Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:

"The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions=20
inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the=20
accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian=20
nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The=20
goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such=20
targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term=20
commando raids. =93The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and=
=20
destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,=94 the=20
government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me."

From:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

Kristal

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	20 Jan 2005 14:46:49 -0800

Starship wrote:
> be blamed).
> >
> > I think the Israeli capability on their own in this regard is
> > overstated. This is not another Osirak (one target, above ground).
> > The planes would need help from a local partner to get there
> > (refueling- for Osirak they used either Oman or possibly Qatar),
there
> > would need to be a search and rescue capability etc.
>
> The fact that it would be difficult does not change the basic
situation.
> Israel will be facing national extinction if Iran acquires nuclear
> weapons.

Unclear that that is the case. Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons
(and possibly the hydrogen bomb) and missiles which can reach Kiev if
not Moscow (and therefore anywhere in Iran): depends where they have
gotten to on Monitor III (IV?)-- the radar tracks for Monitor II
suggested at least a 1500 mile range. What could Iran do in return and
why would it risk total destruction? Remember during the Iran-Contra
situation Israel shipped *arms* to Iran to fight Saddam Hussein. They
have been, on occasion, allies.

They will do whatever they must do to protect themselves, and
> it may well be in the best interests of the United States to remove
that
> threat before the Israelis do.

An argument which got the US into Iraq. What happened is the
neoconservatives wrote a policy paper for Netanyahu when he was PM, and
lo and behold when the neoconservatives at PNAC are appointed to the
Bush Administration, it becomes their policy.

The question the US has to ask itself is: is Israeli foreign policy
always going to be our foreign policy?

>
> > > And in any case, there's nothing particularly odd or provocative
> > about
> > > making war plans.
> >
> > But if true this is far, far bigger than this. This is US forces
on
> > the ground, scouting the targets.
>
> Good. If they aren't doing that (and not just in Iran) the Pentagon
is
> being seriously negligent. In the event that we do have to take
military
> action, we'll need that reconaissance.

Nations at peace don't normally scout each other's military bases by
putting special forces into the country. The odd spy and recon
satellite, for sure, but not special forces crawling around. This is,
if true, de facto casus belli.

And it will help give the policy
> makers a more accurate assessment of the costs, risks, and potential
> benefits of a strike so they can make a better decision.

But my point holds. This is a markedly more serious situation than the
US military 'making plans'. This is halfway to war (at least).

>
> > This is where the US was with Iraq
> > in early 2002, 15 months before the war: the CIA and Special Forces
> > already moving to secure forward bases and reconnoitre defences.
> >
> > > Military leaders in every country are expected to have
> > > plans ready for any kind of action that the armed forces might
> > > conceivable be called upon to carry out.

But they are not (in general) authorised to pre wire invasions of
foreign countries.

> >
> > See above.

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:15:13 GMT

darkness39@yahoo.com wrote in news:1106261209.839719.40780
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> The question the US has to ask itself is: is Israeli foreign policy
> always going to be our foreign policy?

I'm not sure who you mean by "our" there, but Israel still
exists, and is still free. We could take a lesson from them,
and have. Never negotiate, never appease, always retaliate.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || An American Hero
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Sgt. Rafael Peralta
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://tinyurl.com/4usq9

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:16:32 -0500

In article ,
asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> darkness39@yahoo.com wrote in news:1106261209.839719.40780
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The question the US has to ask itself is: is Israeli foreign policy
> > always going to be our foreign policy?
>
> I'm not sure who you mean by "our" there, but Israel still
> exists, and is still free. We could take a lesson from them,
> and have. Never negotiate, never appease, always retaliate.

Yes, they've been retaliating for what, a half century?

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:08:06 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote in
news:MPG.1c5cd31027aaf2719896aa@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> Yes, they've been retaliating for what, a half century?

And they're still there. No doubt you think paying off, or otherwise
pleasing the terrorists would be nice, but that's because you have
priority problems. Peace is not at the top of the list, not when
it comes at the cost of liberty and national security.

--
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The
survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in
our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
--President George W. Bush
Second Inaugural Address

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:13:55 -0500

In article ,
asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> Jason Crowell wrote in
> news:MPG.1c5cd31027aaf2719896aa@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> > Yes, they've been retaliating for what, a half century?
>
> And they're still there. No doubt you think paying off, or otherwise
> pleasing the terrorists would be nice, but that's because you have
> priority problems.

The problem is that, unlike a nation-state there is a non-finite number
of terrorists. If you separate the terrorists from the Palestinians,
you could see that, yes, there are some legitimate grievances.

This does not excuse the terrorism. But deal with the issues and you
will eliminate a major portion of terrorism because people won't be
inclined to resort to those means.

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:30:51 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote in
news:MPG.1c5db36338a284319896af@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> This does not excuse the terrorism. But deal with the issues and you
> will eliminate a major portion of terrorism because people won't be
> inclined to resort to those means.

That's what spreading liberty is for. Imagined "offenses" are
irrelevant, an excuse for violence, and not a cause.

--
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The
survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in
our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
--President George W. Bush
Second Inaugural Address

From:	demorgan
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	24 Jan 2005 02:31:58 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:13:55 -0500, Jason Crowell wrote:
>In article ,
>asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
>> Jason Crowell wrote in
>> news:MPG.1c5cd31027aaf2719896aa@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>> > Yes, they've been retaliating for what, a half century?
>>
>> And they're still there. No doubt you think paying off, or otherwise
>> pleasing the terrorists would be nice, but that's because you have
>> priority problems.
>
>The problem is that, unlike a nation-state there is a non-finite number
>of terrorists. If you separate the terrorists from the Palestinians,
>you could see that, yes, there are some legitimate grievances.
>
>This does not excuse the terrorism. But deal with the issues and you
>will eliminate a major portion of terrorism because people won't be
>inclined to resort to those means.

You're operating under the misconception that the terrorists' stated
grievances are their reasons, instead of their excuses.

If that were true, terrorists could be dealt with. But it's not.

--
ROT13 for email address: qrzbetna@wqrtr.ivfv.pbz

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:01:05 -0500

In article ,
demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:13:55 -0500, Jason Crowell wrote:
> >In article ,
> >asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> >> Jason Crowell wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1c5cd31027aaf2719896aa@news.comcast.giganews.com:
> >>
> >> > Yes, they've been retaliating for what, a half century?
> >>
> >> And they're still there. No doubt you think paying off, or otherwise
> >> pleasing the terrorists would be nice, but that's because you have
> >> priority problems.
> >
> >The problem is that, unlike a nation-state there is a non-finite number
> >of terrorists. If you separate the terrorists from the Palestinians,
> >you could see that, yes, there are some legitimate grievances.
> >
> >This does not excuse the terrorism. But deal with the issues and you
> >will eliminate a major portion of terrorism because people won't be
> >inclined to resort to those means.
>
> You're operating under the misconception that the terrorists' stated
> grievances are their reasons, instead of their excuses.
>
> If that were true, terrorists could be dealt with. But it's not.

No. I do recognize that some terrorists are, well, bonkers. They can't
be dealt with in any way short of killing them. So kill them.

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	23 Jan 2005 11:38:19 -0800

Asmodeus wrote:
> darkness39@yahoo.com wrote in news:1106500443.409632.168280
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Israel is in a big strategic box. They can beat anyone,
militarily,
> > but demographically they are losing. Not a nice place to be in.
See
> > Martin Van Creveld's book.
>
> Ol' Martin is as wrong as Teddy Kennedy and the liberals were
> when they said Reagan's policies would lead to nuclear war.
> Israel isn't losing at all;

Actually I think the demographic projections are precisely what Sharon
is worrying about. Sharon has his own solution (mass migration of Jews
from the US, Canada, UK etc. to Israel) but he also sees the problem
with the likes of the Gaza Strip.

The strategy briefings Sharon saw, van Creveld would have seen versions
of: he is sufficiently tight with the strategic community and Israel is
a small place.

Europe is losing demographically,
> however. Interesting that despite the fact that Europeans are
> always accusing us of violating the rights of Arabs that we
> don't do so at all compared to what's going on in Europe, not
> that it's not understandable, mind.

Trying to shift the focus of the argument doesn't answer it ;-).

>
> And did your newsreader lose the ability to quote? I have to
> reconstruct the thread to figure out what you're responding to.

The 'new improved' version of dejanews doesn't reliably replicate what
one is replying to. Progress.

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	22 Jan 2005 00:22:08 -0800

demorgan wrote:

> >Ahmed Chalabi has certainly been sucking up to Iran, now that he can
no
> >longer count on his American patrons.
>
> Chalabi has been a paid Iranian agent from the start. As for his
> influence in Iraq, he's going to be sitting a jail cell waiting
> extradition to Jordan for fraud and embezzlement, pretty soon.

But Chalabi was the key source for the neoconservatives before the
invasion, and the Pentagon's key candidate for prime ministership of
Iraq (the State Department and the CIA never trusted him). Indeed at
Sec Rumsfeld's express orders, Chalabi and his partisans were flown
into Iraq (armed) before the fall of Baghdad in USAF transports. He is
a close associate of Messrs. Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle, and a key
source of data on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme.
Are you saying they are going to abandon their protege?

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:35:27 -0500

In article <1106382128.534337.252930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
darkness39@yahoo.com says...
>
> demorgan wrote:
>
> > >Ahmed Chalabi has certainly been sucking up to Iran, now that he can
> no
> > >longer count on his American patrons.
> >
> > Chalabi has been a paid Iranian agent from the start. As for his
> > influence in Iraq, he's going to be sitting a jail cell waiting
> > extradition to Jordan for fraud and embezzlement, pretty soon.
>
> But Chalabi was the key source for the neoconservatives before the
> invasion, and the Pentagon's key candidate for prime ministership of
> Iraq (the State Department and the CIA never trusted him). Indeed at
> Sec Rumsfeld's express orders, Chalabi and his partisans were flown
> into Iraq (armed) before the fall of Baghdad in USAF transports. He is
> a close associate of Messrs. Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle, and a key
> source of data on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme.
> Are you saying they are going to abandon their protege?

They can't arrest him, he knows where the dead bodies are. But, Iraq is
a violent place, anything could happen to him at anytime, and anyway,
accidents can happen too...

From:	Starship
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:51:06 GMT

darkness39@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Starship wrote:
> > Jason Crowell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article ,
> > > demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> > > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal
> wrote:
> > > > >Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:
> > > >
> > > > Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about
> Iran,
> > > > Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in
> major
> > > > media.
> > >
> > > Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner, and he did write the book
> on Abu
> > > Ghraib. But, even if we were doing something serious, the blowback
> > > would be a disaster.
>
> Blowback is the unintended consequences of intelligence operations. I
> am not sure that is the term meant here.
>
> >
> > Possibly. But (1) an unsourced leak can be a way of communicating to
> > Iran how serious the administration is without officially giving an
> > ultimatum which the Iranians might be forced by their own internal
> > politics to reject,
>
> The pattern fits that ie orchestrated leaks.
>
> It also fits the pattern established before the Iraq invasion-- the US
> government trying to make the event certain in the punditocracy,
> Capitol Hill and the media, before it undertakes the event. What may
> be going on here is the neoconservatives are seeding the ground for
> what is about to happen (or conversely, a few desparate opponents in
> the Pentagon, State Department and CIA are trying to stop them, because
> they feel their message is not getting heard in the White House).
>
> and (2) if diplomacy fails, we're probably not
> > looking at a choice between military action and deterence, but
> between
> > American military action and Israeli military action (for which the
> > United States would still be blamed).
>
> I think the Israeli capability on their own in this regard is
> overstated. This is not another Osirak (one target, above ground).
> The planes would need help from a local partner to get there
> (refueling- for Osirak they used either Oman or possibly Qatar), there
> would need to be a search and rescue capability etc.

The fact that it would be difficult does not change the basic situation.
Israel will be facing national extinction if Iran acquires nuclear
weapons. They will do whatever they must do to protect themselves, and
it may well be in the best interests of the United States to remove that
threat before the Israelis do.

> > And in any case, there's nothing particularly odd or provocative
> about
> > making war plans.
>
> But if true this is far, far bigger than this. This is US forces on
> the ground, scouting the targets.

Good. If they aren't doing that (and not just in Iran) the Pentagon is
being seriously negligent. In the event that we do have to take military
action, we'll need that reconaissance. And it will help give the policy
makers a more accurate assessment of the costs, risks, and potential
benefits of a strike so they can make a better decision.

> This is where the US was with Iraq
> in early 2002, 15 months before the war: the CIA and Special Forces
> already moving to secure forward bases and reconnoitre defences.
>
> > Military leaders in every country are expected to have
> > plans ready for any kind of action that the armed forces might
> > conceivable be called upon to carry out.
>
> See above.

--
Starship

He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:01:52 -0800

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:51:06 GMT, Starship
wrote:

[ Snip ]

>The fact that it would be difficult does not change the basic situation.
>Israel will be facing national extinction if Iran acquires nuclear
>weapons. They will do whatever they must do to protect themselves, and
>it may well be in the best interests of the United States to remove that
>threat before the Israelis do.

Huh? Iran is a non-Arab Moslem state, like Pakistan.

Last I checked, Pakistan hasn't wiped out Israel...

Israels's biggest problems come from the pan-Arab movement whose best
known proponent is one S. Hussein (retd.). Both Jews and Christians
are "People of the Book", which makes them kinda acceptable in Moslem
religious terms...

.... but not in Arab terms...

Malc.

From:	AC
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:10:54 -0500

dear krystal
what the problem is, is we, the United States of America, is a country
who believe in the freedom of religion. Many muslum nation see us a
threat to them, because we "don't conquor peoples with intimadation" in
what we believe. The US has to be aware of anyone or anything that
causes our freedoms to be threatened. Look at how many children lost
there parents on 911. Do you think Iran cares?
Being a God fearing man, I still don't threaten people with my
beliefs. If people agree with me fine, but if they don't I respect them
the same. In any case, this is what the world should do, but its sad
that its about one thing; control of people.
I hope this helps you

Allen

http://community.webtv.net/ACaddell/LocalCharitesinc
http://community.webtv.net/ACaddell/LocalCharitiesinc

From:	Binder
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:42:47 -0800

AC wrote:
> dear krystal
> what the problem is, is we, the United States of America, is a country
> who believe in the freedom of religion.

Not exactly; it's a freedom of certain religions.

> Many muslum nation see us a
> threat to them, because we "don't conquor peoples with intimadation" in
> what we believe.

Not quite. We don't conquer people with intimidation, we actually go
there and bomb the shit out of them if they don't kowtow.

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 06:44:25 -0800

see my other post. What is being proposed is (probably) a giant raid,
rather than a fully fledged invasion. But can we get all the sites?

It is the aftermath which is so scary: an Iran hell-bent on revenge for
the next forever (still smarting from the CIA/MI6 overthrowing the
democratic government in 1954). We could wind up backing the Kurds in
a full fledged civil war with Iraq and Iran, which might even drag in
Turkey. A destabilised Iran would be a very scary place indeed for the
West.

The Atlantic this month has a long article by Richard Clarke (ex
terrorism czar to Bush) about possible attacks on the US-- he
specifically mentions Hizbollah. Quite frankly, in professionalism and
focus, Hizbollah makes Al Quaida look like disorganised amateurs.
These people drove the Israelis out of South Lebanon.

From:	DonSideB
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 15:45:32 GMT

In article <1106145865.209619.42860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
darkness39@yahoo.com writes:

>
>see my other post. What is being proposed is (probably) a giant raid,
>rather than a fully fledged invasion. But can we get all the sites?
>

Do we have to get all the sites?

Of the 40% (your number) that can't ne taken out with conventional air strikes,
are any of those capable of producing all the phases of nuclear weapons
construction?

How about unconventional air strikes on those sites we really need to get but
are too deep for conventional bombs?

How about if we get all the Mullahs in the shadow government? I really don't
believe the mullahs have the support of the young people in Iran, and perhaps a
civil decapitation is the better course.

In any case, I agree that an Iraq style invasion is not the answer in Iran.

--
don

Someone has to die young for the human species to evolve,
It might as well be people I don't like.

SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 09:13:54 -0800

DonSideB wrote:
> In article <1106145865.209619.42860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> darkness39@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >
> >see my other post. What is being proposed is (probably) a giant
raid,
> >rather than a fully fledged invasion. But can we get all the sites?
> >
>
> Do we have to get all the sites?
>
> Of the 40% (your number) that can't ne taken out with conventional
air strikes,
> are any of those capable of producing all the phases of nuclear
weapons
> construction?

You need to take out as near as 100% of nuclear capability (and as much
of the long range missile capability) as possible. You need to get all
the gas centrifuges if you can, even potentially the capacity to make
them. There will never be another chance to strike again as
effectively.

Also you have to dig to find some of this stuff. Effectively
'reconnaissance by fire' to enter hostile sites and confirm whether
they have nuclear materials or technology.

>
> How about unconventional air strikes on those sites we really need to
get but
> are too deep for conventional bombs?

Some places I suspect someone is going to have to *dig*. Conventional
weapons won't penetrate.

The sort of raid the Atlantic article talked about was (up to) several
divisions in size. The closest analogy I can come to was the post Son
Tay Raid plan (Son Tay was the North Vietnamese POW camp where the US
successfully landed, wiped out a company of Chinese or Russian
advisers, but the POWs had been moved because a CIA programme to seed
the rainclouds had succeeded too well): there was a followup plan to
liberate the Hanoi Hilton (where the POWs were all moved to) by landing
the 82nd Airborne at the airport to cover the Green Berets when they
went into the HH. They went so far in planning as to retrieve French
colonial maps of the sewer system.

>
> How about if we get all the Mullahs in the shadow government?

Impossible to find them all, identify them all, let alone take them all
out. It's not a handful of people, it is an entire governmental,
judicial and security infrastructure (best analogy I can think of is
the old Soviet system, if the KGB Security Apparatus was an entire
parallel state*). Plus bombing the holy sites (Qom etc.) is going to
inflame every Shi'ite in the world.

* analogies to the Ba'ath party in Iraq, but undoubtedly much more
entrenched in the society and the political system. The Ba'ath were
opposed by the religious leaders, whereas the Pasdaran (Revolutionary
Guard) etc. are made up of religious leaders.

I really don't
> believe the mullahs have the support of the young people in Iran, and
perhaps a
> civil decapitation is the better course.

Imagine a civil decapitation of the Labour Party in the UK. Would the
Torys automatically be the friend of whoever did it? Not likely.

Iranians by and large want reform. But that is not the same thing as
saying 'invade my country'. Most Iranians have very strong
nationalistic feelings especially towards meddling from the West. Most
Iranians are pro Iran developing nuclear weapons.

If there is peace between Iran and the US, then in 10-20 years time (or
less) I can see rapproachment. The Iranians want desperately to be
recognised as a 'major power' in the region: the nation is descended
from the ancient kings of Persia and has that kind of self image. And
whilst there is incredible suspicion of the US/UK there is also
admiration: most Iranians were not alive at the time of the Revolution
in 1979. The analogy I make is with the pariah status of Communist
China with the world in the 1960s.

>
> In any case, I agree that an Iraq style invasion is not the answer in
Iran.

We agree on something ;-). It literally cannot be done. Iran is (I
think) half the size of Western Europe, has nearly 80 million people
(?) and is mostly mountains and desert. In addition, it has one of the
world's largest cities (Tehran: over 10 million people).

And Iranians repelled their last invader (Saddam Hussein) by dint of
sheer patriotism and suicidal courage.

(an anecdote: someone I knew who had travelled to over 100 countries
said he thought the Iranians were the most dangerous drivers he had
ever seen: pure in'shallah (Allah wills it), absolutely reckless)

What is interesting is that so much of this stuff has been leaked.
Which gives me some thought that what the US government is doing is
sabre-rattling, hoping to bring the Iranians to the bargaining table.
Or what is about to happen is imminent.

From:	demorgan
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	18 Jan 2005 22:31:02 GMT

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal wrote:
>Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:

Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about Iran,
Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in major
media.

--
ROT13 for email address: qrzbetna@wqrtr.ivfv.pbz

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:13:53 -0500

In article ,
demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal wrote:
> >Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:
>
> Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about Iran,
> Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in major
> media.

Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner, and he did write the book on Abu
Ghraib. But, even if we were doing something serious, the blowback
would be a disaster.

From:	Starship
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:53:51 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote:
>
> In article ,
> demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal wrote:
> > >Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:
> >
> > Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about Iran,
> > Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in major
> > media.
>
> Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner, and he did write the book on Abu
> Ghraib. But, even if we were doing something serious, the blowback
> would be a disaster.

Possibly. But (1) an unsourced leak can be a way of communicating to
Iran how serious the administration is without officially giving an
ultimatum which the Iranians might be forced by their own internal
politics to reject, and (2) if diplomacy fails, we're probably not
looking at a choice between military action and deterence, but between
American military action and Israeli military action (for which the
United States would still be blamed).

And in any case, there's nothing particularly odd or provocative about
making war plans. Military leaders in every country are expected to have
plans ready for any kind of action that the armed forces might
conceivable be called upon to carry out.

--
Starship

He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	20 Jan 2005 06:31:21 -0800

It's more out of the interviews Dubroynin et al. gave especially re
Cuban Missile Crisis.

Also what they did publish in English (eg Soviet Military Review, a
quite serious magazine) and its criticisms of American strategic policy
can actually be taken, often, at face value. There were as far as I
know, no 'limited nuclear war' plans in the Soviet system: among other
things their command and control was far too primitive to permit that.

Once they crossed the nuclear threshold, they would have taken a 'use
it or lose it' philosophy. The commanders in Cuba were authorised to
strike, if attacked, and some of those missiles would have fallen on
American cities.

The dreadful thing is that the infrastructure to terminate the planet
is still in place, on both sides-- although the readiness status has
been reduced, it could still be geared up again very quickly. And
indeed, Putin has announced a new generation of ICBMs.

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:05:05 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote in
news:MPG.1c57704cdebea01798969d@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner

These days, that doesn't mean much--kind of like the Nobel
Peace Prize, if it can be awarded to Arafat.

> and he did write the book on Abu Ghraib.

See, I rest my case.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || An American Hero
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Sgt. Rafael Peralta
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://tinyurl.com/4usq9

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:27:52 -0500

In article ,
asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com says...
> Jason Crowell wrote in
> news:MPG.1c57704cdebea01798969d@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> > Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner
>
> These days, that doesn't mean much--kind of like the Nobel
> Peace Prize, if it can be awarded to Arafat.

So, are you saying that he's wrong?

> > and he did write the book on Abu Ghraib.
>
> See, I rest my case.

Again, are you saying that he's wrong, and if so, where is he wrong?

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	20 Jan 2005 04:29:52 -0800

Jackson wrote:
> Jason Crowell wrote in
news:MPG.1c581e969275f36e9896a0
> @news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> > Given the choice of letting these fools protect us, or living in
> > constant fear of nuclear annihilation, I'll take fear of nuclear
> > annihilation. (I live in Indianoplace, far from the highest target
on a
> > terrorists hit list)
>
> I was told once or twice that during the bad old days the absolute
worst
> place to live was the midwest. Not only because of the ICBMs, but
because
> of the farmland. The best place to live? Silicon Valley. I guess the
> purpose of this kind of attack was annihilation of the people while
keeping
> the infrastructure for later exploitation... just like the idea of
the
> neutron bomb... remember those?

Soviet strategic doctrine did not distinguish between 'counterforce'
(military bases and strategic nuclear weapons sites) and 'countervalue'
(cities).

They would have destroyed Silicon Valley as the centre of the US
electronics industry and Laurence Livermore Labs as a key component in
the nuclear supply and research chain. Heavy industry, electronics,
transport hubs would all have been obliterated.

There was no real plan to conquer and occupy the US, only a plan to
destroy it as a defensive move (remembering that Russia was invaded 4
(or 5) times in the 20th Century, 'defence' meant attack the enemy on
his home soil). So their nuclear strike would have been predicated on
removing the US as a future threat to Soviet Russia for all time--
destroy its entire military capability and the industrial underpinnings
of it. If 5 megatonne bombs fall on JFK, Laguardia and Newark then it
would be academic whether Wall Street itself got hit.

The neutron bomb, like all the Intermediate Nuclear Force stuff, was
basically a joke as far as the Russians were concerned. Their nuclear
attack would be spasmodic and total, the idea of 'graduated response'
put out by RAND, Herman Kahn etc. was something they treated as a
sophisticated Western deception plan.

From:	John Warren
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:03:01 -0500

wrote in message
news:1106224192.782311.5840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> The neutron bomb, like all the Intermediate Nuclear Force stuff, was
> basically a joke as far as the Russians were concerned. Their nuclear
> attack would be spasmodic and total, the idea of 'graduated response'
> put out by RAND, Herman Kahn etc. was something they treated as a
> sophisticated Western deception plan.

Nicolo Machiavelli: "Never do your enemy a small hurt"
>

From:	Vorticity Kappa
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:17:06 -0500

wrote in message
news:1106224192.782311.5840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>

>
> The neutron bomb, like all the Intermediate Nuclear Force stuff, was
> basically a joke as far as the Russians were concerned. Their nuclear
> attack would be spasmodic and total, the idea of 'graduated response'
> put out by RAND, Herman Kahn etc. was something they treated as a
> sophisticated Western deception plan.

Is this out of CCCP archives?

Sounds like I should have been more frightened than I in fact was.

I returned to the US (after 20 years in NZ) in 1977, and I remember feeling
the weight of the regard of some guy in a hole in Kazakhstan fall on my
shoulders as I stepped off the plane at LAX, class A target, B52 capable
runway.

I remember that weight slowly lifting, starting in 1989. And I've been glad
my children did not have to feel it during the "hiatus in history"
1989-2001.

--
VK

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:54:28 -0800

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:17:06 -0500, "Vorticity Kappa"
wrote:

>> The neutron bomb, like all the Intermediate Nuclear Force stuff, was
>> basically a joke as far as the Russians were concerned. Their nuclear
>> attack would be spasmodic and total, the idea of 'graduated response'
>> put out by RAND, Herman Kahn etc. was something they treated as a
>> sophisticated Western deception plan.
>
>Is this out of CCCP archives?
>
>Sounds like I should have been more frightened than I in fact was.
>
>I returned to the US (after 20 years in NZ) in 1977, and I remember feeling
>the weight of the regard of some guy in a hole in Kazakhstan fall on my
>shoulders as I stepped off the plane at LAX, class A target, B52 capable
>runway.
>
>I remember that weight slowly lifting, starting in 1989. And I've been glad
>my children did not have to feel it during the "hiatus in history"
>1989-2001.

Hear! Hear!

Many Americans don't understand why Ronald Reagan was seen as *such* a
dangerous loon on foreign policy issues:

"I believe a nuclear war in Europe is winnable".

(... except if you happen to live there, and/or understand that the
Soviets had their own version of Kennedy's attack from anywhere in the
western hemisphere as an attack on the US from the USSR. As soon as
someone lobbed a Pershing at, say, East Germany, the SS-21s would have
left the Rodina on their one-way trip to the USA...)

Malc.

From:	darkness39 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	20 Jan 2005 06:33:40 -0800

My favourite story. In 1979 a survivalist in Queen Charlotte Islands
(effectively the most eastern of the Aleutian chain) off Canada plotted
nuclear fallout patterns, and moved his family to the safest islands he
could find in the world to wait out the holocaust....
they were called the Falklands.

From:	DonSideB
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 00:21:46 GMT

In article , Jason
Crowell writes:

>In article ,
>demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal wrote:
>> >Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:
>>
>> Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about Iran,
>> Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in major
>> media.
>
>Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner, and he did write the book on Abu
>Ghraib. But, even if we were doing something serious, the blowback
>would be a disaster.
>

Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?

On the other hand, we have 40,000 in inventory, so I guess we could spare a few
for them.

It is unacceptable to me to allow a terrorist state to possess nuclear weapons.

--
don

Someone has to die young for the human species to evolve,
It might as well be people I don't like.

SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia

From:	Binder
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:16:58 -0800

DonSideB wrote:

> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?

Why not?

With US Imperialism what it is, what little country would not want some
means of self-protection?

Why is it that the people who insist that the best means of protecting
their homes and families is a loaded gun get upset when a country ours
isn't friendly with (read: they don't ascribe to our "moral"
imperatives) wants the ability to do essentially the same thing?

The concept our gummint seems to be missing is that, when we rely on
economic means (and I include the use of military force to encourage
compliance with our ideals) we do not encourage democracy, but capitalism.

How is the US and its "world democratic domination" substantially
different from the former USSR and its "world communist terror"? The
goals are the same, it's just the means that differ.

IMO, democracy is only as great as the ability of any region to choose
it. Remove that choice, and it's "democratic" fascism:

"political philosophy or movement that places the nation or the race
above the individual and that stands for highly centralized government
led by a dictator; belief in militarism, racism, and nationalism;
opposition to democracy and human rights."
-- web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:45:22 -0500

In article <10v04g09kji6o0e@corp.supernews.com>, binderunread@yahoo.com
says...
> DonSideB wrote:
>
> > Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?
>
> Why not?
>
> With US Imperialism what it is, what little country would not want some
> means of self-protection?
>
> Why is it that the people who insist that the best means of protecting
> their homes and families is a loaded gun get upset when a country ours
> isn't friendly with (read: they don't ascribe to our "moral"
> imperatives) wants the ability to do essentially the same thing?
>
> The concept our gummint seems to be missing is that, when we rely on
> economic means (and I include the use of military force to encourage
> compliance with our ideals) we do not encourage democracy, but capitalism.

Capitalism, mind you, is not required for democracy, nor is democracy
required for capitalism. In fact, true facist governments were very
capitalistic, or, more precisely corporatist.

> How is the US and its "world democratic domination" substantially
> different from the former USSR and its "world communist terror"? The
> goals are the same, it's just the means that differ.

Not the same goal, but the same end result. Hegemony and/or Empire.

> IMO, democracy is only as great as the ability of any region to choose
> it. Remove that choice, and it's "democratic" fascism:
>
> "political philosophy or movement that places the nation or the race
> above the individual and that stands for highly centralized government
> led by a dictator; belief in militarism, racism, and nationalism;
> opposition to democracy and human rights."
> -- web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html

From:	Binder
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:39:38 -0800

Jason Crowell wrote:

> Capitalism, mind you, is not required for democracy, nor is democracy
> required for capitalism. In fact, true facist governments were very
> capitalistic, or, more precisely corporatist.

Yup, quite true. So the Amurrican tactic of forcing democracy on
otherwise unwilling regions, while retaining all the capital for
Amurrican interests makes even more sense.

From:	demorgan
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	21 Jan 2005 13:54:25 GMT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:16:58 -0800, Binder wrote:
>
>How is the US and its "world democratic domination" substantially
>different from the former USSR and its "world communist terror"? The
>goals are the same, it's just the means that differ.

Just the difference between slavery and freedom, that's all.

--
ROT13 for email address: qrzbetna@wqrtr.ivfv.pbz

When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:30:09 -0500

In article ,
demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:16:58 -0800, Binder wrote:
> >
> >How is the US and its "world democratic domination" substantially
> >different from the former USSR and its "world communist terror"? The
> >goals are the same, it's just the means that differ.
>
> Just the difference between slavery and freedom, that's all.

Except that in many cases, we have not delivered freedom. We have, in
fact, provided support to a wide variety of dictators.

All in our national interest, but don't pretend that we were doing that
to support their freedom.

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:36 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote in news:MPG.1c5adbf780abdad49896a7
@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> Except that in many cases, we have not delivered freedom.

It's amazing that you've been sleeping all this time. The past
is the past. Bush's foreign policy has ditched the status quo.
After all, he's taken what was once the Democrat foreign policy
and made it his own.

Google the Bush Doctrine.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || An American Hero
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Sgt. Rafael Peralta
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://tinyurl.com/4usq9

From:	SilverOz
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:47:38 GMT

In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:30:09 -0500
Jason Crowell wrote:
> In article ,
> demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
>>
>> Just the difference between slavery and freedom, that's all.
>
> Except that in many cases, we have not delivered freedom. We have, in
> fact, provided support to a wide variety of dictators.
>

And, it seems, happily given away a lot of your own freedoms. In the
name of security and in the name of capitalism.

Seems sort of odd from over here, this worship of a term that isn't
defined.

SilverOz

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:27:15 GMT

SilverOz wrote in
news:slrncv2qbq.iun.SilverOz@zeus.zipworld.com.au:

> And, it seems, happily given away a lot of your own freedoms.

Well, no. It's obvious that those who whine the most about
the Patriot Act have never read it.

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || An American Hero
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Sgt. Rafael Peralta
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://tinyurl.com/4usq9

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:50:10 -0800

On 21 Jan 2005 13:54:25 GMT, demorgan@jdege.visi.com (demorgan) wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:16:58 -0800, Binder wrote:
>>
>>How is the US and its "world democratic domination" substantially
>>different from the former USSR and its "world communist terror"? The
>>goals are the same, it's just the means that differ.
>
>Just the difference between slavery and freedom, that's all.

That should be "Freedom(tm)", now.

Thinking about the Goof-in-Chief's speech yesterday (while being
amused that the man whose job title is "speaker" was a truly lousy
speaker, and muffed his lines pretty massively), apart from all the
religious waffle, it sounded fairly reasonable in it's "everybody
wants freedom and liberty" stuff...

.... until I started realizing that the Basques, and the Kurds, and
others like them that want to be "free" from a larger state totally
derail the dogma.

Are we, the USA, now going to be bound to support the Basques against
Madrid? Because *that* is the conclusion that a Basque would come to
from the inaugural address! They see themselves as ruled by the
tyranny of Madrid, etc.

Likewise the Kurdish separatists.

Malc.

From:	SilverOz
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:13:32 GMT

In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:50:10 -0800
Malcolm Weir wrote:
> ... until I started realizing that the Basques, and the Kurds, and
> others like them that want to be "free" from a larger state totally
> derail the dogma.

I note that the "free trade" agreement between Oz and the US prevents Oz
citizens from doing things they were free to do before. Such as have
free access to some literature.

Funny word that, eh?

SilverOz

From:	Lord Richard
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:27:53 -0600

DonSideB wrote:
> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain
> them?

Like it or not, every nation on the planet has a duty to protect
their citizens from incursions by foreign powers. This means that every
nation on the planet must develop weapons equivalent to or more powerful
than the weapons held by the strongest nation on the planet. It is their
God given right.
As long as we or anybody else possess nukes expect everybody else to
work on developing them as a deterrent to prevent the sort of abominable
thugism that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.

--

Lord Richard
Virgins ravished. Spinsters satisfied.
Love slaves trained. Orgies organized.

Live your life so that when you die, the preacher will not have
to tell lies at your funeral, or -- Live your life so that when
you die, there will be standing room only at your funeral.

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:35:31 -0500

In article <20050118192146.16716.00000053@mb-m14.aol.com>,
donsideb@aol.combackatyu says...
> In article , Jason
> Crowell writes:
>
> >In article ,
> >demorgan@jdege.visi.com says...
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:03 GMT, Kristal wrote:
> >> >Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker predicts war in Iran:
> >>
> >> Much as I'd like to think we were doing something serious about Iran,
> >> Hersh has a reputation for being the most credulous reporter in major
> >> media.
> >
> >Maybe, but he's also a Pulitzer winner, and he did write the book on Abu
> >Ghraib. But, even if we were doing something serious, the blowback
> >would be a disaster.
> >
>
> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?

I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.

> On the other hand, we have 40,000 in inventory, so I guess we could spare a few
> for them.

Y'know, for a guy who thinks we needed to go into Iraq to prevent the
War on Abstract Nouns from expanding into a genocidal conflict of
civilizations, you sure are in a hurry to escalate the war.

From:	Jackson
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:09:32 -0000

Jason Crowell wrote in
news:MPG.1c57918134e9693698969e@news.comcast.giganews.com:

>> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain
>> them?
>
> I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
> they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.

does that mean you would want to go back to the constant fear that we
would all die in 30 minutes because of an accident, an unstable military,
or an unstable leadership? Keep in mind that there were several times
when we came close. The last one I recall was when the Soviets so were
convinced that Reagan was going to launch a first strike that they
considered doing it before he got the chance.

I dont particularly like the Iran strike idea floating around. But if
there is such a weapons program (requiring 'absolute' proof considering
the Iraq mess), given the choice between dealing with it now by force or
going back to what you suggest, even in a small way, its no contest. And
then of course we get to deal with the backlash. But what else is new.

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:48:21 -0800

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:09:32 -0000, Jackson
wrote:

>Jason Crowell wrote in
>news:MPG.1c57918134e9693698969e@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>>> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain
>>> them?
>>
>> I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
>> they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.
>
>does that mean you would want to go back to the constant fear that we
>would all die in 30 minutes because of an accident, an unstable military,
>or an unstable leadership? Keep in mind that there were several times
>when we came close. The last one I recall was when the Soviets so were
>convinced that Reagan was going to launch a first strike that they
>considered doing it before he got the chance.

Or how about the Norwegian Rocket incident?

Ten years ago (Jan 25, 1995) the Norwegians launched a scientific
rocket. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces went to full alert, as in
"the next command you hear will be the launch order" alert.

It's generally considered to be as close to a full-scale launch as
we've ever come, certainly since the Cuban missile crisis...

Malc.

From:	Jackson
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:46:38 -0000

Malcolm Weir wrote in
news:g2ltu05b3p403bujs8b5h90c46nc5e92ur@4ax.com:

> Or how about the Norwegian Rocket incident?
>
> Ten years ago (Jan 25, 1995) the Norwegians launched a scientific
> rocket. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces went to full alert, as in
> "the next command you hear will be the launch order" alert.
>
> It's generally considered to be as close to a full-scale launch as
> we've ever come, certainly since the Cuban missile crisis...

That one I didnt know. A perfect example of why it is NOT a good thing to
want to go back to those days.

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:37:35 -0500

In article , invalid123
@noemail.com says...
> Jason Crowell wrote in
> news:MPG.1c57918134e9693698969e@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> >> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain
> >> them?
> >
> > I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
> > they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.
>
> does that mean you would want to go back to the constant fear that we
> would all die in 30 minutes because of an accident, an unstable military,
> or an unstable leadership?

Given the choice of letting these fools protect us, or living in
constant fear of nuclear annihilation, I'll take fear of nuclear
annihilation. (I live in Indianoplace, far from the highest target on a
terrorists hit list)

> Keep in mind that there were several times
> when we came close. The last one I recall was when the Soviets so were
> convinced that Reagan was going to launch a first strike that they
> considered doing it before he got the chance.

My favorite was when a Soviet officer saw radar reports of multiple
missile launches. He was supposed to alert his bosses, which would have
resulted in a counter-attack. He decided that it was a malfunction, and
ignored it...

> I dont particularly like the Iran strike idea floating around. But if
> there is such a weapons program (requiring 'absolute' proof considering
> the Iraq mess),

The problem with that, is that they'll try to baffle us with BS again.
I've long since gone to a doctrinaire approach, I simply assume that
whatever they're trying to do will be a fuckup, therefore I should be
opposed.

Surprisingly, after evaluating the performance of that, it's been
extremely successful at causing me to be opposed to policy disasters,
with almost no false alarms.

Worst. Administration. Evuh.

> given the choice between dealing with it now by force or
> going back to what you suggest, even in a small way, its no contest. And
> then of course we get to deal with the backlash. But what else is new.

Problem is, if the backlash occurs as I expect, it'll make Iraq into an
impossible position for us. If we had Iraq under some semblance of
control, and we'd shown *some* sign of learning from mistakes made in
the Mess in Mesopotamia, I'd be much more open to that idea.

From:	Jackson
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:32:22 -0000

Jason Crowell wrote in news:MPG.1c581e969275f36e9896a0
@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> Given the choice of letting these fools protect us, or living in
> constant fear of nuclear annihilation, I'll take fear of nuclear
> annihilation. (I live in Indianoplace, far from the highest target on a
> terrorists hit list)

I was told once or twice that during the bad old days the absolute worst
place to live was the midwest. Not only because of the ICBMs, but because
of the farmland. The best place to live? Silicon Valley. I guess the
purpose of this kind of attack was annihilation of the people while keeping
the infrastructure for later exploitation... just like the idea of the
neutron bomb... remember those?

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:50:35 -0800

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:32:22 -0000, Jackson
wrote:

>Jason Crowell wrote in news:MPG.1c581e969275f36e9896a0
>@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>> Given the choice of letting these fools protect us, or living in
>> constant fear of nuclear annihilation, I'll take fear of nuclear
>> annihilation. (I live in Indianoplace, far from the highest target on a
>> terrorists hit list)
>
>I was told once or twice that during the bad old days the absolute worst
>place to live was the midwest. Not only because of the ICBMs, but because
>of the farmland. The best place to live? Silicon Valley.

Not a hope.

Onizuka AFB (the "Blue Cube" in Sunnyvale) would be high on any Soviet
hit list.

Mind you, the Denver/Colorado Springs area would be even higher, plus
(naturally) DC, which is utterly unnecessary...

>I guess the
>purpose of this kind of attack was annihilation of the people while keeping
>the infrastructure for later exploitation... just like the idea of the
>neutron bomb... remember those?

.... for any kind of purpose!

Malc.

From:	Jackson
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:15:27 -0000

Malcolm Weir wrote in
news:8eltu0po999atgr1jj63aa1lrnmsiqru3j@4ax.com:

> Onizuka AFB (the "Blue Cube" in Sunnyvale) would be high on any Soviet
> hit list.

Yea I know it... damn ugly building if you ask me ;o) Im not saying it
wouldnt be on many such lists... as there are always more war plans than
anyone can count. But it wouldnt be on others, with the intent to preserve
the technology for later exploitation. The difference is whether or not an
attack would be for total destruction, or conquest. Wouldnt be the first
time only limited action on militarily viable targets was used because of
other reasons.

One example that comes to mind from the US side might have been Soviet oil
fields... the perfect place to make totally uninhabitable while leaving the
infrastructure. Dunno how it would be done without making the area like
what Saddam did to Kuwait. But... Im sure certain people worked hard to
figure out how.

From:	Malcolm Weir
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:50:06 -0800

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:15:27 -0000, Jackson
wrote:

>Malcolm Weir wrote in
>news:8eltu0po999atgr1jj63aa1lrnmsiqru3j@4ax.com:
>
>> Onizuka AFB (the "Blue Cube" in Sunnyvale) would be high on any Soviet
>> hit list.
>
>Yea I know it... damn ugly building if you ask me ;o) Im not saying it
>wouldnt be on many such lists... as there are always more war plans than
>anyone can count. But it wouldnt be on others, with the intent to preserve
>the technology for later exploitation. The difference is whether or not an
>attack would be for total destruction, or conquest. Wouldnt be the first
>time only limited action on militarily viable targets was used because of
>other reasons.

Ummm... I can with some authority state that Onizuka's role in
counter-strikes would make it a permanent member of any strike
lists...

Travis and Offet AFBs, on the other hand, is a perfect example of an
infrastructure that they might choose to keep...

Malc.

From:	Asmodeus
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:06:59 GMT

Jason Crowell wrote in news:MPG.1c581e969275f36e9896a0
@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> I live in Indianoplace

I thought you folks up there didn't like that ...

--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || An American Hero
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Sgt. Rafael Peralta
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://tinyurl.com/4usq9

From:	DonSideB
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 12:35:13 GMT

In article , Jason
Crowell writes:

>>
>> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?
>
>I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
>they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.
>

Sometimes I really miss the Godless Communists. You could do business with
them. They wanted success and power in this world.

Now, we deal with an enemy who thinks martyrdom is neat. Not a sacrifice to be
made for the Rodina if necessary, but a desirable way to culminate a life of
faith and submission to Allah.

There is no reason to believe that a perpetual state of MAD is workable with an
Islamofascist enemy. All it takes is ONE nutcase who wants his virgins, and
Iran has a shadow government made up exclusively of such nutcases.

So, no, MAD and containment is not an acceptable guarantee of my
granddaughter's safety. Nuclear weapons must be forever forbidden to the Muslim
world. I don't really care if it is 'fair' or complies with the sensibilities
of the French. They cannot be trusted with that technology and we are capable
of denying it to them. It is our duty to our progeny and the world to see that
they do not obtain them, whatever it takes.

--
don

Someone has to die young for the human species to evolve,
It might as well be people I don't like.

SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia

From:	Jason Crowell
Subject:	Re: The Coming War (OT)
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:02 -0500

In article <20050119073513.01270.00000049@mb-m23.aol.com>,
donsideb@aol.combackatyu says...
> In article , Jason
> Crowell writes:
>
> >>
> >> Iran wants nuclear weapons. Do you think it wise to let them obtain them?
> >
> >I know what'll happen to them if they let those nukes loose. So do
> >they, MAD worked for a half-century with the USSR.
> >
>
> Sometimes I really miss the Godless Communists. You could do business with
> them. They wanted success and power in this world.

Well, while your guy has been off fightin' the "Islamofacists", Russia
and China have been in the ascendant...

> Now, we deal with an enemy who thinks martyrdom is neat. Not a sacrifice to be
> made for the Rodina if necessary, but a desirable way to culminate a life of
> faith and submission to Allah.

Except that the vast majority of them don't think that, if they did,
we'd be well and truly fucked. However, Iraq is just slowly
disintegrating as opposed to catastrophically imploding.

> There is no reason to believe that a perpetual state of MAD is workable with an
> Islamofascist enemy. All it takes is ONE nutcase who wants his virgins, and
> Iran has a shadow government made up exclusively of such nutcases.

Except that most of those people want to keep their wives here, and
would like to put off finding out whether they get 72 virgins as long as
possible.

> So, no, MAD and containment is not an acceptable guarantee of my
> granddaughter's safety. Nuclear weapons must be forever forbidden to the Muslim
> world. I don't really care if it is 'fair' or complies with the sensibilities
> of the French.

And nevermind that what you call "Islamofacist" is not in control of any
nukes (there are lots of non-crazy Iranians, including an actual gov't),
nor is there, really, an "Islamofacist" movement.

> They cannot be trusted with that technology and we are capable
> of denying it to them. It is our duty to our progeny and the world to see that
> they do not obtain them, whatever it takes.

ISTR you claiming that if a guy built a nuke, the government shouldn't
limit that, as it was that guy's responsibility. Now you're claiming
that the government should go to another country to prevent them from
having nukes.