Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sloth you obviously have forgetten that Saddam had a year before the invasion to hide weapons in an area the size of Texas. Or the Syrians might have them. …

There is a theory that the recent Israeli raid on Syria blew up a nuke factory made from Saddam’s old stuff.

No one has really talked about it for months so I think the Syrians really had something to hide.[/quote]

Why exactly would a dictator who’s being threatened hide weapons in another country? Wouldn’t you keep them at arm’s reach to make sure whoever attacks you gets a black eye?

maybe that’s what he did.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sloth you obviously have forgetten that Saddam had a year before the invasion to hide weapons in an area the size of Texas. Or the Syrians might have them. …

There is a theory that the recent Israeli raid on Syria blew up a nuke factory made from Saddam’s old stuff.

No one has really talked about it for months so I think the Syrians really had something to hide.

Why exactly would a dictator who’s being threatened hide weapons in another country? Wouldn’t you keep them at arm’s reach to make sure whoever attacks you gets a black eye?[/quote]

Why did he send his fighter planes to iran during the first war?

And he didn’t have nukes yet.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sloth you obviously have forgetten that Saddam had a year before the invasion to hide weapons in an area the size of Texas. Or the Syrians might have them. …

There is a theory that the recent Israeli raid on Syria blew up a nuke factory made from Saddam’s old stuff.

No one has really talked about it for months so I think the Syrians really had something to hide.

Why exactly would a dictator who’s being threatened hide weapons in another country? Wouldn’t you keep them at arm’s reach to make sure whoever attacks you gets a black eye?

Why did he send his fighter planes to iran during the first war?

And he didn’t have nukes yet.[/quote]

WTF?

I am not going to waste a lot of my time doing a research project on the guardian, but the following link has some info that supports what I am saying.

Point A, the scott trust which owns the guardian was established to keep the guardian a liberal paper.

Point B, the British government which is run by Britains Labour (aka Liberal) party has been accused by several British news organisations of financially subsidising the Guardian by giving it a near monopoly on advertising for public sector jobs.

The Guardian didn’t write the report. That’s a non issue.

Next point. Saddam studied the vietnam war. From that he learned that the American Army wasn’t defeated on the field of battle, it was defeated at home, by the peace movement.

Saddam knew that he could not defeat the Americans, even with wmd. Saddam also knew that using wmd would vindicate President Bush’s assertions that he had wmd.

So if Saddam had used wmd and proven Bush’s case for action, people would have said Bush was a genius, a prophetic visionary and the peace movement would have had to shut the fuck up. If that happened Saddam never would have been able to get the Americans out of Iraq and reestablish his rule.

By not using wmd Saddam has made Bush look the fool and strengthened the peace movement in such a way that America will be suffering the consequences for generations.

Saddam was a cunning bastard, he understood that the best way to defeat the American army is to turn the American public against it.

That is why Saddam didn’t use wmd and instead chose to hide them.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The Guardian didn’t write the report. That’s a non issue.[/quote]

That story came from the Guardian. They are the ones who gave the judgement on the report that it was radical.

Once they started issueing editorial judements on the report the fact that it came from the Guardian did become an issue, because obviously it wasn’t the full report. They chose the snippets that were most likely to arouse the emotions of their readership.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I am not going to waste a lot of my time doing a research project on the guardian, but the following link has some info that supports what I am saying. [/quote]

Is that a joke? The Torygraph, now?

In case you are unaware, the editorial board of that paper openly supported (as in, said “vote for”) the Conservative Party.

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

Really? Then you probably know something the Scott Trust doesn’t know about itself.

Feel free to substantiate your claim.

So, now you’re toning down your speech from “propaganda organ” to “has been accused” of being subsidized? Good.

I’ll remind you that the Scott Trust is a non-profit organization. Pray tell, how the cunning British government manages to influence the Guardian’s political stance by advertising in it?

And, given the paper’s staunch opposition to a war supported all the way by the Labour Party, Tony Blair got ripped off. I don’t recall a single piece praising his wisdom to follow Bush in that obvious blunder.

Paul Craig Roberts says it best…

How Did Western Civilization Get a Monopoly on ‘Moral Conscience’ When It Has No Morality?
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” --Five Western military leaders.

I read the statement three times trying to figure out the typo. Then it hit me, the West has now out-Orwelled Orwell: The West must nuke other countries in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction! In Westernspeak, the West nuking other countries does not qualify as the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The astounding statement comes from a paper prepared for a NATO summit in April by five top military leaders an American, a German, a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and a Brit.

The paper, prepared by men regarded as distinguished leaders and not as escapees from insane asylums, argues that “the West’s values and way of life are under threat, but the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them.” The leaders find that the UN is in the way of the West’s will, as is the European Union which is obstructing NATO and “NATO’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan.”

And that’s a serious matter. If NATO loses its credibility in Afghanistan, Western civilization will collapse just like the Soviet Union. The West just doesn’t realize how weak it is. To strengthen itself, it needs to drop more and larger bombs.

The German military leader blames the Merkel government for contributing to the West’s inability to defend its values by standing in the way of a revival of German militarism. How can Germany be “a reliable partner” for America, he asks, if the German government insists on “special rules” limiting the combat use of its forces in Afghanistan?

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund and a former US State Department official, welcomed the paper as “a wake-up call.” Asmus means a call to wake-up to the threats from the brutal world, not to the lunacy of Western leaders.

Who, what is threatening the West’s values and way of life? Political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, answer the five asylum escapees.

By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean “rapture evangelicals” agitating for Armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel’s undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons?

No. The paranoid military leaders see all the fanaticism, religious and otherwise, and all the threats to humanity as residing outside Western civilization (Israel is inside). The “increasingly brutal world,” of which the leaders warn, is “over there.” Only Muslims are fanatics. All us white guys are rational and sane.

There is nothing brutal about the US/NATO bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, or the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.

All of this, as well as America’s bombing of Somalia, America’s torture dungeons, show trials of “detainees,” and overthrow of elected governments and installation of puppet rulers, is the West’s necessary response to keep the brutal world at bay.

Brutal things happen in the “brutal world” and are entirely the fault of those in the brutal world. None of this would happen if the inhabitants of the brutal world would just do as they are told. How can the civilized world with its monopoly on morality allow people in the brutal world to behave independently? I mean, really! God forbid, they might attack some innocent country.

The “brutal world” consists of those immoral fanatics who object to being marginalized by the West and who reply to mass bombings from the air and to the death and destruction inflicted on them through myriad ways by strapping on a suicide bomb.

Unable to impose its will on countries it has invaded with conventional arms, the West’s military leaders are now prepared to force compliance with the moral world’s will by threatening to nuke those who resist. You see, since the West has the monopoly on morality, truth, and justice, those in the outside world are obviously evil, wicked and brutal. Therefore, as President Bush tells us, it is a simple choice between good and evil, and there’s no better candidate than evil for being nuked. The sooner we can get rid of the brutal world, the sooner we will have “freedom and democracy” everywhere that’s left.

Meanwhile, the United States, the great moral light unto the world, has just prevented the United Nations from censuring Israel, the world’s other great moral light, for cutting off food supplies, medical supplies, and electric power to Gaza. You see, Gaza is in the outside world and is a home of the bad guys. Moreover, the wicked Palestinians there tricked the US when the US allowed them to hold a free election. Instead of electing the US candidate, the wicked voters elected a government that would represent them. The US and Israel overturned the Palestinian election in the West Bank, but those in Gaza clung to the government that they had elected. Now they are going to suffer and die until they elect the government that the US and Israel wants. I mean, how can we expect people in the brutal world to know what’s best for them?

The fact that the UN tried to stop Israel’s just punishment of the Gazans shows how right the five leaders’ report is about the UN being a threat to Western values and way of life. The UN is really against us. This puts the UN in the outside world and makes it a candidate for being nuked if not an outright terrorist organization. As our president said, “you are with us or against us.”

The US and Israel need a puppet government in Palestine so that a ghettoized remnant of Palestine can be turned into a “two state solution.” The two states will be Israel incorporating the stolen West Bank and a Palestinian ghetto without an economy, water, or contiguous borders.

This is necessary in order to protect Israel from the brutal outside world.

Inhabitants of the brutal world are confused about the “self- determination” advocated by Western leaders. It doesn’t mean that those outside Western civilization and Israel should decide for themselves. “Self” means American. The term, so familiar to us, means “American-determination.” The US determines and others obey.

It is the brutal world that causes all the trouble by not obeying.

January 24, 2008

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you wonder I’ve become a traitor on the West’s involvement in the mideast?

When was this option ever taken off the table? This isn’t new…[/quote]

Agreed.
And that is clear to others as well.
From the LA Times this morning, quoting Andrei Lugavoy, once the thallium murderer of Litvinenko in London:

[i]He refers to the fall of the Soviet Union as a blunder. He says he wants Russia’s military might to return to the sweep and power of its Soviet heyday. He accuses U.S. intelligence agencies of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks “because they needed to create a certain mood.”

“I don’t agree that the Cold War is back. It has never ended,” he said. “Any normal Russian person in the 1990s didn’t see anything from the West except insults and humiliation.”

So is this payback time? Lugovoy laughed a little, then spoke deliberately.

“I don’t agree with this biblical saying that if they hit you on one cheek you should turn the other cheek,” he said. “If they hit you on one cheek, you hit them back with a fist.”[/i]

And of course the Kremlin announced its first-strike option.

Now lets all relax. When mutually assured destuction was policy in the Cold War, it was called MAD. MADness worked. Reagan, deploying Pershing missiles in Europe, despite the breast-beating, ended parity with the Soviets; but he did not end MAD or its implications.
20 years later, we can all say “I am MAD and we are going to keep taking it!”

Ok. You folks are saying that a pre-emptive nuclear strike has always been a key option to stop proliferation? Not to stop a clear and present threat of a nuclear strike, but proliferation? One of the authors of the report, Gen Naumann, doesn’t seem convinced this has been NATO’s historical stance.

[i]Gen Naumann admitted the plan’s retention of the nuclear first strike option was “controversial” even among the five authors.

But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option”.[/i]
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23091624-5006003,00.html

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok. You folks are saying that a pre-emptive nuclear strike has always been a key option to stop proliferation? Not to stop a clear and present threat of a nuclear strike, but proliferation? One of the authors of the report, Gen Naumann, doesn’t seem convinced this has been NATO’s historical stance.

[i]Gen Naumann admitted the plan’s retention of the nuclear first strike option was “controversial” even among the five authors.

But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option”.[/i]
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23091624-5006003,00.html

[/quote]

Ah. Now I see. I did not read it that way in context. I saw that a first strike remains a strategic option because other nations would develop operational WMD (a-bombs). It is not necessarilly to be used against programs of development. Perhaps someone in Tehran will read it differently, and that is scary, and not anything new.
Threat and bluster. Somehow I am amply reassured that this will be given voice in Europe–Bucharest, no less–and US nuclear policy is made, not in Brussels, but in DC, or Crawford, or some damn place.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok. You folks are saying that a pre-emptive nuclear strike has always been a key option to stop proliferation? Not to stop a clear and present threat of a nuclear strike, but proliferation? One of the authors of the report, Gen Naumann, doesn’t seem convinced this has been NATO’s historical stance.

[i]Gen Naumann admitted the plan’s retention of the nuclear first strike option was “controversial” even among the five authors.

But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option”.[/i]
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23091624-5006003,00.html

Ah. Now I see. I did not read it that way in context. I saw that a first strike remains a strategic option because other nations would develop operational WMD (a-bombs). It is not necessarilly to be used against programs of development. Perhaps someone in Tehran will read it differently, and that is scary, and not anything new.
Threat and bluster. Somehow I am amply reassured that this will be given voice in Europe–Bucharest, no less–and US nuclear policy is made, not in Brussels, but in DC, or Crawford, or some damn place.
[/quote]

Somehow I am amply reassured that nuclear policy will not be decided on T-Nation.

Perhaps someone in America read it differently, and that is scary, and not anything new.