Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Iran, get nukes fast!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Iran, get nukes fast!
    Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 09:57

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against < =yqin =http://yq.search.yahoo.com/search method=post>Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

ADVERTISEMENT
< =text/> if (window.yzq_a == null) document.write(""); < =text/> if (window.yzq_a) { yzq_a('p', 'P=s_aPHkLaS.a8lXJFRCWrYw9IRuGnEEQ3vj4ABITq&T=1a8kjrpvr%2fX% 3d1144503870%2fE%3d95959707%2fR%3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW %3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2824927027%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdz IiBjb250ZW50PSJXaGl0ZTtIb3VzZTttaWxpdGFyeTtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O0Rl bW9jcmF0O0FtZXJpY2FuO3JlZnVybF9pcmFuaWFuX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJy ZWZ1cmxfaXJhbmlhbl9jb20iIHRvcGljcz0icmVmdXJsX2lyYW5pYW5fY29t Ig--%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d92A949D1'); yzq_a('a', '&U=139310oq1%2fN%3dioADI0Je5tk-%2fC%3d390764.8220712.911318 8.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d3226908'); }

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannu clearmilitary_060408061934;_ylt=Apsf7ZiSNVD1bQy5XbkPMM1Sw60A ;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

END

Iran, get nukes fast! thats all i have to say.

unfortunately, my war mongering government is out to get you, and they will destroy iranian cities just to keep their super power status and oil.

what really makes me laugh is the "second hitler" thing. the bush administration used to tell its people that iran was a dictatorship and that the president had no powers, but now they are talking as if iran is a democracy and that ahmadinejad is the leader.

propaganda propaganda propaganda.

waht the USA doesnt realise is that if things come to war, the last thing that will happen is the fall of the mullahs by the people. even my liberal (i mean alcohol drinking, party going etc...) family members in iran, who hate the regime have told me that if the USA attacks, they will never support the USA, but infact will do everything they can to help Iran.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:09

when khatami was in power the USA said that the iran was a dictatorship and that the president had no powers at all and that khamenei has all the power.

now that ahmadinejad is in power, the USA's war mongering propaganda is making it look like ahmadinejad is the ruler, and if thats true, than that would make iran a democracy.

george w. bush is the worst president this country has ever had, he is going to be the one to destroy this country, more than any terrorist would have ever imagined!

its funny, nostradomaus and another predictor (i for got his name, i think he was bosnian(?) strabus or something like that) both predicted WWI and WWII, and on top of that, they both predicted a third world war before 2010, started by the new incarnation of hitler.

and it looks like george w bush is going to start anotehr war, which could potentially be massive, before 2012. looks like the hitler is bush, not ahmadinejad.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:15
Syemour Hersh is full of excrement.  He is a hater and propagandist that the Nazis would have been proud to have int heir ranks.
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:18

seymour hersh is the only one exposing the bush administration for who they truly are, war mongerers.

bush has no education, he is a drunk, and he got the presidency by cheating, ofcourse that many and his super rich oil tycoon friends are only interested in one thing, war and power.

since the bush administration got to power, what have they done for the american people? nothing.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Kalevipoeg View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
  Quote Kalevipoeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:20
The US won't attack soon, and even if they do, Iran is more united then Iraq. This time there will be a fight. Iraqs infrastructure was destroyed by its former ally USA, which means it had no way to fight back or oppose in a manner that counted. Iran is more independent and has more economical and military power. This time Bush needs to think before sending thousands of soldiers dieing to a country across the Globe.

Although i doubt that Bush will be able to attack Iran before the presidential elections. We should know who the next candidates are and which leanings they have.
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:24

My bad, I was thinking of Michael Ledeen for some reason.

I want to see what will happen when the bloodthirsty US administration orders an attack, the US public have been suckered into thinking Iran is the biggest threat to America through the usual deceitful media tactics. 

 

Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 10:28
Originally posted by Zagros

My bad, I was thinking of Michael Ledeen for some reason.

I want to see what will happen when the bloodthirsty US administration orders an attack, the US public have been suckered into thinking Iran is the biggest threat to America through the usual deceitful media tactics. 

 

the patterns are so similar and im sorry to say, but the american people are one of the most gullible and "stupid" people in the world.

they believe everything they are told! its really funny.

first iraq was the biggest threat and now suddenly its iran.

fox news is the bush administrations propaganda machine, every second they are pumping out propaganda against everyone:

the china, mexicans, iran, arab world, north korea, russia, france, venezuela, etc.... non stop propaganda machine.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 11:05

I don't think the US public got suckered into anything. The People who leaned toward the left were against, alot of the right thought it was a bad idea, and half of Americans didn't know where Iraq.

I hope this won't happen. Seems like Bush is on a rampage. We put Clinton up for impeachment, but we don't Bush when he just keeps picking and choosing what to blow up even though most Americans disagree with what he does already. You'd think with the polls and all the protests there are he'd get an idea that people don't want him to continue on with his personal campaign...

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 11:07

the only country in the world that has the power to start a third war is the USA, and unfortunatly, it looks like the bush administration is going to do it.

these nuclear bunker buster missiles, f used, will not only destroy the iranian cities that they are targeting, but will likely cause earthquakes also.

this could very well be the greatest massacre in world history if the USA goes through with its plans.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 11:10

Yea, Clinton's lies never got anyone killed.

I have read somewhere that this report is just scaremongering by this guy.  What he is doing is taking bits and pieces from various US contingencies and piecing them together to make it look like there is an impending attack.  The Us and other countries have contingency plans against even their so-called allies, but does that mean they ever plan on attacking?

 

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 11:25

Just read the story. Seems that George Bushwacker is on a rampage. Americans may be naive at times yet most of us would like to see the president go back to Texas and raise another baseball team (such a success that was!).

I certainly would not want to see the US attack Iran. No more war Bush! Nukes or not. This propaganda talk resembles the kind before the Iraq invasion. I think  most of the Iranians at AE have been sensitive and anxious lately. Irritable and confrontive too. I wonder how much of it has to do with the talk of war looming?

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 11:50

Just wondering: is there something in the US Constitution about special/extraordinary powers given to the President in case of war? Where can I find a (good) copy of the US constitution?

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 12:49
Originally posted by Cezar

Just wondering: is there something in the US Constitution about special/extraordinary powers given to the President in case of war? Where can I find a (good) copy of the US constitution?

Go to the National Archives and Records Administration website:

www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/const itution_transcript.html

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 12:57
Originally posted by Cezar

Just wondering: is there something in the US Constitution about special/extraordinary powers given to the President in case of war? Where can I find a (good) copy of the US constitution?

As to your question, the constitutional power to make war and peace is vested in the Congress.  However, the quaint notion of an actual "declaration of war" has become a casualty of modern times.  Now, you just bullsh*t the Congress into going along with military action as necessary, or unnecessary - whatever.

Going to war is bad, bad, bad.  No one can be seen to declare war on anyone now.  There are no war departments anymore; they are all defense departments.  Semantics of course.

I don't know if there has been a declaration of war anywhere since USSR-Japan in 1945.  It is just not done now, although there has been plenty of military action since then.

 

Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 12:57
Originally posted by Cezar

Just wondering: is there something in the US Constitution about special/extraordinary powers given to the President in case of war? Where can I find a (good) copy of the US constitution?

 

       Why?  We aren't using it anymore.

"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Dark Age View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 209
  Quote Dark Age Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 13:12
US Constitution at Cornell Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overvie w.html

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution which refers to the president as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress. But what the framers meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the Presidents responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized or begun." The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to "declare" war, not to "make" war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).


It seems that the current administration sees an absolute Constitutional right for a president to do anything in times of "war," whether real or imagined, in short or eternal ideological wars.  They have applied such a broad stroke to the law that the executive branch is precluded from needing authorization for anything with regard to "national security," a term they also define widely (and wildly).  They hope to act first and have the judiciary sort out the legality of the actions later, like when the politicians no longer are in power and seemingly above reproach.  The mindset can only be described as "pathetic."  And completely un-American.

Further:

At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates expressly disclaimed any intention to model the American executive exactly after the British monarchy. James Wilson, for example, remarked that the powers of the British king did not constitute "a proper guide in defining the executive powers. Some of these prerogatives were of a Legislative nature. Among others that of war & peace." Edmund Randolph likewise contended that the delegates had "no motive to be governed by the British Government as our prototype."

To repose such foreign-policy authority in the legislative rather than the executive branch of government was a deliberate and dramatic break with the British model of government with which they were most familiar, as well as with that of other nations, where the executive branch (in effect, the monarch) possessed all such rights, including the exclusive right to declare war. The Framers of the Constitution believed that history amply testified to the executives penchant for war. As James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."

At the Constitutional Convention, Pierce Butler "was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the nation will support it." Butlers motion did not receive so much as a second.

James Wilson assured the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war."

In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the presidents authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."

Abraham Lincoln famously explained the principle this way:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you dont."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

According to John Bassett Moore, the great authority on international law who (among other credentials) occupied the first professorship of international law at Columbia University, "There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace."

In conformity with this understanding, George Washingtons operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress," he said, "therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."



Simply put, the fathers of the US never intended to give the president any more power than was necessary for the imminent survival of the country.  War was always considered a last resort and the burden of proof laid with the cause for war, exactly opposite of how the White House sees it.  Quite the perversion of the Constitution, methinks.

I still don't believe the White House could ever convince anyone outside their diminishing spere of influence that nuclear bunker busters need to be used on Iran.  Many minds in the Bush circle are most likely contemplating how they can implicate Iran in some foul deed that would raise the hackles of the citizenry, similar to the Bush plan of flying a decoy UN plane over Saddam's Iraq to give justification of an attack if Saddam shot it down.

It may be a different world since 9/11 but people haven't changed.  Extremism of any stripe is still unwelcome, from the suicide bomber to the B2.  I would like to see a rational mind defend Bush's actions up to this point.


Back to Top
Sino Defender View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 413
  Quote Sino Defender Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 13:43
it doesn't matter if iran is a democracy. it's just something used by politians to make what they do legitimate. what matters is whether it conflicts with the interest of the us.
"Whoever messes with the heavenly middle kingdom, no matter how far s/he escapes, s/he is to be slaughtered"
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 13:50
It's stupid to compare Iran's President to Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler is more known for genocide than his governing style. If they wanted to choose someone who rules like a dictator as an example, Bush himself would fit the bill more accurately.

It might even work. "He's an Iranian Bush!" - the Democrats would invade tomorrow.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 13:57

Oh come on guys, Bush would be unable to "rule" like a dictator, even if he wished to do so. The checks and balances system, established by the founders prevents a "dictatorial" governing style. If any branch of the American government has been acting unilaterally it is the judiciary. I'll grant that the legislature has been pretty impotent lately, but that is hardly the fault of the president.

-Akolouthos

Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 14:26

lol, the checks and balances only work if people dont force them!

so far, bush has spied on americans, started war without congress, forced companies to give up confidential records, held people with charges, and much more...

where are the checks and balances?

many leaders have used war in order to gain more powers.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.