Today’s Washington Post:
[quote=“MikeN”]Today’s Washington Post:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 006/04/08/[/quote]
The Armageddon Express picks up speed. The money quote:
"“The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. “Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it’s going to be very difficult to do.”
Good luck with the radioactive fallout. Mad King George and his merry band of religious zealots will likely have as much luck containing it as they did containing the Iraqi insurgency.
newyorker.com/fact/content/a … 417fa_fact
[i]One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that
That Seymour Hersh article is pretty depressing.
I want to know more about these underground facilities that seem to be a given whenever the possibility of attacking Iran comes up. As the Hersh article points out, Saddam’s WMDs turned out to be fictional. So how much do the Americans really know about these hypothetical Iranian facilities? Why would Iran announce it’s intention to enrich uranium if it were planning to do this in secret bomb-proof facilities? Didn’t Pakistan manage to do it without anyone noticing? And if the enrichment of uranium is the all-important step in making a nuclear bomb, how much longer can we expect to hold back the spread of centrifuge technology? One way or another, if the US mini-nukes Iran, it won’t be long before everyone wants the bomb.
[quote=“Hersh article”][size=75]The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
[quote=“dearpeter”] it won’t be long before everyone wants the bomb.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure every ‘rogue’ state secretly covets having the only deterrant capable of holding off the U.S. and it’s axis of allies.
[quote=“Toe Tag”]http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
[i]One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that
Well according to the Atlantic, we had no good options in 2004 and they have now gotten worse in 2006 so we should wait longer? to deal with something that we are going to have to deal with sooner or later anyway? Let’s just take it out now. Some 90 percent of the world’s terrorism is funded and supported by the regime in Iran. There are numerous (400 to 500) al Qaeda in Iran (fled from Afghanistan). The nation is the No. 1 supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas among others. It funds and supports a broad range of Shia militia including Sadr in Iraq. Let’s not pretend that the nation is not already the No. 1 source of instability in the Middle East. It is an odious regime that oppresses its people. Let’s do something now before it is too late. We have a narrow window. When it becomes North Korea than we have an intractable problem that may take decades to deal with. Let’s just do it!
Are you talking about Iraq? Oh, right, Iran, sure let’s just do it! Maybe we can get Nike to emblazon their “just do it” logo on the nukes! Soon they’ll greet us with flowers as liberators! It should go just as smoothly as Iran did! Let’s just drop a few nukes and that’ll solve everything. Heck, they’re probably already turning the aircraft carrier around for another “Mission Accomplished” photo shoot! Life is sure easy when you don’t have to worry about being reality based, I wish I could be like Georgie.
I’d love to see Israel’s intelligence dossier on Bush. They really have him dancing for them. Seems to me the USA, Israel’s lap dog, is the No. 1 source of instability in the world. Go USA! We are number 1! (Except in baseball… Those darn Mexicans beat us… I think we should consider nuking them, or at least invading again.)
I think that would be Israel, not Iran.
Where does that ‘fact’ come from?
Well, if nothing else, the Hersh article seemed to elicit statements from the Bush administration that diplomacy is, in fact, the preferred course. But I think they said that too about Iraq. Then come deadlines and stuff.
Yes, those damned Israeli terrorists. Yup. Now we know why your opinions will go a long way in determining how and when this administration acts. Not acting has costs too. Peace can sometimes be more costly than war but than I would question the level of understanding many have of history. Sad but the 24-hour news cycle and the MTV generation.
Why don’t all countries mind their own business? The world will take care of itself.
Thanks for making my point. Next?
We need to pass a law quick that the Wahoos of Mass Delusion can’t attack or invade another country until they capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his henceman Mullah Muhammed Omar first.
That’ll put a stop to this madness for a decade or two.
Hmmm. I might just want to take these conditions…
given that I do not think that this timeline is going to be a realistic assessment…
Let’s see what happens eh spookie…
Pakistan is a strange country… things happen at a different speed and pace than elsewhere…
Hi fred. 
My prediction: invading Iran will be Bush’s last act before leaving office … to brush over the mess he left in Iraq.
Acting has costs too. Estimates of up to a trillion dollars in Iraq. After you and the Bush regime spewed out a historical mountain of lies in order to “act” and creat that ongoing cluster-f*ck, please inform us as to why we should let you kite another trillion dollar disaster in Iran. Sorry I wasn’t a history major. But anyone can look back at the last 3 years in Iraq, and see the pathetic results.
Let’s face it: Bush shot his wad. There’s no more money and there’s no more political capital. And Iran knows it.
“Bush said he has no plan to invade Iran. Oh, we’re going to “act” and invade all right. Its just that we have no plan…”
Stating the obvious…
Well we are at $250 billion now and looking at $410 billion in 2009 I believe…
I assume you want to include the UN, Clinton, Democratic leadership, European governments, French intelligence, German intelligence, Saddam himself, Saddam’s generals in that historical mountain of lies. This has been posted repeatedly. You apparently cannot read. Go back and find the link. Reread all the world leaders prior to and during the Bush administration including those at the UN who did not believe that Saddam had wmds. I still think we will find something. His generals report being very surprised that nothing was discovered.
Is Saddam gone? Yes.
Did Iraqis get to vote in free and fair elections three times? Yes.
Did we say we would create perfection on earth in Iraq? No.
Is the number of Iraqis killed now any different than under Saddam? Probably fewer so if you did not care about Iraqi deaths from 1979 to 2003, what’s your great interest now and why should we take you seriously?
Yeah. Seems like such a notably worse place than before.
I am not trying to convince you because you are irrelevant to the discussion. We will decide what to do and when. We will examine the evidence and look at the options. People like you have no credibility because of your inability to honestly admit or understand that Saddam was a problem and Iran is too.
Me too, but I am most sorry that you did not seem to major in anything at all except cheap cynicism. How sophisticated? Like to wear black, a beret and smoke Gauloises? How original. Next.
Overall, I am very pleased with the results. The Iraqis are increasingly taking over and Bush has said over and over and over again, that ultimately it is up to the people of the region to decide how they are going to live. Better to have their civil wars in the region rather than exported to us as was the case for the past 30 years. The Kurds fought tooth and nail and experienced much of the violence and instability that is going on in Iraq for nearly 10 years before things stabilized and now they are an oasis of prosperity and tranquility in Iraq. Sometimes, you have to let people fight it out to understand that compromise is needed. Ditto for the Balkans.
Seems like a pretty healthy man to me. I think he is capable of getting it up again.
Oh, well, then let’s wait and see how things turn out…
Got to love Iran. The country has made it possible for the UK, France and Germany to fall in line directly behind the US position and take an active role in supporting and promoting it. The UN Security Council to my total amazement actually passed a resolution calling on Iran to disarm. All of this is icing on the cake though. Just PR fluff and that is what Iran knows. But I would not rule out US action or that of another country any time soon. Give us a year or two and let’s see what happens.
What do you think the costs of a nuclear Iran will be? Do you understand that Iran is the No. 1 source of terrorist funding and support in the world today?
We will see. Also, many of us believe that Iran is part of the problem in Iraq. It is like World War II. We did not stop with Italy or France but went on to remove Germany. To me, Iraq is Italy or France. The true Germany in all of this, the center of the whole mess is Iran and until it is taken out… there will be problems. They will get worse in the future. We are already working with groups inside the country. Maybe it will be a mess like Iraq for 10 years after any action but it will be up to the people of that nation to put it back together and decide how that will be done. We will be there to offer support but ultimately it is their decision. And like Iraq it will be the first time in a long time if ever that they have had this right and privilege.
Nice attitude. Why is it that the supporters of a strong and aggressive US foreign policy are always so quick to attack their detractors with blankets statements alleging stupidity and intellectual dishonesty? Bullying doesn’t make you right, guys.
Can I ask again the basis of that claim? And doesn’t it depend on one’s definition of terrorism? If the US military does it, it can’t be terrorism; is that it?
What would be the cost of a nuclear Iran? That’s a good question. Well, Pakistan has had the bomb for a while. The evil Soviets have had it for ages. The regime in Beijing has had it for a while. The notoriously belligerent Israelis have had it for years. But only the US has ever actually used one one against people. So they deserve the most distrust in my opinion, especially since they refuse to take the use of nukes ‘off the table.’
The MAD theory will still apply to a nuclear Iran. If they had the bomb, they are less likely to use it than America. But they’re crazy, right? I’ll tell you what’s crazy - that one man - the US president - can singlehandedly decide to drop a nuke. That’s crazy.
Yeah. We are the ones doing all the bullying and using the blanket statements. Right…
so if you cannot differentiate or are unwilling to differentiate between Iranian-sponsored terrorism and whether what the US military does is terrorism, then end of discussion. What are you Canadian?
Yup. Compared with Pakistan, Iran and any other Islamic nutjob having the bomb, the US is the one you distrust the most. Thanks for making my argument for me. We will be sure and consult with the likes of you before we move ahead with anything. Public relations and opinion polls are so important. Without them, we would not have your valuable insight. Seriously, without even a modicum of understanding of how international relations and systems are set up and function, how can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously?
Lots of people marched against MAD during its hey day. Most of them leftists with questionable understandings of how the world works like you.
Are you sure? And they would not have to use it. They could up their funding and support of terrorism all over the Middle East and use nuclear blackmail regarding shipping lanes to get so many things that they are unable to get today because of this constraint.
Nope. Not at all. They are using a very clear strategy of divide and conquer and hey, listen to you… it works… These people were not born yesterday and like the North Vietnamese generals before them, they fully understand the West’s inherent weaknesses. Hey, just think of yourself as the weakest link.
He would not singlehandedly decide anything. Ultimately the final decision is his though. Think of the awesome responsibility. I would not want that. But given that everyone on the Security Council has recognized that Iran is a threat, what do you suggest doing about it? I mean if it is all about peace and talk and discussions and negotiations, what exactly does one do to get someone to comply who openly flouts the system. Again, I am sure the zmag.org readers will come in here and say but what about the US what about Bush what about blah blah blah… BUT the simple fact remains that while the world’s leaders may pander to public opinion back home NOT ONE has taken action to form an alliance to counter the US because NO ONE sees the US as a true threat no matter what they say in public AND given that Germany and France are now actively supporting the US position, what does that tell you about what is really going on here? I mean those Iranian missiles are not capable of hitting the US but they could hit Paris and Berlin.