Neocons suddenly care . . .

[Magnetic Poles]

Neocons who were calling for dropping nukes on Iran are now real concerned about the protesters in that nation...people who would have been obliterated if McCain had gotten the chance to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Interesting perpective by Glenn Greenwald on Salon. CLICK HERE

 

[Revmitchell]

No one called for dropping nukes on Iran.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No one called for dropping nukes on Iran.

Baloney. I sat and listened to people on talk radio and on TV calling for us to "turn the Iranian desert to glass". What world to you live on? DO you consider that dying by a conventional bomb is somehow better than dying in a nuclear blast?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

How about this excerpt from HERE:

What are we to make of Seymour Hersh's bombshell, in this week's New Yorker, that not only is President George W. Bush keen to attack Iran's nuclear facilities but that several higher-ups in the White House and the Pentagon would like to do so with nuclear weapons?

According to Hersh, an "option plan," presented this past winter by the Pentagon to the White House, calls for the use of B61-11 nuclear bunker-busters against Iran's underground sites, especially the Natanz facility, which houses the centrifuges needed to enrich uranium and which is reported to be dug 75 feet beneath the earth's surface. (If it really is that deep, and if Bush wanted to destroy it and not just disable its operations briefly, a non-nuclear bomb wouldn't be powerful enough.)
Hersh also reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff tried to remove the nuclear option from "the evolving war plan for Iran," but the White House insisted on leaving it in. The chiefs will soon give Bush "a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran." Some officers are thinking about resigning if he rejects their views.

There's lots more if you just Google. But I forgot...facts matter not

 

[Crabtownboy]

No one called for dropping nukes on Iran.

Maybe not today, but how about last yaear. Read on ...............

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...cleid=6734+nuke+iran&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Revmitchell]

Baloney. I sat and listened to people on talk radio and on TV calling for us to "turn the Iranian desert to glass". What world to you live on? DO you consider that dying by a conventional bomb is somehow better than dying in a nuclear blast?

Your anecdotal example withstanding it is in error to use this broad brush based on that. I have no idea what field that second question came out of.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your anecdotal example withstanding it is in error to use this broad brush based on that. I have no idea what field that second question came out of.

Read again, Mitch. I won't do your research for your <edited - LE - no personal attacks>. I gave you an example, as did CTB.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again no evidence has been given in this thread that shows where anyone "called for" the bombing of Iran. Perhaps you need to reword your original statement. To "call for" the bombing of Iran would require that people make a demand to do so.No one has done that. Making stategic military plans in the event of a worst case scenario is not the same as "calling for" the bombing of Iran.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Again no evidence has been given in this thread that shows where anyone "called for" the bombing of Iran. Perhaps you need to reword your original statement. To "call for" the bombing of Iran would require that people make a demand to do so.No one has done that. Making stategic military plans in the event of a worst case scenario is not the same as "calling for" the bombing of Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

And again, I ask...do you think it is better to die by conventional explosives than nuclear ones, as it appears from your posts?

 

[windcatcher]

Baloney. I sat and listened to people on talk radio and on TV calling for us to "turn the Iranian desert to glass". What world to you live on? DO you consider that dying by a conventional bomb is somehow better than dying in a nuclear blast?

I thought you were the one who didn't give crediance to certain talking heads. You mean you've changed your mind and now believe their statements and provocations?

Neocons or not..... not everyone who talks or calls in to give a provacative comment is politically identified.

Besides, I think if you review the McCain comment..... which is the only specific you've given, you will find that many people thought it was his stab at being both 'hip' and commedic: When threads on this board mentioned it.... I don't think you would find many if any endorsing his song!

I think Iran used to be favorably regarded by the people of the US...... and as far as the people there are concerned.... I think most people here still regard them favorably still. It's their administration and its expressed policies of hatred towards both the US and Israel, its administration policies of obtaining nuclear weapondry and proliferation, and its interference with our attempts to stablize Iraq and Afghanistan........ which bring its administration into western contempt.

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

And again, I ask...do you think it is better to die by conventional explosives than nuclear ones, as it appears from your posts?

My posts indicate no such silliness. And so you present one person who asks about bombing Iran as proof of your erroneous statement?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

My posts indicate no such silliness. And so you present one person who asks about bombing Iran as proof of your erroneous statement?

Not erroneous at all...how many does it take to be valid? Two? Ten? Fifty?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Baloney. I sat and listened to people on talk radio and on TV calling for us to "turn the Iranian desert to glass". What world to you live on?

There are all kinds of idiots on talk radio (including some of the hosts) and television.

I don't recall a single reputable, responsible person suggesting we nuke Iran.

DO you consider that dying by a conventional bomb is somehow better than dying in a nuclear blast?

One may be a faster death than the other, but they both can be dreadfully lethal.

My mother and her family suffering under both Axis and Allied bombing in World War II. Had a bomb from either power hit them, their bomb shelter, or even near their bomb shelter before the door was sealed (from the air pressure from the concussion), they would be just as dead.

In many ways, those Japanese who died in the atomic blasts died easier than those who perished in the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden. Greater numbers died in more conventional bombing attacks, yet, for some reason, certain people like to paint atomic weapons are more inhernetly evil.

War is a horrible, unfair, destructive and cruel thing, but sometimes it is a better alternative than letting evil persons and societies go unchecked.

I'm not advocating nuclear weapons... far from it... but I haven't heard any other sane person advocate them either.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not erroneous at all...how many does it take to be valid? Two? Ten? Fifty?

It takes a majority to use such a broad brush.

 

[OldRegular]

Baloney. I sat and listened to people on talk radio and on TV calling for us to "turn the Iranian desert to glass". What world to you live on? DO you consider that dying by a conventional bomb is somehow better than dying in a nuclear blast?

The six million dollar man is advertising a hearing aid, only $14.95 for one month.

 

[BigBossman]

While I am not a "Neo Con", I believe that nuking Iran should be an option still on the table.

I will say that I would much rather see Ahmedinijan out of office. Then at least that way, we wouldn't have to consider nuking Iran. The people of Iran are guilty of allowing him to take over & should be charged with getting him out of power. I believe if the people want him out of office, then they need to band together & overthrow him. That would result in complete & utter chaos, but at least there wouldn't be a mad man controlling everyone.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The six million dollar man is advertising a hearing aid, only $14.95 for one month.

Do you ever make sense? What are you trying to tell us?

 

[windcatcher]

Do you ever make sense? What are you trying to tell us?

I think he's saying that a hearing aid might help your listening skills.:laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

The six million dollar man is advertising a hearing aid, only $14.95 for one month.

Is it a digital hearing aid? Gee, that is a much better price than $2000.

ROFL

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
The six million dollar man is advertising a hearing aid, only $14.95 for one month.

Responsey Posted by MP
Do you ever make sense? What are you trying to tell us?

If you were as smart as you think you are windcatcher would not have to explain!

Anyone with half a brain, or who doesn't breathe rarified air, would understand that the Pentagon is always developing contingency plans. That is their responsibility!