This ought to scare us all

Here's the cited New Yorker article.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

 

Gee, I wonder why?

Let's face it, anyone here stupid enough to think the Iranians WON'T start lobbing nukes when (if they haven't already) they get their hands on them?

Oh, yeah, we need "PROOF" he's going to use them right....

 

Im sure here is plenty of russian nukes availible for sale from russia, since they went bankrupt to the highest bidder....

I really do not know, but I have noticed a lot of the 3rd world countries using russian & chinese weapons so why couldnt they get thier hands on nuculer weapons??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Apr 8 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]236882[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and his name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 8 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]236894[/snapback]</div>

Really? Did you see on craigslist or somewhere?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jim1eye @ Apr 8 2006, 02:27 PM) [snapback]236907[/snapback]</div>

They're both madmen, both believe in the rapture and are hellbent to take the world with them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 8 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]236923[/snapback]</div>

Oh, so *that* explains the odd ebay listing I saw. $200 million cash seems a bit steep though.

 

I'm curious, how much does a russian nuke cost?

Can Bill Gates or Ted Turner get one? Can I? If I get one, what kind of instruction or scientist do I need to baby it?

 

Ok I read the article and the only thing scary was the nutjob who wrote the article:

"... a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government ..."

Oh yeah, like *that* has worked for us before. More like "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will unite the entire Muslim world against the West, stop oil shipments, and send the U.S. into another dark age ..."

The ironic thing is that my parents purchased a book in 1968 called "The Rich and Super Rich," by Ferdinand Lundberg, that pretty much spelled out the danger from the nutty right: NeoCon's, Moonies, etc.

How come we can't learn from history??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Apr 8 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]236939[/snapback]</div>

C'mon, Jay, you're smarter than that. Seymour Hersh is anything but a nutjob. He's been the New Yorker's main man in DC for years. He was quoting a "former defense official" who said that (that is, that the military premise for these plans is that...blah blah).

It's the people who think that premise has credibility who are the nutjobs.

This is not news, BTW. This preparation was leaked around a month ago.

 

Sorry I meant "source" not "author." The "source" is very much a scary nutjob. Would probably order B2's to carpet-bomb Edmonton if he could get away with it.

 

Oh yeah, like *that* has worked for us before. More like "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will unite the entire Muslim world against the West, stop oil shipments, and send the U.S. into another dark age ..."

The ironic thing is that my parents purchased a book in 1968 called "The Rich and Super Rich," by Ferdinand Lundberg (a liberalist), that pretty much spelled out the danger from the nutty right: NeoCon's, Moonies, etc.



Maybe another dark age is what we need to have happen to open everyones eyes..
(kinda like giving a teenager a car for free and they tear it up, or make the teen work for the car and pay for it them selves and they take care of the car)..

O/T: For those who read these post and see people throwing out names like: NeoCon's, Moonies, Libercons & Cons.. below is a brief explanation for those terms..

Moonies?
The term 'Moonies' is a derogatory term for members of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Movement. Members prefer the term Unificationist.

************************************************************************************
LiberalCon:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

conservative:
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920sâ€

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Apr 8 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]236961[/snapback]</div>

Will bombs detonate that far north? Or only if you score a direct hit on some carpet?

 

Seymour Hersch is not a nutjob, but he has been CONSISTENTLY wrong about our efforts in the Mideast. He predicted a Taliban victory in Afghanistan against the US forces. 10 days before Bahgdad fell, he wrote a piece predicting that the coalition forces would stall and ultimately fail in the invasion. I don't know anything about his sources; but, if recent history holds, his sources and his information are, at best, flawed. I can understand if Iran scares you. But Seymour Hersch? Forget it!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Apr 8 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]236882[/snapback]</div>

They're both madmen, and "When elephants fight, the grass suffers." (Old African proverb.)

This has been U.S. military theory since forever, and it always has the opposite effect: it unites the population against the attacker and behind the government, even if they hate their own government.

Think about it: If the U.S. were invanded, would you support the invaders just because the party you hate was in power? Of course not. Nobody does, anywhere. Getting rid of the religious nutjob government in Iran would be great, if you could do it, but the only thing bombing will do (as another poster already said) is unite the entire Muslim world against us, and, if they bomb the enrichment facility they'll spread uranium all over the place.

But Bush would probably love to initiate armegeddon.

Getting rid of the religious nutjob government here in the U.S. would be a great idea, too. But whether it's Iran or the U.S., violence ain't gonna do the job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 8 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]236978[/snapback]</div>

I don’t agree with your definition of NeoConservative as being “intellectuals.†If anything, they are against intellectuals hence their support of “creative design.â€

It seems nothing changes and history repeats itself. I’d like to quote from ‘The Rich and the Super Rich,†by Ferdinand Lundberg, which my parents purchased new in 1968:

“A Note on Neo-Conservatism: All the neo-conservatives from H.L. Hunt and Barry Goldwater on down resemble Buckley in that, whatever their rated wealth (which is usually small), they are insecure. Some feel subjectively more insecure than others; all are objectively insecure in a changing world …â€

“ … envying the big corporations and wishing to be included among them, they direct most of their fire against the cost-raising social aspirations of the people … the Goldwaters and the Buckleys, with their obscure department stores and oil concessions, are in a different boat. They have begun to suspect that they may never make it to the top, there to preen before the photographers. Sad, sad …â€

“… accommodation has its own special word in the vocabulary of neo-conservatism. It is: Communism. The neo-conservatives or radical rightists, like the radical leftists, are discontented … they foresee being thrown out of the Property Party; for many of them, in fact, are heavily indebted to the banks … these self-dubbed “conservatives†sound like inverted Marxists in yachting clothes.â€

I consider myself to be a “classic†Conservative: no debt, thrifty, not a showoff, modest but “real†savings and investments, belief in very small government, etc. That directly contradicts what the Republicans are now, indeed what “conservatives†are now, and I have no use for them.

If I was still living in the U.S. I would be voting Libertarian.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ Apr 8 2006, 10:24 PM) [snapback]237030[/snapback]</div>

Good point the extreme cold temperatures would probably cause the proximity fuse to malfunction, unless the carpet bombing is done on nice soft carpet. I'd think the bombing campaign would have to be done the first week in August when the temps might get above freezing

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn @ Apr 9 2006, 08:08 AM) [snapback]237114[/snapback]</div>

Isnt he a hard leftwing liberal? He is always on liberal radio & media stations...