The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

raycarey

what nukes are 'these'?

keda couldn't provide any evidence.....can you?

and if you can, after posting it here, please forward it to the IAEA, the UN, and GWB---because they don't have it.

Boon Mee

Uh...like, maybe, the ones he's going to manufacture? All them centrifuges working 24/7 ain't for lightbulbs..

raycarey

going to manufacture, huh?

uh...like, maybe, similar to the ones GWB said saddam had?

uh...like, maybe, you have a short term memory problem.

uh...like, maybe, you seem determined to repeat past mistakes.

Texpat

Perhaps the risk of being right outweighs the risk of being wrong. Russians denied they had nukes on Cuba until the US proved it.

As long as we're into theoretical...

If it's OK for Iran to have nukes, is it also OK for NK? How about Syria?
Should the world body draw the line or let highest bidders become nuke-capable? And it doesn't have to be nations ... what if the Christians felt so threatened they decided to arm themselves? What happens when geology is transcended by theology? At some point everyone will become defensive to protect their interests.

I'd feel more comfortable in a nuke-free world, but you can't close Pandorra's box (she's such a slut)

Does anyone know what happened to the hundreds of nukes (ura/plu) the US and Soviet Union destroyed during the SALT treaties? It didn't disappear...

raycarey

perhaps you should learn a lesson from iraq about alleged 'risks'....you know....the ones that "come in form of a mushroom cloud".

i wonder how the families of the tens of thousands of dead iraqis feel about the crapshoot you are proposing? probably a bit different that someone posting cavalierly on an internet message board in nakon nowhere, thailand.

how about the 4 thousand family members of dead american soldiers (in addition to the tens of thousands maimed)....children who will grow up without fathers, wives who buried their husbands, etc.... i wonder what they think about the risks of being right outweighing the risks of being wrong?

particularly when there is absolutely no direct evidence that iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
none.
zero
zip.

but hey, let's hear more about the russians in 1962....that's right....45 years ago.

keda

When the USSR dissolved a lot of stuff went missing...two decades later and anyone with the money can still equip a private army down to an eighties field hospital.

Texpat

Mr Carey, that's what the military is for -- in every nation.

Military is diplomacy by other means. Aren't you aware of this?

We live in a violent age. Newspapers and the Internet are full of reports from all regions of the world. Every week thousands perish in wars of national liberation and other confilicts.

I've never experienced true war. Have you? Nations that the US have fought are now part of alliances that are recognized worldwide.

Put it in perspective ... it's a blip on the world "war scene." It happens to occur during your lifetime, so you claim catastrophe. Take all the critera of major wars in the past five centuries, this is a no more than a middleschool bitchfight. It's not the end of the world. It's not the end of a nation. Lighten up. Heads of state will move on. Bush is gone . Who cares. Maybe Iraq will advance to what the west considers normalcy. Maybe they wont. Just don't get why you seem to make a career of predicting the worst.

A Traveller

Hm.. OK let's recall that John Negroponte who was director of national intelligence told the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be 'a number of years off' before Iran would be 'likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade". Some argue this public statement led to pressure for his removal from the post in April 2007.

Oddly Negroponte's statement reflected the then current NIE {National Intelligence Estimate} which is a document designed to bring together all 16 intelligence agencies analysis in a single format. The most recent NIE re Iran, has been delayed by almost a year, with the conclusion that the administration is unhappy with the NIE. In other words it is not supportive of the policy re Iran on both nuclear weapons nor that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

NIE's have be released with dissenting opinions before, but this has also been rejected.

What is notable is that Negroponte's replacement retired Vice Admiral John Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee he was 'comfortable saying it's probable' that the alleged export of explosively formed penetrators to Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq was linked to the highest leadership in Iran. This after a week on the job and was a position substantively different from both his predecessor, as well as SecState Condoleezza Rice and SecDef Robert Gates.

Why am I reminded of the UK's intelligence based dossiers, and the fact that Scarlett became head of SIS after being chair of JIC, even after the debacle.

Regards

__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=) I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
('')_('') I am not a number. I am a free man!

Texpat

So you're backing out of a bitchslap based on faulty intel?

I can excuse that.

I worked with many RAF fighter units during the decades-long no-fly-zone enforcement who all said wtf?? Same as US said. French were there too. Everybody was agreed, wtf are we doing here? One nation took action, others followed -- naturally.

A Traveller

^ Not sure what point you are making, but the no-fly zones, assuming you're referring to Iraq was to attempt to deal with the hash made of the cease fire negotiations by Norman Schwarzkopf who provided clearances for helicopter movements by the Iraqi forces, something they never expected. These movements allowed the Iraqi forces to take 'counter insurgency' operations against anti-Saddam factions, including the Kurds.

Regards

keda

But much more fun for the nutters to run around yelling, "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING, AND ALL BECAUSE OF THE NASTY AMERICANS..."

raycarey

many on this thread are repeatedly calling for an attack on iran, yet no one has cited any evidence that they are building nuclear weapons. hasn't anything been learned from the fiasco in iraq?

furthermore, some might cite the fact that high ranking members of the iranian govt have repeatedly made provocative statements about its nuclear program. however, if these same posters were to take a moment and look at a map of the ME, they'd see that the US military is occupying two of its borders. one of the few cards iran has to play is the nuclear one. are conventional weapons going the stop the US military from crossing the border into iran? or any border for that matter? iran is exaggerating its nuclear program because its scared like anyone/thing backed into a corner.

and as far as the 'intelligence' regarding the nuclear program in iran is concerned, i'd for one would like to know where the US is getting this intelligence. is it from the likes of 'curveball', the character who COMPLETELY lied about iraq's WMD program so that he could get a 'green card' in germany?

hasn't the GWB administration proved itself unreliable and incompetent in the skill of analyzing intelligence? at the very least, shouldn't they be barred from launching any sort of military operation that is based on intelligence? shouldn't they have the humility to admit that they really arent up to the job? particularly considering that no one credible (that's right, NO ONE) says that iran will have nuclear weapons before jan '09 when GWB leaves office.

this is precisely the type of 'cowboy', devil may care nonsense that got the US stuck in iraq.

there hasn't been any diplomacy between the US and iran in nearly 30 years. setting up preconditions for talks is not diplomacy. sure, put everything on the table...including iran's nuclear program....but to say that iran has to abandon its program before talks can take place is not diplomacy....quite the opposite in fact.


great point!

it would be interesting to hear the hawks on this thread offer up an explaination for why the white house (i.e. cheney's office) won't release the NIE with regard to iran....but i'm not holding my breath.

and with regard to iran smuggling weapons into iraq, this may very well be true...and if so, it's unfortunate and it should have been expected.
but i'd like to know which bombs are killing more US soldiers and innocent iraqis....the ones smuggled in from iran, or the ones made from the munitions dumps that weren't guarded or destroyed back in 2003-4?

keda

Speak up...!

raycarey

poor keda.
unable to make a substantive reply to anything that doesn't align with his rabid islamophobia.

keda

Try again...!

Boon Mee

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows."


Well, those B2 bombers in Missouri are just sittin’ there – let’s roll, eh?

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Milkman

And as we know....the majority of Americans are uniformed (according to valid studies). Ignorant politically, geographically, econonically, culturally, militarily, etc.

If the US want to attack (which they will NOT) it will be a big mistake.

There will be 4 players involved.

The US has already shelved its plans for an air strike, which is all it could have ever done.

It's over bud. Iran will not be attacked.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

Boon Mee

I wouldn't bet my next visa on that. If not by the US, Israel will for sure and they don't fok around. Recall the nuke plant that just went down the shitter in Syria? The one we don't hear too much about?

Milkman

I agree with you on this, Boon.

IMO, Israel will sit NOT back and chill out. - They cannot afford to.

Here is an article. Good or not, I don't know. You and the others decide: