Seymour Hersh on war plans against Iran

[Skybird]

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government�—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ �—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,� the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes� could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,� specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

[bradclark1]

My thoughts on tactical nuclear weapons is that if once used it will be put on table as an acceptable weapon from then on. That opens up a window to hell.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

very well said Brad... it seems as if we've learned absolutely nothing from the cold war days of the 50s and 60s...

this guy obviously got whatever degree he has, from the Dr. Strangelove School of MADness...
http://datacore.sciflicks.com/dr_strangelove/images/dr_strangelove_large_01.jpg
http://home.att.net/~mikey102/icanwalk.wav


http://images1.moviemarket.co.uk/library/photos/173/173258.jpg
http://home.att.net/~mikey102/mussed.wav



--Mike

[Type941]

My thoughts on tactical nuclear weapons is that if once used it will be put on table as an acceptable weapon from then on. That opens up a window to hell.

Sounds like someone is willing to see how far one can go before being retaliated against. Sounds like 1939. Iran might become an ally to China and then it will be either no way back or pack your GIs and go home scenarios.

Lately I've seen a spur of publicaions that talk about:

1. Ability of USA to withstand a retaliating nuclear atttack (bull****)
2. US having nuclear weapons that destroy things without contamination in mass scale (hence making it ok to use...)
3. US slowly making a push towards the war and again preparing ground for 'if you are not with us, you are against us scenario'
4. Stating flatly that one of its enemies in long run is China
5. Superiority of US nuclear arms to that of Russia and China
6. Hollywood too prepares us for world end.

I hope the protests withing the US "democracy" will gather power like during Vietnam and will withdraw troops from the Gulf before the country ends up like the Roman Empire but with much more deaths.

But it seems that the Americans decided a while ago that a nuclear scenario has to be tested now on Iran in order to control China and Russia in the future. And the people in the "democracy" have absolutely no control over it. China is not Russia. China can actually retaliate. US people should think about that next time they vote a president.

I believe you posted a wrong pic by mistake.
http://datacore.sciflicks.com/dr_strangelove/images/dr_strangelove_large_01.jpg
http://www.submergingmarkets.com/submerging_markets/images/fig.%208.8.%20Henry%20Kissinger.jpg

[moose1am]

Did you people ever hear of psychological warfare? Just wondering.

Iran and evidently you guys have no idea what's really in the plans.

Bush is good at leaking information that he want's out in the press.

Iran blows a lot of smoke. But they better think long and hard about what they do in the future. The USA still has many nukes and can spare to loose a few on Persia if that becomes necessary to stop Iran from getting into the Nuclear Club. That is the last thing this world needs.

[scandium]

Bush is good at leaking information that he want's out in the press.


"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

[The Avon Lady]

Bush is good at leaking information that he want's out in the press.


"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999
Like Seymour Hersch? :hmm: :damn:

[MadMike]

Hersh doesn't know what he's talking about. Why bother with nukes when we have the conventional capability, if needed, to destroy Iran's economic, military, and political infrastructure with sub launched TLAM's, air dropped munitions, and air launched cruise missiles? :know:

Yours, Mike

[Ishmael]

I found this link and downloaded the pdf file. I'm only about halfway through it but find it quite distrubing with the links between Bush, Cheney at al and A.Q.Khan and the Pakistani ICI

AMERICAN JUDAS
Selling the Security of America and the World for 30 Pieces of Silver
By
Robert Paulsen


Introduction

This paper is intended as a supplement to The Waterman Paper and an exploration into Goal #3: Why Cheney Exposed Plame. It involves researching possible connections between businesses connected to Vice President Dick Cheney that may be associated with the sale of WMD components to countries in the Middle East and Asia.

In addition to reviewing known information regarding the “leaking� of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and the nature of her work, there will be an overview of A.Q. Khan’s network of nuclear proliferation, a listing of compromising positions involving financial ties in Cheney’s past and finally an exploration into possible links connecting Cheney to nuclear proliferation markets for profit.

pdf online-
http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[The Avon Lady]

In addition to reviewing known information regarding the “leaking� of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and the nature of her work
Quantifying "known" information:

But what Bush and Cheney authorized had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Joshua Gerstein, who broke the story of Fitzgerald’s document in Thursday’s New York Sun, told Crier the information Bush approved for dissemination was unrelated to “the most sensitive information…[the identity of] Valerie Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson.� Other media outlets also announce this fact.
- Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity.�

- The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.�

- Even the breathless New York Times noted Fitzgerald “stopped short� of accusing Bush or Cheney or any wrongdoing.
Nor have Bush and Cheney been accused of breaking any law. In his Sun article, Gerstein wrote:
The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule…Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.
The Washington Post ran a sidebar indicating, “Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters.�
- The Left's Libby Lie (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21970), by Ben Johnson (see original source links therein)

[Ishmael]

Ahh. But, Avon Lady, did you read the linked PDF file? I finished it tonight and find it very disturbing to see the links between Cheney & Rumsfeld with A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear program, and the apparent nexus of that program, the Taliban and Al Qaeda: the Pakistani Intelligence Service or ICI. Let's remember that A.Q.Khan is still living comfortably in Pakistan after receiving a pardon from Musharraf. I also found interesting the links to the late, unlamented Bank of Credit & Commerce Internatonal or BCCI. Or Rumsfeld's relationship with ABB & their "work" with the North Korean nuclear program.

[moose1am]

I don't know about that. Conventional weapons may not be able to destroy deeply buried labs or factories. They may be buried too deep and fortified too well for convententional weapons to be effective.

That is why I believe that the USA had nuclear weapons that can be dropped from high up and that can penetrate deep into the earth before exploding.

But there has to be a limit on how deep a missile or bomb can travel though the earth.

It worries me that we have guys in the US military who would contemplate using nukes against any country but the fact remains that they do exist.

Hersh doesn't know what he's talking about. Why bother with nukes when we have the conventional capability, if needed, to destroy Iran's economic, military, and political infrastructure with sub launched TLAM's, air dropped munitions, and air launched cruise missiles? :know:

Yours, Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Ahh. But, Avon Lady, did you read the linked PDF file? I finished it tonight and find it very disturbing to see the links between Cheney & Rumsfeld with A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear program, and the apparent nexus of that program, the Taliban and Al Qaeda: the Pakistani Intelligence Service or ICI. Let's remember that A.Q.Khan is still living comfortably in Pakistan after receiving a pardon from Musharraf. I also found interesting the links to the late, unlamented Bank of Credit & Commerce Internatonal or BCCI. Or Rumsfeld's relationship with ABB & their "work" with the North Korean nuclear program.
Just to give you a clue what a waste of time this is, can you recall who was President of the US in the mid-90's, when ABB was bidding for the NK contract, and what was this president's philosophy and practical policy in dealing with a nuclear North Korea?

Oops. Life's little details.

The rest of the links are just that. Links. Tell the story you want to hear and wave the facts together to fit your wishes.

But by all means. Everyone should shout it louder. At some point, sensible writers will delve into it better than you or I can and assign it to the dustbin, along with the daily conspiracies constantly popping up to deligitimize the pols folks love to hate.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't know about that.
Conventional weapons may not be able
They may be buried
That is why I believe
Pattern detected.

What if............................

[Skybird]

I fully agree with Brad. Every way that let appear nukes more "harmless" ("they are so small, aren't they cute!") will make their use more likely. Every nuke used in this affair will make a nuclear terror strike more likely, for retaliation. If that red line is crossed, no matter by whom, nothing good can come from this. And the contamination at location would be enormous, as had been discussed some days ago. To say it is under the earth and thus no contamination takes place is simply a lie, proven wrong by the nuclear tests that had been conducted in the past.

From the beginning, since months, I said that some of the facilties are so deeply hidden inside mountains or under the earth that they may be out of reach for conventional strikes, so that for their destruction they must be infliltrated on the ground, or nuclear bombs must be used. It is a real no win-situation. You better should not go by using them, but you cannot be successful without using them.

There is also a philosophical argument. The one who has used WMDs (and that's whart we are talking about, like it or not) in the first cannot argue any longer that it is only the other side being evil in threatening to use them. A defense (and this is what the bad guys are doing from their perspective) against a nuclear striking america from then on will have the argument of defense on equal terms available.

Preventive strikes for themselves against an attacker that so far has not conducted any deed of attack are already a sensitive enough issue. Using WMD as prevemntive tools is violating any sense of logic and reason, and cannot be justified by use of these. Their use can only be explained by irrational terms. And it will only be like this: "we used WMDs, becausae eventually, maybe, we don't know, Iran would have used them if it would have possessed them. One could never argue that they really were used for self-defending reasons, because one will never know if the future really would have hold an Iranian nuclear attack. Talkijng of prventive strikes? Then europe, Russia or china could reserve the same right to use preventive defense to nuke America if ever a fool like Bush should get elected again, a prooven agressor and propagator of aggressive preventive strikes (and in this case someone who then would have used WMDs for this prupose).

Brad is totally right. This door better remains closed. nuclear weapons are no military, or usable weapons. They are political weapons. Their value lies in their threat, not in their use. I think of this americn General or Colonel from the Vietnam war, where this Vietnamese major city had been c ompletely wiped out by B52 and the place looked like a atomic bomb had gone off, and he said into the cameras: "We had to destroy this city in order to save this city." If that is not queer.

Someone said that Bush is excused from threatening with nukes, since he may only conduct psychological warfare. Well, this could be said about Iran as well. From a strategical perspective, Iran has very good reason to want nukes, even more so since nukes is the only guarantee to keep the preventively striking Americans out (as we have learned in recent years you else get accused of having nukes that you do not have indeed, and get attacked). As I already have summed up here:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650&highlight=

Funny. Before 2003 and the war it brought, I once said in a debate that after Iraq Iran will come up to be the far tougher political and eventually military challenge. It seems the laughter that I earned back then had gone silent.

[Konovalov]

I fully agree with the line of thought here by Skrbird and Brad on this article. Saves my fingers. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

So the world should wag its fingers and shake its fists until?

1. Iran completes its 1st nuke?

2. Iran completes 10 of them?

3. Iran successfully test fires an even longer range missile (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/images/map-long.gif) than then ones currently in stock?

4. Iran mounts its nukes on its missiles?

5. Iran discards all of the above ideas clandestinely divies out dirty nukes to dozens of terrorists worldwide?

6. A nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, London, NY, Paris, Moscow (their turn will come)?

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/336/sitting4am.jpg

Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step -- namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organization has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war. UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon a rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars -- though not, alas, in the interval between them -- I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
- Winston Churchill, "Sinews of Peace" (the Iron Curtain speech), Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946

Read it and weep. :oops:

[Konovalov]

Read it and weep. :oops:

Ok. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

So many questions and so few answers.

[The Avon Lady]

Read it and weep. :oops:

Ok. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

So many questions and so few answers.
You already gave your answer. Essentially you replied "any of the above".

[scandium]

This implies only two choices: either wag its finger or nuclear strike; why are these the only two choices?

So the world should wag its fingers and shake its fists until?

1. Iran completes its 1st nuke?

2. Iran completes 10 of them?

3. Iran successfully test fires an even longer range missile (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/images/map-long.gif) than then ones currently in stock?

4. Iran mounts its nukes on its missiles?

5. Iran discards all of the above ideas clandestinely divies out dirty nukes to dozens of terrorists worldwide?

6. A nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, London, NY, Paris, Moscow (their turn will come)?

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/336/sitting4am.jpg

Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step -- namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organization has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war. UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon a rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars -- though not, alas, in the interval between them -- I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
- Winston Churchill, "Sinews of Peace" (the Iron Curtain speech), Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946

Read it and weep. :oops:

[MadMike]

I got news for ya moose, every tactical and strategic nuclear weapon currently in the US, Russian, British, Chinese, etc arsenal is an "earth penetrator". Ever hear of a ground burst? ;)

To suggest that only the B61-11 can take out Iran's buried facilities, or that it is likely to be used since it's a "low yield weapon with little fallout" is nonsense. The U.S. developed conventional munitions such as the GBU-10 back in '76 (the Disco Era).

More info on Paveway series-

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/index.html

Yours, Mike

[The Avon Lady]

This implies only two choices: either wag its finger or nuclear strike; why are these the only two choices?
Nowhere do I mention what a preemptive strike would consist of. Where do I state that the use of nuclear weapons is a must?

Having said that, I am not qualified to determine what type of weapons such a strike would require. And others that seem to know better are already arguing this specific point above.

But if you want to rephrase the question to say what if only a nuclear strike could stop Iran, then the question still remains.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

what you, and those who subscribe to your doctrine fail to realize, is that the use of nuclear weapons not only sets the precedence for any eventual escalation of the use of same... but the collateral effects are long ranging and long lasting...

you being in that part of the world would be the first to realize this... whatever way the wind blows will determine how many Iraelies, Egyptians, Palestinians, Iranians, and eventually Americans, get sick and die from radiation poisoning...

the fallout does not discriminate...

by initiating a nuclear precedence, you are commiting suicide... the superpowers in the 60s realized this... has the collective IQ levels of the world dropped that far in the past 30 to 40 years...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

what you, and those who subscribe to your doctrine fail to realize, is that the use of nuclear weapons not only sets the precedence for any eventual escalation of the use of same... but the collateral effects are long ranging and long lasting...
1. I realize it.
2. I never stated that nukes must be used. Please point out where I said "must nuke! must nuke!".
you being in that part of the world would be the first to realize this... whatever way the wind blows will determine how many Iraelies, Egyptians, Palestinians, Iranians, and eventually Americans, get sick and die from radiation poisoning...
Actually, the Jordanians would have it worst, if one landed on us.

But again, I am interested in neutralizing Iran's threat to create the very same annihilation you're talking about. If it could be done with a giant piece of fly paper, I'd be happy with that.
the fallout does not discriminate...
So then it's OK if it falls on you or me first?

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Iran's threat!!!!

go ahead and neutralize it... when your children start being born with five eyes and an arm coming out their behinds, your victory will be complete...

why can't you see this...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Iran's threat!!!!

go ahead and neutralize it... when your children start being born with five eyes and an arm coming out their behinds, your victory will be complete...

why can't you see this...
With 5 eyes, I can see everything.

How many eyes will your children have, Mike, when briefcase nukes go off in a town near you.

Got those iodine pills ready, Mike?

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

your paranoia is astounding...

your fear is what drives your hate... and your blindness...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

your paranoia is astounding...

your fear is what drives your hate... and your blindness...
Whatever, Mike.

Now I'm paranoid because I take Iran's pronouncements at face value and you're the stable one over here, putting on a great Neville Chamberlain immitation.

How many people did that buffonery wind up killing, Mike?

Facts drive my fear.

What drives your naivety? :hmm:

[Pole]

your paranoia is astounding...

your fear is what drives your hate... and your blindness...

--Mike

Well, let's see - president of which country said that Israel should be removed from the surface of this planet?...
I can see Lady's point, you know. If someone, who will be soon capable of inflicting such a blow, says openly that it is ok, it makes you wonder. Maybe Heyl ha'Avir will take care of the problem, although it will be much tougher to do it over there.

Pole

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

if anything, i'm putting on a Mahatma Ghandi imitation... true strength lies in your ability to love your enemy...

Chamberlain was naive in the face of what he was aware of... i'm not...

i see the real enemy... and it is not you, nor people who think like you, nor the taliban, or the iranians, nor the soviets in the 50s, nor the boogie man...

it is the fear and ignorance that i told you about when this discussion first started...

if you had the clarity of vision to be able to see the truth, you would understand this...

... but you don't.

in the end, the only thing that wins in a nuclear war, is the bomb... everyone and everything else will be its victims... only your foolishness prevents you from seeing this...

to subscribe to the doctine that a nuclear war is winnable, is nothing less than sheer idiocy...

--Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Well, let's see - president of which country said that Israel should be removed from the surface of this planet?...
so... because of his lack of vision, A Lady's lack of vision is justified...

LOL, i hardly think so...

both of them need to be institutionalized... or at the very least, given new and better eyes from which to view the world...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Yet again I never insisted on having to use nukes.

As for Iran, just who is ignoring what here (http://www.memri.org/iran.html), Mike?

Had you been around in the 30's, you would have most proably ignored Mein Kampf, too.

You're no Chamberlain but I'll grant you one similarity to Ghandi:

"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.
- Mohatma Gandhi, comment to biographer Louis Fischer, June 1946

Go jump off a cliff yourself, Mike - and take your lame heroes with you.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

take your lame heroes with you.

ROTFLMAO...

MY HERO!!!

are you on drugs or something...

i can safely say that the entire world views Ghandi as someone who is a revered person... except maybe those who live in the sewer world that you see as reality... again, you vision of reality is what's clouding your outlook on life...

besides, i don't believe in hero worship... that's for children...

Ghandi, a lame hero... AHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!



--Mike

[Pole]

so... because of his lack of vision, A Lady's lack of vision is justified...


He lacks vision?!? No, he lacks brain if he even conceives and verbalises such ideas. If you think that this is just his idle talk and delusions of grandeur I am afraid you are wrong.
I hope that when they "proudly" announce that they have both physics packages and means of delivery, and their "awesome" president will do, someone drops down a few B61s or B83s. Appeasement policies are worth nothing like the past 90 years have shown.

Pole

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

many lunatics have been asposing the extermination of Israel for decades... centuries even...

how many have succeeded...

this doesn't mean that they aren't very clever... the last guy who fit this mold was smart enough to take over most of Europe... wasn't he...

he failed though, because of his lack of vision... where as my so called 'lame hero', Ghandi, succeeded in creating the sovereign nation of India, due to his clarity of vision...

given these unalterable truths and facts, your arguements, as well as those of the Lady, pale in the face of mine... what do you have to say to that...

plus, noone is promoting appeasing the Iranian President at all... that's all in your imagination... you really should stop stop believing everything you read in the papers Pole... usually, the facts lie somewhere in between those lines...


--Mike

[Pole]

many lunatics have been asposing the extermination of Israel for decades... centuries even...

how many have succeeded...

One almost made it. That's one too much.

you should stop stop believing everything you read in the papers Pole... usually, the facts lie somewhere in between those lines...


When people like you ponder about what's between the lines things like Srebrenica happen and then thers is a big surprise - "my, my, how could it happen?"

Pole

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

One almost made it. That's one too much.
you're wrong... there have been more than one... i think that a guy back around Moses's time also tried... ever hear of that guy...
and i'm sure that you'll find other instances in more recent history where people have tried...

When people like you ponder about what's between the lines
you mistake me for someone that you know... i don't ponder what's in between the lines...


can i ask you a few questions about lines and what lies in between them Pole...

1- which part of Belfast do you live in,the Catholic section, or the Protestant section?

the very question itself would be asked by someone who reads and believes what they see on the news as the truth...

2- which side did you sympathize with in the recent sectarian strife...

3- would you classify all members of the IRA as terrorists...

are ya starting to see how things aren't so cut and dry when they apply to you... and not to some obscur person mentioned on a line of news print...this guy does...


http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire062801.shtml

* In writing about Northern Ireland, American newspapers tend to characterize the two sides as "Catholic" and "Protestant." That is, in fact, quite a fair approximation, but it misses the real point of the conflict.
there's that in between the lines thing again... :cool:

and surprisingly, he goes on to draw the same parallels that i see surfacing here...
Ireland is interesting to me, and I attempt to make it interesting to Americans, as a sort of morality play — an illustration of the difficulties civilization gets into when it has not the courage to deal vigorously with its enemies. The parallel between the events in Northern Ireland and those in the Middle East is striking and obvious, as I have pointed out in a previous column.

ya know, ya can't make this stuff up up guy... :smug:


so again... you, and A Lady's arguements seem a lil flawed... reality is what you fail to factor in.



--Mike

[bradclark1]

Sorry about trying to get back on subject but:

So the world should wag its fingers and shake its fists until?

1. Iran completes its 1st nuke?

2. Iran completes 10 of them?

3. Iran successfully test fires an even longer range missile than then ones currently in stock?

4. Iran mounts its nukes on its missiles?

5. Iran discards all of the above ideas clandestinely divies out dirty nukes to dozens of terrorists worldwide?

6. A nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, London, NY, Paris, Moscow (their turn will come)?


Irans capabilities should be destroyed but without the use of TNW's.
However it also shouldn't be left for the USA/UK to deal with. It is something NATO should get off their a$$ about and deal with. Massive bombardment and air assaults should send the message.

[Skybird]

Brad again scores. I also think that beyond a certain line in the sand this might be considered as a defensive case for Europe and thus, NATO.

But two questions remain:

1. which NATO countries really have a realistic and valuable out-of-area-capability when it comes to hot and massive combat missions?

2. what about those targets that probably cannot be destroyed without nukes or without a ground infiltration (that is limited to the area of the target facility)? A full scale ground invasion is out of question, I assume at least in this aspect every reasonable mind here could agree.

I picked up a news-snippet that the Pentagon is far from happy with Bush's demand to use nukes in an Iran strike, and that they have increased testings of even bigger conventional bombs. Whereas the MOAB hat an efficiency, they said, of around 0.01 kt TNT, and the smallest nuclear bunker buster was described as a bomb in the 0.3 kt-range, they are testing now a conventional bomb that is imntended to simulate a nuclear explosion, it is a weapon of 0.5 kt TNT. If this weapon is meant to replace any nukes in an Iran attack, or if it is only to simulate the use of nukes, so that the public remains calm about this preparation for war (in which the simulating conventional bombs will be replaced with nukes again) is not clear. Clear is that the pnatagon wants to avoid unwelcomed attention by the congress when it comes to budget disucssion that directly affect the money available for developing new nukes.

So this new conventional weapon could mean both things: that they seek a replacement for nukes (if it would do the job I would prefer this solution, because there is no contamination that is typical for nuclear ecxplosions, and the longterm consequences that must be measured in decades); or that they prepare for the use of nukes but do it in a way that does not alarm the public of the upcoming use of nukes in Iran. what is clear is that the MOAB, compared to this new monster, is an almost microscopic weapon only. (0.01 kt compared to 0.5 kt TNT).

Mankind must be made of perverted and retarded maniacs if we spend so much genius and effort for nothing better than just a bigger bang. All in the name of peace and freedom, values and religion. So much for the "crown of evolution."

http://www.dtra.mil/divinestrake/index.cfm

[TLAM Strike]

1. which NATO countries really have a realistic and valuable out-of-area-capability when it comes to hot and massive combat missions?
Two: UK and France. Both have Carrier, Anphib and SS(B)N capablity.

Although Spain and Italy might be able to combined forces and make something creditable.

[MadMike]

"go ahead and neutralize it... when your children start being born with five eyes and an arm coming out their behinds, your victory will be complete... "

Wow, someone's been watching too much SciFi channel. :88) :rotfl: :-j

Yours, Mike

[Type941]

Appeasement policies are worth nothing like the past 90 years have shown.

Pole

please don't say things like this unless you know what you are talking about. Appeasement has been used for 50 years after WW2 and many modern releaders believe it was a valid policy. Why is that do you think?... may be a world war is a sh*tty alternative.

[Oberon]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/brownpau/fark/london-nuked.jpg

No matter what we do...what we write...it's immaterial...
No politician listens to what the people want, he listens to what he wants to listen to, and we're swept along in the wake. Whether it's now or sometime in the next ten-twenty years...it's gonna happen. We all knew that in the Cold War and just because Russia no longer threatens to come rolling down the Fulda Gap it doesn't mean that most of its nuclear arsenal isn't still locked on London, New York, Paris, etc. Eventually someone, it could be the US, it could be Iran, it could even be Israel...someone will use one. What happens next is in the hands of fate...do we find peace then...or on the other side of the curtain of fire?

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_pf.html

Quote:
(...) a senior administration official said. "But part of the risk is: We don't know if Natanz is the only enrichment facility. We could bomb it, take the political cost and still not set them back."

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said a more likely target might be Isfahan, which he visited last year and which appeared lightly defended and above-ground. But he argued that any attack would only firm up Iranian resolve to develop weapons. "Whatever you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it."

[August]

From the article:

"Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that..."

"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that..."

"One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that..."

"One military planner told me that..."

"A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view."

"A former high-level Defense Department official told me that..."

"A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that..."

But who is he quoting exactly? Do these people even exist outside of his head? The last one he even admits his source is someone who wasn't even at the meetings but only "discussed their content" with others who weren't there either.

It's not something i'd take as Gospel...

[The Avon Lady]

But who is he quoting exactly? Do these people even exist outside of his head? The last one he even admits his source is someone who wasn't even at the meetings but only "discussed their content" with others who weren't there either.

It's not something i'd take as Gospel...
Any journalist who would ever confess that "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people...........I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say" (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/) should be considered as reliable as the boy who cried wolf.

[Skybird]

Any journalist not protecting his sources soon would be out of business. For he wouldn't have had any sources left. Rule number one in that business.

Instead of taking cheap shots at unwelcomed opinions and discrediting the messenger, counter by argument what he says. Or give reasonable alternative arguments.

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894766.stm

[The Avon Lady]

Any journalist not protecting his sources soon would be out of business. For he wouldn't have had any sources left. Rule number one in that business.

Instead of taking cheap shots at unwelcomed opinions and discrediting the messenger, counter by argument what he says. Or give reasonable alternative arguments.
Read the rest of the article.

We have a journalist here who constantly protected dozens of anonymous sources. He has a blatant political slant. Numerous "insiders" who have his attention know that they will remain anonymous and can convey whatever they want to this journalist. It will be considered gospel truth and there's no way for a 3rd party to confirm the facts.

Doesn't this bother you? The door for manipulation and backstabbing agendas here is wide open. There's no possibility to corroberate the integrity of the sources, the facts or their motives.

And this has been Hersh's constant signature pattern in his scoops.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the door for abuse here is wide ajar. That's not so much a reflection on Hersh but on his methodology of constant dependence on anonymity. There are a number of instances this methodology is refered to in this otherwise complementary article (http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/4/hersh-sherman.asp) about Hersh.

[The Avon Lady]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894766.stm
Well, there's your alternative argument. Actually, it's an alternative fact. Interesting oxymoron, no? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Youre not bursting any bubbles at all. But again, until you understand that: a journalist who writes about critical, sensitive issues and is depending on insider information, must protect his soucres. Else his sources will be taken care of, leaving him with no potential future source left that ever would be willing to trust him. It is the researcher'S repsonsebility to evaluate the credibility of his sources, yes. Obviously you do not like what had been said in that article and thus do not only ignore the writer, but his sources as well. Only way to judge if what people write is true is to have a look if and how it fits into contexts, bigger pictures, comparisions to previous material. Following the iran issue since years I must say that in my view the - diverse - remarks by Hershey, and the WP article, fits into the picture very well. And he obviopusly had written it in order to provoke debate about these things - and it is exactly like that. It can only be good to bring the issue to the public's attention, so that a solo in decision-making for war (like with Iraq) is less likely. Whereas the Israeli claim, the Iranians are short of having bombs much earlier than let'S say one decade from now on, so far has not been beefed up by any substantial information that is independent from Israeli sources. And Israel cannot claim to be an objective, unbiased mediator concerning Iran.


We have understood by now that you would prefer to bomb Iran back into the stoneage better yesterday than tomorrow, with nukes or not is obviously no concern for you (as indicated in other postings of yours); however your own secret service does not any better than those journalists you are critizising: "sources inside the Israeli intel community" make claims that Iran is short of an engineering brakethrough "within this year" and for that reason must be attacked NOW (where most intels agree that it probably is more likely in the range of one decade or more, like I have argued time and again, too), and you happily act in a way to defend that view of Israel - WITHOUT asking for the validity of YOUR sources. I trust your intel as much as I trusted american intel before Iraq. Bush had already decided for war back then and only was about selling it to the public, and so is Israel.

You remember what the biggest bubbles bursting had been in the recent years? The british missile memo. the niger-uranium deal. the mobile bio weapon labs. All these lies had been set up by government and subordinate structures. and they had been exposed by independent researchers, some of which depending on sources inside governmental structures that they had to protect. Those type of guys that you are criticising.

Concerning the BBC article, i gave it as another perspective on the issue of testing a new class of giant conventional ammunitions. I said:

So this new conventional weapon could mean both things: that they seek a replacement for nukes (if it would do the job I would prefer this solution, because there is no contamination that is typical for nuclear ecxplosions, and the longterm consequences that must be measured in decades); or that they prepare for the use of nukes but do it in a way that does not alarm the public of the upcoming use of nukes in Iran.

It remains unclear if they prepare for a nuclear option that is refused to the public, and covered by simulating nuclear explosions by convnetional megabombs, or if these new bombs are really intended to replace the nulcear option in any military scenario. the BBC article says that the goivernment is denying it plans for nuclear strikes. that is all it says. and it is no surprise. what government in the West would admit in advance that it plans to use nukes...?

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4895212.stm

And more disguising debate pro and contra.

[MadMike]

The pundits on all the major networks are pretty much dismissing Hersh's claims with a laugh (no surprises there).
Would we use nukes againt Iran?
Well, only if our military was at a severe disadvantage (such as Korea in '50). Consider the following-

1. Millions of screaming baseej attack U.S. forces in Iraq.
2. Iran attacks our allies with a nuclear weapon.
3. Simultaneous war in Korea, Iran invades Iraq or Saudi Arabia, China attacks Republic of China... ad naseum.

Current time clock on upcoming Iran conflict, OPLAN's, military order of battle-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm


Yours, Mike

[Konovalov]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4895212.stm

And more disguising debate pro and contra.

Way off topic here but that F117 Nighthawk photo with it's Stars and Stripes paintjob looks absolutely stunning. :|\ :|\

[Wim Libaers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4895212.stm

And more disguising debate pro and contra.

Way off topic here but that F117 Nighthawk photo with it's Stars and Stripes paintjob looks absolutely stunning. :|\ :|\

For more detail on that one:
http://www.f-117a.com/Senior.html
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Edwards2005/Highlights/

[Abraham]

Great link with great pics, Wim.
:up:

[Type941]

That paint job belongs to C&C or something.:-j


Will that 'flag-on-everything' every get old for you guys? Do you feel bad sometimes that your flag is being put on anything like a rug? Or it's totally opposite and you feel proud?

[Fish]

Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups

New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh) involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/

[waste gate]

Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups

New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh) involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/


Although it doesn't sound like it based on Mr. Hersh's arcticle, congress has no authority when it comes to forgiegn policy, nor oversite authority when it comes to the afore mentioned forgiegn authority. The money certainly was appropriated or the programs would be unfunded. Executive privilege is nothing new and is always judged by the side of the coin on which one stands.

Mr. Hersh is a very leftwing, dare I say it, hate the US first kind of guy. Always has been, which is why you used his arcticle, Fish, and always will be.

[Skybird]

Killing basic principles of democracy, that's what it is, nothing else, not more, not less.

[waste gate]

Killing basic principles of democracy, that's what it is, nothing else, not more, not less.

This country is based on a consitution. Not a living constitution I might add. Also the longest lasting constitution.

Read:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

[The WosMan]

Killing basic principles of democracy, that's what it is, nothing else, not more, not less.

This country is based on a consitution. Not a living constitution I might add. Also the longest lasting constitution.

Read:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Amen brother. Tell them like it is.

[Skybird]

Paper is patient.

[waste gate]

Paper is patient.

And people are free to pursue happiness without the government saying what happiness is. Protecting private property at the same time.

[Skybird]

And I have a pot of hot tea on my desk right now. Some nightflying bird outside makes noise.

[SUBMAN1]

Seems like a case of a hyperbaric bomb as a possible alternative. Should kill and destroy most of what is down those chambers. A nuke may end up being th only other way.

-S

PS. None of this article troubles me. WHat really troubles me is the fact that Russia continues to destabilize the world at every corner. They are more a threat now than they have ever been. The cold war has never really been over. It is now just hidden behind handshakes and smiles.

[Fish]

[ which is why you used his arcticle, Fish, .

I am not a US basher -why should I-, more a Bush -neocon-basher.
I hope you can see the difference. ;)

[Skybird]

[ which is why you used his arcticle, Fish, .

I am not a US basher -why should I-, more a Bush -neocon-basher.


Same here.

[fatty]

Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups

New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh) involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/

If true it is business as usual. No different than the covert support for the Mujahideen, the Iran-Contra affair, or various other shadowy operations throughout US/CIA history. The lesson that policy makers seem to never learn is that this stuff does not stay where you leave it, especially in the Middle East. The blowback will come and bite us in the ass within a few years like it always does.

[P_Funk]

Although it doesn't sound like it based on Mr. Hersh's arcticle, congress has no authority when it comes to forgiegn policy, nor oversite authority when it comes to the afore mentioned forgiegn authority. The money certainly was appropriated or the programs would be unfunded. Executive privilege is nothing new and is always judged by the side of the coin on which one stands.

Mr. Hersh is a very leftwing, dare I say it, hate the US first kind of guy. Always has been, which is why you used his arcticle, Fish, and always will be.
So you support the White House funding al-Quaeda linked groups? You don't seem to say anything in this article is incorrect except for your interpretation of the roles of the divided powers. So I assume then that you support Sunni terrorism?

[waste gate]

Although it doesn't sound like it based on Mr. Hersh's arcticle, congress has no authority when it comes to forgiegn policy, nor oversite authority when it comes to the afore mentioned forgiegn authority. The money certainly was appropriated or the programs would be unfunded. Executive privilege is nothing new and is always judged by the side of the coin on which one stands.

Mr. Hersh is a very leftwing, dare I say it, hate the US first kind of guy. Always has been, which is why you used his arcticle, Fish, and always will be.
So you support the White House funding al-Quaeda linked groups? You don't seem to say anything in this article is incorrect except for your interpretation of the roles of the divided powers. So I assume then that you support Sunni terrorism?

Thank you for asking that question P_Funk. Although Mr. Hersh would like to portray the situation as one sect against another, that isn't the case. Shia are in the majoity in the current Iraqi government and it wasn't until Sunni leaders became involved that violence declined. Sounds like the Iraqi people are starting to come together for a greater nation. Although it wasn't a clean transition the transition is occuring. My feeling is that after many years, perhaps centuries, many diverse political entities are understanding what representative democracy means.

PS don't confuse terrorism with the Sunni or Shia Islam sects.

[P_Funk]

Yes but Iraq is not the whole of the Middle-East. Hersh talks about these groups fighting Hezbollah and such. That is not an argument that has everything to do with the Iraqi transition to democracy. Your answer doesn't cover all the bases I think.

[baggygreen]

Theres a very basic principle to remember here which people seem to be forgetting - politicians only think short term, and in the short term my enemy's enemy is my friend.

[P_Funk]

Theres a very basic principle to remember here which people seem to be forgetting - politicians only think short term, and in the short term my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Its not just politicians. People are in on it too. The fact that Iran-Contra didn't make anyone really angry seems to say it all about how smart or willing to get actively involved in just a process of political activism most people are. It take 5 years of a bullshat war for protestors to grow some bollocks, and by then its too late to do much other than suffer a major American defeat which not even the america hating Democrats are willing to accept. Slip a pointless tax cut that'll save you a few bucks a month and people will sell their souls for a second term.