Did I miss something? -- Bush and Iran

[angellous_evangellous]

What's the latest on Bush and Iran?

 

[evearael]

Well there is this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/27/iran.us.reut/index.html

"Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us and we do not need such negotiations," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

There isn't much I've noticed being reported today... It seems everyone is focused on Israel and the Palestinians...

 

[evearael]

Even Aljazeera is quiet on it:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54C8AFC7-8C97-4C4F-B38D-D41E6169C42E.htm

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK - was there ever any talk about Bush nuking Iran?

 

[evearael]

OK - was there ever any talk about Bush nuking Iran?

If that was in the news, I somehow missed it too.

 

[Khalid Muhammad]

I think you'll find it was a report from some months ago concerning meetings between the administration and Pentagon staff. They were discussing options, The present Generals (Combined forces) brought up the use of tactical nuclear weapons along with other alternatives to 'get them off the table', as it was reported the administration refused to remove any option from the table, and thus it was reported that they were considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons (i.e. battlefield as opposed to ICBM).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think you'll find it was a report from some months ago concerning meetings between the administration and Pentagon staff. They were discussing options, The present Generals (Combined forces) brought up the use of tactical nuclear weapons along with other alternatives to 'get them off the table', as it was reported the administration refused to remove any option from the table, and thus it was reported that they were considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons (i.e. battlefield as opposed to ICBM).

Ok - that's the key words I needed for google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html

"The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Jan 2006
"The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages."

Most of the hype seems to be centered on a nuclear bunker-buster.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125207_1,00.html

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

 

[Khalid Muhammad]

I wasn't listening in on the meeting, but I would think that discussion around the use of the B61-11 was most probably the genesis of all the subsequent reports.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wasn't listening in on the meeting, but I would think that discussion around the use of the B61-11 was most probably the genesis of all the subsequent reports.

Perhaps.

A nuclear bunker-buster is not what I would consider to be conventional nuclear ordinance - like the Cold War style devestation that is usually associated with WMDs.

 

[Khalid Muhammad]

Well let's face it as soon as the journos heard the word 'nuclear' they were probably whitewashing the windows and hiding under desks with brown paper bags on their heads.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well let's face it as soon as the journos heard the word 'nuclear' they were probably whitewashing the windows and hiding under desks with brown paper bags on their heads.

That's what they want us to do.

 

[croak]

I did something on 'Nuclear Disarmament in Turkey'. Totally unrelated, maybe. Let me find one of my sources, though.

Here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714

I know it's an old article, but still. And yeah, it has stuff about Turkey included, which was how I found it and why I used it.

Hmm, a new link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20050501&articleId=66
More recent.

Well, if Israel gets involved in such a war, they'll be flying over Lebanon. And obviously, Iran-backed Hizbullah will do something. Sigh.

 

[Melody]

"The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts."

Arrogance....complete and utter arrogance. We can have them but nobody else can.

If I were a citizen of another country, I'd certainly live in fear of the U.S. having the only nukes since the U.S. has proved it's capable of initiating open aggression and I'd want some too. If for no reason, than to make the U.S. think twice about hitting that button.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Arrogance....complete and utter arrogance. We can have them but nobody else can.

If I were a citizen of another country, I'd certainly live in fear of the U.S. having the only nukes since the U.S. has proved it's capable of initiating open aggression and I'd want some too. If for no reason, than to make the U.S. think twice about hitting that button.

I don't like that we're the only country that has ever used nukes and the only country in the world with cold war sized arsenals (actually we have more now). I think that it's a good idea to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of dictators and our enemies by using all of our power.

The assumption is that the US, as a democracy, has better control over the nukes. It just doesn't make sense to allow an unstable country - with the clear potential to produce a madman leader - to have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

It would be better, IMHO, to completely destroy all nuclear weapons. It seems that in the era of laser-guided precision bombs that we can effectively destroy all military targets in an area rather than all of its people.

 

[Melody]

The assumption is that the US, as a democracy, has better control over the nukes. It just doesn't make sense to allow an unstable country - with the clear potential to produce a madman leader - to have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

At one time I would've said I agree. Our glorious leader has convinced me that even our government can't be trusted with them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

At one time I would've said I agree. Our glorious leader has convinced me that even our government can't be trusted with them.

I disagree. I think that our government has been trustworthy with our nuclear arsenal - mainly because they haven't used them, and we can expect a peaceful change of administration with the changing of our Presidents and Congressional representatives.

It seems to me that if we ever use our nuclear weapons again at least the high grade ones, the US would be so unpopular in the world that it could hail the end of our nation.

 

[Mystic-als]

It seems to me that if we ever use our nuclear weapons again at least the high grade ones, the US would be so unpopular in the world that it could hail the end of our nation.

Firstly : True - well said
Secondly : The US already is unpopular. Don't you see that?

I personally think that the only thing saving you is your military might. BUT that is only as good as your leaders. And like Melody said. They don't look like they can be trusted with power at the moment.

They haven't used them again yet. You do it once and then it gets a whole lot easier to do the next time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Firstly : True - well said
Secondly : The US already is unpopular. Don't you see that?

I personally think that the only thing saving you is your military might. BUT that is only as good as your leaders. And like Melody said. They don't look like they can be trusted with power at the moment.

They haven't used them again yet. You do it once and then it gets a whole lot easier to do the next time.

Yes, but I think that nuclear strikes would hieghten anti-Americanism to the extreme. Right now our unpopularity is redeemable. With the use of nuclear weapons, I can't imagine who would trade with America or ally with us. Possibly even our traditional allies would ally against us, creating powerful enemies. It would be suicide.

It's not easy to use nuclear weapons. They traditionally designed to completely destroy a people in addition to the military, rather than just destroying the military, which is not the objective in war.

 

[Khalid Muhammad]

Right now our unpopularity is redeemable. With the use of nuclear weapons, I can't imagine who would trade with America or ally with us. Possibly even our traditional allies would ally against us, creating powerful enemies. It would be suicide.

I have to disagree, I don't think anyone will buy anything you (plural not singular) do or say again. As to the second part of your statement....it won't take a nuke to solidify opinion, it might might now take one to forcibly change it i.e. you WILL be our friends.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have to disagree, I don't think anyone will buy anything you (plural not singular) do or say again. As to the second part of your statement....it won't take a nuke to solidify opinion, it might might now take one to forcibly change it i.e. you WILL be our friends.

The fact that we have very profitable export and import trade relations worldwide makes this statement quite baseless. A good part of the world is buying what we say - literally.

A nuke would change that I think.