HorizonForumsone horizon
Log inSign up

[ms] · Est. May 2002

Music madethis place,we just kept itgoing...

One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.

Forums / Politics

Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

58 durable postsStarted 2006-04-09Latest 2006-04-21
#26423Post 1 of 58

If this is even the slightest bit true, all I can say is please god, NO!!!!!!!!

[quote] Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites' By Philip Sherwell in Washington (Filed: 09/04/2006)

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.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09.jpg"][IMG]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: 'The new Hitler'Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

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. Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans. This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09a.jpg"][IMG]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09a.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09abig.jpg;jsessionid=CFUSFWGLCDQPTQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0"]Click to enlarge[/URL]Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium". [/quote]

#606860Post 2 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Eh, I have to agree with you man. This would mean total war I guess, we'd be so fucked. Not to mention that it may render some really big area's uninhabitable for a long ass time...He'd have a better shot with some special ops IMO.

#606863Post 3 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

We're not going to go after Iran right away. We have our hands full right now with Iraq. So all this crap is just war games. But once the Iraq picture gets better, guess which Iraqi neighbor the military is heading to next. We are all fucked eventually... just not quite yet.

#607041Post 4 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

History has taught us a valuable lesson with this story. The use of nuclear weapons will undoubtedly lead to the extinction of man from the face of the earth and that the use of nuclear weapons should not be left to Bush Jr...

#607065Post 5 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit

#607098Post 6 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=tsesan]We're not going to go after Iran right away. We have our hands full right now with Iraq. So all this crap is just war games. But once the Iraq picture gets better, guess which Iraqi neighbor the military is heading to next. We are all fucked eventually... just not quite yet.[/quote] Isn't it ironic that when the US military has its hands full with Iraq because of non-existing weapons of mass destruction?

#607209Post 7 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

well the plan continues.. Iraq, Iran, Serbia and then North Korea. 2 down 2 to go..

#607218Post 8 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

i wish they would just do it already, then arrest bush. it would kill 2 birds. 1. we get rid of the middle east problem, and 2. we get rid of our problem.

#607366Post 9 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

we gotta take them out before they take us out

#607373Post 10 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[FONT=verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ffffff][COLOR=Silver]All this racket came from a New Yorker article, all the officials in the US and UK have denied it. I don't see it happening anytime soon tbh. Pre-emptive war with Iraq was discussed openly by the admin for months on end, a nuclear attack would not be something they'd do on a whim. The 'nuclear option' is always on the table with these people, reporting that doesn't make it any more likely to happen. [/COLOR] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

#607702Post 11 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=runningman]well the plan continues.. Iraq, Iran, [B]Serbia[/B] and then North Korea. 2 down 2 to go..[/quote]

SERBIA?????????

Oh, you mean SYRIA :roll: :roll: :roll:

#607713Post 12 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

well.....either way,,,, they did whatever they fuck they wanted to. as todays news headlines of ""iran has enriched material."" so now we play the scolding game and issue earning after warning until i guess isreal becomes a giant pothole then we will act.

#607785Post 13 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Support another revolution ;)

#608045Post 14 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=thesightless]i wish they would just do it already, then arrest bush. it would kill 2 birds. 1. we get rid of the middle east problem, and 2. we get rid of our problem.[/quote]

get rid of the middle east problem? :lol:

how did you put the 2 together?

#608075Post 15 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=sono]get rid of the middle east problem? :lol:

how did you put the 2 together?[/quote] Simple: big bomb craters cause less shit than fundamentalist wankers with powertoys that go "boom"

Kapish? 8)

Hell, maybe those craters will eventually fill up with water providing the ideal setting for a theme park or a new spot for Club Med to open shop...

#608088Post 16 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Didn't Bush call this wild speculation? I doubt its wild speculation because I heard Rumsfeld speak about how the Defense Department works on war strategies for many countries and situations. I'm sure there are DOD guys have worked out every situation imaginable already.

#608098Post 17 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=Yao]Support another revolution ;)[/quote]

Yeah 'cos the last won worked really well didnt man!

None of you fret, the IAF is on it, Mossad is on the ground, and targets being sought.

While you all continue to pontificate and argue through the SC we'll do what we did with Iraq in the 80's. :lol: :lol: :lol:

#608140Post 18 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

hmmm, nuclear weapons destroying other nuclear weapons...shit that'd be a hell of an explosion...

#608246Post 19 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=KinKyJ]Simple: big bomb craters cause less shit than fundamentalist wankers with powertoys that go "boom"

Kapish? 8)

Hell, maybe those craters will eventually fill up with water providing the ideal setting for a theme park or a new spot for Club Med to open shop...[/quote]

I didn't know G. Bush hangs around MS :lol:

#608424Post 20 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[QUOTE=davetlv]Yeah 'cos the last won worked really well didnt man!

None of you fret, the IAF is on it, Mossad is on the ground, and targets being sought.

While you all continue to pontificate and argue through the SC we'll do what we did with Iraq in the 80's. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/QUOTE]

lol, be my guest...

How can I forget about the last one, hehee...it was in the year I was born.

#608479Post 21 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

What can i say it's all a setup. It all depends on the Russians in this matter if the US is gonna attack Iran eventually.

Personally i think Iran is nowadays a playball of or forming a coalition with the Russians. Ever since the Russians came into play Iran has become more vicious with it's reactions. Since then that famous statement about Israel is made and the holocaust has been questioned.

So what i think is happening down here is this. The US is seeking reasons to invade Iran to get more control on the oil market to have more influence on nations as China in the near future. On the other hand the Russians are silently getting more aware of their actual potential. To not loose to much influence on what happens worldwide during these times of economical changes they have found in Iran a perfect base to build up their power again. And they have had bands with the country before so why not help them and who knows we might be able to stop the US in Iraq.

What will happen in the next few months or maybe even years is that it will depend on how eager Russia is to stay in control there, quite close to thier homecountry. And it also depends on the actual military power of the Russians.

I strongly hope the Russians do pressure the US quite much and european countries don't look too much at those 'anti-israelian' statements. Cause quite frankly who gives a rat ass if somebody in Iran shouts that Israel should be whiped of the chart. I don't know folks but lately in Italy a minister has said grewsome things about the Dutch too. But well that's Italy so we spend a day or maybe two days on that statement, Berlusconi apoligies and it's back to normal again. But if it's something that Iran says it's like the worst thinkable. While quite probably he said it to one hand get more moral support in his homecountry and on the other hand just to piss people off (knowing the Russians are on his side anyways). In Italy that minister has made the statements about the Dutch for similar reasons.

Personally i hope the international community is able to not react and stop the US for one time. Cause have they ever thought of how terrible the world could become if the US is gonna take over every interesing oil-exporting country in the middle east. The US already has most of Europe in its grip and it will only become more and more. And do you want your local European policy to be more and more dominated by the wishes of the Americans in the near future. Not too mention how deceitful the Bush administration is. Do you want the world to be dominated by somebody who obviously lies and lies all the time AND pushes through very questionable laws as the 'Patriot Act'.

I tell ya in a world dominated by Bush and his administration you'll be fucked in the arse. The Patriot Act makes it almost possible to do whatever they want with your personal information. It gives so much power to intelligence services and the police...no personal data is safe anymore. Everything is logged and if they find something they could just slightly use against you your role is over in that oh-so free democratic world we live in. The Patriot Act is like 21st century gestapo. And the most worrysome thing is that what the Bush administration does is been taken over by European countries. Some have seen that creating fear (whether it exist or not) always helps to push through rules and laws. In todays Holland small parts of the intentions of the Patriot Act have been taken over already and been approved in the Parliament.

So question yourself....

Do you wanna live in a world with more American power, where it could be possible in the next era's that there is coming more and more this show-democracy.....

or do you wanna live in a current world where some assholes who will probably never do anything against you nor your country and who just might happen to create a nuclear bomb (like they dont have thousands of other bombs that might kill hundreds of thousands people as well)

I know what i vote. I give the benefit of the doubt to Iran and like to see the worlds biggest forces more in Balance than to have one absolute dominating force.

#608520Post 22 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

exactly, one big swoop would allow us to not worry about ""extremeism"" and also would give the world enough reason to force the US to find a working government that isnt democrat vs republican. bush would go down, there isnt a single democrat i can find that would be decent in office, so we would look elsewhere.

i.e. if you have a insect problem with a protected species, you have someone you dislike just destroy the nest and queen and they get in trouble for it. 2 birds.1 stone.

#608523Post 23 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

and my daily award to KINKY for using the word kapish.

#608539Post 24 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=thesightless]and my daily award to KINKY for using the word kapish.[/quote]

Fuck Saen, what drugs are you on lately? Yesterday you supported illegal spics in a post, today you're giving me an award... Next thing you know you'll be chanting "Allah Akbar" five times a day... :shock:

GET YOUR FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER!!! :lol:

#608545Post 25 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

thesightless- fiscally conservative, socially liberal self admitted propogandist, speaking in the harshest means possibile on a daily basis.

#608576Post 26 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Well Xess, I think you really hit the spot with that post. Couldn't agree more...

The US (read: the Bush admin) is indeed seeking ways to gain influence or better yet: achieve cultural, political and economical world domination. Not only their actions in the Middle East point that out, also the fact that Bush seizes every opportunity to prevent the EU to develope into a real political power is an illustration of that.

During the Cold War, the European block was an important buffer against the communists. Tactical weapons were installed all over Europe and we were given chocolats and presents in order to tag along with it. I'm not saying this was wrong, but when the Wall dropped and the USSR collapsed, the presents and chocolats were replaced by a policy to prevent the EU taking the place of the former USSR as world power. It's only under the Bush admin and especially the period just before the invasion of Iraq that this became blatantly clear.

So why does Bush shows such a Middle East obsession?

Within this and let's say 30 to 50 years it's very plausible that we're going to have another World War. This time not because of territory or religion or whatever, but because of oil shortages. We know now for how long more or less we can keep on pumping oil, so it's no surprise that the US tries to gain control over the Middle East. If you know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because their oil supplies were cut off, you can only start to imagine what is going to happen when oil becomes scarce and the US controls the majority of the reserves... Oil (and energy as a whole) will become a powerfull weapon. Not of Mass Destruction, but of Mass Domination. We've already had an example of that when Russia started threaten to shut down the gas supply to the Ukraine...

Although I'm not per se anti-American (I'm just anti-Bush), I think as far as the short term in concerned, the political balance should be restored. The EU should succeed in becoming a political, economical and military super power next to the US. If we don't, it won't be long before the Muslim countries start organising themselves to form a unified block against the "American agressor". I don't think any of us want the latter...

#608579Post 27 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=thesightless]thesightless- fiscally conservative, socially liberal self admitted propogandist, speaking in the harshest means possibile on a daily basis.[/quote]

Now there's a nice text to put on your tombstone :lol:

#608653Post 28 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Here's the facts -- Iran is enriching uranium and plans to expand the nuclear program(see today's news). The Iranian President recently said that he would like to wipe out Israel.

From those facts, you Bush haters have turned that around to say Bush wants to dominate the Middle East. Those are crazy conspiracy theories that the liberal media wouldn't even touch. They're too busy covering racism and immigration btw.

Put down the pipe or bottle and get with reality.

#608708Post 29 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

superdave, you are 100% correct, HOWEVER we cant just nuke a ppl because thier leader is a fucking nutbag. and after Iraq, the world wont look at the USA like we shuold be looked at. i.e. even if we try to help, or simply stop the programme, we look worse, and iran will continue just as saddam did, but now no one will grow the balls to act b/c the retard in DC got so over agressive we look terrible. listen in a perfect world, they wouldnt even taunt it, and if they did all of the planet would be for immedietly destroying thier facilities, but now we will wait for isreal or a european nation to be on the red line with iran before anyone stops thier weapons programm.

#608852Post 30 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=superdave]Here's the facts -- Iran is enriching uranium and plans to expand the nuclear program(see today's news). The Iranian President recently said that he would like to wipe out Israel.

From those facts, you Bush haters have turned that around to say Bush wants to dominate the Middle East. Those are crazy conspiracy theories that the liberal media wouldn't even touch. They're too busy covering racism and immigration btw.

Put down the pipe or bottle and get with reality.[/quote]

Hello!!! just like the sightless says...he's just a nutbag. Do you really think by any chance Iran wants to attack Israel. What the heck could they gain with that. And if they do attack Israel within no time Teheran would be another Hiroshima.

Btw have you read this part of what i wrote: [I]"don't look too much at those 'anti-israelian' statements. Cause quite frankly who gives a rat ass if somebody in Iran shouts that Israel should be whiped of the chart. I don't know folks but lately in Italy a minister has said grewsome things about the Dutch too. But well that's Italy so we spend a day or maybe two days on that statement, Berlusconi apoligies and it's back to normal again. But if it's something that Iran says it's like the worst thinkable. While quite probably he said it to one hand get more moral support in his homecountry and on the other hand just to piss people off (knowing the Russians are on his side anyways). In Italy that minister has made the statements about the Dutch for similar reasons."

[/I]So you would honestly want to take Iran down because one nutcase shouts something populair to get more support in his homecountry and just to piss people off (like millions do on the internet). That statement is just purely political.

Besides what is there to fear anyway with the development of a possible nuclear bomb. Like i said you can kill thousands of people to with all the other bombs they already have. And the 'Cold War' has proven that in 30 years time no president had the guts to use nuclear weapons (although it has gotten close a few times). Well we ain't anywhere near that situation with a quite small country as Iran.

And one more thing: have you ever thought about the nuclear power of Israel. Israel wasn't allowed just as Iran to enrich uranium cause of that non-proliferation act (do i spell that right). But Israel has set up nuclear facilities (in secrecy) anyway and of course not only to supply the country with electricity. The guy who filmed in that facility and sold the images to a british newspaper has been locked away....

I quote: "[I]Mordechai Vanunu worked as a nuclear technician at Dimona, Israel's secret nuclear installation from 1976 to 1985. He worked there at a time when Israel was insisting it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. What Vanunu discovered is that Israel had secretly developed an extensive nuclear program, hiding its existence from the Israeli people and parliament, and the world. [/I][I]Vanunu leaked information and photos of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the Sunday Times in London. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli spy agency Mossad in Italy and then jailed. He would go on to spend 18 years behind bars including 11 in solitary confinement."[/I]

But hey who cares that Israel did that in the past. Israel was/is a small brother of the USA so why bother. Isn't that a bit measuring with two measures.

What i'm all saying with this Superdave...do your homework first before you listen to some stupid blown-up statements by a nutcase. Don't you see that your government wants you to believe that its very very bad country that Iran which (and that will be lighted out more in the near future) supports possible terrorist. Havent your governemnt told the exact same about Iraq. Well still to this day nobody has proved that Iraq (or some extremist over there) ever formed a threat to the US. And in Iraq there have never been found any chemical weapons. So superdave try to reflect on your deceitful government first before saying something else

#608977Post 31 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[QUOTE]Do you really think Iran wants to attack isreal?[/QUOTE]

abso-fucking-lutely, but they are waiting for the hamas lead government to do something so they can act as a defender, just as america does. and frankly, there are a few hundred million people from the northern coast of africa to pakistan and indonesia that would be extremely happy about it.

#609017Post 32 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Well yeah but there has to be something in it. You not just gonna attack a small-ass country with like zero importance for fun. Of course lots of people from all over the globe would wish to see Israel collapse, but quite frankly only the direct surrounding countries might have a firm wish that could once lead to a war.

I wouldn't deny however that they would support the Hamas. That could well be the case. Could be they make secret weapon deliviries to the Hamas (if they havent been doing that for the past decades already). But really attack them....nah dont think so.

Attacking Israel could well lead to world-war and what is their to gain in Israel. It would be more thinkable they might ever invade Iraq and Kuwait with the weapons they have. Iraq is also into the direction of Saoedi Arabia where people live with similar thoughts as in Iran. Why go westwards to attack a tiny spot if you could move southwards to really try to form that one big muslim coalition.

#609038Post 33 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=Xessex] And one more thing: have you ever thought about the nuclear power of Israel. Israel wasn't allowed just as Iran to enrich uranium cause of that non-proliferation act (do i spell that right). But Israel has set up nuclear facilities (in secrecy) anyway and of course not only to supply the country with electricity. The guy who filmed in that facility and sold the images to a british newspaper has been locked away....

But hey who cares that Israel did that in the past. Israel was/is a small brother of the USA so why bother. Isn't that a bit measuring with two measures.[/quote] Nice to have you aborad Xessex - fresh meat is always good inthe politics forum :lol:

Now lets get down to business shall we. . . [LIST] []If Israel has got nuclear weapons she got them PRIOR to the creation of the NPT (which by the way was in 1968 ) []The country most to blame for giving, or not giving :lol:, Israel these facilities was actually France, or maybe it wasnt. . . . ;) []Vanunu is no longer in prison, although he is still monitored - after all he is traitor to his country. []Israel has NEVER been a signatory to the NPT (unlike Iran who still are) - (btw there are various threads here about this exact issue so look them up to see my views before flamming me ;) )[/LIST][quote=Xessex] What i'm all saying with this Superdave...do your homework first before you listen to some stupid blown-up statements by a nutcase. [/quote] Sir, or madam, I would encourage you to do as you preach.

The lunatic masquarding as President of Iran has stated on more than one occasion that my country should be wiped off the map. Now they claim to have the ability to enrich uranium. And you think we should not take him seriously?

#609039Post 34 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=Xessex] Why go westwards to attack a tiny spot if you could move southwards to really try to form that one big muslim coalition.[/quote] What better way for uniting the Arab/Muslim world and placing yourself as their leader than by destroying the Jewish state. Its not rocket science old chap. . . or maybe it is :roll: :roll:

#609059Post 35 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=davetlv]What better way for uniting the Arab/Muslim world and placing yourself as their leader than by destroying the Jewish state. Its not rocket science old chap. . . or maybe it is :roll: :roll:[/quote]

Yeah but that would mean war with the US as well. I think from Iran's point of perspective seen it would be more effective to attack the US in Iraq than Israel.

Although if you would use 'Afghanistan' as an example it is thinkable to attack a country just to gain some sympathy. That i'll have to give you.

#609065Post 36 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

I think the Iranian nut-bags comments on Isreal were just a cynical attempt to endear himself with the population, that kind of stuff probably goes down well with your average Tehran dweller.

The fact is that he wouldn't have the balls to nuke anybody, let alone Isreal cause he knows the country currently called Iran would become a giant fireball.

The main risk with states like Iran going nuclear is the serious nut-jobs taking over the asylum, how real a risk that is I dont know. What I do know is that India and Pakistan both have nuclear capability, have their own share of nut-jobs, and are pointing guns at each other in Kashmir as I write this. There isnt any oil though so I very much doubt there is a US invasion likely any time soon.

#609082Post 37 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=davetlv]Nice to have you aborad Xessex - fresh meat is always good inthe politics forum :lol:

Now lets get down to business shall we. . .[LIST] []If Israel has got nuclear weapons she got them PRIOR to the creation of the NPT (which by the way was in 1968 ) []The country most to blame for giving, or not giving :lol:, Israel these facilities was actually France, or maybe it wasnt. . . . ;) []Vanunu is no longer in prison, although he is still monitored - after all he is traitor to his country. []Israel has NEVER been a signatory to the NPT (unlike Iran who still are) - (btw there are various threads here about this exact issue so look them up to see my views before flamming me ;) )[/LIST][/quote] Well hello to you too. I'm delightful to finally participate in some political forum.

Owkay i'm first gonna admit i never done any homework. Usually i just remember loose data which on certain times i can put together to form a sort of image of what is happening, to make an analysis of my own. I normally dont need Michael Moore to do that for me :).

So on certain points i can always be somewhat wrong. Forgive me then about not signing the NPT. I shouldn't have mentioned it anyways cause such acts usually have only symbolic meaning and even more only a limited time-period in which it is being lived by.

And about the French, well they are like the mild western version of Iran. If they can piss people of (with things they have done themselves just as well) they'l just do it. But hey they are the French :P

Doesn't leave out of the question that it has been allowed by the world of Israel to become a true nuclear force. And thats why i find the whole discussions about nuclear facilities etc a bit measuring with two measures. If countries havent signed that act it's fine they do get nuclear power (as long as they are on our side) and if somebody did sign it woehoe all hell breaks loose.

To get back to the French then... what about their nuclear tests on that Atol in the pacific. When like Pakistan, China, India, North Korea would even consider this the whole world seems to put pressure on those countries to go go through with it (while they in secrecy do it probably anywayzs). But when they French do it it only leads to large protest by people who care about the environment, so environmental activists which have very little influence on world scale.

It's just measuring with two measures. Not that i'm saying to offer Iran all the space to make nuclear boms. No of curse not, but there might be other ways to make sure they only get a very limited amount of nuclear boms or stall it that it costs decades to make a good bomb, thus making it so expensive that they might not push it through.

#609100Post 38 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[quote=Xessex] Doesn't leave out of the question that it has been allowed by the world of Israel to become a true nuclear force. And thats why i find the whole discussions about nuclear facilities etc a bit measuring with two measures. If countries havent signed that act it's fine they do get nuclear power (as long as they are on our side) and if somebody did sign it woehoe all hell breaks loose. [/quote]

For countries that have signed the NPT they can not share that technology with anyone else.

Israel developed, if indeed we have them, nuclear programme in the 50's prior to the NPT.

The issue should be more about ensuring that EVERY nation is a signatory, and that the IAEA has real teeth to enforce the act.

As it stands, the IAEA is a waste of space.

#609381Post 39 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

I'm not endorsing nuclear strikes against Iran, but we should definitely do airstrikes to stop them from expanding their nuclear capabilities. The President of Iran knows the U.S. is stretched thin in Iraq with troops and the Iraq war isn't popular in America. That said, the Iranian President will push forward with nuclear technology until he's attacked.

Saddam was years away from WMD's and he was a dictator who wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. Consider that fact and I would think the Iranian president would put his country and people at risk to defy the rest of the world.

At this point, I have very little faith in the U.N. or Russia to solve this Iranian nuclear problem. And here's the thing, the rest of the world doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, but no one will do anything about it.

And throw this information to ignite the fire further, both Presidents of Iran and the U.S. are highly religious people who believe they have a role in end times.

#609418Post 40 of 58

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Its worth remebering that having a nuclear power station is a long way off having a nuclear bomb. It always strikes me as hypocritical for nations with these facilities to tell other nations they cant have them. In the same way that european nations tell brazil not to chop the forest. We replaced ours with grazing land years ago.

Log in to reply