Fallout-Shelter Future

Comments

Mother of all false choices

"So either we go to war with Iran — likely a more costly war than any we’ve faced since 9/11 — or our lives will transform forever."If we go to war with Iran in the absence of an actual attack by Iran itself on us or our allies, our lives will transform forever. Every state that is even remotely comtemplating going nuclear will go nuclear because by attacking Iran while sparing North Korea we will once again hammer home the lesson: "The US does not attack full nuclear powers, only ones years away from a nuclear capability."This would be true even if there were currently viable options for attacking Iran premptively. Twenty-one former generals and high ranking national security officials say otherwise.How can you possibly be in favor of yet another so-called "preventive war" based on the results of the current conflict?

this is fun

Let me take a stab at foreign policy, Stanley Kurtz, neo-conservative, National Review style:Take my word for it, Cameroon wants to attack the US, blow up all the TGI Fridays and lear at the white women.I have no proof.Clearly the only choice is to turn central Africa into a sheet of glass.I will now rest easy on that unimpeachable logic.Say, that WAS fun! Do we have any plans to nuke Pakistan and North Korea too?You want to kill millions of people because their government wants a nuclear bomb but doesn't have one, and is as close to getting one as, say, me or the League of Women Voters?But two countries that DO have them, including one who funds and hides terrorists ... they get a walk.Do I have that right?Tell you want Greg, since you're so fired up about the wisdom of never-ending war, try this link: www.goarmy.com.I hear they're hiring.I am looking forward to your non-response and dismissive one-sentence riposte.

Re:Mother of all false choices

1. The results of the 'current conflict' is from trying to install a democracy. The results of ending Saddam's rein was quite satisfactory and extremely quick.

2. Daniel please read your own post carefully. Nuclear nations don't just appear. Any state that is remotely considering going nuclear is not going to go through the years-long effort just to be bombed flat if they try.

Re:this is fun

"You want to kill millions of people because their government wants a nuclear bomb but doesn't have one, and is as close to getting one as, say, me or the League of Women Voters?"

Here's your one sentence riposte: Wear ear plugs, it keeps the sand out of your ears.

Re:this is fun

Hmm, shallow, uninformed, flippant.Are you sure you don't work for the Department of Defense?Also, do you need someone to blog for you after you leave for basic training and the Glorious Conquest of Persia?Or is it the job of someone else's son to cash the checks your mouth writes?

close, but not quite

There is a difference between ignoring a problem and disagreeing with the insane "only choice" you've outlined.It's called diplomacy. Remember diplomacy? It prevented nuclear annihalation for 50 years. Might work again.

Re:this is fun

"Hmm, shallow, uninformed, flippant."

Tit for tat Chuck. Apparently you want innocent women and children to die for your mental laziness.

people who are smarter than me and Greg

On military options in Iran:JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION"There are no good military options. When you're trying to stabilise Iraq and you've got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you're trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn't be picking a war with the Iranians,' said Carafano. "It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," he said. Iran is believed to protect its most sensitive facilities by dispersing, burying and hardening them, learning from the 1981 Israeli air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. So the payoff from surgical strikes on suspected nuclear facilities would be uncertain and temporary, Carafano said." [1/24/05]REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)"Now, we are not going to go to war with - with Iran. So, that military option is probably off the table. Diplomacy, you have seen what has been taking place. We have been at this diplomatic maneuver for many, many months and many, many years, all to no avail. They have even built up their nuclear infrastructure. So, that leads us to the third tool in our toolbox, which is sanctions." [Fox News, 3/15/06]RET. AIR FORCE LT COL. SAM GARDINERGardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army's National War College, after leading a "war game" on Iran: "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." [12/04]aaaaaaaand from Newsweek:"'The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable,' says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. 'The question is, what then?' NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.'"So on the "military action against Iran is silly" side we have a Army vet / War College professor, a retired Air Force General, a Republican Congresswoman, a Republican Senator and the CIA and the DIA ... none of whom are regarded as in the thrall of the Democratic party.On the "I like war, it reminds me of 'Halo2'" side we have Greg McClay, a librarian and Stanley Kurtz a "fellow at the Hoover Institution with a special interest in America's "culture war."Hmm. Aren't we trained to figure out the authority of a source and the quality of the information? Greg, I give your term paper on nuking Iran an "F." Sorry.

editing Greg McClay

Greg McClay: "The results of ending Saddam's rein was quite satisfactory and extremely quick."Greg, you're from Lowell. A guy named Andrew Zabierek was your neighbor, he lived over in Chelmsford. I say "was" because he's dead. He was killed in action May 21, 2004.You also used to live near Matthew Boule of Dracut. Formerly of Dracut. Matthew was an Army specialist and the first of your fellow Bay Staters to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first of forty.The quick results of the war weren't fast enough for them. And I'd like to see you stop by the Zabierek or Boule households and explain to them how you regard the deaths of their sons as "satisfactory."You can stop by on your way to the recruiting station. Or visit www.goarmy.com. They are forty men short from Massachusetts.Imagine what the losses will be like when the Iranian Shia go nuts and butcher our weakened Army in Iraq because you, Stanley Kurtz, Bil Kristol and the rest of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardists are 100% sure bombing Iran will fix everything.You've been incredibly right about everything thus far.

Re:editing Greg McClay

If you want to live in your dream world where no one will ever get hurt if only we'd just lay down our guns and hope the other side does too, by all means keep on keepin' on.

Re:editing Greg McClay

"We?" What's this "we" business? What gun are you holding? Don't you have to pick up a gun to put one down?Greg, it's real easy to remember: www.goarmy.com.I'm sure there are recruiters in Lowell or Billereca. Then you'll be part of the "we" holding the guns, which is what you want, right?

Re:editing Greg McClay

Yes, 'we'. I don't know where you're from but I live in a country where the public governs the military, not the other way around. Apparently that's your preference though.

to sum up

Greg,Can you cite any sources that show that Iran has a nuclear weapon, or that US military action will solve the "problem"?

What we went for

"1. The results of the 'current conflict' is from trying to install a democracy. The results of ending Saddam's rein was quite satisfactory and extremely quick."Go back and read the use of force resolution against Iraq and the President's notification starting the war. You should see that in March 2003, giving democracy to Iraq was not a primary reason given for going to war. The resolution mentions democracy in passing, but most of the text relates to WMD and terrorist ties.The President's letter doesn't even mention democracy for the Iraqis as a motivation, but does mention 9/11 in his claim that in proceeding against Iraq, he is going after a party involved in 9/11. Here is the whole letter (emphsis mine) for all to see:

Presidential LetterText of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the SenateMarch 18, 2003Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.Sincerely,GEORGE W. BUSH

Thus the current conflict was not started on trying to instill a democracy but a misguided and in my view and view of many churches, an immoral war aimed conducted because of "what might be". Given the tremendous burden of the current optional war in lives and treasure, we cannot afford another war that is not defensive in fact, as opposed to what we fear."2. Daniel please read your own post carefully. Nuclear nations don't just appear. Any state that is remotely considering going nuclear is not going to go through the years-long effort just to be bombed flat if they try."That was the faulty premise of the Iraq war. Slam Iraq flat and other countries, especially Iran and North Korea would tremble in their boots and immediately give up their programs.North Korea is now a nuclear power because they rightly calculated that we will not attack a nuclear power without some tangible attack - i.e. invading North Korea.And if Iran had been intimidated, we wouldn't be having this conversation.Now a policy with zero security results might be acceptable if it cost free, but given it's cost of $400+ Billion, 2,600 hundred dead Americans and tens of thousand of Iraqi deaths, it's unacceptable.Finally, with what are you going to fight Iran with? Conventional air strikes haven been shown to be inneffective since WWII. Ground forces? We're being forced to call people from the Individual Ready Reserve and forcing people into third and fourth tours of Iraq. Where will get people for Iran?Shall we nuke them? How do we deal with the blowback? Or even the radioactive fallout on our new Iraqi allies, or our older Turkish allies? Given that we still only inspect 9% of cargo containers into this country, would it really be a good idea to nuke Iran?I'm the first to admit I have no easy answers. Unlike Chuck, I have little faith in sanctions or diplomacy. Both have been tried on Iran and North Korea for years. One thing we haven't tried which I'd like to see even if unsuccessful are one-on-one direct talks with both Iran and North Korea. While we've had bundles of diplomacy, we've never once committed ourselves to either one-on-one talks or a written pledge we won't destroy they're regimes.But that well may not work. Then we'll have to rely on deterrance, which does have a demonstrated track record. If deterrance fails, then we will have a situtation where we are defending ourselves from attack and not institigating mass slaughter ourselves on our fears of what could be.

Re:to sum up

Little child, you don't get to throw the names of dead soldiers in my face and then expect me to waste any energy debating you. You're a step and a half away from being another Nellis.

Re:What we went for

Dan,Please stop clouding the issues with your liberal "facts" and all that "logic" and whatnot. This is an election year. Let's light some s*** up.I figure Iran in '06, Syria in '08, back to Iraq and Afghanistan for the next presidential election. In fact, we should have enough brown people to keep neo-conservatives in power until well into the middle of this century.Or the treasury is empty. Which ever comes last.

Re:to sum up

I'm sorry the results of the war(s) you champion bum you out. They bum me out too. They do have names, Greg. It's not just cool sounding rhetoric in pop-policy magazines. Somebody else pays for it. And it's usually somebody poorer, darker and braver than both of us.

Re:What we went for

Go back and read the use of force resolution against Iraq and the President's notification starting the war. You should see that in March 2003, giving democracy to Iraq was not a primary reason given for going to war. The resolution mentions democracy in passing, but most of the text relates to WMD and terrorist ties.

I didn't say it was Daniel. That's the point. If its necessary to go to war with Iran its perfectly doable if the only goal is to take out their nuclear facilities.

Thus the current conflict was not started on trying to instill a democracy but a misguided and in my view and view of many churches, an immoral war aimed conducted because of "what might be". Given the tremendous burden of the current optional war in lives and treasure, we cannot afford another war that is not defensive in fact, as opposed to what we fear.

Absolutely true and when the leaders of Iran are well on their way to having nuclear capabilities while at the same time talking about wiping Israel off the map, while at the same time giving military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon, while at the same time giving military support to the insurgents in Iraq then the case is certainly there for our own interests and defense to make sure they don't actually build a nuclear bomb.

That was the faulty premise of the Iraq war. Slam Iraq flat and other countries, especially Iran and North Korea would tremble in their boots and immediately give up their programs.

Gee Daniel, I don't see that premise being used in the letter you quoted.

North Korea is now a nuclear power because they rightly calculated that we will not attack a nuclear power without some tangible attack - i.e. invading North Korea.

Your logic is completely ass-backwards. They are a nuclear power because we ignored them. If we had actually shut them down in the 90's they wouldn't be a problem today. Again, you do not become a nuclear power overnight.

Now a policy with zero security results might be acceptable if it cost free, but given it's cost of $400+ Billion, 2,600 hundred dead Americans and tens of thousand of Iraqi deaths, it's unacceptable.

Maybe to you. Try not to forget the hundreds of thousands Saddam killed prior to us going in. Try not to forget the risking of American pilots during ten years of flyovers to keep him from killing more Kurds. Try not to forget that he would have been a nuclear power 20 years ago if Israel hadn't 'lit him up' as little Chucky stalker likes to say.

I'm the first to admit I have no easy answers. Unlike Chuck, I have little faith in sanctions or diplomacy. Both have been tried on Iran and North Korea for years. One thing we haven't tried which I'd like to see even if unsuccessful are one-on-one direct talks with both Iran and North Korea. While we've had bundles of diplomacy, we've never once committed ourselves to either one-on-one talks or a written pledge we won't destroy they're regimes.

Daniel, Kim Jong starved 2 million of his own people to death. Do you really really expect us to promise not to destroy his regime? How does that fit into your Gandhi view of the world? Let the people die?

But that well may not work. Then we'll have to rely on deterrance, which does have a demonstrated track record. If deterrance fails, then we will have a situtation where we are defending ourselves from attack and not institigating mass slaughter ourselves on our fears of what could be.

You want a clean conscience, you're not going to get one. When you have to the power to do something, and do nothing until you absolutely have to then you have blood on your hands either way.

That clucking sound

Come on, tough guy. Go Army. Enlist.

ChickenHawk

59 men brave & true have died in Iraq this month for CHICKENHAWKS like Greg,Bush & Cheney.http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

Doing "nothing"

"When you have to the power to do something, and do nothing until you absolutely have to then you have blood on your hands either way."So we're back to a refusal to engage in preemptive invasion or nuclear first strike is "doing nothing?"By that definition, we won the cold war against the Soviet Union by "doing nothing." They were a far greater threat to our existence that the jihadists ever will.While you might say - "what about Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (1980s)?" In each of those cases, an invader (North Korea/China, North Vietnam/Soviets, Soviets) had attacked the country in question first. So even though we acted in a spirit of defense, by your definition we were "doing nothing."In Afghanistan, it might have been better if we really *had* done nothing, since the mujaheeden we carefully funded and trained are today's Taliban, warlords, and of course, al-Qaeda.

If you want to build war support, move beyond...

villifying your opponents.Whatever you may think of the justice, the fact is that 60% of the American public thinks that invading Iraq was a mistake, and more than half favor a timetable for withdrawal or a structured plan for withdrawal and/or redeployment. Additionally, most Americans now agree that Iraq was and is unrelated to the war against al-Qaeda.So accusing the majority of your countrymen of being being cowards who provide aid and comfort to the enemy simply isn't going to rally support to your side. If anything, it will confirm them in their positions.Which do you want? The comfort of venting, or helping to rebuild support for the President's policies? It's in your hands.

Re:Doing "nothing"

So we're back to a refusal to engage in preemptive invasion or nuclear first strike is "doing nothing?"

We've already done everything else ad nauseum.

By that definition, we won the cold war against the Soviet Union by "doing nothing." They were a far greater threat to our existence that the jihadists ever will.

While you might say - "what about Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (1980s)?" In each of those cases, an invader (North Korea/China, North Vietnam/Soviets, Soviets) had attacked the country in question first. So even though we acted in a spirit of defense, by your definition we were "doing nothing."

None of that makes any sense. How, by my definition, were we doing nothing? Because we didn't attack the Soviet Union and China directly? Again (and yet again) you refuse to acknowledge that a different approach has to be applied when dealing with a country that already has nukes as opposed to one that doesn't. Not to mention the fact that at the time we were not the lone superpower we are today.

Re:If you want to build war support, move beyond..

So accusing the majority of your countrymen of being being cowards who provide aid and comfort to the enemy simply isn't going to rally support to your side. If anything, it will confirm them in their positions.

I don't owe Chuck or Mr. Anon anything Daniel, certainly not considering their own posts.

Whatever you may think of the justice, the fact is that 60% of the American public thinks that invading Iraq was a mistake, and more than half favor a timetable for withdrawal or a structured plan for withdrawal and/or redeployment. Additionally, most Americans now agree that Iraq was and is unrelated to the war against al-Qaeda.

1. Quote whatever poll you want, if the next presidential election hinges on whether it was right to invade Iraq or not, your side loses. Its easy to poll people when no one is really paying attention but when it comes time to vote, things change.

2. The al-Quaeda connection is a red herring and has nothing to do with dealing with terrorist nations who are looking to become nuclear powers.

Then move!

You look healthy and fit over there on your website, Greg. So do the honorable thing and enlist. Do it today. Your country needs you.

Re:Then move!

Don't get out much do you.

You'd be surprised.

I get out a lot more than you do, sport. So are you going to do the decent thing and enlist or not? You like to play the tough guy around here. Let's see something real for change. I'll thank you and the country will thank you.

Re:You'd be surprised.

Poor baby. You must be terribly frustrated.

Syndicate content