toothless third rate powers. So sit down and shut up.

One, two, three, four! We don't want your stinking war!

We are not going to see any more US troops come home in body bags at Dover for the sake of some Cheney affiliate grabbing the petroleum in Iran's Ahvaz fields.

We are not going to have another 15,000 wounded vets flood onto our streets with spine damage and brain damage.

We are not going to put Yazd behind barbed wire to liberate it, as a millenarian Christian general did to Habbaniyah in Iraq.

We are not going to imprison and torture thousands of Iranians at Evin Penitentiary in Tehran, as worthy successors to the bloodthirsty Shah and Khomeini.

We are not going to kill 200,000 Iranians with aerial bombardments of Tabriz, Isfahan, Qom, Kerman, Shiraz and Mashahd.

We are not going to let dozens of US corporations loot the American people and the Iranian people alike with no-bid "contracts", embezzlement, corruption, and graft.

We are not going to let you have a war against Iran.

So sit down and shut up, American Enterprise Institute, and Hudson Institute, and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and American Heritage Institute, and this institute and that institute, and cable "news", and government "spokesmen", and all the pundit-ferrets you pay millions to make business for the American military-industrial complex and Big Oil.

We don't give a rat's ass what Ahmadinejad thinks about European history or what pissant speech the little shit gives.

...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
"The Emperors new clothes are altogether the finest ever seen" Said AURAPTOR from amongst the adoring crowd.

---

Quote:

---

I wish I could be confident that the warmongers won't get a war with Iran. But it's starting to look a lot like 2002/03 again. The administration has got the hurry up offense in place. And the Project for a New American Century did have something to say on the topic of Iran.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not the President. He's not the one mouthing off about wiping a nation off the map, is he?

---

Quote:

---

Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

---

Quote:

---

New Yorker: Bush appears to prepare to nuke Iran

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

If our policy on Nukes hasn't changed then why did we do a simulated nuke in nevada just recently? I mean, I'll give credit where credit is due...thank god they didn't use a real nuke, but that's more a matter of public outrcry.

From my understanding, (and I'm no expert so if you have some facts on that to dispute this, I'd like to hear them), we detonated a bomb so big, so heavy that we don't have bombers capable of holding such a weapon, meaning...the only likely reason to test such a weapon, would be to do some comparisson -

It's not a crazy leap to suggest that Nuclear 'options' are definitely on the forfront of their collective mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Auraptor.

You were offering up your view, I was merely countering it with one of my own.

The trouble with you Bushite fanatics is.......

Oh never mind.

---

Quote:

---

They want to know how contained they can make them. Or are you going to tell me that America will respond to a nuclear attack by tactically taking out specific areas of a country? Yeah, that's going to happen. That's how rational people and governments are likely to act after getting attacked.

And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified, but my original post was directed at Hero who assured us that we will not use nukes unless attacked first. Or is that your contention as well?

---

Quote:

---

Our policy on nuclear weapons has never changed. We will not be the first to use them (except in defense of Europe should the Soviet's manage to 'break through').

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:

You're talking absolutely crazy...what scenarios? What scenarios would it be sane to use nukes at this point or on into the future, At any point, but particularly now, when if we do get hit, it will not likely be by a nation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor, IF we do nuke Iran, will THAT be enough to turn you from the 'Bush side'?

Simple question, can you address it directly?

Quick, easy, more seductive it is Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Do you know (one of the reasons) why we used nukes on Japan? Because it was going to take too many lives and too much time to invade the Japanese home islands.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Direct enough answer for ya ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:
Also, one (there were probably others as well) reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen was because they had not suffered too much damage from conventional bombing prior to the big bombs. The big wigs wanted to end the war, but they also wanted to see just how much damage was done by a nuclear bomb. As such, they needed cities that were relatively intact so they could measure exactly how effective the weapons were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.

Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.

---

Quote:

---

And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:


And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified

---

Quote:

---

Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?

The Allies (I am under no illusions that Britain rubber stamped the usage thus we are complicit) wanted an unconditional surrender, the nuclear bomb would get that. Britain and America wanted to show Russia "whose boss", the nuclear bomb would do that too.

Well it was supposed to; instead it scared Stalin into a nuclear program of his own and helped spark the cold war, but whatever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Destroy their culture?? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since in the end we won that war I guess we must have done so.

---

Quote:

---

The surrender terms given to the Japanese in the Potsdam Proclamation made no mention of Japan's most important surrender condition, which was the status of the Emperor who the Japanese saw as a god.

Furthermore the Proclamation made some statements that appeared to directly threaten the Emperor:
"There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?

---

Quote:

---

Also the effects of the Nuclear bomb on a Human population were not known.

Who better to test the effects of your latest weapon on if not the enemy?

---

Quote:

---

There was some in the fifties who thought the nuclear tests would crack the surface of the Earth like an egg.

What can I say, some people juggle geese.

---

Quote:

---

Nuke Them Before They Nuke You
Another quality home game from Butler Bros.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
...and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KPO:
We can take guesses, but I disagree with you that 'Intimidating the Soviet Union' is a good one.

---

Quote:

---

But are you sure that we were obligated to guarantee complete immunity from international law for the emperor? Sure, it might have been the only way that Japan's civilians might be spared a lot of suffering. But Japanese troops had carried out many atrocities against everyone including us over the past decade, and it seems to me this emperor should've at least been tried for war crimes.

---

Quote:

---

Interestingly, perhaps the only reason why we didn't in the end was because we had already exacted such horrible retribution on the Japanese that we didn't want to then go and serve the 'stern justice' to their emperor, that he may well have deserved.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think that Hiroshima was a 'B' site, as another city ( i can't recall which ) was targeted as the 'A' cite was waved off as it had too much cloud cover.

---

Nagasaki was the B site for the Fat Man weapon. It was selected as a target, but only a secondary target because it was believed it's hilly terrain would (and did) reduce the weapons effectiveness. The A site was Kokura but it was covered with clouds, and the crew had orders to drop the bomb visually.

Quote:

---

And because the effects of incendiary carpet bombing of civilian centers in Europe was already known.

---

I'm sure you're trying to make a point...

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, you don't have one and you don't understand what I said. Why didn't you just say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But you understand this already, yet you feel the need to feign ignorance as you take your petty personal digs. By all means, have at it, have the last word.

---

Quote:

---

The point was that we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan via carpet bombing as was done in Germany. Such a tactic would have cost more in lives , equipment and extended the war out longer. It was time to put an end to it all, and that's why the Hirioshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, I don't undestand what you said. Or why you said it. Which is typically par for the course.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
..or even shown them in away that didn't irradiate innocent civilians.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.

Little Boy was a 'gun type' device, where a supercritical projectile is fired into a receptor. This type used U-235 (enriched Uranium) of which there was only enough to build one bomb at the time. This is why this design wasn't tested before being deployed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts]
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
Building on the (QDR) this Nuclear Posture Review puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.

This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive); and
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats


People seem to have forgotten the Bush admin changed nuclear strategy from response to offensive a number of years ago. If you don't think that was preparation for this you're deluded.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. strategic nuclear weapons have traditionally been organized in a triad of land (intercontinental ballistic missiles), sea (submarine launched ballistic missiles), and air (bombers) forces. The new NPR emphasizes that nuclear weapons will continue to play a fundamental role in war fighting. It outlines a new triad in which the old triad occupies part of the offensive strike systems leg. Improved conventional strike weapons round out this leg. The second leg includes active and passive defenses in which missile defenses are a fundamental component. Finally, the third leg focuses on developing a defense infrastructure that can respond rapidly to changes in the security environment. In essence, the new triad boils down to a repackaging of concepts from previous administrations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.

---

Quote:

---

I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities"

---

Quote:

---

We didn't even try, despite the urgings of experts

---

Quote:

---

I disagree. At the time the British and Americans were well aware of what sort of man Stalin was

---

Quote:

---

It’s my understanding that the powers that be at the time believed the emperor wasn't really all that important.

---

Quote:

---

Japanese and American historians have also shown that at the centre of the military system was the Emperor Hirohito, not the hapless prisoner of militarist generals, the version promulgated by MacArthur in 1945 to save him from a war crimes trial, but an all-powerful warlord, who had guided Japan’s aggressive expansion at every turn. Hirohito’s will had not been broken by defeats at land or sea, it had not been broken by the firestorms or by the effects of the blockade, and it would certainly not have been broken by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something the Japanese had anticipated for months.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But it's important to your fragil psyche that your own little world not be troubled w/ things like facts or opposing points of view.

---

Quote:

---

That's the problem, you read things which aren't being said! I never said, or even implied that you Brits burned German cities.

---

Quote:

---

It's funny how you revise history , while accusing others of doing the same. I ammended my own post, as I'm free to do, before I saw your reply.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't expect that you'd be hanging on my every post.

---

Quote:

---

but when you lie and distort the facts, that's when you beocme the most tedious.

---

Quote:

---

It was war. Which 'experts' would that be? Those who made the bomb, or those who were in charge of ending the war ?

---