WAR WITH IRAN
Chas
nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes this is bluff and that we need to
say it in order to make Iran eventually back down. It is assumed that
(1) Iran will back down in order to avoid being hit by nuclear missiles
or (2) the U.S. will find it unnecessary to use atomic warheads in
order to destroy the Iranian nuclear power industry. Is either
realistic?
The experts agree that the Iranian nuclear facilities are spread widely
across the county and that key installations are deep underground. They
have also stated that a long bombing campaign would delay but not stop
Iranian nuclear developments.
Many countries have nuclear industries and even nuclear bombs--even
Pakistan, another Muslim nation. So, what we are really after in Iran
is REGIME CHANGE.
Are there any signs that will happen? So far, there have been no
demonstrations at all. Instead, the masses of young people now feel the
US and the West are persecuting them. By the terms of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty--which Iran signed--she still has the right to
build a nuclear power industry. The U.S. and our secular system are
very popular with the young people of Iran, but they feel no reason to
doubt their own government's forswearing of any nuclear arms ambitions.
The more pressure we exert, the more they will feel we have turned
against their country and their faith--and their country and their
Shiite faith are intertwined like in no other country. If attacked,
they will defend it just as they did when Iraq attacked them decades
ago. They threw themselves at the invaders.
We do not have enough troops to subdue Iraq, much less Iran, and the
Administration and the Iranian government are both well aware of that.
So, we face the prospect of a long, expensive bombing champaign in
which we have to constantly count up collateral damage and civilian
deaths to the rest of the world.
It is comforting to think that "surely the Iranians will give up their
system to prevent that." But the worse it gets in Iran, the more
intense the people will defend their country and their faith. We are
set against a "fatherland" system in contrast to the Sadam Hussain's
alien Iraqi secular system. We are about to learn the difference--the
hard way.
Why is the government of Iran willing to have its people undergo such
suffering and destruction? It knows that standing firm against the West
will bring out the patriotism of their secular-minded young people.
They know it will even turn them back to their faith. To the
fanatically inclined, no cost is too great to achieve that.
It is not only that the Administration cannot and won't resort to the
use of troops, but why even bother blanketing the country with
conventional bombs when nuclear armed missiles can penetrate the
underground heart of the Iranian nuclear industry? Keep in mind that
the Administration reflects the will of many Americans in not being
much-concerned about what the rest of the world thinks. It is set to
change their regime or go to to war with Iran even if Russia and China
prevent the UN Security council from sanctioning such an attack. The
Administration's attitude is that the UN is for our use, and when it
balks and objects, it is to be ignored.
Do we really want to destroy a nations nuclear power industry, kill
hundreds of thousands of their civilians, set a nuclear war precedent
and turn the world against us as never before? Of course not, but we
should not overlook a huge segment of our own public which will NOT
balk at that. The religiously dedicated among us are perfectly willing
to go along with this policy step by step. Their thinking is in total
support of the process because, to them, every step brings us closer to
"The End Times" and "The Second Coming of Christ." They never cared
that we already used "spent" nuclear missiles against tanks when we
invaded Iraq. They don't care that we would next by "giving Iran the
nuclear missiles it wants" by shooting them at them. They will think
they deserve it. They will think that "it is time we use our nuclear
might to show the world who is in charge." To them, we represent
Christendom and will not be humiliated by any Muslim nation. Big city
Americans have little ability to understand how the other half in
America thinks. We more urbane people have for so long been in control
of the media and public opinion that we assume we ARE America. This
liberal, secular American public is now in the very process of being
swept out of the American mainstream, and it does not even know it!
Charles Brough, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
JTEM
"Chas" <charles...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The President has stated that "all options are open" when asked
> about nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes this is bluff and that
> we need to say it in order to make Iran eventually back down.
Not at all.
What I assume is that it is in response to Iran's threats to bring
on terrorism. What Bush is saying is "If you can play all the
cards you've got, including your biggest card, then so can I."
It's a message aimed purely at Iran. It's not something he has
to tell the American people, as anything even approaching
another 9/11 and the American people would demand either
massive retaliation or Bush's head.
Let's not forget our own past, what we ourselves witnessed.
Bush could have nuked *Anyone* after 9/11, if he could
have managed a convincing argument that they were to blame,
and he would have been cheered from every street corner.
And even the convincing argument wouldn't have been
necessary, not until well after the fact.
Iran has promised unconventional attacks, terrorist attacks.
Bush NEEDS to tell them that we will not tie our hands in
the face of such attacks.
It's a responsibility that comes with the job.
kathryn
"Chas" <charles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145458808.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> The President has stated that "all options are open" when asked about
> nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes this is bluff and that we need to
> say it in order to make Iran eventually back down. It is assumed that
> (1) Iran will back down in order to avoid being hit by nuclear missiles
> or (2) the U.S. will find it unnecessary to use atomic warheads in
> order to destroy the Iranian nuclear power industry. Is either
> realistic?
>
> The experts agree that the Iranian nuclear facilities are spread widely
> across the county and that key installations are deep underground. They
> have also stated that a long bombing campaign would delay but not stop
> Iranian nuclear developments.
>
> Many countries have nuclear industries and even nuclear bombs--even
> Pakistan, another Muslim nation. So, what we are really after in Iran
> is REGIME CHANGE.
>
I was under the impression that Iran was already a democracy.
By regime change do you mean "we don't like the people you vote for and want
rid of them"?
Uncle Vic
> The President has stated that "all options are open" when asked about
> nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes this is bluff and that we need to
> say it in order to make Iran eventually back down. It is assumed that
> (1) Iran will back down in order to avoid being hit by nuclear missiles
> or (2) the U.S. will find it unnecessary to use atomic warheads in
> order to destroy the Iranian nuclear power industry. Is either
> realistic?
Does anyone else out there find this entire WMD thing the biggest
hypocrisy on the planet? I mean, what if Iran had quite the stockpile
of WMDs, and the ability to bring them to the USA? What if the Iranian
president wanted to destroy America's nuclear power industry because it
was (and is) a threat to their survival?
This is why I don't see homo sapiens sapiens surviving longer than a few
more centuries as a species. Forget magical armageddons with gods
arriving on flying unicorns and all that bullshit. We have the power to
bring it upon ourselves. And nobody in history has had an itchier
trigger finger than the asshole that presently resides in the whitehouse.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Member, Earthquack's 666 club
Supervisor, EAC department of little adhesive-backed shiny plastic
L-shaped doo-dads to add feet to Jesus Fish department
It is safe to say that the bible contains equal amounts of fact, history
and pizza.
-Penn Jillette
Uncle Vic
>
> Let's not forget our own past, what we ourselves witnessed.
> Bush could have nuked *Anyone* after 9/11, if he could
> have managed a convincing argument that they were to blame,
> and he would have been cheered from every street corner.
>
Nuking the Middle East would have destroyed all the oil fields.
Uncle Vic
Apparently there is a difference between democracy and American Democracy.
Fred Stone
Because they held a vote? That's silly. Saddam held votes too.
> By regime change do you mean "we don't like the people you vote for
> and want rid of them"?
>
No, we mean "Your government is leading your nation over the cliff. Get
rid of them before they get you all killed."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
JTEM
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote
> Does anyone else out there find this entire WMD thing the biggest
> hypocrisy on the planet?
Yes & no.
There's certainly a difference between WMD and WMD in the
hands of a rogue state that has been actively & openly supporting
terrorism for decades.
It's really about threats.
Andrew
decades ?
Andrew
JTEM
"Andrew" <kck...@hotmail.com> wrote
> And may I ask who is the rouge state that openly supports
> terrorism for decades ?
You know the answer. Iran.
I'm not going to argue with you. The fact is, if Bush gets his
way and Iran is allowed to secure for themselves nuclear
weapons, there will be a nuclear war. There will.
And if your sense of "Justice" demands that there be a nuclear
war, then all I can say is go fuck yourself.
stoney
in alt.atheism
>The President has stated that "all options are open" when asked about
>nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes this is bluff and that we need to
>say it in order to make Iran eventually back down. It is assumed that
>(1) Iran will back down in order to avoid being hit by nuclear missiles
>or (2) the U.S. will find it unnecessary to use atomic warheads in
>order to destroy the Iranian nuclear power industry. Is either
>realistic?
Bush is a meglomanic-reality doesn't enter his universe. He orgasms at
orchestrating destruction of all types. He will launch.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
stoney
alt.atheism
The former US has played that card frequently over the last half
century.