It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush raises option of using force against Iran

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:06 PM
In my last post above "No Nukes for Iran", if you
read it, you saw this quote,

"At this point the Bush team made public that in an extreme
case the US was prepared to make preemptive nuclear strike
on any unsecured nuclear site if that was the only way to
destroy it and if it was determined to be a threat to the US."

Also in that post was this quote,

"No US nuclear bombs were available that could drive deep
into the earth before detonation, so it was determined to develop some."

Update now to 6 weeks ago:

It was just about 6 weeks ago on June 30, 2005
I was in New York City visiting a niece and then we
drove back to Greenwich Conn. and it was late. We
tuned in cspan2 very late, it was after midnight
and Senate was still in session, unusual for this
hour of the day. They were debating funding of a new
nuclear bunker buster. This is apparently the program
I referred to in my last post concerning a new
nuclear weapon that could dive deep into the earth
and then produce its nuclear yield. The first senator
was a democrat and he opposed funding and making the
weapon. The next one was also a democrat, John Kerry,
and he opposed it also. His logic went something like
it was a waste of money, and America would be increasing
the arms race to make the weapon. He said we would
be better off not to make the weapon because this
would set a good example for the world, and that
therefore other nations would not build the nukes
having had this good example set.

With this logic I guess he must be saying that Iran
won't build any nukes if we don't build these bunker
busters. This makes no sense to me since Iran started
their weapons program long before we dicided to build
this new weapon.

I looked up this bill on and got the story.
Voting on it was Jul 1, early in the morning as I mentioned
before. Actually Feinstein introduced the legislation in
question, which was Senate Amdt. 1085 to HR 2419. This
amendment was for the purpose of withholding funding for the
nuclear bunker buster. If you don't remember, this
nuclear bunker buster came about when we were undergoing
fears of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons. At that
time Bush determined that action would be taken
against any nuclear facility that could not guarantee
to the US that their weapons were under complete control
and thereby not being given to any terrorist organizations.
The purpose of Senate Amdt. 1085 was to prohibit funds
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (thats what the
weapon ended up being called).

Most democrats voted to withhold funds to make the weapon.
The only democrats voting to provide the funds for the
weapon were the following:

Bayh - IN
Nelson - FL
Nelson - NE

I wonder if the two Nelsons are related. Isn't it
interesting that only 3 democrats indorse the idea to
destroy nuclear sites that are thought to be in process
of providing nuclear weapons to terrorists like Al Qaeda.
Does this mean that the democrats think its okay for them
to use nukes but not us?

Anyway the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is going to
be built, it appears.

Here is the link concerning the amendment if you are


[edit on 13-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 13-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 13-8-2005 by MajorCee]

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:25 PM
MajorCee don't even try make out that Democrats are evil and the Republicans are Gods chosen people; you Republicans are such hypocrites it makes me sick. We have enough nuclear weapons, we don't need anymore and it will cost an insane amount to develop this new bomb. I think the radiation from a normal nuke will be enough to keep people away from the site and render it useless. Without people there to keep it running it will probably melt down and be destroyed, if it even survives the nuke.

Cheney wants to attack Iran because they have more Oil than Iraq and he and Halliburton are the greediest people on earth. Cheney is going to nuke the East coast, the Carolina areas, on September 7 2005 and then we will be at war with Iran. It will be at a port or something, they will say it was sent here by Iran on a ship or make up some other bs reason.

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:38 PM
I don't think we need a bunker buster nuke to destroy a nuclear plant in Iran. The reason they give for needing this bomb is insane. We have that moab bomb or whatever as well as many other bunker busters. The idea of an earth penetrating nuke scares me. Does that mean we could drop it, with limited radiation exposure to the surface? Seems it might get used too often.

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:56 PM
I think the totally pointless [infact counter productive] actions in Iraq have emboldened the Iranian mulahs. I think the people of Iran have had enough of this religious tyrrany and want something new, BUT After our cowboy politics and unilateral and needless aggression in Iraq, they are taken aback and the mulahs, with the US tied up in iraq and estranged from our longterm allies, are empowered and starting to push for nuclear bombs.

The US has no international strategic thinkers in the Whitehouse after Colin Powell left. You have a lot of petty narrow minded ex-oil executives.

Honestly the US is becoming a write off, a lost cause, along with the US dollar.

The most powerful military on the planet can't withstand moronic leadership forever, and probably not for long. With the NeoCons everything ends disasterously.

Bush is a one trick pony.
When it comes to international relations it is all force and violence and working alone. He doesn't know how to do anything else. He will burn our military might up in very short order. Nothing like a spend thrift to empty your wallet.

Bomb there,
invade here,
threaten there.

The Christian Caveman mentality.

Bush is proof we evolved from apes.
He is totally genetically regressive.

Its true! You can dress a Neaderthal up in a suit and pass them off has a modern Human. To bad you can't actually teach them to speak intelligible English.

If you buy gold you may even profit from Bush's knee jerk violence.

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:36 AM
Many countries are going to get quickly annoyed with America if they decide to invade Iran.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has told an election campaign rally that the military option for resolving the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme should be "taken off the table".


I totally agree with the Germans, America should definately not stop these so called "nuclear weapon programmes". If the US did use military action it wouldn't surprise me if world war 3 broke out.

EDIT: Spelling mistake.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by xeroxed88]

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:04 PM
First of all, I will do anything I feel like and there
is not anything anyone can do about it. My next point
is, I did not accuse democrats of being evil in any
of my posts. I did point out how they voted on a weapon
whose birth and purpose was to protect against
nuclear attack. Some democrats (3 in the senate)
also agreed with the philosophy there. Most however
did not agree and voted against it. Whether this was
smart or not does not make any difference because
the democrat initiative to stop the US from having
this capability was voted down and Bush prevailed.

I think you folks talking about attacking Iran for oil
are missing the point. With a nuclear bunker buster,
you have the ability to knock out a hardened under
ground bunker without sending in a conventional
army to take control of it. It gives you the
ability to knock out the bunker and never send
any troops in to decommission, inspect etc. Just
having the weapon gives the backup to a strategy
that Bush is using. Weather you like the strategy
or not, it is the one Bush is following and he is
calling the shots.

This thread is all about Bush raising the anti on Iran
with a little saber rattling about military action against Iran.

I gave you the facts concerning the background here
as to how Bush sees the problem and to how he is
likely to handle Iran with this philosophy in place.
This background should have given you an insight into
the thinking that Bush is doing. Given that thinking
the likely outcome at some point is that Iran will
be given a deal they can't refuse just like the one
Bush gave to Pakistan. They will have to accept US
control, in that the US install inspectors in their
nuclear facilities to insure that no weapons or materials
are unaccounted for, and in addition I believe the
US will not let any bomb development proceed. Pakistan
got by with developing nukes because it was already done
before the US adopted this new policy on spread of nukes.
Iran's alternative to accepting these conditions will
be their loosing their nuke facilities. This
is the course Bush followed with Pakistan and Iraq.
Go back and read again if you missed that part. With
this background of action that was followed it makes
sense that the Iranian course will follow similar
thinking. If not, then why is the Robust Nuclear
Penetrator being built? Doesn't this tell you something
about the strategy through proof of action and preparation.
I don't know how to make it any more simple. This is
Bush's doctrine, and what is more I believe it will
work. It worked in Pakistan, where US inspectors have
been welcomed into the nuclear sites and it worked
in Iraq where inspectors were not welcomed and Bush
bit the bullet and took full military action. If anyone
can't see Bush's guiding philosophy here they just
are not trying. For you that don't like this strategy
maybe you favor, removing the US personnel from
Pakistan sites, leaving Iraq, returning the uranium,
returning the scientist and Saddam, so that we can
let these states develop nukes as they desire. If you
truly believe Bush is wrong, then you should be for
doing these things as well as letting Iran develop
any weapon they want, as well as not having the weapons
to destroy any site that is feared to be a threat to
the US.

Maybe we should let anyone in the world have nukes that
want them. Maybe we should have not feared Pakistan
giving Al Qaeda Nukes or nuclear material. Maybe we
should not have given Pakistan the option of loosing
their site or installing US personnel. The fact is
though that we followed the opposite course and it
will also be the course we follow in Iran. Maybe when
Iraq refused interview of his nuclear scientists, Bush
should have just said, "Oh well they probably won't
ever use these weapons in any way dangerous to us."

Anyone opposing Bush's strategy should think long and
hard about what the world would look like if nuclear
proliferation by rogue states is allowed. And if they
truly believe Bush was wrong in his course, just how
would they have recommended handling Pakistan, Iraq,
and Iran? Would they really recommend removing Bush's
actions which they have vehemently opposed, and would
they really like to return Iraq's nuclear position to
where it was when we stopped it, not to mention Pakistan's
nuke program being turned loose again.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 14-8-2005 by MajorCee]

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:18 PM
Weren't they using tactical strikes to take out Saddam Hussein before the war?

Well, he survived that.

Why do i have little faith in CIA intelligence,
could it have something to do with finding not a single WMD in Iraq?

Why do i have little faith in the ability of the US missile system to do a surgical strike effectively on a target?
How many times did they think they had Saddam?
He was found about a year later hiding.

Through this administrations inept handling of Iraq they have emboldened the Iranian mulahs and left the Iranian people who would like to dump the mulahs less empowered.

We were supposed to achieve peace in Iraq.
Why am i not holding my breath for that one?

You know why don't you pedal those things you can and will do somewhere else, As far as i can see you seem to fail time after time after time with all your projections of what you can and are going to do.

Sorry hon,
If i call a spade a spade.

Negligent homicide is still criminal homicide.

Policies that produce evil effects are evil even if the people responsible didn't mean them to be.

Washington is the enemy of the American people.
Not all the apples are bad, but most are and they are gradually turning the rest.

I have a wild and crazy idea.
Why don't we quit wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and spend one or two billion guarding our southern border that is being invaded?

The arizona minute men are unpaid volunteer patriots.
The US military is for paid mercenaries.

One works for the people of American.
The other works for the ex-patriot multinational corporations.

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:32 PM
Well I wonder if you would like to try living somewhere else? Is it really so nad here?

911 was the last straw and you can say that Washington is the enemy all you want, but they are 'us'. Think about that one.

The Tulipwalkers could try as they may to put this as all the right wingers fault, but alas, these bastards attacked us during the liberal poster child's presidency soon we forget.

The difference between this and the 1990's is that now we are fighting back EVEN with some Americans doing everything within their power to have the US fail. We will succeed DESPITE you!

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Bush has really done a great job of overseeing the
war except in one area. That area has been keeping
public support. A large reason for Bush's lack of
public support is that the public does not have
a clue what Bush's strategy is, because Bush just
has chosen not to comment on it, for some reason.

The number one strategy on the Bush team has been
to get Islamic forces in the Middle and far east
to oppose Al Qaeda. The US just does not have
the resources to enter every Islamic nation in
the world and root out terror cells within those
countries. The US is dependant on getting those
countries to "clean up their own act". The first
time this became apparent was in Afghanistan where
the US successfully got the native Islamic forces
opposing Al Qaeda (and Taliban) to fight the war
for us. The invasion of Iraq put every country
on notice in the middle east that the US was willing
to go all the way and was not pulling any punches.

In addition to removing Iraq as possible supplier
of nuclear weapons, which was the main reason for
the Iraq invasion, other things happened to further
help us. This invasion served up notice to all those
governments that if they did not take steps to remove
Al Qaeda and supporting groups from their soil that
they could very well hear the sounds of M16s shortly with
Americans doing it for them. One of the very bad
places for Al Qaeda support was Saudi Arabia.
Much financial support for Al Qaeda was coming
from Saudi and they were doing nothing to stop it.
They actually had more fear of Al Qaeda than they
did of the US. The invasion of Iraq and the aligning
with Iran to do so served as a catalyst to change
Saudi behavior.

I won't go into the details here, because they are
quite lengthy, but the Iraq invasion served to get
Saudi to work straightening up their Al Qaeda

In addition to Saudi now actively going after Al Qaeda,
Pakistan is also doing the same.

In addition, if you look at the fight now in Iraq you
see that at least 95% of the casualties have been Iraqis
for quite a prolonged period now. The war has become
Islamic against Islamic even in Iraq and is becoming
more so every day.

To name some other places and operations that the US is
involved with and gaining help are these areas:

Flintlock:US is training Africans for operations in
Saharan Morocco, Algeria, Chad, Niger, Tunisia, Senegal,
and Mali. One quarter of the foreign insurgents come
from Africa.

Trans Saharran counterterrorism: Saharan Morocco, Algeria,
Chad, Niger, Tunisia, Senegal,Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria.
An ongoing 5 year program training and equiping allies.

Ebony Flame: Anti Al Qaeda operations in Djiboutia to
counter Al Qaeda training camps in the African horn.

Eager Tiger: Joint Jordan/US operations concerning
border security and counter terrorism.

Georgia: US has trained 2600 soldiers to fight Al Qaeda
cells in Chechnya and Uzbeckistan.

Cobra Gold: Ongoing training and cooperation with Thai
forces against Islamic radicals in Thailand.

As I have said before, the US strategy is that of getting
Islamic forces concerned to cooperate and clean up their
neighborhood, and it is working very well. Iraq, over
which every nitwit in the world is predicting defeat,
is working out perfect. Iraqi forces are rather rapidly
taking over the fight, where Al Qaeda and supporters are
putting up a last ditch suppreme effort. They see their
Islamic Caliphate is at stake in this fight. If they
can't pull this off, their entire strategy is proven to
be a fool's dream.

So if the strategy has been so good why doesn't anyone know it?

One thing I might mention now is that Bush has handled this thing pretty
much at the recommendations of his various military and CIA experts.
When I have said things like "The Bush plan" etc. it really referred to
his approval of his expert's plans. The fact that Bush has used his
experts is very much in his favor in my opinion. One of the big lessons
of Vietnam was that the White house should not be doing the military
planning and strategizing of a war. Vietnam was miserably laid out by
Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson. The troops knew pretty much that we
could win the war in short order if our leaders ever turned us loose to
really hit them. However that never happened. Johnson would not let us
hit important and strategic targets. On top of that he kept calling
bombing halts even on the idiot targets that he approved. If he were in
charge during Afghanistan he might have given similar instructions
there. It might have looked like not allowing strikes against the
Taliban with aircraft, until the Taliban used aircraft against us. He
did idiotic things like that in Vietnam. I flew combat missions there
and I can verify that Johnson and McNamara were pretty well hated for
their chicken hearted handling of the war. Reference to this very bad
White house handling was made in Gulf war one, when it was noted that
all the planning and strategy was left to the military in that one, and
kept out of the White house. It came as no surprise to us military vets
of Vietnam that we won pretty easily in Iraq, because of this fact of
keeping the planning in good hands and out of the White house.

The one place that Bush has screwed up is in the communications to the
people on this war. He should have kept up a constant program to counter
the criticism and he never did. There are any number of ways he could
have countered it, but for the most part he chose saying nothing. This
has been a very big mistake, saying nothing about the success we are
achieving. There are many ways he could have kept up support for
the war. I will give a possible example of the kind of things he
should have been doing to keep up the support and confidence with
the following is one possible strategy he might have used when things
started going against him in mid to late 2004. Things started going
bad for Bush in late 2004, because Democrats, running for election
were doing their best to show what an idiot Bush was. Pretend now
that you are back in mid 2004 and the election campaigning is
heating up and it went like this instead of the way it actually
did go, wherein Bush never responded to alegations of his actions.

Mid 2004 could have went this way:
Howard Dean: There were no weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied to
America. There never was a threat from Iraq.

Bush: could have cited the many times Saddam refused UN inspectors
access to his scientists. He could have cited the fact this itself was
the breakdown of UN inspections. He could have cited the book written by
their nuclear scientist detailing their program. He could have made big
noise about the several tons of uranium brought back to the US. etc etc
etc. He did not though and he let Dean repeat his charges week after
week, until most (democrats at least) believed it.

John Kerry: The Bush plan is not working. Things are getting worse
in Iraq, not better. A CIA report says that civil war could take over
there. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had none.
Bush attacked with no reason. I have a plan that will win.

Bush: Could have said. First, this is not my plan. It is a plan put
together by the best minds I have available in our military.
I notice John Kerry is just shaking in his boots that civil war
could break out in Iraq. He just doesn't get it. We want
civil war in Iraq. We want the jihadist to expend themselves
there. We want the new Iraqi government to kill them by
the thousands. This is our plan, this is not our problem,
this is our solution. I like the Iraqis killing jihadists, I liked
the Northern Alliance killing jihadists. I like Pakistan killing
jihadists. The Islamic people of the world that take on
this fight with us is good. We can't be attacking Al Qaeda
in every Islamic country of the world. We just don't have
enough troops for that. We have to have the help of
good and fair Islamic forces wherever we can find them.
I believe its a good plan and we should give it a chance to work.
After all we have been fighting under this plan now for about
2 years and we still have lost fewer people in battle than the
enemy killed on day one. We could not possibly have accomplished
that if our plan was bad. Two years of battle with only about
1000 killed. The enemy killed over 3000 on day one. Let me remind
you that this is fewer casualties than was estimated for the
war in the beginning. This war is going to take a long time but
we are up to it. It is Al Qaeda that is not up to it. America
can do this. He could have attacked Kerry with retoric like this:
John Kerry is doing great damage to the war effort. When
he spouts his lies that America attacked for no reason, and that
Iraq was innocent, this lie has gotten played over and over on
aljazeera TV and probably prompted many Muslims to join the fight
against America. Americans have undoubtedly died because John
Kerry has put his election priority ahead of truth and ahead of
the good of the country. Under our plan, Iraq has positively
been removed as a source of nuclear weapons. Under this plan
we have been successful in getting Afghanistan removed from the
hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Under this plan Pakistan has
started numerous military operations against Al Qaeda and killed
and captured many, including the number 3 man of Al Qaeda. Under
this plan thousands of Iraqis are joining in to help with the
fight against the terrorists. Soon we will be able to hand 99%
of the battle over to them. We cannot pull out on these people
now who are becoming great allies in this fight against terror.
They are giving up their blood by the hundreds each week as
their new military takes over the job. We cannot pull out now
on these people after having them come so far and paid so
dearly, not now at this time when they are turning this thing
around and taking 95% of the casualties over there. Iraq
belongs to the Iraqis, and they will have to win this fight
with the jihadists, but we need to support them until their
new government is fully established and they are on their
own feet. John Kerry said he has a plan. John Kerry said we
should have sent our army into Afghanistan and hunted
Bin Laden. My military planners advised that Russia chased
mujahadeen there and never won in 10 years, but yet John Kerry
thinks it is a good idea. My planners gave a plan that won in
Afghanistan in 3 weeks with 2 dead Americans. I like the plan
my advisors came up with a lot better than the Russian plan
which John Kerry endorses. John Kerry has a plan all right.
Lyndon Johnson also had a plan in Vietnam. I say keep the
politicians out of the military planning and let the pros
handle it. If they don't win, I can fire them. If the
president plans it and fails it will take the people 4
years to fire him. I am not going to fire my military
experts at this point. I believe they are handling it
well. etc etc etc.

Well, this above script is one route he could have taken and
whether you agree with it or not you have to admit it
would have worked a lot better than how he has handled
it, in so far as communicating with the people go.
He said nothing for the most part, and this in the face
of things going actually pretty well. When he did speak
up, he said it was a great mission because freedom will
be brought to Iraq. I don't believe the average American
cares what happens to Iraqis, and this just did not
resonate well with the voters. They figure freedom is
nice for Iraqis but why should we fight for it? The
reason is, of course that what you are actually doing
is getting the Iraqis to oppose the jihadists and he
hasn't even mentioned that, which is a central part
of his plan. Because of the way Bush has communicated
on this war, Americans picture this as Americans
giving up a lot of blood to help the Iraqis. The
actual facts are that the Iraqis are giving up 95% of
the blood and their opposition to the jihadists is
helping us defeat them. Remember their number one goal
is the set up of a single jihadist government over all
the Islamic world. Bush hasn't even mentioned this and
he hasn't mentioned the fact that we are right on track
and working with just as much success as what
we did in Afghanistan, when the Northern Alliance
gave up their blood to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban
there. I suppose he does not want to call attention
to this, for fear that it will somehow trigger a
change in Al Qaeda that may employ some better strategy
that targets us more and the Iraqi Shia less. Bush as I
said before is trying to quietly get Islamic governments
to take over this job of routing out Al Qaeda and he sees
the new Iraqi government as being a central player in that
fight. This really makes a lot more sense than sending
troops into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Syria and any
other place that they have located. Bush will send troops
wherever he has to, but so far his generals have did a
splendid job of keeping the troop count down. Tommy Franks
did Iraq with only about 100,000. Most generals were
saying that we needed about 300,000. Like I said the
military that has planned this has done a splendid
job, considering the bad intel they had going into it.
The ones who want to blame Bush, really are criticizing
the military who has actually planned and executed it.
That is who they should have been blaming, but they aren't
running against the military in an election so they choose to
lay the blame on Bush. This may be a good political move
possibly, but it undermines our war effort.

Bush had better get busy putting a better face on this
fighting. It should not be that hard, since in actual
fact it is probably the most successful war we have
ever fought.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by MajorCee]

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:35 PM

I commend you AND your post! That has to be the BEST explanation for the whole thing I have EVER read.

Top Notch Way Above Deserving!

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:39 PM
Bush has really done a crappy job of overseeing the
war except in one area. That area has been maintaining
Republican support. A large reason for Bush's lack of
public support is that George does not have
a clue what Bush's strategy is, because Bush just
has chosen not to comment on it,so forget it George..

[edit on 17-8-2005 by dgtempe]

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by dgtempeBush has really done a crappy job of overseeing the war except in one area. That area has been maintaining
Republican support. A large reason for Bush's lack of public support is that George does not have a clue what Bush's strategy is, because Bush just
has chosen not to comment on it,so forget it George..

I take it you didnt read it then.....

[edit on 17-8-2005 by edsinger]

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:11 PM
This thread has sort of spread out from Iran to
other countries concerned and the war, in general,
and along this line is the fact of how Americans
perceive the Islamic, in general, in those countries.

One of the mistakes Americans make is to group
all the Islamic people of the world as one
group. A common mistake here is to group the
Afghan people together and equate them as the
same as Al Qaeda. I have seen a number of people
group the Iraqis and jihadists together assuming
they all hate America. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Actually many Islamic
people come in very different flavors just as
Christians do. Grouping all Islamic together
with Al Qaeda is just as stupid as grouping
Christians together with Hitler and his SS.

One of the reasons for this mistake is the
fact that many Islamic people live in a fear
society such as Iran's and Afghanistan's society
which was previously under the Taliban government.
In these societies people are forced to mouth
support for the present government no matter what
they really believe. To understand this more
completely, if this thought is alien to you, you
might want to read something like the following

This book will also give you some insights into
Bush's thinking on bringing democracy to Iraq
and Afghanistan. This book was on Bush's night
stand next to his bed for sometime and I believe
has been an influence on him. His rhetoric on
bringing democracy to Iraq probably has a lot
of basis on facts brought on in this book.

Osama bin Laden and others like him are a very small
portion of the Islamic population. Their goal is
to rule over the entire Islamic population and mold
that population to their definition of Islam. Their
definition of Islam represents pretty much what you
saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban government.
Their brand of Islam is definitely not shared with
the majority of Afghanistan or Iraq.

I just heard a day or so back on the news that seven
raids in Saudi Arabia by government forces have
just killed and captured Saudi members of Al Qaeda.
Among those killed were the leader of Al Qaeda in Saudi

This attack in Saudi is a very good example of Islamic
forces siding with the US. Also this attack in Saudi
would not have taken place if the US had not attacked
into Iraq. I covered this subject in detail, I believe,
in one of my other posts, and thought this would be
good time to remind everyone of how the Iraq attack
served to change Saudi behavior in their homeland.

Last night I was watching a news report that showed
US troops patrolling in Iraq. These troops were
surrounded with Iraqi kids. You could see the admiration
and friendliness in the kids faces as they interacted
with the troops. Seeing this I thought of Michael
Yon's report on Iraqi people and thought it would be
worth including here. This is from his August 16,2005
page of his web site.

Michael Yon, who you all know reports right from
center of action is one of the great sources detailing
how the war is becoming Iraqis VS. the jihadists.
Here is a cut and paste from his August 16 post on
his net site.

Michael Yon's comments on ISF
Friendly Forces

The friendly forces in Iraq are also an amalgamation.
In Iraq as a whole, the Coalition is comprised of
soldiers from many countries. But here in Mosul,
the "Coalition" is almost entirely US, charged
with building the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF),
while simultaneously keeping the insurgents at
bay until the ISF can take over. Building the
ISF is part of a larger plan that will allow
our people to come home, without leaving a wounded
Iraq victim to septic fundamentalism from within,
or invasion from opportunistic neighbors.

Some definitions: The ISF includes the Iraqi
Police (IP), Iraqi Army (IA), Iraqi National
Guard (ING), Border Patrol (BP), and sundry
other groups, each with their own initials.
Every month, the ISF becomes a greater and
more proximate threat to FRE and extremists
groups throughout Iraq. This is borne out in
a most ironic fashion; evidence of the growing
competence and capability of ISF shouts from
the headlines as the Iraqi government itself
becomes the primary focus of insurgent attacks.

Gone are the days when the FREs and extremists
in Mosul chased police from their stations and
ravaged entire neighborhoods at will. Today,
the ISF kills and captures enemy every day in
Mosul, something that seldom makes news.

In my own dispatches I rarely mention these
successes, yet I see or hear about small operations
every day, collecting in ever larger pools of
confidence and stability. There's no time to
write about each event; this would be like
trying to describe every raindrop that hits
the windshield while keeping up with a fast
moving storm. Eventually, a competent witness
must stop taking notes, and step back to see
the storm for what it is.

Eventually all the opposition to the war is going
to have to deal with the fact that the US is winning.
Iran has probably already factored this in, and is
doing their best to get the new government to favor
the Shia.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by MajorCee
First of all, I will do anything I feel like and there
is not anything anyone can do about it.

I dont understand. What do you mean by this?

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM
"quote: Originally posted by MajorCee
First of all, I will do anything I feel like and there
is not anything anyone can do about it."

Explanation of above quote:
In a post that I made previous to that one I noted
about the Senate bill to withhold funds for the
robust nuclear penetrator. I found it quite it
interesting that only 3 democrats had voted in
favor of keeping the funding. I made note of
the fact. Immediately after that someone made
the pretense that I was saying that democrats
were evil, something I would never do having
grown up in a democrat household. Whoever made
the pretense that I had said this, also told
me not to do it. I found this to be a bit
overbearing and provocative so I was letting the
person know I make my posts however I feel like.
Since I don't feel like violating any rules, I think
that is an accurate statement.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by MajorCee]

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:36 PM
MajorCee, I do not know you but I really do like your posts. They are well thought out and I think you have a very good grasp of reality.


posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by MajorCee

One thing I might mention now is that Bush has handled this thing pretty
much at the recommendations of his various military and CIA experts.

Like George Tenet?

I agree that Bush took at face value the recommendations of his "experts" like Tenet on the WMD recommendations.

Compared to Clinton, at least he's not screwing up by selling North Korea the ability to build light water power reactors which of course was a big fat lie.

But, if you examine the foreign relations between Russian and Iran, they have been on-going for many many years. It ought to be no surprise ... Iran actually has an economy and income from their oil. North Korea has jack. Iran is readily capable of accomplishing at LEAST what N. Korea can do.

The question is, what is the purpose of idle threats?

You know we would never actually use a nuclear weapon in reality, it is simply a game of detente.

The problem is, which Bush cannot seem to figure out yet, and which is beginning to make his whining quite distasteful in my opinion, is that idle threats will strengthen the enemy.

There is no point in making these stupid accusations and lines in the sand. We need to communicate with these people not alienate them.

Bush is going to be gone in a few years and he knows it. His war may indeed end up a sucess in Iraq, but the cost is insane. The price of oil is actually higher, not lower.

He's done alot more damage to the Republican party by his adolescent rants than even Dick Cheney could have dreamed of.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by grad_student

Bush is going to be gone in a few years and he knows it. His war may indeed end up a sucess in Iraq, but the cost is insane. The price of oil is actually higher, not lower.

Have you ever thought about the possiblity that Iraq will be a success and that it will spread through the Middle East? I mean these people have never experienced freedom to this point and they can not adjust overnight. Things are not as bad in Iraq as many would like you to believe.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:42 PM
grad_student said:

The question is, what is the purpose of idle threats?

He gives further clarification with:

You know we would never actually use a nuclear weapon
in reality, it is simply a game of detente.

The problem is, which Bush cannot seem to figure out
yet, and which is beginning to make his whining quite
distasteful in my opinion, is that idle threats will
strengthen the enemy.

There is no point in making these stupid accusations
and lines in the sand. We need to communicate with these
people not alienate them.

His points are pretty well made and my thoughts are:

For background you have to know what is motivating Bush.
I have already covered some of this before but I will
give it another go, with some additional information that
I did not give before. First of all here is some that
I already covered concerning nukes and their influence
on Bush. If you go back and read my previous post
concerning the fear that nuclear weapons had played
in 2001 Oct thru Dec area you will see that it was
a defining point in the war.

At that point Al Qaeda lost it's priority as number
one. The number one priority of the war at that time
became the goal of keeping nuclear weapons out of
terrorists hands and stopping their proliferation
generally. Read this paragraph again and get the full

Remember it was nuclear weapons that broke down the
UN inspections. Remember Bush bit the bullet when
Saddam refused inspectors access to those scientists.
He displayed zero tolerance for any possibility that
Iraq was going to get nukes. He did this even though
Iraq was only trying to work on them and was successfully
keeping his program secret. There was no known nuke
facility to attack. The only way to stop that effort
at the time was removal of Saddam and company.
In Iran they are much closer to the bomb, and we know
exactly where they work on it. We know that it is
in a very hardened bunker.

Now think back to when Iraq first started their efforts
at nukes. They had their Tammuz reactor just about
ready to start up. Just days before they planned
to install the radio active core, on June 7, 1981 eight
Israeli F-16s came screaming across the desert at
tree top level under radar coverage and at 5:30 PM
popped up over Baghdad with the sun behind effectively
blocking out optically aimed anti-aircraft fire
and struck the Tammuz reactor. The first aircraft
dropped an unguided bomb onto the dome right above
the reactor knocking a large hole in it. The six of the
following seven planes put their weapons right through the
hole completely destroying the reactor. They were gone
just as quickly as they arrived, back down at tree
top level exiting the country. The attack took less
than two minutes.

So we have a precedent for destroying a nations nuclear
capability. With this precedent, Iran made sure
that their site was hardened and way below ground
level. This site can't be taken out with conventional
weapons like the Israelis used. Its my understanding
that we have nukes like the trident II that are strong
enough with a surface blast to take out hardened missile
sites and these could possibly take out Iran's site,
possibly. The problem is that they are very large
weapons and will leave an awful lot of nuclear fallout
and radioactivity over a very large area. On the
other hand if you could put a small nuke, like about
10 Kiloton, the size used in artillery shells, and if
you drove that weapon well into the bunker then
you could limit a lot of the fallout from the size
being much smaller of the weapon, and also detonating
it well underground could also shield some of the

Also consider that Bush took seriously the fact that
Pakistan might furnish nuclear material or weapons
to Al Qaeda. Remember, in December of 2001 General
Hameed Gul of the Pakistani ISI (military intelligence)
gave in a newspaper interview the following quote,
"No one can tell us how to run our nuclear facilities
and nuclear programs. The Taliban will always remain
in Afghanistan, and Pakistan will always support them.

Now remembering that Pakistan was appearing to take
the position that they might help Al Qaeda and even
publicly giving that message, and remembering
grad_student's good advice which was, "We need to
communicate with these people not alienate them."
Apparently Bush also thought he should communicate
with Pakistan and his communication was something
like "Give us absolute proof your nukes are not
given to Al Qaeda or loose you nuclear facilities"
I guess he figured that attacking them might alienate
them. With this effective communication, Pakistan
has allowed US personnel into their sites and
access to inventory various supplies to show that
nothing is missing.

On top of this thinking is the theory that some
have, that, it is more probable that nukes will be used
by terrorists than they will be used by act of war
by a country. Because of the fear of retaliation it
is thought, as grad_student points out that using
nukes as a nation making war is an exercise in self
destruction. On the other hand, nations that don't have
the nerve to attack to further their gains have been
supplying guerrillas for decades, and they have been
doing it successfully, meaning that they have supplied
the guerrillas with impunity (no action ever taken
against them) Now think back to this era in 2001 to
when the Russians announced officially and it was in
the news "Russia may have lost some of its small
suite case size bombs". If these bombs were really
lost and subsequently used, was this operation done
for establishing deniability of responsibility of
any subsequent use of those "lost" weapons? When
General Gul made his public pronouncements about
possibly helping Al Qaeda in their efforts was he
thinking that Pakistan would be safe since they
were not using the weapons but at most only giving
aid to Al Qaeda? Remember also that Al Qaeda was
shopping for nukes.

Now also consider that fact that the US has publicly
stated that Israel would not put up with Iran
developing the bomb. Is there some thought and
prearrangement possibly going on that could involve
loading some nuclear bunker busters onto an Israeli

It is probably correct that Bush will never use this
nuclear bunker buster. It is much more likely that
Iran will be given warning something like "Open your
program to inspection or loose your facility"
If Iran has any sense, they will open their program to
inspection. If they have no bomb program, absolutely
nothing will be lost. If they have a bomb program,
they have to immediately confront the full implications
of nuclear war, is it really a path they are willing to take?
There is only one outcome that can come from this
confrontation if Iranian leadership is sane. If they
are not sane, then this confrontation had to be made
for that exact reason. The result of not making the
confrontation is acceptance of insane leadership possessing
nuclear weapons. This confrontation is the most logical
one to be made in Bush's mind, at least by my analysis.

There are people in this world you can screw with.
I don't believe the Cowboy is one of them.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by edsinger
Have you ever thought about the possiblity that Iraq will be a success and that it will spread through the Middle East? I mean these people have never experienced freedom to this point and they can not adjust overnight. Things are not as bad in Iraq as many would like you to believe.

Never thought I would see it in my lifetime, Iraq becoming one of the wealthiest nations within the next twenty years. Just wait until there are 300,000 oil wells dotting the Iraqi landscape, just like in Texas. Right now there are a little over 2500 wells! Contrary to what you may think, Islam will continue to fight against the U.S. The Iraqi's will love getting rich off oil exports, but surrounding Muslim nations will only grow more hostile, until force is once again utilized.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in