NationStates Jolt Archive

The effects of a dirty bomb are often quantified in terms of estimated casualties and damage assessments. However, one crucial element is frequently overlooked: the psychological aspect. Given that the havoc wrought by a dirty bomb in its physical dimension is minimal, this attribute is the most central. Traumatic incidents are known for promoting a disproportionate amount of mayhem to the destruction is leaves in its wake. Consider 9/11: a devastating a bloody attack, it stunned the nation and snatched the lives of 3000 people. Petrified audiences sat in shocked silence watching the events unfold on their TV screens. In the long-term, this propelled the US to war in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq.

But if the facts were soberly contemplated, one would realize that the gruesome attack was nowhere near as catastrophic as some would believe. True, a staggering amount of civilians were ruthlessly slaughtered by depraved maniacs; but over twice that amount die every day from natural causes without even so much as a mention. The overwhelming response to such an event is borne of irrationality. A heinous assault degrades the populace's reason and fertilizes the fields of emotion from which a poisonous bud of vengeance will arise. It is this process which needs to be further analyzed, using 9/11 as a guideline.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the people rallied around Bush as artless puppies around their master, sending his approval ratings soaring. They found comfort in his strength and appealed to him for an answer to the crisis facing America. Political lines were erased and imperative legislation (which was later to be criticized) was passed in order to protect the nation. This is also likely to be the outcome in the event of a dirty bomb attack; a stupefied people will subconsciously gather around their leader.

Next, the cause of the attack was investigated, and found to be Islamic terrorism, financed by the brutal Taliban in Afghanistan and aided by the maniacal butcher in Baghdad. This conclusion sparked cries of revenge from all corners of America, and the disgusting regime of the religious fanatics was overthrown in Afghanistan, and Iraq was later invaded. A dirty bomb attack would prompt a similar investigation. Chances are, the fundamentalist regime of Ahmadinejad, whose anti-Western antics, militarist tendencies, and illegal nuclear weapons production activities, will be found guilty of proliferating nuclear technology.

A brief window will then arise in which the US may invade Iran, with the backing of the people. The subjugation of Iran should be an easy affair on par with the deposing of Saddam, and no ensuing civil war would erupt due to the ethnic homogeneity of the country. The removal of a dangerous madman in Tehran would do wonders for global security. In 1939, after seeing the ghastly battlefields of WWI, the US was unwilling to embark upon yet another war against the greatest menace humanity ever faced. As a result, the world was almost doomed to be crushed by the heel of tyranny. The world faces a similar crisis now. Repelled from interventionism by a perceived quagmire in Iraq, the US has once more buried its head in the sand, impervious to the shadow that is threatening to envelop the world. It took Pearl Harbor to awake the US to the perils of fascism. It took 9/11 to shake the US from its slumber and show it the dangers of terrorism. Perhaps a dirty bomb would be sufficient to catalyze the US into taking action against an equally threatening foe: Iran.

So, yes, a dirty bomb might result in who knows how many dollars in damage and it may take some lives. But its real effects will be felt, as history has shown, in US foreign policy. And, in the end, it may lead to the removal of an abhorrent state from the face of the world.

Pearl Harbor was a terrible and cowardly attack, but if it hadn't occurred, the prevailing world order might be fascism. Hopefully a dirty bomb won't be necessary to alert the American populace to the threat posed by Iran; but if it is required, at least we'll be nipping a threat before it evolves into something more hazardous. This is what needs to be taken into account the most, not the death toll and money that will need to be spent on the crisis.

Without Pearl Harbor, we might be speaking German right now; with a dirty bomb, at least we won't be speaking Farsi.

What's your point?

It wouldn't take something on that level to wake america up so quickly after the last attack. I am actualy surprised that the UK didn't Invade Iran.

What's your point?

My most immediate point would be that I hate myopic documentaries, especially the ones which talk about the effects of dirty bombs being detonated. It would be like making a documentary in the 1910s about what would happen if Franz Ferdinand was shot, and talking about the possible medical costs and loss of life that would entail without ever mentioning that it might spark a humongous war. My secondary point would be that a dirty bomb attack would be a positive occurrence.

My most immediate point would be that I hate myopic documentaries, especially the ones which talk about the effects of dirty bombs being detonated. It would be like making a documentary in the 1910s about what would happen if Franz Ferdinand was shot, and talking about the possible medical costs and loss of life that would entail without ever mentioning that it might spark a humongous war.
Fear sells, haven't you watched the news in the past 6 years?

My secondary point would be that a dirty bomb attack would be a positive occurrence.

Have you finally lost all sense of decency?

MeansToAnEnd? You're back?

Fear sells, haven't you watched the news in the past 6 years?

True, but there's no need to focus solely upon the fear angle without exploring much more central issues.

Have you finally lost all sense of decency?

What do you mean?

MeansToAnEnd? You're back?

No, I am not he/she, but many people have called me "mtae" in other threads -- is that a shortening of MeansToAnEnd's name? I've read some of his/her posts, and I must say that they look awfully similar to mine.

What do you mean?

You don't see anything wrong with murdering 10s of thousands of people?

No, I am not he/she, but many people have called me "mtae" in other threads -- is that a shortening of MeansToAnEnd's name? I've read some of his/her posts, and I must say that they look awfully similar to mine.

Considering any posts he made wouldn't be visible by going through the forums and you'd have to manually search for them, amazing how you read some of his posts if this is the first time you've seen the name, huh?

You don't see anything wrong with murdering 10s of thousands of people?


and the hundreds of thousands if not millions of babies with birth defects from the radiation.

What's your point?

He's advocating a dirty bomb detonation in the US to start a genocide on all Muslims.

Considering any posts he made wouldn't be visible by going through the forums and you'd have to manually search for them, amazing how you read some of his posts if this is the first time you've seen the name, huh?

What are you talking about? It's really not that difficult to click on the "search" button, type in the name, and then click on some of the posts. And since so many people called me "MTAE" (yourself included), I wanted to see if there was any similarity. The name doesn't need to be repeated tens of times before I have the sense to search for it.

True, a staggering amount of civilians were ruthlessly slaughtered by depraved maniacs; but over twice that amount die every day from natural causes without even so much as a mention. You should start reading newspapers.

And learn the difference between natural causes and an attack.

Next, the cause of the attack was investigated, and found to be Islamic terrorism, financed by the brutal Taliban in Afghanistan
No it wasn't. The Taleban didn't finance it.

and aided by the maniacal butcher in Baghdad.
No, Saddam didn't aid them.
A dirty bomb attack would prompt a similar investigation. Chances are, the fundamentalist regime of Ahmadinejad, whose anti-Western antics, militarist tendencies, and illegal nuclear weapons production activities, will be found guilty of proliferating nuclear technology.
Guilty? By whom? And why? Do you expect Iran to attack the US soon? Why would they?

And what if the nuclear weapon hails from Pakistan, China, North Korea, Russia, or the US? Potential terrorists might have an easier time getting their hands on nukes from those countries since, well, those nukes exists today. And security isn't top priority for all of those countries...

A brief window will then arise in which the US may invade Iran, with the backing of the people. The subjugation of Iran should be an easy affair on par with the deposing of Saddam, and no ensuing civil war would erupt due to the ethnic homogeneity of the country.
Yeah, I'm sure the US will be greeted as liberators :rolleyes:

The removal of a dangerous madman in Tehran would do wonders for global security.
Or it could undermine the stability of the middle east. I doubt they would accept subjugation just like that, by the way...

In 1939, after seeing the ghastly battlefields of WWI, the US was unwilling to embark upon yet another war against the greatest menace humanity ever faced. As a result, the world was almost doomed to be crushed by the heel of tyranny. The world faces a similar crisis now.
How do you figure?

Repelled from interventionism by a perceived quagmire in Iraq, the US has once more buried its head in the sand, impervious to the shadow that is threatening to envelop the world. It took Pearl Harbor to awake the US to the perils of fascism. It took 9/11 to shake the US from its slumber and show it the dangers of terrorism. Perhaps a dirty bomb would be sufficient to catalyze the US into taking action against an equally threatening foe: Iran.
Drivel. Iran wishes to be a power in the middle east, but Iran is not a direct threat to the US. And the economy of Iran isn't exactly the best either.

So, yes, a dirty bomb might result in who knows how many dollars in damage and it may take some lives. But its real effects will be felt, as history has shown, in US foreign policy. And, in the end, it may lead to the removal of an abhorrent state from the face of the world.
You know that it might cause the collapse of the US government? It's a theory and a possibility...

Pearl Harbor was a terrible and cowardly attack, but if it hadn't occurred, the prevailing world order might be fascism. Hopefully a dirty bomb won't be necessary to alert the American populace to the threat posed by Iran; but if it is required, at least we'll be nipping a threat before it evolves into something more hazardous. This is what needs to be taken into account the most, not the death toll and money that will need to be spent on the crisis.
Again: What threat does Iran pose?

Without Pearl Harbor, we might be speaking German right now; with a dirty bomb, at least we won't be speaking Farsi.
:rolleyes:
My most immediate point would be that I hate myopic documentaries, especially the ones which talk about the effects of dirty bombs being detonated. It would be like making a documentary in the 1910s about what would happen if Franz Ferdinand was shot, and talking about the possible medical costs and loss of life that would entail without ever mentioning that it might spark a humongous war. My secondary point would be that a dirty bomb attack would be a positive occurrence.
Congratulations, you just lost the remains of your humanity.

You don't see anything wrong with murdering 10s of thousands of people?

Obviously there's something wrong with a such event if considered in a vacuum. However, looking at the wider picture, it would be preferable if 10,000 people die now than if 100,000 people die later. Iran must be stopped, whatever the cost; otherwise, the price will increase tenfold, and it will be measured in American lives.

Considering any posts he made wouldn't be visible by going through the forums and you'd have to manually search for them, amazing how you read some of his posts if this is the first time you've seen the name, huh?

Almost as amazing as how the tone of FAG, RC, and MTAE are all identical. You can hear the faux erudition in his prose.

No, I am not he/she, but many people have called me "mtae" in other threads -- is that a shortening of MeansToAnEnd's name? I've read some of his/her posts, and I must say that they look awfully similar to mine.

Yeah well don't mind me, but I'm gonna take for granted that you are the newest incarnation of MTAE. Fret not however, your idea would be ridiculous regardless.

Iran must be stopped, whatever the cost; otherwise, the price will increase tenfold, and it will be measured in American lives.
Why?

And learn the difference between natural causes and an attack.

Death is death, whatever its cause. The 3000 people wouldn't be any less dead if they had succumbed to a heart attack or cancer. The means with which the end was achieved might differ, true, but they are irrelevant when analyzing the effects.

No it wasn't. The Taleban didn't finance it. No, Saddam didn't aid them.

The Bush administration submitted mounds of proof of connections between Saddam, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; I believe that it is accurate.

Guilty? By whom? And why? Do you expect Iran to attack the US soon? Why would they?

The US and other Western states are the sworn enemy of Iran's government. Iran has already "attacked" the British by kidnapping their sailors; they may be ready to deal a blow to America while it is still coping with the situation in Iraq. They would be driven by partially by irrational hatred and partially by a ploy for more power in doing this.

Potential terrorists might have an easier time getting their hands on nukes from those countries

I am referring to a dirty bomb, which simply requires radioactive materials. Where those materials come from doesn't really matter -- there simply needs to be strong circumstantial proof that they came from Iran.

Yeah, I'm sure the US will be greeted as liberators :rolleyes:

No, but if they are sufficiently ruthless in their occupation, there will be nobody capable of standing up to the might of the US military in the region.

Drivel. Iran wishes to be a power in the middle east, but Iran is not a direct threat to the US. And the economy of Iran isn't exactly the best either.

That's what the British said about Germany back in 1935. Needless to say, events snowballed from there until Germany was a threat and Britiain had done nothing about it. The same applies to Iran; it's not a threat yet, but it will become a grievous one if it continues along its crash-course to confrontation.

Why?

Because Iran will inevitably seek to limit the power of the US in one way or another sometime down the line. We cannot idly sit by while our power is usurped. Eventually, they may be sufficiently emboldened and will decide to physically attack the US.

aided by the maniacal butcher in Baghdad.

wow thats not a lie at all :rolleyes:

will be found guilty of proliferating nuclear technology.

so you know something I don't or are my inklings that you have jack shit evidence to prove it true?

A brief window will then arise in which the US may invade Iran, with the backing of the people. The subjugation of Iran should be an easy affair on par with the deposing of Saddam

yes if we exclude the Iranian army, the Revolutionary guard, the people of Iran who despise the U.S with a damn good reason and something called morale

As a result, the world was almost doomed to be crushed by the heel of tyranny.

yes lets ignore all the allies and say that without America the world is doomed!

It took 9/11 to shake the US from its slumber and show it the dangers of terrorism.

just when I got thinking you understood that terrorism was to spread fear by the very weak and that the best way to deal with terrorism is to get along with your life

Pearl Harbor was a terrible and cowardly attack

yes suffering a surprise attack 4 years into a global conflict after you had blocked an imperialist nation from crucial resources only allowing the supply to resume after they accepted terms which basically meant they accepted western supremacy

in fact it wasn't cowardly or particularly terrible (in the sense that it targeted military targets)

Hopefully a dirty bomb won't be necessary to alert the American populace to the threat posed by Iran; but if it is required, at least we'll be nipping a threat before it evolves into something more hazardous.

what like some kind of Jesus camp rejects threatening the world with huge stockpiles of WMD's?

or does it only work when we need a scapegoat for all the world troubles?

Without Pearl Harbor, we might be speaking German right now

no you wouldn't please go read some history preferably not from some flag waving "patriot"

The Bush administration submitted mounds of proof of connections between Saddam, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; I believe that it is accurate.
And President Bush later said that there was NO connection.

The US and other Western states are the sworn enemy of Iran's government. Iran has already "attacked" the British by kidnapping their sailors; they may be ready to deal a blow to America while it is still coping with the situation in Iraq. They would be driven by partially by irrational hatred and partially by a ploy for more power in doing this.
They are saber rattling, I highly doubt that they want to get flattened. They are not stupid, pretending that they are will get us into another war, one that will cause us far more damage.

I am referring to a dirty bomb, which simply requires radioactive materials. Where those materials come from doesn't really matter -- there simply needs to be strong circumstantial proof that they came from Iran.
You sound like you would set one off yourself.

No, but if they are sufficiently ruthless in their occupation, there will be nobody capable of standing up to the might of the US military in the region.
Please go read the founding documents, you seem to have lost the ideals that the US is supposed to be upholding.

That's what the British said about Germany back in 1935. Needless to say, events snowballed from there until Germany was a threat and Britiain had done nothing about it. The same applies to Iran; it's not a threat yet, but it will become a grievous one if it continues along its crash-course to confrontation.
Oh yes, we have to get them because they will be another Germany. This was said about Iraq, it was said about every little police action that we've had since WWII and NEVER has that anaology ever remotely panned out.

God, get a new line because no one is buying the argument any more.

Because Iran will inevitably seek to limit the power of the US in one way or another sometime down the line. We cannot idly sit by while our power is usurped. Eventually, they may be sufficiently emboldened and will decide to physically attack the US.
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
-Political Science by Randy Newman

That's what you're heading to.

otherwise, the price will increase tenfold, and it will be measured in American lives.

oh fuck here we go...

The Bush administration submitted mounds of proof of connections between Saddam, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; I believe that it is accurate.

so you think Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction? :eek:

The US and other Western states are the sworn enemy of Iran's government.

no there just pissed off at the west for the whole brutal dictator installing and helping Saddam use WMD with no repercussions

Iran has already "attacked" the British by kidnapping their sailors

they think they had a good reason and the case is still open on this so please pull your pants up

No, but if they are sufficiently ruthless in their occupation, there will be nobody capable of standing up to the might of the US military in the region.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcIbo8nr6pQ

in case your not very intelligent I'm referring to what happened in Russia 60 odd years ago

That's what the British said about Germany back in 1935. Needless to say, events snowballed from there until Germany was a threat and Britiain had done nothing about it.

yeah if we exclude the re-armament the fact that we where a tad more worried about Stalin

The same applies to Iran; it's not a threat yet, but it will become a grievous one if it continues along its crash-course to confrontation.

Russia is still far more of a threat than Iran yet I don't see you jumping on no bandwagon to invade

Because Iran will inevitably seek to limit the power of the US in one way or another sometime down the line. We cannot idly sit by while our power is usurped.

oh dear what a shame the bully can't go around doing whatever it wants

And President Bush later said that there was NO connection.

No, he said there was no direct connection between Saddam and the planning of 9/11, not that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had not cooperated at all.

Death is death, whatever its cause. The 3000 people wouldn't be any less dead if they had succumbed to a heart attack or cancer. The means with which the end was achieved might differ, true, but they are irrelevant when analyzing the effects.
Means to an end, eh? How... fitting ;)

And in your analysis of the effects you seem to forget that the sudden, violent and random ending of lives causes far more worry than natural causes.

The Bush administration submitted mounds of proof of connections between Saddam, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; I believe that it is accurate.
Yeah I believe you are the last person on the face of the earth - including George W. Bush - who believes it to be accurate. Well done, you should hang in there no matter what your fellow classmates say :)

The US and other Western states are the sworn enemy of Iran's government. Iran has already "attacked" the British by kidnapping their sailors; they may be ready to deal a blow to America while it is still coping with the situation in Iraq. They would be driven by partially by irrational hatred and partially by a ploy for more power in doing this.
And what makes you think they would do it openly, as if shouting from the rooftops "It was us, please bomb here!"? The iranians aren't suffering from collective insanity you know. Or at least, I hope you know.


I am referring to a dirty bomb, which simply requires radioactive materials. Where those materials come from doesn't really matter -- there simply needs to be strong circumstantial proof that they came from Iran.
I believe that even the US would need more than circumstansial proof efter the great fuckups of G. W.


No, but if they are sufficiently ruthless in their occupation, there will be nobody capable of standing up to the might of the US military in the region.
:rolleyes: Yeah. That always works.


That's what the British said about Germany back in 1935. Needless to say, events snowballed from there until Germany was a threat and Britiain had done nothing about it. The same applies to Iran; it's not a threat yet, but it will become a grievous one if it continues along its crash-course to confrontation.
Needless to say, the US has nukes and ICBMs. Britain did not.
Because Iran will inevitably seek to limit the power of the US in one way or another sometime down the line. We cannot idly sit by while our power is usurped. Eventually, they may be sufficiently emboldened and will decide to physically attack the US.
Oh dear, whatever shall we do. :rolleyes:

I know: Sit the fuck down and remember that, c'mon say it with me, the US has nuclear weapons. A physical attack will lead to a retaliatory strike. Everyone knows this. The power you are talking about cannot be held with military means, and Iran is not a threat.

so you think Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction? :eek:

It is a known fact that Saddam, at some point, had weapons of mass destruction. I believe that assuming that he completely eliminated all traces of his extensive WMD program would be incredibly naive. I further believe that he was in possession of WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War.

no there just pissed off at the west for the whole brutal dictator installing and helping Saddam use WMD with no repercussions

If Britain had used a nuclear weapon in order to vanquish their Nazi foe, I doubt that the US would adopt a harsh stance with the UK. True, Saddam employed some horrendous techniques; however, the US was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils and they made the correct choice.

they think they had a good reason and the case is still open on this so please pull your pants up

They "think" they had a good reason? Well, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Iran's actions verged on an act of war, if they did not completely cross that line. GPS data proved that the British were correct, as they were the last time this happened in 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcIbo8nr6pQ

in case your not very intelligent I'm referring to what happened in Russia 60 odd years ago

In case you're not very intelligent, the conjunction for "you are" is spelled "you're," not "your."

Russia is still far more of a threat than Iran yet I don't see you jumping on no bandwagon to invade

Do you understand the concept of MAD? Declaring war on Russia would unloose a catastrophic response that could lead to the end of the world as we know.

oh dear what a shame the bully can't go around doing whatever it wants

We're not a bully, we're a policeman. And we don't want some punk with an AK-47 trying to stop us from maintaining law and order in the some of the more seedy slums (the Middle East).

No, he said there was no direct connection between Saddam and the planning of 9/11, not that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had not cooperated at all.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

And, of course, we have the 9/11 Commision stating the same:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

You were saying?

And let me add:

In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.

- U.S. Intelligence Community's Kerr Group report of July 29, 2004 (http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf)

And in your analysis of the effects you seem to forget that the sudden, violent and random ending of lives causes far more worry than natural causes.

Indeed; that is the sole difference between 9/11 and any other day. It was not the number of deaths which occurred, a statistic which wasn't spectacularly high, but rather the method by which those lives were taken. But really, that's unimportant -- a car crash, a drug overdose, old age, meningitis, a terrorist attack -- what's the difference? Why does the manner in which those 3000 people died matter? What makes a terrorist attack so different from a car accident?

And what makes you think they would do it openly, as if shouting from the rooftops "It was us, please bomb here!"? The iranians aren't suffering from collective insanity you know. Or at least, I hope you know.

Although the Iranians do not suffer from collective insanity, their opinions are immaterial to the dictatorial Iranian power structure. And those who are in power are religious zealots who put fealty to their god above logic and reason. They would most likely attempt to obfuscate the facts in order to hide their involvement in anti-US attacks, but they would nonetheless sponsor a campaign of terror against the US. Openly or not, we would retaliate -- it's not as if we wouldn't have a clue who hit us.

I believe that even the US would need more than circumstansial proof efter the great fuckups of G. W.

Proof could be easily fabricated. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example -- that was sufficient to push us into war despite lack of concrete evidence. It is surprisingly easy to bamboozle the populace; it's almost like taking candy from a baby. It is especially simple if they need a target for their ire.

:rolleyes: Yeah. That always works.

It does. Ruthless repression is far more effective at controlling a people than a humane occupation. If Nazi Germany had taken a time-out to minimize civilian casualties, they wouldn't have made it past the Somme.

Needless to say, the US has nukes and ICBMs. Britain did not.

If the US waits too long prior to declaring war, Iran might also have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. At that point, the pesky MAD thing kicks in.

It is a known fact that Saddam, at some point, had weapons of mass destruction. I believe that assuming that he completely eliminated all traces of his extensive WMD program would be incredibly naive. I further believe that he was in possession of WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Again, contrary to, well, everyone else including president Bush.


We're not a bully,
...but you want to be one.

we're a policeman. And we don't want some punk with an AK-47 trying to stop us from maintaining law and order in the some of the more seedy slums (the Middle East).

A neighbourhood which you obviously know nothing about. That punk might be maintaining law and order, but you never stopped to consider that, did you. Instead you want to impose what you think the neighbourhood wants, without even asking the residents there.

As you said, "the road to hell..." :rolleyes:

It is a known fact that Saddam, at some point, had weapons of mass destruction. I believe that assuming that he completely eliminated all traces of his extensive WMD program would be incredibly naive. I further believe that he was in possession of WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War.
And you must believe in fairies as well.

If Britain had used a nuclear weapon in order to vanquish their Nazi foe, I doubt that the US would adopt a harsh stance with the UK. True, Saddam employed some horrendous techniques; however, the US was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils and they made the correct choice.
A war we cannot win and didn't need to start in the first place was the correct choice?

Do you understand the concept of MAD? Declaring war on Russia would unloose a catastrophic response that could lead to the end of the world as we know.
And the same works for any state launching an actual attack on the US.

We're not a bully, we're a policeman. And we don't want some punk with an AK-47 trying to stop us from maintaining law and order in the some of the more seedy slums (the Middle East).
Have you ever heard of the term 'jurisdiction'? The Middle East is NOT our beat.

- U.S. Intelligence Community's Kerr Group report of July 29, 2004 (http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf)

That report also says that "intelligence produced prior to the war...provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaida."

A neighbourhood which you obviously know nothing about. That punk might be maintaining law and order, but you never stopped to consider that, did you. Instead you want to impose what you think the neighbourhood wants, without even asking the residents there.

I never said that's what the neighborhood wants. The slum needs to be policed not for its own good, but rather to ensure that the gang members and criminals which it produces do not leave the slum and infect for affluent neighborhoods. The residents there might not care that some criminals living in the slum will go on to massacre people in richer locales, but that activity needs to be stopped, whether they like it or not.

Indeed; that is the sole difference between 9/11 and any other day. It was not the number of deaths which occurred, a statistic which wasn't spectacularly high, but rather the method by which those lives were taken. But really, that's unimportant -- a car crash, a drug overdose, old age, meningitis, a terrorist attack -- what's the difference? Why does the manner in which those 3000 people died matter? What makes a terrorist attack so different from a car accident?
I really shouldn't need to explain it to you; So I won't bother.


Although the Iranians do not suffer from collective insanity, their opinions are immaterial to the dictatorial Iranian power structure. And those who are in power are religious zealots who put fealty to their god above logic and reason. They would most likely attempt to obfuscate the facts in order to hide their involvement in anti-US attacks, but they would nonetheless sponsor a campaign of terror against the US. Openly or not, we would retaliate -- it's not as if we wouldn't have a clue who hit us.


Proof could be easily fabricated. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example -- that was sufficient to push us into war despite lack of concrete evidence. It is surprisingly easy to bamboozle the populace; it's almost like taking candy from a baby. It is especially simple if they need a target for their ire.
Read: We wouldn't know if Iran was behind it, but we wouldn't care anyway because we want to strike at Iran no matter who actually did it.

I get it, you want a war, and you're willing to kill your own - or let them die - to secure US power in the middle east. You know, I'm starting to feel sorry for your complete lack of humanity.

It does. Ruthless repression is far more effective at controlling a people than a humane occupation. If Nazi Germany had taken a time-out to minimize civilian casualties, they wouldn't have made it past the Somme.
Go to school, learn about "Blitzkrieg" and how ruthless the germans actually weren't in many occupied territories.


If the US waits too long prior to declaring war, Iran might also have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. At that point, the pesky MAD thing kicks in.
Which is a bad thing how? Again; Why would we want a war with Iran?

Oh yes, power wasn't it. :rolleyes: You're not convincing, and I grow weary of you. We're done here MTAE. Welcome back to the forum.

A war we cannot win and didn't need to start in the first place was the correct choice?

That was in reference to the Iran-Iraq War during the 80s, in which we engaged in lucrative business transactions with Iraq and provided Saddam with aid in order to defeat his Islamist enemy.

And the same works for any state launching an actual attack on the US.

No, it doesn't. If Iran kills 10 Americans, are we going to nuke them, an action which will result in a retaliatory attack killing 1,000,000 Americans? No, of course not: the public would never consent. What if Iran kills 10,000 Americans? Will we use nuclear weapons then? Probably not, because they'd respond in kind. We'd have our hands tied behind our back while being punched in the stomach if we allow Iran to have such a good hand with which to bargain.

Have you ever heard of the term 'jurisdiction'? The Middle East is NOT our beat.

If the crooks from someone else's beat infiltrate our neighborhood because of corrupt cops on some other beat, we have a duty to protect our neighborhood by enforcing law and other in the slummy neighborhood.

That report also says that "intelligence produced prior to the war...provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaida."
Which means... nothing.

Go to school, learn about "Blitzkrieg" and how ruthless the germans actually weren't in many occupied territories.

Yeah, the Nazis were really nice people, as you say. They were the best of chums with the Jews -- I'm sure they oftentimes drank midafternoon tea together when they weren't busy torturing and killing them. Why don't you read a history book? And while you're at it, you might realize that "blitzkrieg" was a type of lighting assault, not a style of occupation, and thus has no bearing on this discussion.

Which is a bad thing how? Again; Why would we want a war with Iran?

No, to save lives. If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, there's no knowing how many lives could be lost. You'd be lacking in humanity if you allowed such calamitous possessions to fall into Ahmadinejad's guileful hands. He'd crank up his campaign to exterminate the Jews and launch a war of terror against the West, killing far more people than would die in a dirty bomb attack. Would you throw one person in front of a runaway car now to deflect it from its course or would you wait until it rams into a group of five people later on, killing them all? The former is the more humane, no matter what you say.

Which means... nothing.

Ah, so the analysis was both "perceptive" and completely flawed and unbelievable, even to those in the intelligence community? I'm not buying it.

No, it doesn't. If Iran kills 10 Americans, are we going to nuke them, an action which will result in a retaliatory attack killing 1,000,000 Americans? No, of course not: the public would never consent. What if Iran kills 10,000 Americans? Will we use nuclear weapons then? Probably not, because they'd respond in kind. We'd have our hands tied behind our back while being punched in the stomach if we allow Iran to have such a good hand with which to bargain.
The same logic applies. Iran would not kill 10,000 Americans beause we would respond. As much as you keep screaming about religious fanatic, Iran has never acted as such. They, like the USSR before them, understand that they would be wiped out.

Your idea of 'Let's kill everyone before they can hurt us' makes no sense.

If the crooks from someone else's beat infiltrate our neighborhood because of corrupt cops on some other beat, we have a duty to protect our neighborhood by enforcing law and other in the slummy neighborhood.
No, we don't. We can police our neighborhood, but only in the movies can you go into another area and start cleaning up the place. That's not our beat, it's not our country, and we don't have the right to go in there just because we say so.

It is a known fact that Saddam, at some point, had weapons of mass destruction.

yes the ones we gave him however they where destroyed or lost in the Gulf war and the subsequent weapons inspections

I believe that assuming that he completely eliminated all traces of his extensive WMD program would be incredibly naive. I further believe that he was in possession of WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War.

despite all the physical evidence otherwise, the inspectors ruthless search and the lack of Saddam to actually acquire these weapons

If Britain had used a nuclear weapon in order to vanquish their Nazi foe, I doubt that the US would adopt a harsh stance with the UK. True, Saddam employed some horrendous techniques; however, the US was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils and they made the correct choice.

your comparing a peaceful nation with no military being invaded by a regime with little concept of the rules of war to Nazi Germany...you also have the audacity to say that Iraq was the lesser evil in what way at all was Saddam better did where his rape rooms somehow pleasant or something?

They "think" they had a good reason? Well, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Iran's actions verged on an act of war, if they did not completely cross that line. GPS data proved that the British were correct, as they were the last time this happened in 2004.

and yet internationally the case is still open people are still looking at this thus it could come to say that the RN had indeed fucked up

In case you're not very intelligent, the conjunction for "you are" is spelled "you're," not "your."

you somehow forgot to prove me wrong that SS actions in Russia cost the war for Germany

Do you understand the concept of MAD? Declaring war on Russia would unloose a catastrophic response that could lead to the end of the world as we know.

oh so you only pick on the weak....um didn't you call Japans attack on pearl harbor cowardly?

We're not a bully, we're a policeman. And we don't want some punk with an AK-47 trying to stop us from maintaining law and order in the some of the more seedy slums (the Middle East).

1) don't steal Britain's excuse for imperialism
2) America is the shittiest policeman ever
3) so whats America doing about Gitmo again?
4) policemen don't give aid to thugs and/or anyone who's willing to scratch there back
5) by law and order I suppose you mean your law and order

The same logic applies. Iran would not kill 10,000 Americans beause we would respond. As much as you keep screaming about religious fanatic, Iran has never acted as such. They, like the USSR before them, understand that they would be wiped out.

How would we respond? With open warfare? In that case, they'd use their nuclear weapons against us, a scenario which we'd like to avoid. We would not wipe them out because if we did so, we ourselves would be wiped out. Our only course would be limited warfare that wouldn't trigger a nuclear response. Iran bombs a building, we bomb a building -- if we do anything more, it could very well be the end of the world as we know it. Furthermore, the USSR was a secular state which understood the consequences of its actions quite clearly -- Iran's vision may be blurred when it contemplates the 72 virgins that will be afforded it to if it annihilates the US.

right to go in there just because we say so.

Rights are for those who don't have power. If we can save American lives by invading a nation which sponsors terrorism, we'll do it, no matter what the world says, because no one can stop us. Silly, antiquated laws shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

Ah, so the analysis was both "perceptive" and completely flawed and unbelievable, even to those in the intelligence community? I'm not buying it.
This has already been chewed though and every single hearing on it, every investigation has come to the same conclution, that Saddam did not have ties to AQ and that the US intelligence was either wrong or distorted.

Your entire point.
Prove that Iran doesn't already have nuclear weapons.

How would we respond? With open warfare? In that case, they'd use their nuclear weapons against us, a scenario which we'd like to avoid. We would not wipe them out because if we did so, we ourselves would be wiped out. Our only course would be limited warfare that wouldn't trigger a nuclear response. Iran bombs a building, we bomb a building -- if we do anything more, it could very well be the end of the world as we know it. Furthermore, the USSR was a secular state which understood the consequences of its actions quite clearly -- Iran's vision may be blurred when it contemplates the 72 virgins that will be afforded it to if it annihilates the US.
You are making the assumption that Iran is stupid. It has not been shown to be stupid. You are assuming that it would automatically attack, but you have never said WHY. It's not a stupid nation no matter HOW much you want it to be and very, very unlikely to actually attack.

Just saying so don't make it so.

Rights are for those who don't have power. If we can save American lives by invading a nation which sponsors terrorism, we'll do it, no matter what the world says, because no one can stop us. Silly, antiquated laws shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.
The laws that we help write, the laws which this country was founded on, the notion that we ARE a nation of laws.

And yes, the rest of the world CAN stop us. If the stakes seem high enough, there are countries that can cause MAD and all they have to do is say so.

I had to look, didn't I? *sigh*

Yeah, the Nazis were really nice people, as you say. They were the best of chums with the Jews -- I'm sure they oftentimes drank midafternoon tea together when they weren't busy torturing and killing them. Why don't you read a history book? And while you're at it, you might realize that "blitzkrieg" was a type of lighting assault, not a style of occupation, and thus has no bearing on this discussion.
Then why did you say:
If Nazi Germany had taken a time-out to minimize civilian casualties, they wouldn't have made it past the Somme.
They would have made it past the Somme because of their assault tactics.

And as for your lovely Straw man - nobody is doubting the evil acts perpetrated by the nazis, but in many countries they did not ruthlessly oppress the people to such a degree that nobody was capable of standing up to their might.

No, to save lives. If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, there's no knowing how many lives could be lost. You'd be lacking in humanity if you allowed such calamitous possessions to fall into Ahmadinejad's guileful hands. He'd crank up his campaign to exterminate the Jews and launch a war of terror against the West, killing far more people than would die in a dirty bomb attack. Would you throw one person in front of a runaway car now to deflect it from its course or would you wait until it rams into a group of five people later on, killing them all? The former is the more humane, no matter what you say.
But you want to go to war to preserve US power, not because of any pretended humanitarian reasons.

And no, it is not. Again with the means to an end.
Ah, so the analysis was both "perceptive" and completely flawed and unbelievable, even to those in the intelligence community? I'm not buying it.
It was perceptive with regards to the links, but the conclusion remained the same: No cooperation or relationship. You have to see it in context of the rest of the report, not just at the single line itself. That does indeed give nothing.

I'm not surprised you're not buying it, not after this thread. And with that, I shall not look again.

[/thread]

Rights are for those who don't have power.

yay imperialism

If we can save American lives by invading a nation which sponsors terrorism, we'll do it,

yeah cause 10 Americans are worth 100 Iranians aren't they :rolleyes:

no matter what the world says, because no one can stop us. Silly, antiquated laws shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

1) yes we can stop you I don't even think we would have to do too much either just place the odd sanction and America will fall in a week or are you naive enough to think that America is invincible and that the Sun shines from your "pants"

2) I'd like the British prisoners are gitmo back then since thats the right thing to do, I also like to announce that at 4 AM GMT the South will be accepted as a sovereign nation

This has already been chewed though and every single hearing on it, every investigation has come to the same conclution, that Saddam did not have ties to AQ and that the US intelligence was either wrong or distorted.

That is not so, as a quick Google search reveals.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html

That is not so, as a quick Google search reveals.

husseinandterror
nysun
foxnews

so you give us:

1) a poorly made site which holds no more ground than the Scientology websites

2) a paper that suggested protesters should be arrested for treason

3) the one site that proves that everything you post is in fact wrong

That is not so, as a quick Google search reveals.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html
The last link is the only one with any credience and it states, like everything else out there, that feelers had happened but no substancial contact. This has been said over and over again.

I don't know what world you're living in, but it sure ain't the real one.

A dirty bomb is primarily a weapon of psychological terror and crippling akin to landmines. It's not going to immediately kill someone who isn't standing right next to the explosive device; all it'll do is make the victims more succeptible to cancer over the next 10 years or so of their lives. It's meant to scare the shit out of its targets and make them wary of going anywhere near the area it was set off in.

While setting off a dirty bomb is still a serious crime, comparing it to a military conflict with tremendous casualties and damage like Pearl Harbor is pure Bushevik hyperbole.