|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 19, 1:06 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Hyper wrote: On Feb 19, 1:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote: I'm still amazed we fell for Chalabi's line... snip Pat Who said they "fell" for it? The other alternative is that we have some vested interest in having Iran take over Iraq.* Chalabi was our Golden Boy, who assured us that all we had to do was toss Saddam out on his rear, and miraculously the teeming masses yearning to be free in Iraq would set up a democratic government overnight. It didn't sink in until a couple of months after the invasion and occupation that our friend Mr. Chalabi was peculiarly friendly with Iran... so friendly in fact, that if one didn't know better you might have thought him to be an Iranian agent. I simply meant that the decision was already taken, and Chalabi just a convenient rabble-rouser. To be perfectly honest, I did believe Sadam had the "capability" to build a nuke or two. * Or is that the idea? to give us an excuse to invade Iran also? Wheel-within-wheels plots, just like in Dune? Just wait till the ghola of Ronald Reagan shows up, and St. Nancy Of The Knife begins her reign of terror. :-) Pat LOL. Eye-rakis will be purged by the great ex-communicator. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Hyper wrote: I simply meant that the decision was already taken, and Chalabi just a convenient rabble-rouser. He was one of the ones pushing for the invasion option early on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi He's quite the character. Pat |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:54:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Hyper wrote: I simply meant that the decision was already taken, and Chalabi just a convenient rabble-rouser. He was one of the ones pushing for the invasion option early on: Many were pushing for that early on. Regime change was the policy of the Clinton administration... |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery wrote: Allen Thomson wrote: Surprisingly enough, there's a not-bad discussion of possible Russian worries in this regard from a Russian analyst at http:// www.kommersant.com/p741700/strategic_weapons/ . (Most such analysis coming out of the FEE fails to impress.) It's instructive to fire up Google Earth and draw great circles between a site in Iran (I use central Iran, but choose your own launch point), Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. Remember to lead the targets by a few degrees to take earth rotation into account. The trajectory to DC does run right over the proposed Polish GBI sites in the vicinity of Slupsk, but those towards more westerly CONUS targets pass over western Russia. What hits me as odd about that is that it doesn't make any sense from an Iranian first strike perspective, as we would simply nuke them off the face of the earth if they fired at us with a few missiles. Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. And if you find out that they aren't, you certainly can't. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: Yes, you can't imagine that they might actually believe the apocalyptic rants that they spout daily, and are actually interested in immanentizing the eschaton. (Hint: MAD only works when both parties want to survive) The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out the judgments on people. Forget the parallel religious government in Iran for a second, the supposed secular president has made enough comments that I think he certainly seems to border on being a hypernihilist, someone who wants die and take everyone else with him. Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted us to. I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone. I've heard that Robertson thinks he can pilot hurricanes, if I were ever likely to take him seriously. It should be noted that he's not any part of the government while the religious leaders in Iran certainly are in fact in ultimate control. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Pat Flannery wrote: What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S.. Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this? We've been through this before, Pat: it makes no sense *if* you assume that the leadership in Iran (and its neighbors) will always be rational enough and secure enough that deterrence will work. Unfortunately, it's easy to think of reasons why that might not be the case. Notably, in countries where the consequences of political failure often include sudden death, a leader who's backed himself into a corner may personally have nothing to lose by playing nuclear Chicken with the US. Which could easily involve firing off a few missiles that may or may not have nuclear payloads. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Scott Hedrick wrote: "Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them. You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if it's a WMD attack or not. Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as long as it didn't use WMDs). Would missile attacks on Europe constitute something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons, assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it different if an ICBM is fired at New York City. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 19, 4:08 pm, Bill Bonde wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted us to. I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35036 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
" wrote: On Feb 19, 4:08 pm, Bill Bonde wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted us to. I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone. See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35036 OK, you trolled me. I hope you're proud. That text doesn't even mention Iran. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 03:12 AM |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 02:19 AM |
Outer Space Treaty | John Schilling | Policy | 24 | May 24th 06 03:14 PM |
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 7 | April 2nd 05 08:02 PM |