Ocean11 0 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I find this scenario to be both fairly convincing, and very alarming. I think I'll write again to my MP to ask him to raise questions about it. Link to post Share on other sites
xxx 2 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Quote: However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over. Alarming indeed. Link to post Share on other sites
oo 1 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 what does rahul say? Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 In case anyone thinks this one has been up before and is crying wolf because no attack has taken place so far, here's Scott Ritter's response. It's from an interview last month on the Democracy Now! show on independent US TV and radio that you can watch/listen to online. It's a great show. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez are the presenters. Quote: AMY GOODMAN: Scott Ritter, this is from Wikipedia. It says on February 18, 2005, you announced to an audience in Washington that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005 and that the Iraq elections had been rigged by the United States. You reiterated and clarified your statements about Iran in a March 30 article on Al-Jazeera, also alleged that the U.S. had rigged the 2005 parliamentary election to prevent the United Iraqi Alliance from winning an outright majority. All of this true? SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, let's set the record straight. I didn't say that George Bush ordered anybody to bomb Iran in June 2005. I was very clear, based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005. That means have all the resources in place so that if the President orders it, the bombing can begin. It doesn't mean that the bombing is going begin in June. And a lot of people went, "Ah, you said they were going to attack in June." Absolutely not. I threw in a lot of other things that had to happen, like John Bolton had to become the head of mission and that we had to transfer the debate from Vienna to the Security Council. Today, we see Bolton in place. And we're looking at the United States working very hard to get the issue of Iran's nuclear program transferred from Vienna to the United Nations. And I guarantee you when it is transferred and when the Russians veto the American effort to put sanctions on Iran, John Bolton has already written his speech. He will stand up, and he will condemn the Security Council as an ineffective body that is unwilling to stand up and deal with genuine threats to the security of the United States of America, and the United States cannot afford to stand by and let this situation exist, and if the Security Council won't deal with Iran, then we will deal with it unilaterally. That speech has been written. I know the people that helped draft that speech. And he's ready to give it when it occurs. What is Congress doing to stop this? Because certainly they know this is taking place. Condoleezza Rice just testified before them and said war cannot be taken off the table when it comes to Syria and Iran, that we're going to be in Iraq for ten years. The nation's cheap -- chief diplomat, a little Freudian slip there, she might be a cheap diplomat, but she's the chief diplomat, has said war is the only guarantor of genuine peace and security. What a scary and absurd statement to make. And where is Congress confronting her on these issues? JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about Iran in terms of the -- clearly the Bush administration has to know that the American forces are already severely overextended in the wars that they're conducting now. The idea that they are even contemplating the possibility of initiating another war or another conflict with Iran, it's almost mind-boggling that they would be even thinking, preparing the American people for such eventuality. I mean, your sense of where the debate on Iran is going right now and what -- again, where is Congress on this? SCOTT RITTER: Well, (a) there's no debate. I mean, unfortunately, the majority of Americans buy into this notion. Well, we're overstretched in Iraq. It's absurd to think we're going into Iran, and the Bush Administration is just moving forward. AMY GOODMAN: Who is the motor behind this? SCOTT RITTER: Well, this is part of the overall neo-con agenda of global domination, in particular the Middle East, what they call regional transformation. And again, I'm not making this up. Global domination is spelled out in the National Security strategy of the United States that was published in September 2002 by the Bush administration, and regional transformation is the language used by every senior Bush administration official when they talk to Congress about what our policies on the Middle East are. So, it's not as though this is a secret agenda. It's part of the overall neoconservative agenda. There's not a single individual pushing this. It looks to be panning out as he says. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted November 22, 2005 Author Share Posted November 22, 2005 That's why we have to write to our busy little democratic representatives making a cogent case as to why they should stand up and ask some questions about this. I've written to mine (a Lib Dem), but I may try writing to a Con instead as they may just be a little more forceful. I think it would be really helpful if Americans did a bit to prove that their democracy is the best in the world by helping to stop this. Unless of course they happen to think a second American nuclear attack is a good idea. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: ....helping to stop this. Unless of course they happen to think a second American nuclear attack is a good idea. I think deep down this may be the case, and as repulsive as it may seem, I see that it is in keeping with all empires: the primary behaviour of an empire is to conquer. If they do not conquer then they will be conquered by another entity that lusts for empire status. It has always been this way. It should be different in this enlightened age, but it is not. Even deeper down I think the citizens of the empire support the conquer or be conquered axiom, especially when the 'other team' are so fundamentally different. To the average American I think the unsaid theme is one of 'it is wither use or them. I love us and don't understand them, so I chose us'. And so we have modern day wars just like the past: motivated by survival of the empire by beating those that are different by controlling resources by using the most effective warfare technology. In the past the resources of power were land in different corners of the glob. Today it is oil. I do not mean this literally, but it is almost within the bounds of acceptable and predictable behaviour that America would move to conquer those that threaten the empire. It is what the nation was born to do, just like all empires before them. I think most western citizens are surprisingly reconciled with this invade and conquer behaviour. After all, they are Arabs, the only true threat to western power and one that scares the pants off the typical suburban western oxygen converter. No democratic process can stop America or the western coalition of power (US + UK + politically unwilling Europe + the colonial piss ants like Australia). The next 10-30 years are going to be extremely tough for modern economies and come hell or high water, the west will not lose the fight. Even if Bush and his party are voted out of the presidency, the fight will remain..... and it will be fought. I think most people feel this deep down inside and they know how to win: they kicked the pants off Japan with two quick bombs. Pity their vision is so short term. I will join the effort in writing to my democratic representative. Link to post Share on other sites
Curt 1 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 This is all getting rather alarmingly predictable: "Iran's message to the west: back off or we retaliate" http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1700266,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 Curt, have you seen this one from William Lind? It ties in a few things quite plausibly. Link to post Share on other sites
big-will 7 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Very interesting article that O11, thanks Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The guys at work refuse to read it due to the web sites name. "I won't read that, it is obviously biased". I point out that on the contrary, they themselves are being biased in their refusal. But they seriously will not budge. I am viewed poorly for suggesting it. What is it? By being immediately biased against its title, they seem to hope that the percieved bias is balanced out... or something equally as Fing stupid. Link to post Share on other sites
bushpig 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 cut and paste it into an email and send it to them. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 They get that attitude from this playbook . Ask them to show you the news that is pure and free of bias. Maybe try and point out that Antiwar.com is basically a libertarian website that features such conservatives at Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, and our resident 4th Generation War expert, William Lind. (I hadn't considered it until he pointed it out that Sharon had been a restraining influence vis a vis Iran...) Or just kick them in the nuts. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 That website is brilliant. Republicans really are quite vulgar and so predictable. Ocean - it doesn't matter what you tell them. I give up on the guys at work, although they now look a little pale and concerned when ever the topic of Iran comes up. It is pretty clear where that one is going. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 The Venezualan situation is looking interesting now too. Can the US really afford to mess with so much of the oil producing world all at the same time...? Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: The Venezualan situation is looking interesting now too. Can the US really afford to mess with so much of the oil producing world all at the same time...? sure, you know we can. Weve been fighting "terrorist and drug wars" in Latin America since the Regan years - how many governments have we overthrown there? Probably much easier for us to ****over Venezula than Iran. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 ****ing over is one thing. Getting out a stable supply of oil for the economy from the ****ed over country is another. Witness Iraq... Pass the switch grass seeds, please. Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The scariest thought out of all of this for me, is the fact that they dont belive theyre doing anything wrong and that they (republicans) have the right to do it too. Scares the crap outta me Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts