Is there an issue with Iran grappling to get nuclear weapons? Well as somebody who thinks the world would be better off without them then I would say yes, do I understand why they are trying to build, also a yes. North Korea has the bomb, it is also hostile to America and her allies, of course the US would (hopefully) never attempt to disarm them because it risks nuclear war. Pakistan is a popular hiding place (and maybe holiday destination) for various extremist groups who are hostile to the US, of course Bush wouldn’t go there either because they have the bomb too. Even though Tony Blair said Iraq had the bomb they still went in though. Of course Iraq didn’t, nor did it contain terrorists therefore the US was safe from immediate reprecussions (apart from dieing soldiers, but the Bush administrations kids weren’t out there so that was ok). This has taught the world a valuable lesson: ensure safety from the US by building nukes. Far from trying to stop the creation of WMD in ‘rogue states’, the US and her allies have speeded it up. Soon we’re going to be in that cold war ‘world on brink of destruction’ balance again.
These were some of the same sentiments discussed by some in the CIA. Many political dissidents and foreign leaders made the same observations. I’am in full agreement as the evidence bears this out.
The short sightedness and lack of any kind of reasoning in these two posts makes me scared for the fate of humanity.
Last time I checked N. Korea doesn’t have a nuke capable of doing anything. You forget about Libya abandoning its weapons program as a result of the U.S led war in Iraq. You also claim that Iraq had no terrorist prior to the war which is just ludicrous. Tell that to the families of Israeli victims of Hezzbolloah terrorism whether or not Saddam had and/or funded terrorism, and the government of pakistan has been one of the biggest supporters in the war on terrorism, regardless of what some of the more fanatical dissedents inside of the ISK do.
What makes you think that rogue states weren’t already trying to obtain nukes? Or that they wouldn’t if the U.S. would promise to leave them alone? Why do you think Saddam was trying to get nukes back in the 80s, when the Israelis bombed his plant? And don’t you think the Indian/Pakistani situation had more to do with the Pakistanis building a bomb than any thoughts about the U.S.?
If you think the rogue nations are motivated by the U.S., rather than by knowledge that a nuke is a trump card, you are sadly mistaken.
I’m not too worried about a nuclear weopon being fired via missle form at us anymore. I was wathcing the discovery channel the other night and they are expirimenting with a very very big lazer loaded into a 747 or some other huge plane, putting a team of 7 or so in it all who can fly and keeping it airborne for a week at a time. Refueling it via an air tanker. The lazer itself can hit a moving target well over 500 miles away and will burn right through a rockets casing in about 2 seconds. The lazer cost is about 2 million to build and $1000 to fire it. This is considerably less expensive than many of our current “state of the art” weapons.
They are also working on increasing the power of the lazer and putting it on a satellite, “Regans star wars”.
Take into account the general rule of thumb is that they release info on technology to the public that is roughly 10 years old, I’d say we already have them.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
I wouldn’t count on missile defense just yet. President Clinton had Jimmy Carter negotiate a deal with North Korea to stop producing plutonium, which they did. They then secretly shifted to enriched Uranium. By the time we found out they had at least two nukes and now might have as many as eight. A uranium bomb is what they used on Nagasaki so yes they are capable of something. We are not too sure of what their longest range missile is capable of, we know it can reach guam it might be able to reach the alutians, with a bit more development it might be able to reach Seattle/Vancouver then Chicago. There is a real danger the Japanese might decide to go nuclear if North Korea tests a nuke . About ten years ago I heard it estimated that with their level of technological development the Japanese could harvest used fuel rods from their storage pools and have a working bomb in 30 days. The situation with North Korea could runaway very quickly. There is also evidence from sensors in south Korea that the North Koreans might have a second breeder reactor that is buried inside a mountain somewhere. Time is of the essence on this one. Thanks to the Carter Clinton deal we averted a war but we gave the North Koreans time to develop the bomb. Plus they have sold enriched uranium to the Iranians and god knows who else. This is definately a dangerous situation.
I have to agree Sifu, there are rumours for instance that a Japanese cult has already tested nuclear weapons in the Australian desert, at the time they were recorded as a small earthquake, but some have suggested it was the first private nuke. Hell we all know cults have been making complex nerve agents.
On another topic it is arguable whether Libya did give up its weapons program because of Iraq. A small but crucial country, Malta, was recently invited into the EU. Malta has been one of the only countries in the world to consistantly and outwardly do trade with Libya and Europe. Now it is in the EU it is a direct link for Libyan money with Europe, a stronger link than ever before. It is only reasonable that when Bush was throwing his ‘Axis of Evil’ statements around Gadafi wanted nothing to do with that list- it would compromise the great foot in the door he had. Saddam Husein was grappling for nuclear weapons in the 80s and America didn’t care, hell they gave him conventional ones with which to fight Iran! Now what I would like to know is why only 11,000 troops were sent to Afganistan, wasn’t Bin Laden enemy number 1? How come over 100,000 have been sent to Iraq? Maybe if they’d been sent to Afganistan we’d have Bin Laden just like we have Husein. Of course unlike the Bin Laden family the Husein family doesn’t invest millions in the Bush’s oil company, and lets face it, the poor fella only gets $400,000 a year off the American tax payer so its best not to bite the hand that feeds. Anyway, nukes, maybe T-nation members could club together and buy some plutonium from Russia (of course we’d just be trying to make power stations…)and go nuclear, then get Mag-10 legalised again.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
I have to agree Sifu, there are rumours for instance that a Japanese cult has already tested nuclear weapons in the Australian desert, at the time they were recorded as a small earthquake, but some have suggested it was the first private nuke. Hell we all know cults have been making complex nerve agents.
On another topic it is arguable whether Libya did give up its weapons program because of Iraq. A small but crucial country, Malta, was recently invited into the EU. Malta has been one of the only countries in the world to consistantly and outwardly do trade with Libya and Europe. Now it is in the EU it is a direct link for Libyan money with Europe, a stronger link than ever before. It is only reasonable that when Bush was throwing his ‘Axis of Evil’ statements around Gadafi wanted nothing to do with that list- it would compromise the great foot in the door he had. Saddam Husein was grappling for nuclear weapons in the 80s and America didn’t care, hell they gave him conventional ones with which to fight Iran! Now what I would like to know is why only 11,000 troops were sent to Afganistan, wasn’t Bin Laden enemy number 1? How come over 100,000 have been sent to Iraq? Maybe if they’d been sent to Afganistan we’d have Bin Laden just like we have Husein. Of course unlike the Bin Laden family the Husein family doesn’t invest millions in the Bush’s oil company, and lets face it, the poor fella only gets $400,000 a year off the American tax payer so its best not to bite the hand that feeds. Anyway, nukes, maybe T-nation members could club together and buy some plutonium from Russia (of course we’d just be trying to make power stations…)and go nuclear, then get Mag-10 legalised again. [/quote]
Put down the copy of the Guardian and back away from the window.
Libya could get access to markets itself by behaving. The west will bend over backwards for any dictator who seems to be making an effort, which is what Gaddafi did – he didn’t need Malta for that. Perhaps it makes it easier on the margins, but one could hardly assume it was the raison d’etre for the Libyan action. More likely, Gaddafi realized his program was years away from bearing fruit, but his links to terrorism were dangerous for his regime given what he was viewing, so he made a calculated move to curry favor.
Which, actually, plays into the idea that Bush’s Axis of Evil speech is, in fact, helping to isolate those nations, if even the likes of Libya reads the tea leaves and decides to behave and curry favor with Europe rather than with Tehran. Which would imply the Axis of Evil speech had a positive effect…
As to the idea that the U.S. didn’t care that Saddam was attempting to get nukes in the 80s, that is false. The U.S. knew what Israel was going to do – whether there was the political courage to do anything if the Israelis failed is another matter, which is open to speculation.
As to troops in Afghanistan: How many were needed to overrun the country and throw out the Taliban? Iraq is a bigger country, with more population centers and required a larger force. The point of going in to Afghanistan was to topped the regime that was aiding terrorism. While getting bin Laden is important, the idea that they should occupy the whole country to get one person who is slightly ludicrous. The army isn’t a giant police manhunt unit. I’ve never even heard of a military objective being defined as “getting” a single person. The most important thing in this fight is cutting off the terrorists from state funding and state succor. There is much left to accomplish.
As to the whole “Bush/Bin Laden” trope, once again, leaving aside Michael Moore and the Guardian, there’s no evidence of anything – just tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Even if you look at the supposed co-investments on their face, without even knowing, as I do, that limited partners in private equity funds have no say over directing investments, one could easily note that the bin Ladens invesments didn’t even coincide temporally with even any purported Bush influence. It’s all a bunch of horse manure.
Hopefully Israel will take out Iran’s nuke program so we won’t have to.
According to my intelligence sources (I’m a nationally carried political columnist with 3 million plus readers - I stay in contact with several very credible sources), and the mainstream press, it simply isn’t true that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. In fact, enough sarin and mustard gas has been discovered in Iraq over the last few weeks to kill 1/2 a million people! Moreover, UPI reported last week that three nuclear tipped missiles were found encased in a concrete container, buried in the desert!!! The Iraqi government quickly denied this report Sources (in both the Israeli intelligence community and our own) tell me that they are trying to keep the details of the find from getting out to prevent terrorists and Saddam loyalists from learning how and where they were stored - or that they even existed. The Iraqi militants are already doing their best to find more chemical weapons to use against our forces, as they attempted to do with a sarin shell last month. This info could create absolute panic among the Iraqi civilians, because the insurgents have been targeting and killing them in numbers far greater than they have our troops.
In addition satellite surveillance recorded convoys of loaded trucks traveling from suspected weapons storage sites to Syria and Iran in the weeks leading up to the war.
Oh yeah, and the nuclear materials from Niger - that was confirmed by the Brits and the 9-11 Commission.
I guess Bush didn’t lie after all.
Yeah, sure… they found WMDs but Team Bush has to cover it up to avoid panic. It’s a big cover up.
What paper do you write for, the Daily Kook?
The administration has not commented on the recent findings. The iraqi Governing Council issued the denial. The chemicla weapons and sat photos were reported by Reuters, Scrips-Howard, Knight-Ridder, etc. and the Nukes were reported by UPI (United Press International), hardly “kook” organizations. Moreover, John Warner announced last week that the Senate Committe on Select Intelligence will soon issue a report detailing some of the recent findings. Don’t blame your ignorance on the administration.
You’re full of crap. The insurgents didn’t know it was a sarin shell, it was attempted to be used as a conventional shell. The shell didn’t even go off as intended. They didn’t know what they had.
You imply that the Iraqi fighters are trying to find “more” chemical weapons, but so far NO chemical or biological weapons have been used against our troops. Gee whiz, with their huge “stockpiles” you’d think they’d be using that stuff every day!
conservativejud,
I read your post with extreme interest. I thought the immediate denials of the nukes were a little suspicious. The American Colonel in Tikrit calling such statements “stupid” sounded a little phoney. Your scenario makes perfect sense.
You’ve hit very close to the mark with Lumpy. He and the Democrats have gone out on a limb believing Saddam when he stated he had no weapons. They don’t understand how ridiculous this notion is. For that to have been true, Saddam would have had to gone on a crash destruction program, not documented this destruction anywhere, after the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. It might be possible in Lumpy’s world. In real life, brutal dictators do nothing against their will unless confronted with strong, united opposition. Clinton and the U.N. do not fit either criteria.
By the way Lumpy, if NUCLEAR WEAPONS HIDDEN UNDER CONCRETE ON TOP OF MISSLES have been found, Bush has a shot at winning New Jersey, Maine, and California.
Talk to you soon,
JeffR.
Lumpy,
You stated, “You’re full of crap. The insurgents didn’t know it was a sarin shell, it was attempted to be used as a conventional shell. The shell didn’t even go off as intended. They didn’t know what they had.”
Why do you lob up these softballs? Ok, I’ll smack you around a little.
Does it strike you as odd that you believe Saddam when he says he had no weapons of mass destruction? Isn’t it odd that you believe in the inherent “goodness” of insurgents? I read the American report stating the shells were marked. Maybe, just maybe, the insurgents knew exactly what they were doing. Most likely, they couldn’t figure out how to deploy them properly. Or do you think they wouldn’t use them if they had them?
Either way, the weapons are there. Saddam has always been a sociopath and a liar. You are in la la land, and I’m having fun!!!
See you in November,
JeffR
Boston Barrister-
So Iraq is 10 times bigger and has 10 times the population? And are you saying the Bin Laden family hasn’t given Bush any money? Moore isn’t the only person to have looked into this. Of course everything Moore says is hippy, liberal shit just because it says things aren’t ok with the world. Next you’ll be telling me America has no imperial intentions, they just want to ‘help’.
Even if the Niger report is untrue, the North Koreans have sold enriched uranium to the Iranians and will probably sell to anyone else. I think Bush scared the shit out of qadaffi and that’s why he gave up his program. The thing we need to be very concerned about is this, qadaffi put a lot of money into the AQ Kahn network to buy a lot of gear which somehow never made it to Libya and we don’t know where it went. This whole thing with Libya changing it’s ways is a sham. Qadaffi has been able to avoid taking responsibility while making this equipment available to the wrong people. We have been double crossed. Qadaffi needs to go. I think the AQ Kahn network should be wieghed very heavily in any discussion about the invasion of Iraq. Saddam had the money and the will to buy in. I think we should also consider that not using WMD while killing one or two soldiers everyday, would be a very effective strategy for undermining the Bush and Blair governments, more so than had he used them. Using WMD would have vindicated the decision to invade.
I have to agree with Boston, 100,000 troops who aren’t trained and equiped for mountaineering in Afghanistan would have been a clusterfuck. It would be political suicide for Bush to suggest what I am about say, but killing Bin Laden might be a mistake. If we kill Bin Laden he will be a martyr of the jihad felled by the zionists and it will be a rallying point. If stress and weak kidneys kill him it will be gods will. Bin Laden fears natural causes more than the delta force. We need to decimate the organization under him first. Otherwise Bin Ladens death will set off a power struggle where competing factions will try to prove themselves worthy by killing westerners. Bin Laden, like Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead. Killing her while leaving parliament intact would not cripple the government is the analogy I would use here.
I have my doubts about some cult making a small nuke. Anything smaller than the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs actually requires a much greater handle on the physics. Achieving a critical mass is the limiting factor. To go smaller you need an excitor to trigger the reaction. I also would wonder why they would go to a first world country to test.
Wrong again Lumpy, the insurgents are actively seeking chem weapons on the black market, some are just better trained than most. Our forces have bust several black market rings, mostly carrying conventional weapons, but that is where some of these weapons are being found. Again, try Google. While at Google, you lefties might want to find the download site for the full 9-11 commission report. They completely dispell the bin Laden/Bush myth. Richard Clarke was the guy who authorized the bin Laden families fight out of the country just after 9-11.
JeffR,
Agreed. It is also hard to explain how all of thos Kurds died if he didn’t have chem weapons. Wait, I got it, maybe the Bush family sent him some arsenic laced water!
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Of course everything Moore says is hippy, liberal shit .[/quote]
yes, yes it is.
Did they put lead sinkers in your meat pie over there.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Boston Barrister-
So Iraq is 10 times bigger and has 10 times the population? [/quote]
No, but I am saying that Iraq had much more technology, centralized population centers and a more well organized army, all of which called for more man power.
Michael Moore is generally full of it. As to bin Laden and Bush, here is what Michael Isikoff had to say about Moore’s insinuations:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/
The Bush-bin Laden family connection. Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family?principally through Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family?who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms?had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group “gained” from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.
As to Moore’s claims generally, I refer you to a wonderful article penned by your compatriot in Slate magazine:
It doesn’t. At least not in the “empire” understanding of imperialism. Why would a country interested in empire go in with the intention of leaving, or try to involve the U.N. and other countries, or have such a small standing army (you need more troops for occupations and enforcement, as we have unfortunately demonstrated in Iraq). The U.S. is not afraid to act in its own interest, but that hardly makes it imperialist.