Remember the Iraqi Information Minister?

[aldona]

Seems he has a U.S. counterpart.

[]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5136629,00.jpg[/]

[Neil D]

[:"green"] On a more sobering note: [/]

Bush warned against attacking Iran

Monday 10 April 2006, 1:20 Makka Time, 22:20 GMT

George Bush is said to be getting ready to attack Iran

Critics of the Bush administration have expressed alarm over reports that the president is considering a military strike to knock out Iran's nuclear programme.

Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of US Central Command, told CNN on Sunday that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be extremely risky

"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism."

But he said he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans.

Height of irresponsibility

John Kerry, a democratic senator and former presidential contender, also assailed the White House for what he said was its over reliance on military might.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism"

Anthony Zinni, former head of US Central Command

"That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration.

"For us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any non-proliferation efforts and the military assessment is: It would not work," he told NBC television.

Both men made their remarks after the publication of two media reports this weekend that said George Bush, the US president, was seriously considering military action against Iran, including using nuclear weapons, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts.

[:"green"] Of course, the source has the information you need to finish the article. [/]

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

George Bush is said to be getting ready to attack Iran

---

The problem with President Bush is he drags his feet so much before doing something like this. Didn't he wait a few weeks after 9/11 before he invaded Afghanistan? And then he drug his feet another six months or so to invade Iraq when it was something President Cliton should have done back in '98. He will probally wait so long to strike Iran that our bombers will be blown up by a nuclear missle.

[aldona]

I'm keeping an eye on developments...

...and so I'm ready to attend a peace rally at short notice, I've ordered a "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" T-shirt. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/banplease.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif" alt="" />

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

How about a "Who would Moses bomb?" or "Who would David bomb?" t-shirt. Jesus was really spitting fire back in the days when Israel was a theocracy wasn't He?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

George Bush is said to be getting ready to attack Iran

---

The problem with President Bush is he drags his feet so much before doing something like this. Didn't he wait a few weeks after 9/11 before he invaded Afghanistan? And then he drug his feet another six months or so to invade Iraq when it was something President Cliton should have done back in '98. He will probally wait so long to strike Iran that our bombers will be blown up by a nuclear missle.

---

Yes but Shane, the guy is on the way out. He can't be re-elected in '08, and he's going to try to get as much of his agenda accomplished as possible before exit. Attacking Iran will be an extremely serious disaster, IMO. What is up with this guy that he thinks war first instead of last???

[Bravus]

Well, the report about the possibility of using nukes just makes me laugh in the blackest humour way possible: just like a parent slapping a child [1] and saying "That'll teach you to hit your sister!"

"Try to develop nukes, eh? How dare you: we'll nuke you!"

Man, this administration is apparently not quite sure, just yet, that their 'worst ever' status in the history books is safe.

And a conventional attack is only slightly less ironic, and still verifiably insane.

[1] I'm talking about angry, out-of-control slapping, not appropriate discipline

[Nicodema]

Something needs to be done about this fellow for sure. Praying for God to "guide" this administration seems only to be confirming in the minds of the gullible that it is indeed being so "guided" ... whilst they conveniently overlook the fact that God may indeed be trying to transmit, but clearly the human minds are not receiving His signals.

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush has been dragging his feet with Iran the last few years in diplomacy. That has been what he has been trying first. A military attack will be his last option and it seems that most of Europe is on board with him.

[Nicodema]

Why don't we just cut open our skulls, scoop out our brains, and flush them down the toilet while we're at it?

[Halfstep Denise]

Hi, Nico!

If I read your very visually descriptive idea often enough, my extra pounds may come off! I've lost my appetite!

Halfstep Denise

[Nicodema]

LOL. I just think another war is a really, REALLY bad idea right now. From a purely pragmatic and calloused standpoint, even -- even if I was pro-war in general (which I'm not) -- we simply can't afford it. Period. Not to mention Iran is nothing like Iraq. Iraq at least had people who welcomed the chance to overthrow Saddam (which was ostensibly why we were there). Iran wouldn't have anyone there "happy to see us".

That is, of course, just the "pragmatic" view on things. Never mind real stuff like loss of lives, young people dying for dubious causes, millions of war-wounded to suffer for years to come, the ethical implications of rushing to mass slaughter to get "our" way or accomplish "our" goals in the first place ...

[Dr. Shane]

First, if nothing is done Iran will develope the nuclear bomb and completely destroy Israel. They have made it clear they want to do both. That is not disputable.

Second, the military action being speculated about is bombing not a ground invation with troops.

Third, the majority of Iranians do not support their government. A couple of years ago I was chatting with an Iranisn, who was in Iran, and asked if she fear the US is going to invade. Her responce was, "That is my prayer."

[bevin]

Quote:

---

First, if nothing is done Iran will develope the nuclear bomb and completely destroy Israel. They have made it clear they want to do both. That is not disputable.

---

Israel has nuclear weapons. You think they won't strike back if hit? You think Iran really is stupid enough to go M.A.D.?

Quote:

---

Second, the military action being speculated about is bombing not a ground invation with troops.

---

And the difference is? The Muslim world, and most of the rest of the world, will be absolutely incensed if the USA nukes Iran. The Non-Proliferation Treaty will be thrown out the window world wide, and every country that can afford it will go nuclear and the rest will go WMD - and with the price of WMD plummeting every country will be able to, including Pitcairn Island :-)

Quote:

---

Third, the majority of Iranians do not support their government. A couple of years ago I was chatting with an Iranisn, who was in Iran, and asked if she fear the US is going to invade. Her responce was, "That is my prayer."

---

Yep, we will be welcomed in the streets with flowers and hailed as liberators. No, wait, that was the Bushee's claim about Iraq.

The Bush administration is the worst USA government in my lifetime, and arguably ever. They are simply unbelievably stupid in their foreign policies, and unbelievably good at transfering money from the rest of the economy into Bush and cronies pockets.

Bush is in charge, let the lies, looting, and lunacy continue.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

You think Iran really is stupid enough to go M.A.D.?

---

YES YES YES

Virgins are awaiting their arrival in paradise. Have we forgotten the lesson from 9/11 already? The hijackers died too!

[Dr. Shane]

Well, Iran has now enriched uranium and consider it a blessing from God.

Quote:

---

"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory- scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.

---

Quote:

---

You think Iran really is stupid enough to go M.A.D.?

---

[Bravus]

Two words: nuclear power. Iran has repeatedly stated that it is seeking enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. Kind of like Saddam repeatedly stated that he didn't have WMDs... and we know how well disbelieving him has gone. Given greenhouse gas emissions, I join with them in saying that their ability to replace some fossil fuels with nuclear (albeit still years in the future) is a blessing from God.

[Jeannieb43]

Unfortunately, Dubya has a Napoleon complex: a small, weak, ineffectual man who thinks he can appear powerful by going to war.

Why oh why doesn't somebody get an impeachment process started? He certainly has violated the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office.

[Paula]

You know, I agree with Shane. I am not a fan of Pr. Bush, (I LOVED Clinton, am very much a Democrat, and wish he could run for the presidency again!). I was vehemently against the war in Iraq, and many other policies brought forth by the Bush Administration. However, I must say that in the case of Iran, I think that war will probably be, not only inevitable, but the best possible solution. This is very different from Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not taunting the US (nor Israel). He was not flaunting a nuclear program. He was not calling for death to westerners and Israelis. Unfortunately, this man is not a reasonable person. He is not someone with whom one can dialogue with and appease. It is sad, but this man is an egotistical fool, and egotistical fools understand only one language, and that is force.

(Hey Shane! We agree again! Spooky, huh!

[bevin]

Ok, lets start some rational dialog around the possibility of Iran using nukes.

First of all, let us look at who has nukes today - USA, GB, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel. In that list are at least two pairs of intense opponents : The USA/GB/France v the USSR; and India v Pakistan. In fact the presence of nukes on both sides of those conflicts kept them from escalating...

Now let us look at who has used nukes in a conflict - the USA, against an opponent that did not have them. In fact against an opponent that had no solid way of hitting back. That seems to be a requirement for actually using nukes. No-one is prepared to accept the counter-attack.

So, who would Iraq use these nukes against? Israel? The USA? Its Muslim neighbors? Israel would absolutely hit back. The USA would absolutely hit back. Now, the Shiite/Sunni split in the Middle East might be something worth worrying about.

Who in Iraq would need to be involved to actually develop and use these weapons? Not just one man - it takes a big organization. Don't use the 'the leader is crazy' argument, it holds no water.

Lastly, why does Iraq feel the need to defend itself so strongly that it is demoing torpedos, missiles, and other technology?

Because a moron called George W Bush was stupid enough to label them part of 'the axis of evil' and to actively threaten them with nuclear weapons.

If you don't want many other countries to go nuclear, then stop threatening them with nuclear weapons because they do things that are in their interests but not to the financial benefit of the USA!

The USA needs to get used to the idea that other countries are allowed to be as powerful and as wealthy as we are.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Iran has repeatedly stated that it is seeking enriched uranium for peaceful purposes.

---

Iran is sitting on one of the largest crude oil reserves in the world. It costs them about $8/barrel to get it out of the ground (compared to $18/barrel in the US which is then sold at market prices). Iran's oil can more than provide enough energy to generate all the electricity they need. So they idea they are only looking to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes is a little niave.

Quote:

---

Kind of like Saddam repeatedly stated that he didn't have WMDs...

---

Saddam talked out of both sides of his mouth. He told some he didn't have WMDs and told others he did. His own intelligence service believd he had WMDs up until right before the war. Since the invation we have learned about the oil-for-food scandel and Saddam's plan to require WMDs after sanctions were lifted.

Quote:

---

I join with them in saying that their ability to replace some fossil fuels with nuclear

---

We cannot forget this government has pledged to erase Israel from the map. I have no problem with developing countries getting nuclear power as long as they are not threatening their neighbors or supporting terrorism. Iran does both.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

So, who would Ira[n] use these nukes against? Israel? The USA? Its Muslim neighbors? Israel would absolutely hit back. The USA would absolutely hit back.

---

Remember the lesson from 9/11. The hyjackers died too. The Russians love their children the same way Americans love thiers. That is what prevented nuclear war between them. Islamic radicals tie bombs on their children and send them to blow up on Israili buses.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Islamic radicals tie bombs on their children and send them to blow up on Israili buses.

---

Yes - but it is NOT Islamic radicals who are running these countries. It is Islamic fundamentalists - but remember, it is Christian fundamentalists who run the USA.

There is as much difference between an Islamic fundamentalist and radical as there is between GWB and a David Koresh

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Iran is sitting on one of the largest crude oil reserves in the world.

---

How long do the experts predict this supply will last?

GWB is stating publically "we must wean ourselves off oil". The Iranian supplies only have about 20 years left. After that what do they have - NOTHING.

I know the USA wants the ME countries to waste all their oil revenue on Mercedes Benz cars, American made weapons, and Japanese electronics.

But no sensible ME government is going to do this. Instead they are going to use that wealth to develop sustainable economies - and that includes access to nuclear technology without depending on the Western countries, because the Western countries have shown themselves to be notoriously unreliable and undesirable partners - for example, a recent ports deal, or a president that says "we must wean ourselves off your product, and you can't develop alternative sources of wealth"...

/Bevin

[Paula]

Bevin,

I agree with some of your points. I also agree that America has a problem with other countries (those it does not have a vested financial interest in) becoming powerful and rich. However, the fact is that there are many other countries that have uranium enriching capabilities, but use them for nuclear power plants, and the US does not plan on going to war with them. One example is Brazil. Earlier this year they announced that they will be starting an uranium enriching program for their power plants. Currently they buy it from other countries. The US stated that it is not worried because it knows that Brazil is a peaceful country with no ulterior motives in the project. Now, from South Florida to the northernmost tip of Brazil it is a 4 hour plane ride. If they wanted to, they could send a nuke to the US. Why isn't the US up in arms? Because it has shown no intent to use WMD. Iran on the other hand HAS. It has ties with Fidel Castro, and if it wanted to, it could probably use Cuba as launching base to get nukes in the US. America has EVERY right and DUTY to be worried about Iran.

Now, understand that I am the MOST "PRO Peace and Love", person you could find. I HATE war! I am against "pre-emptive strikes". But in this case, I think that the government needs to take serious action in keeping this country from enriching uranium. If they want powerplants, they can buy everything they need for their nuclear powerplants (like Brazil has done for the past 20 years). They do NOT need an enrichment program in order to run their nuclear power plants.