http://gamingtrend.com
September 23, 2014, 10:32:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Iranian Boats (possibly with GWB at the helm) Harass US Warship  (Read 22236 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2008, 09:52:26 PM »

I admit Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, make's me nervous without any prompting from the current admin. Hearing him talk about his vision of our world's armeggedon or the WW2 and the holocost is a infomercial for not letting him have a nuke. Scares's the bejebus out of me!

If I heard  less scary qoutes and interviews coming from its leadership I'd be all open for opening friendship and diplomacy with Iran. Then again, I'm sure some of Bush's qoute scare the rest of the world to.

Right now them having nukes does give me pause however.

They are the only democracy in the middle east, makes you wonder if their citizens cringe as often as we do when they hear the elected leaders they and we elected.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 10:02:09 PM by davidf » Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2008, 09:58:07 PM »

Quote from: raydude on January 16, 2008, 09:05:28 PM



Here's a thought: Israel most likely has a nuke as a deterrent against its neighbors from repeating stuff like the Yom Kippur War. What happens when everyone in the region has nukes? Wouldn't that then negate the use of nukes all around and open the situation for a possible gang-banging of Israel?



They thought of any fanatical religous leader, no matter the donomination, with a nuke scaries me. They worry less about their actions on this earth as long as they think it gets them into their version of heaven. Christain, Musluem, Buhhdism, doesn't matter to me, their fanatics all want to impose their world view on the rest of their world...and willing to sacrafice innocents to do it.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 10:00:35 PM by davidf » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2008, 10:30:28 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 16, 2008, 08:52:42 PM

So you're pro Iranian nuke?

I'm neither pro- nor anti-.  I simply don't care, and can't see how it's in America's interest to care.  We don't own the Middle East, and nobody assigned the American people the task of establishing order halfway around the world (and footing the bill for it, as well, but that kind of derails from the illegitimacy of taking action over there).  Hey, if all our problems in America were solved, then I'd say cool, knock yourselves out in spreading peace love and happiness.

But a nuclear armed Iran could actually bring a REAL stability to the region... which the elites of America's "serious" foreign policy thought has failed to do since, well, since ever.  It would certainly bring more stability to the region than playing a rerun of the Iraq quagmire/war crime/humanitarian disaster has accomplished... and of course that's all the current administration is capable of.  But then again, there's a really limited number of "solutions" which bombing, guns, and tanks can accomplish.  It should be obvious by now that diplomatic solutions are not possible with the current administration, and are outright disdained.


Quote from: davidf on January 16, 2008, 09:52:26 PM

I admit Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, make's me nervous without any prompting from the current admin. Hearing him talk about his vision of our world's armeggedon or the WW2 and the holocost is a infomercial for not letting him have a nuke. Scares's the bejebus out of me!

That's a non-issue, since he isn't in charge of the country.  It's a theocracy, remember?  Khamenei is the leader of Iran, not Ahmadinejad.

All Bush's warmongering in Iran has accomplished is empowering the "bad" people in Iran.  They are going through the same thing Republicans have been doing here, but worse: anyone calling for intelligent rational discourse, human rights, civil rights, etc, are being slandered or arrested for being traitors.

That's why I say all Bush is doing is empowering what we (the American people) would consider to be the "bad" people all around the globe.  The only difference is most people think he's just "whoopsie!!!" doing it by accident.  Republicans spent years trying to convince everyone what a genius poet-king GWB is, and I believe them- I think he's empowering these "bad" people on purpose.  I think the billions of dollars being embezzled from the US Treasury will back me up on that.

Now if conservatives want to change gears and start telling me GWB is actually a stupid idiot by arguing GWB isn't doing it on purpose, I won't object to having that discussion.  It's obvious all his policies are a tragic and epic failure, so the only discussion is whether it is caused by incompetent stupidity or by malicious design.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 10:36:05 PM by unbreakable » Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2008, 10:58:10 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 16, 2008, 10:30:28 PM


That's a non-issue, since he isn't in charge of the country.  It's a theocracy, remember?  Khamenei is the leader of Iran, not Ahmadinejad.

All Bush's warmongering in Iran has accomplished is empowering the "bad" people in Iran.  They are going through the same thing Republicans have been doing here, but worse: anyone calling for intelligent rational discourse, human rights, civil rights, etc, are being slandered or arrested for being traitors.

That's why I say all Bush is doing is empowering what we (the American people) would consider to be the "bad" people all around the globe.  The only difference is most people think he's just "whoopsie!!!" doing it by accident.  Republicans spent years trying to convince everyone what a genius poet-king GWB is, and I believe them- I think he's empowering these "bad" people on purpose.  I think the billions of dollars being embezzled from the US Treasury will back me up on that.

Now if conservatives want to change gears and start telling me GWB is actually a stupid idiot by arguing GWB isn't doing it on purpose, I won't object to having that discussion.  It's obvious all his policies are a tragic and epic failure, so the only discussion is whether it is caused by incompetent stupidity or by malicious design.
Yes but he is considered part of the countries leadership. No one's stopping him from scaring the pants off the planet, so that means at least a tacit approval from Khamenei.

As far as Bush I think he has two primary goals, Caspian oil and privitization of the military. All the Admin's actions provide a clear support for  these policies, at the determeant of other goals and agendas (such as the war on terror). When you look at the individual actions, comments, qoutes to supporters its pretty clear after Afghanistan we transitioned to new priorities, Blairs long time desire to depose Hussien was too juicy for Bush to pass up. especially since it fit with the rest of the Admins roadmap for securing caspain oil pipeline... and Iraq became the model for the future of using mercs as part of the the total force equation. He's had some serious set backs to these goals, but the Admin has kept its eyes on the end goal often at the expense of the bigger picture (IMO).
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM »

Quote from: davidf on January 16, 2008, 10:58:10 PM

Yes but he is considered part of the countries leadership. No one's stopping him from scaring the pants off the planet, so that means at least a tacit approval from Khamenei.

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran? 

Just for comparison... you have on one hand a nation with no nuclear weapons, and in fact they don't even have a civilian nuclear energy program.  On the other hand... you have a nation with over 10,000 nuclear missiles, is the only nation on the planet to have actually carried out nuclear strikes on another nation, and they have already reduced two of Iran's neighbors to a pile of decimated rubble littered with depleted uranium.

So when Cheney talks about carrying out a regime change in Iran, that just scares the hell out of you, right?

Quote
As far as Bush I think he has two primary goals, Caspian oil and privitization of the military. All the Admin's actions provide a clear support for  these policies, at the determeant of other goals and agendas (such as the war on terror). When you look at the individual actions, comments, qoutes to supporters its pretty clear after Afghanistan we transitioned to new priorities, Blairs long time desire to depose Hussien was too juicy for Bush to pass up. especially since it fit with the rest of the Admins roadmap for securing caspain oil pipeline... and Iraq became the model for the future of using mercs as part of the the total force equation. He's had some serious set backs to these goals, but the Admin has kept its eyes on the end goal often at the expense of the bigger picture (IMO).

Well, I completely agree that Iraq is the model of the future which conservatives have to offer.
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2008, 12:49:12 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM



So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran? 
Our Administration is scary as whole...so yes.



Quote
So when Cheney talks about carrying out a regime change in Iran, that just scares the hell out of you, right?
I think he has a reserved job as a right hand man when he gets to hell...just about everything he does/says scares me! So does Rumesfield, who was the architect for privatization of military. Does no one remember what was a key factor for the fall of Rome was? What friggin accountability is there for mercs, what regulation is there, lets just hire a bunch of south american aparti thugs for our army and call it a day! Brush hands, job done... till they turn on us.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3307


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2008, 01:52:02 AM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

Its just more bullshit from him - I mean why would we point our long-range ICBMs at Iran when any strike we'd use to cripple them would be accomplished with conventional weapons.

Besides, even if they were going to use nukes they aren't going to use ICBMs that need to be retargeted, they'd use nuclear weapons launched from aircraft carriers or Diego Garcia.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3307


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2008, 01:56:35 AM »

Well he didn't specify what we were pointing at them, subs, aircraft, or ICBMs, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But since he is stressing this as a fact, I would like to see where he gets his info.
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2008, 02:54:24 AM »

Quote
Cheney ... just scares the hell out of you


LOL, when I read this I coudn't help but think of the Daily show skit on him "You don't know Dick!" lol...except when Cheney's daughter came on it was suddently "You don't know Richard!". She was an amazing sport about it considering they spend so much of their time in the show talking about all the downright creepy stuff he does or says...like a man sized safe in his office with undisclosed contents....or his very own top secret stamp he stamps on everything including his speaches lol.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15440


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2008, 01:33:25 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

is the only nation on the planet to have actually carried out nuclear strikes on another nation, and they have already reduced two of Iran's neighbors to a pile of decimated rubble littered with depleted uranium.

Red herring.  The attack was totally substantiated. Anyone who disagrees has lost touch with what was going on in WWII in the Pacific.
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2008, 04:10:32 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 17, 2008, 01:33:25 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

is the only nation on the planet to have actually carried out nuclear strikes on another nation, and they have already reduced two of Iran's neighbors to a pile of decimated rubble littered with depleted uranium.

Red herring.  The attack was totally substantiated. Anyone who disagrees has lost touch with what was going on in WWII in the Pacific.

I'm not disagreeing, but to say the attacks (2 bombs) were justified is a scary comment. At the time we may have thought it was the right thing, and thus cannot be faulted. However, with the benfit of hindsight I'm terrified at any condition that says use of nuclear arsenel is justified. If some leader aplies that logic today, and takes that as appropriate conditions for authorization to use a weapon that should never be used. much less made. It use in any capacity today would likely result in the extenction of mankind
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2008, 05:11:08 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 01:52:02 AM

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

Its just more bullshit from him - I mean why would we point our long-range ICBMs at Iran when any strike we'd use to cripple them would be accomplished with conventional weapons.

Besides, even if they were going to use nukes they aren't going to use ICBMs that need to be retargeted, they'd use nuclear weapons launched from aircraft carriers or Diego Garcia.

Well you see, this is exactly why I say people who disagree with me are far, far, far less informed on things than I am.  When I state fact... it's "bullshit", but when you voice an ignorant opinion... what is that supposed to be called?  Being "fair and balanced", or "your opinion"?

Having a discussion of important matters, like this one, is generally like having a gun fight with somebody who brought a pair of boxing gloves.

If you can't bother to be informed, you can at least be civil.

[edit] I'll find a better source for that article.  I hate hearing people flame the messanger since they can't be bothered to address the message.

[edit2] I have to find a more specific article, but that should suffice for now.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 05:21:33 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM »

Your link is broken.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2008, 05:22:08 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM

Your link is broken.

And the explanation was already posted at the bottom.  Refresh your page.

The difficulty with finding the article is because the tiny bit of news regarding it was both buried, and from a few years ago.  Needless to say, the people who's job it is to target missiles were kind of horrified that our plans are now to launch a "retaliatory strike" against a country which... doesn't have nuclear weapons.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 05:24:16 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2008, 05:25:56 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM

Your link is broken.

And the explanation was already posted at the bottom.  Refresh your page.

The difficulty with finding the article is because the tiny bit of news regarding it was both buried, and from a few years ago.  Needless to say, the people who's job it is to target missiles were kind of horrified that our plans are now to launch a "retaliatory strike" against a country which... doesn't have nuclear weapons.


That article has nothing to do with CSL's post.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2008, 05:29:42 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM

Your link is broken.

And the explanation was already posted at the bottom.  Refresh your page.

The difficulty with finding the article is because the tiny bit of news regarding it was both buried, and from a few years ago.  Needless to say, the people who's job it is to target missiles were kind of horrified that our plans are now to launch a "retaliatory strike" against a country which... doesn't have nuclear weapons.


That article has nothing to do with CSL's post.

Sure it does.  He says that my claim that the USA is targetting Iran with our nukular arsenal is "bullshit"... and the article discusses how our policies have been changed.  The article did not, obviously, know what those changes were, because that's "secret".

But if you want more detail... here, knock yourself out.

Or, just google for "USSTRATCOM target iran".  Honestly, it's not that hard to actually be informed.  It's just so few people even bother to try.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2008, 05:35:47 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:29:42 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM

Your link is broken.

And the explanation was already posted at the bottom.  Refresh your page.

The difficulty with finding the article is because the tiny bit of news regarding it was both buried, and from a few years ago.  Needless to say, the people who's job it is to target missiles were kind of horrified that our plans are now to launch a "retaliatory strike" against a country which... doesn't have nuclear weapons.


That article has nothing to do with CSL's post.

Sure it does.  He says that my claim that the USA is targetting Iran with our nukular arsenal is "bullshit"... and the article discusses how our policies have been changed.  The article did not, obviously, know what those changes were, because that's "secret".

But if you want more detail... here, knock yourself out.

Or, just google for "USSTRATCOM target iran".  Honestly, it's not that hard to actually be informed.  It's just so few people even bother to try.

Yes I am aware of the policy change of the early 2000's.  But if you want use that broad definition to say we are "pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran," then we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at every country on earth.  Iran is no different than North Korea or Russia.  CSL was correct in saying that ICBMs would not be used to attack Iran.  Most likely Diego Garcia or a submarine in the Persian Gulf would be used with a conventional payload. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 05:38:43 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2008, 05:45:14 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:35:47 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:29:42 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:14:28 PM

Your link is broken.

And the explanation was already posted at the bottom.  Refresh your page.

The difficulty with finding the article is because the tiny bit of news regarding it was both buried, and from a few years ago.  Needless to say, the people who's job it is to target missiles were kind of horrified that our plans are now to launch a "retaliatory strike" against a country which... doesn't have nuclear weapons.


That article has nothing to do with CSL's post.

Sure it does.  He says that my claim that the USA is targetting Iran with our nukular arsenal is "bullshit"... and the article discusses how our policies have been changed.  The article did not, obviously, know what those changes were, because that's "secret".

But if you want more detail... here, knock yourself out.

Or, just google for "USSTRATCOM target iran".  Honestly, it's not that hard to actually be informed.  It's just so few people even bother to try.

Yes I am aware of the policy change of the early 2000's.  But if you want use that broad definition to say we are "pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran," then we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at every country on earth.

If you believe that, you are more tragically uninformed than I imagined.

Quote
CSL was correct in saying that ICBMs would not be used to attack Iran.

Um... no, he's not correct.  You need to do a bit more reading, and the link I posted (and it's in the message you quoted) has the information you have ignored for the past few years.

Quote
Most likely Diego Garcia or a submarine in the Persian Gulf would be used with a conventional payload. 

Um... no.

Your mistake is thinking these are rational people in charge.  Yes, it would be rational to only target nuclear states with our nuclear arsenal.  Yes, it would be rational to only invade countries with are a realistic threat to America or our allies.  However, the people in charge didn't rig two presidential elections because they care about America.  One only does that kind of stuff to push an agenda nobody would ever support.

But US foreign policy (and domestic, even) has never paid any attention to what would be democratically supported.  And in that, it's simply the ruling class vs. everyone else, and has nothing to do with political party.  But it's obvious there are a great many differences between the two parties... that issue is not one of them.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 05:50:55 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: January 17, 2008, 05:51:31 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:45:14 PM

  However, the people in charge didn't rig two presidential elections because they care about America.  One only does that kind of stuff to push an agenda nobody would ever support.

Yeah. You're right.  I'm the one that is uninformed and out of touch with reality.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #101 on: January 17, 2008, 05:56:06 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:51:31 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:45:14 PM

  However, the people in charge didn't rig two presidential elections because they care about America.  One only does that kind of stuff to push an agenda nobody would ever support.

Yeah. You're right.  I'm the one that is uninformed and out of touch with reality.  Roll Eyes

I agree, you are.  But that's not really the issue being discussed, is it?

It was said that Iran was attacking US ships, I automagically said it was false... and lo and behold, I was right.

I said we are targeting Iran with our nuclear arsenal, CLS said I was making up "bullshit"... and lo and behold, I was right.

Care to see me disprove any other myths for you?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 06:01:31 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: January 17, 2008, 06:03:07 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:56:06 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:51:31 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:45:14 PM

  However, the people in charge didn't rig two presidential elections because they care about America.  One only does that kind of stuff to push an agenda nobody would ever support.

Yeah. You're right.  I'm the one that is uninformed and out of touch with reality.  Roll Eyes

I agree, you are.  But that's not really the issue being discussed, is it?

It was said that Iran was attacking US ships, I automagically said it was false... and lo and behold, I was right.

I said we are targeting Iran with our nuclear arsenal, CLS said I was making up "bullshit"... and lo and behold, I was right.

Care to see me disprove any other myths for you?

LOL.  Please don't try to say that book is legit proof about the presidential elections. 

Please show me some real proof of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections being "rigged."

If you want to call reading Allen Raymond's book being "informed" then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 06:20:36 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: January 17, 2008, 06:11:26 PM »

prouding through the links there is some indirect statements about new prorities. And a few refrences that get specific such as

"The nuclear strike plans against Iran, North Korea and Syria, however, presumably were carried forward into the next OPLAN 8044 Revision 05 from October 2004, a plan that was still in effect as recently as July 2007."

and
"NSPD-17 reaffirmed that, if necessary, the United States will use nuclear weapons against anyone using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces abroad, and friends and allies, according to Washington Times. But a top-secret appendix to NSPD 17 specifically named Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya as being among the countries that are the central focus of the new strategy, and that options included nuclear weapons."


So if i understand the subtext several countries (with Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya being called out) are on our top list for retalation with nuclear weapons, if they attack with what we lossely define as WMDs. That is kind of scary since as far as I can tell that defintion is rather loose. So another plane into a building could be techncailly defined as a WMD and  allow for a nuclear response especially the countries called out in the appendix. That is scary. As a said anyone justifying use of nukes as a good idea under any circustance (except if the rest of the world has already fired there's) makes me think armeggedon is closer than we think.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2008, 06:27:44 PM »

Google, less than a minute, and the phrase "Nuclear Posture Review" + Iran.

Quote
Expanding the Role of Nuclear Weapons
NPR: “In setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which the United States must be prepared. Contingencies can be categorized as immediate, potential or unexpected.” (p. 16) 

“North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies. All have longstanding hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns.  All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”  (p. 16)

 

Analysis: The adaptive planning described in the NPR expands the role of nuclear weapons beyond the primary role of deterring a nuclear attack and suggests that nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack or in retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons. The NPR suggests that the U.S. must develop new nuclear weapon capabilities to defeat "hardened and deeply buried targets" in states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (including Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria). 

This approach contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of U.S. “negative security assurances,” first made in 1978. These state that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) unless they attack the U.S. in alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.  In 1995, the U.S. reaffirmed this commitment along with the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China).  On February 22, 2002 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless the state attacked the United States or its allies in conjunction with a nuclear state.

But in addition to the NPR’s contingency planning for a “plausible” nuclear threat by Russia, it plans for new and unexpected requirements for nuclear weapons to respond to the broad range of threats posed by others (i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria). This adaptive approach suggests that the U.S. is moving toward a new doctrine that both continues to emphasize Cold War-style nuclear deterrence and opens the option of making a first strike against non-nuclear adversaries.

And as always, let's not ignore that Iran is a member of the NNPT.  That is something consistently ignored by the US warmongers, and the people who love them.

It's probably also worth noting this part of the UN Charter... which all members agree to... which means the US has... which makes it have the full weight and authority of US law...

Quote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 06:30:21 PM by unbreakable » Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: January 17, 2008, 06:28:44 PM »

Quote
Um... no, he's not correct.  You need to do a bit more reading, and the link I posted (and it's in the message you quoted) has the information you have ignored for the past few years.

I am correct - there is no mention within the article whatsoever regarding ICBMs.

One quote from the article...

Quote
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it "emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions."

A "robust nuclear arsenal" isn't one based around stationary ICBMs. Moreover, any strike against Iran will presumably go against suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities that the administration sees as a threat - after all the talk has only been about WMDs and as such the priority targets would be connected with those. Now, assuming they authorized nuclear weapons they wouldn't use ICBMs which were designed to destroy population centers when tactical nuclear weapons available to aircraft carriers or Diego Garcia would accomplish any task quicker and without as much residual damage or radiation.

I also like how you had to dig up a two year article to make your point, especially since that proceeds the Bush administrations strong diplomatic attacks against Iran.

Quote
Um... no.

Your mistake is thinking these are rational people in charge.  Yes, it would be rational to only target nuclear states with our nuclear arsenal.  Yes, it would be rational to only invade countries with are a realistic threat to America or our allies.  However, the people in charge didn't rig two presidential elections because they care about America.  One only does that kind of stuff to push an agenda nobody would ever support.

But US foreign policy (and domestic, even) has never paid any attention to what would be democratically supported.  And in that, it's simply the ruling class vs. everyone else, and has nothing to do with political party.  But it's obvious there are a great many differences between the two parties... that issue is not one of them.
[/quote]

You sure do have a little conspiracy factory working up in that head of yours. First of all, every rational government will have made plans to use nuclear weapons against any state they conceive of having a potential conflict with - the states listed above such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all plausible targets even before the Bush administration. Any military is going to have contigency plans for these states, and nuclear weapons offer the kind of tactical advantage needed in certain very limited ways.

The way you think if we went back to the 1930s you'd think the Roosevelt administration was full of warmongers for having a war plan in case of conflict with Canada and the British Empire.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #106 on: January 17, 2008, 06:32:07 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:28:44 PM

The way you think if we went back to the 1930s you'd think the Roosevelt administration was full of warmongers for having a war plan in case of conflict with Canada and the British Empire.

Yes... I love when you tell me what I think, or would think.  We can obviously see you've been right on SO MANY things in the past 10 years!

Deficits don't matter!  Stay the Course!  Those WMD will turn up eventually!

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:28:44 PM

I also like how you had to dig up a two year article to make your point, especially since that proceeds the Bush administrations strong diplomatic attacks against Iran.

Wow... you just REALLY don't pay attention, do you?  You really, REALLY think Bush's warmongering against Iran is NEW?

REALLY?  You're honestly THAT uninformed... and willing to ADMIT it?

Wow.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 06:33:51 PM by unbreakable » Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: January 17, 2008, 06:40:19 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 06:32:07 PM

Deficits don't matter!  Stay the Course!  Those WMD will turn up eventually!

Just because I disagree with you on just about everything doesn't mean I think those things - but go on, its been clear for awhile that you've got your head up your ass.

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 06:32:07 PM

Wow... you just REALLY don't pay attention, do you?  You really, REALLY think Bush's warmongering against Iran is NEW?

REALLY?  You're honestly THAT uninformed... and willing to ADMIT it?

Wow.

Reading Comprehension 101 would have let you realize that I said only in the last two years has this diplomatic line been made prominent. And nor has their line been totally off the wall, real questions had to be raised when examining a state with real ties to terrorist organizations and the insurgency in Iraq.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: January 17, 2008, 06:45:10 PM »

Quote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


Maybe you didn't get the memo but the United Nations has been broke for decades, and no credible state is going to abide weak multilateral regulations when it feels itself legitimately threatened. Why would, or should we listen to an organization that has given states like Sudan prominent roles on committees for human rights.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2008, 06:48:25 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:35:47 PM

CSL was correct in saying that ICBMs would not be used to attack Iran.  Most likely Diego Garcia or a submarine in the Persian Gulf would be used with a conventional payload. 

By "conventional payload" are you referring to non-nuclear or tactical nukes?  Because we don't carry tactical nukes on submarines. 
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2008, 06:52:13 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 17, 2008, 06:48:25 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 17, 2008, 05:35:47 PM

CSL was correct in saying that ICBMs would not be used to attack Iran.  Most likely Diego Garcia or a submarine in the Persian Gulf would be used with a conventional payload. 

By "conventional payload" are you referring to non-nuclear or tactical nukes?  Because we don't carry tactical nukes on submarines. 

Non-Nuclear.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: January 17, 2008, 06:53:48 PM »

Quote


You sure do have a little conspiracy factory working up in that head of yours. First of all, every rational government will have made plans to use nuclear weapons against any state they conceive of having a potential conflict with - the states listed above such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all plausible targets even before the Bush administration. Any military is going to have contigency plans for these states, and nuclear weapons offer the kind of tactical advantage needed in certain very limited ways.

The part that I was unaware of is the adoption of a nuclear response, to a non nuclear threat. I don't know if I agree with everything unbreakable is saying, but this is a very ugly precedent. The broad defintion of WMD's does bring up the debacle with Iraq as well. The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying! Or am I alone in this thought?? The fact that the US is calling out their targets in advance to this new policy in violation of UN charter is another sobering thought? Or am i alone there?

Edit: its one thing to plan a defense and talk openly about if someone threatens me Im going to respond. Its quite another to say you threaten me CSL I'm going to kill you, your family, and all your neighbors. The pentagon planning against current threats is one thing, but creating a standing policy to nuke named countries as part of broad and undefined defensive response is tantamount to slamming the door shut on any future diplomatic engagements.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 07:02:37 PM by davidf » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2008, 06:57:51 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:40:19 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 06:32:07 PM

Deficits don't matter!  Stay the Course!  Those WMD will turn up eventually!

Just because I disagree with you on just about everything doesn't mean I think those things - but go on, its been clear for awhile that you've got your head up your ass.

You are just bitter because you just got proven wrong.  That's ok, vent away, bro... it's good for you.

Quote

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 06:32:07 PM

Wow... you just REALLY don't pay attention, do you?  You really, REALLY think Bush's warmongering against Iran is NEW?

REALLY?  You're honestly THAT uninformed... and willing to ADMIT it?

Wow.

Reading Comprehension 101 would have let you realize that I said only in the last two years has this diplomatic line been made prominent. And nor has their line been totally off the wall, real questions had to be raised when examining a state with real ties to terrorist organizations and the insurgency in Iraq.

This was DONE over two years ago, and reported on two years ago.  Just because you are out of the loop doesn't mean people are plotting against you.  I stated right when I was looking for the article that it was done a long time ago.

Hey man, it's cool.  If you want to believe the "official story" from people who keep getting proven to be liars, you go girl.  Just don't say I'm a bullshitter when I bring up stuff you don't know about.  You said I was bullshitting, and I pulled up an article from two years ago.  That means I was right, and you are uninformed.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: January 17, 2008, 07:01:32 PM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 06:53:48 PM

Quote


You sure do have a little conspiracy factory working up in that head of yours. First of all, every rational government will have made plans to use nuclear weapons against any state they conceive of having a potential conflict with - the states listed above such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all plausible targets even before the Bush administration. Any military is going to have contigency plans for these states, and nuclear weapons offer the kind of tactical advantage needed in certain very limited ways.

The part that I was unaware of is the adoption of a nuclear response, to a non nuclear threat. I don't know if I agree with everything unbreakable is saying, but this is a very ugly precedent. The broad defintion of WMD's does bring up the debacle with Iraq as well. The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying! Or am I alone in this thought?? The fact that the US is calling out their targets in advance to this new policy in violation of UN charter is another sobering thought? Or am i alone there?

But we "loosened the trigger" back in 2001. If the trigger was that loose wouldn't we have used the nukes on Iraq since the Bush administration was sure WMDs existed there?  I still think a nuclear response is very far down on the list of actions to be taken in any situation.  Just like it was pre 2001.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: January 17, 2008, 07:02:13 PM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 06:53:48 PM

Quote


You sure do have a little conspiracy factory working up in that head of yours. First of all, every rational government will have made plans to use nuclear weapons against any state they conceive of having a potential conflict with - the states listed above such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all plausible targets even before the Bush administration. Any military is going to have contigency plans for these states, and nuclear weapons offer the kind of tactical advantage needed in certain very limited ways.

The part that I was unaware of is the adoption of a nuclear response, to a non nuclear threat. I don't know if I agree with everything unbreakable is saying, but this is a very ugly precedent. The broad defintion of WMD's does bring up the debacle with Iraq as well. The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying! Or am I alone in this thought?? The fact that the US is calling out their targets in advance to this new policy in violation of UN charter is another sobering thought? Or am i alone there?

Just because there is a doctrine in place does not mandate that it will be followed.  No theater commander is going to start using nukes without presidential authorization just because his plan book states that it's an option. 

This is what what the military does- they make plans for every possible contingency out there so if whatever worst case scenario should occur then there is at least something already on paper that can be worked from.  The flipside is that if the President wanted to use nuclear weapons then he wouldn't be stopped by someone saying "but,sir, we don't have a plan on paper for that." 
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #115 on: January 17, 2008, 07:05:16 PM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 06:53:48 PM

The broad defintion of WMD's does bring up the debacle with Iraq as well. The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying! Or am I alone in this thought?? The fact that the US is calling out their targets in advance to this new policy in violation of UN charter is another sobering thought? Or am i alone there?

All that is exactly why I'm really concerned.  This administration has demonstrated not only zero restraint, but a zeal to do anything they feel like doing.

My major concern is what they are going to do now that they are desperate to be paid attention to.  They are only in charge a little longer, and everyone in the world sees no reason to not wait them out for a more rational administration.  So they are either going to take irrational action to make everyone view them as relevant, or it else they want to leave a complete and total mess for the next administration.  Or just move full forward with a complete coup, since they've already demonstrated their dissatisfaction with even keeping up the thin veneer of an American democracy.
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: January 17, 2008, 07:15:14 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 17, 2008, 07:02:13 PM



Just because there is a doctrine in place does not mandate that it will be followed.  No theater commander is going to start using nukes without presidential authorization just because his plan book states that it's an option. 

This is what what the military does- they make plans for every possible contingency out there so if whatever worst case scenario should occur then there is at least something already on paper that can be worked from.  The flipside is that if the President wanted to use nuclear weapons then he wouldn't be stopped by someone saying "but,sir, we don't have a plan on paper for that." 


I'm possibly naive here, but the pentagon plans, thats their job, but a creating a policy expanding the usage of nukes beyond direct nuclear repsonse is loosening the trigger. I agree it likely is in response to 2001, but does that make it right that since 9/11 happened we get to throw nukes out the next time we get attacked? I think if we had the option on 9/12 that we do now, its within the realm of possiblity that some commander could have felt justified in a nuclear response.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2008, 07:18:34 PM »

President holds sole authority for the use of nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic.  Doesn't matter what the policy says or how a theater commander feels.  If the president orders it, then that will happen.  New doctrine doesn't "loosen" the trigger because lack of doctrine didn't tie his hands before.  Further, should he go nuts and authorize a nuclear strike, the presence of existing doctrine is not a defense for his actions. 
Logged
davidf
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: January 17, 2008, 07:23:57 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 07:05:16 PM


All that is exactly why I'm really concerned.  This administration has demonstrated not only zero restraint, but a zeal to do anything they feel like doing.

My major concern is what they are going to do now that they are desperate to be paid attention to.  They are only in charge a little longer, and everyone in the world sees no reason to not wait them out for a more rational administration.  So they are either going to take irrational action to make everyone view them as relevant, or it else they want to leave a complete and total mess for the next administration.  Or just move full forward with a complete coup, since they've already demonstrated their dissatisfaction with even keeping up the thin veneer of an American democracy.

Hmm., I don't think Bush is insane. I do think he despreately wants to secure the caspain pipeline before he's admin leavew office, and so the admin is a little single minded right now. However, vindictively ending the planet, or destroying the US to suit their own needs is a little extreme. I do think they might take some unprecedented risks to accomplish their goals and secure he legacy, but outright burn the house down for spite is a little extreme. I do think their actions make it possible for some much greater risk to all, such as a future leader/commander feeling trapped into making a tragic and regreatable decision because of the greater latittude in our policies.  
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: January 17, 2008, 07:32:47 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 07:05:16 PM

Or just move full forward with a complete coup, since they've already demonstrated their dissatisfaction with even keeping up the thin veneer of an American democracy.

My money is on the coup.  I'd stay off of Pennsylvania Avenue this October lest you get run over by an M1 Abrams Tank.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.034s, 2q)