• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Retains The Option Of A Nuclear Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
"We", the Allied Forces, TWAT, call it what you want, have been bombing Iraq on a regular basis since Gulf War I, "we" also still bomb Afghanistan - how many Al Qaida casualties as a result of these raids? and how many locals have been killed or injured? - "we" have bombed many. many peoples and countries all because "we" perceived them to be more violent than us. Can't you see the perversity of that reasoning?
 
A liitle bit off thread but ...
who is it that's behind bush, i.e. who're the puppeteer(s) that are really controlling the situation, and what are they trying to achieve here? Is it daddy, trying to finish what he started or oil barons trying to secure more of a future or a bunch of zealous patriots, or all of the above? Who really has their hand over the big red button?

I don't know enough of American politics to answer this, anyone?

(note: am using the phrase "puppeteers" in a stricytly dramatic sense, not in a mutant reptiles taking over the world conspiracy sense)

:)
 
siriuss said:
A liitle bit off thread but ...
who is it that's behind bush, i.e. who're the puppeteer(s) that are really controlling the situation, and what are they trying to achieve here? Is it daddy, trying to finish what he started or oil barons trying to secure more of a future or a bunch of zealous patriots, or all of the above? Who really has their hand over the big red button?

I don't know enough of American politics to answer this, anyone?

(note: am using the phrase "puppeteers" in a stricytly dramatic sense, not in a mutant reptiles taking over the world conspiracy sense)

:)

Tony Blair :D
 
Siriuss, read 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore. Scary and informative
 
siriuss said:
don't you mean Cherie?:)

So 'Thrice convicted conman' Peter Foster is actually the Power behind the western throne??

*Shudders* :eek!!!!:
 
Adrian Veidt said:
Siriuss, read 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore. Scary and informative

What does Michael Moore say? I can't afford to buy any more books at the mo (see whinge thread)
 
Well, I'm paraphrasing a whole section of his book (so before anyone gets up in arms, read the book, don't blame me.) But his basic stance is that Dubya had the presidency effectively bought for him by his fathers old cronies (Cheney et al) and is just a puppet, doing what he's told.
 
ghost dog said:
from that link:

"From 1995 until 2000, Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton Co., a Texas construction and engineering outfit that services oil companies. He left the company to head the vice presidential selection committee. The group vetted several possibilities, but he himself emerged as Bush's top choice. "

Any wonder why there's a need to go to war with Iraq? They're never gonna nuke a valuable oil resource like that, which is really whats at the bottom of all of this. I wonder what sort of a cut Great britain gets for supporting this sham?
Oh No!! Not the great "it's about oil conspiracy". Here is what is going to happen:The UN has successfully tied Bush's hands with the weapons inspectors nonsense. The U.S. will back down at the last minute and he will lose his presidency in '04 to some socialist liberal,say John Kerry. In 2012 a mushroom cloud will be seen over San Francisco or London or even New York and everyone will blame Bush. "Why didn't Bush take him out when he had the chance?" will be the mantra.:eek: :eek:
 
Errm?

Originally posted by, glurm:In 2012 a mushroom cloud will be seen over San Francisco or London or even New York and everyone will blame Bush. "Why didn't Bush take him out when he had the chance?" will be the mantra.
Who would that be glurm? I'm getting confused.
 
I love the 'weapons inspectors nonsense' there is the biggest chunk of crass hypocrisy I've seen written yet on this subject. If the inspectors had done what the US govt had wanted then they'd have provided the excuse for war. But as they haven't then their findings are nonsense. Wonderful. Well done. You'll be a top politician yet.
 
I think the "we [meaning US--get it?] bomb them" reasoning was beautiful. Do coalitions and the UN mean nothing if they coincide with American interests? Or is it better that the US bear the brunt (and subsequent blame) for enforcing international will?

Has anyone considered the idea that, by threatening unilateral action,* Bush was able to motivate the UN to actually do something apart from issue toothless resolutions?

This talk of "puppeteering" is all very nice and neat. Unfortunately, the Left over here has consistently made the mistake of "misunderestimating" Shrub. He's smarter than people give him credit for. Sadly.

Let's assume that the US and UK will benefit from a regime change in terms of oil. Is this worse than Russia and France having similarly benefitted from no regime change? Is the pile of bodies they're living on more acceptable than the one we (and I do mean we) live on? Just asking.

*There will, of course, be no unilateral action. Either the UN will call for enforcement/punitive action or the US will have England as it's ally.
 
Adrian Veidt said:
I love the 'weapons inspectors nonsense' there is the biggest chunk of crass hypocrisy I've seen written yet on this subject. If the inspectors had done what the US govt had wanted then they'd have provided the excuse for war. But as they haven't then their findings are nonsense. Wonderful. Well done. You'll be a top politician yet.
If you want to find WMDs in Iraq look in basements under nursey schools, old age homes or anyplace where there are innocent, helpless people. That is the kind of people we are dealing with in Iraq. Even if the UN were to find anything they would probably look the other way!!!.:headbutt: :headbutt: :headbutt:
 
The inspections have been rendered moot because the Iraqi government has told us (in 12,000 pages) that they have no WMD. So, that's settled.

Everybody go home. Nothing to see here!
 
Wandering off-thread is certainly a time-honored tradition here - nearly as venerated as Bush-bashing or USA-ripping - but I have to say it is funny how so MANY on this thread are determined to have the "straw man" argument they WANT, instead of the argument before them.

AGAIN... I believe the genesis of this thread was a Bush comment suggesting that if the USA / Western forces / citizens were subjected to chem/bio/nuke attack, a nuclear response was NOT off the table. Some seemed to find this simply horrifynig, and on this board quite a few seem unable to distinguish between this (we refuse to say we will NOT respond with nuclear weapons) and either a "first strike" proclamation or actual INTENT to use nuclear weapons. Bush is simply setting up the strongest possible deterrent. It may or may not work. But it is really that simple.

Not nearly as fun for the Bush bashers as the usual talk of "puppet masters", oil conspiracies, Left-wing flack Michael Moore, and the like..so that is what we get. And lots of it.

Also... I love the 9-11 logic used by many... here and elsewhere.... "If the USA does X, Y, or Z, it will be seen as justifying FURTHER terror attacks". What a recipe for paralysis! I have news for you... there is a big chunk of the Islamic world that NEEDS no additional justification. The mere existence of a free, open, Judeo-Christian-influenced West is affront ENOUGH! It is akin to cowering in your house, hoping you don't "offend" the criminals on your street, lest they violate you again. Sad.

Shadow
 
re: Shadow

Hey !! there's a few that agree with you here (see my "melt them" post a ways back) I understood what Bush was saying ..(I'm a republican an "get it") the left wing will always be like this . But don't worry we're here in the back ground watching and waiting and are ready when need be . By the way Japan is even backing us now (they understand with Korean threat) that You have to play a heavy hand in these things.."the Axis of terror wants us DEAD!! and weather you like it or not left wing or right ..we have to play hard and heavy..we have to let these Islamic terror folks Know that they screw with us they won't have "nobody" to pick on or to "rule" cause will BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF THE WHOLE LOT" its the only thing these ass bits know" threats' and action--you gas us WE nuke you--its that simple--If Iraq tosses a nuke,a virus bomb wwhatever at Isreal, the US, the United Kingdon..we tac nuke 'em!! we Melt portions of "their countries and people until they "get it' period!! and thats the way its gonna be (by the way Gore as you know is out!!) and we have the great George W. Bush again I'm sure to take us to victory!!! Cheers fellow right wingers!!! cheers!!!
 
God bless you, ruff. I hardly agree with a word you say!
 
vMinor Drag God bless you, ruff. I hardly agree with a word

:confused: (what? Minor drag )
 
Last I heard, he made good his escape and may be dead. Except he made a recent taped message. Which may not be his voice.

That should clear things up. :)

Anyhoo, given the "cellular" structure of AlQ, it doesn't behoove the US to limit retribution to one individual, even if it's Bin Laden. The administration stopped talking about him months ago for this reason. Oh, and the other reason that they would probably never catch him.
 
re:So what is the conclusion with the hunt for Bim Laden?

Oh their hunting him alright!!( him and his Lts) the CIA with the new "hit list" will have him and all his croneys looking over there backs (and making mistakes) you now have a very pissed off USA president with smart advisors doing "the wild thing" things will start shapeing up real soon..keep tuning in You'll see!!;)
 
glurm said:
Oh No!! Not the great "it's about oil conspiracy".
:rofl:

(Even the Falklands War was ultimately about oil, mate! ;) )

Don't worry about there being no follow thru with Saddam. He's standing between EXXON and Iran. :D
 
Some say Bin Laden got it in Tora Bora, he was at least seriously wounded. It took 4 years to defeat Hitler and we never found a body (some say his jawbone is in the Kremlin.) If he is alive they will catch him eventually.:yeay: :yeay:
 
OK ppl, I've setup a poll here to get the general opion on the nukes subject, if you wish to vote. Also, you can move any discussion not related to this thread but the wider topic to the poll thread.

Cheers,
Sir.
 
Shadow said:
AGAIN... I believe the genesis of this thread was a Bush comment suggesting that if the USA / Western forces / citizens were subjected to chem/bio/nuke attack, a nuclear response was NOT off the table. Some seemed to find this simply horrifynig, and on this board quite a few seem unable to distinguish between this (we refuse to say we will NOT respond with nuclear weapons) and either a "first strike" proclamation or actual INTENT to use nuclear weapons. Bush is simply setting up the strongest possible deterrent. It may or may not work. But it is really that simple.

I can see what you are saying from a semantic point of view. Bush has not said he WILL be using nuclear weapons BUT, I would suggest that three points are perhaps causing people on this board (myself included) and many people elsewhere to read more into Bush's comment.

1) In the US security policy-thingy which was published earlier this year, [there are links to segments of it somewhere on this site] there is explicit mention of America reserving the right to make pre-emptive nuclear strikes against any country which seeks to match its nuclear capability. Pre-emptive strikes !!! This is very worrying. Seen in this light, Bush's refusal to rule out nuclear strikes against Iraq just adds fuel to people's fears.

2) Everyone knows that the US is now the only true superpower in the World and that it has a huge nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, the mere ownership of nuclear weapons by the US (and indeed any nation) implies that they intend to exercise their use if need be... This is surely deterrant enough, without Bush having to make allusions to nuclear weapons options etc. Especially when no one in Iraq has made any threats to use chem/bio weapons against America... and none have even been found !

I don't (and I doubt many people on this board) seriously believe that Bush is going to launch an all-out nuclear strike against Iraq tomorrow. However, it is sad and troubling when the leader of the world's military superpower and self-styled defender of PEACE starts casually talking of nukes.
 
Dashwood said:
Especially when no one in Iraq has made any threats to use chem/bio weapons against America... and none have even been found !

Your points are well made and taken, Dashwood.

However, the above quote is simply not true. UNSCOM (sp?) found tons of chemical weapon material (and destroyed it) in the 90s.

If you're saying that none have been found lately and then jump to the conclusion that there might not be any to find, that's naive.
 
AndroMan said:
:rofl:

(Even the Falklands War was ultimately about oil, mate! ;) )

Of course it was. I hardly think that little shit stain on the arse of the world was worth all that hassle for any merits of its own. But we had the moral high ground that time, and we didn't start talking out of our arses about invading Argentina or any of this 'Axis of Evil' bullshit.
 
Inverurie Jones said:
But we had the moral high ground that time, and we didn't start talking out of our arses about invading Argentina or any of this 'Axis of Evil' bullshit.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top