Sheesh...that would be stupid. Once we nuke them, everyone will pull out the nukes and you can kiss our planet good bye. You won't have to worry about co2 emission and going green then.
What should happen is that the UN grow some balls and actually stand up to bullies like this instead of cowering back like they have always done.
What does this tell you about quacks that run other countries? Threatening to nuke us unless we apologize? And you are worried about us waterboarding. Give me a break!!! These are also the psycho freaks Obama wants to have tea and crumpets with to discuss things. What a joke! Good luck with that one Barry.
If the UN apologizes, that gives N. Korea some control and that is what they are wanting. N. Korea is all about making threats to make them look big and bad anyway. We should definitely keep a close eye on them, but we shouldn't bust down the door yet. I personally feel other countries need to step up and carry the big stick for a while. Not only can we not afford another war, but we don't have enough military numbers to do it either. Why can't other countries grow some balls and actually stand up to bullies like this? They always make us do it and then they complain about us. Like the French.....wouldn't they be speaking German if we didn't put our nose in their business and help them?
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against 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.
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.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead.
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
You shouldn't take it there... We shouldn't sit through any but nothing you said...sm
offers up a reason why we invaded Iraq. I expect the usual Sadaam was evil, brutal, murderous, and his sons ... (and all of it is true). So it is a good thing that out of this all we've taken them out, now what is holding us there. Let's face it, these folks are going to have to fight it out one day. The strongest will win, whether we leave today or ten years from now. Right now they have a PM who is a prior islamic extremist (see Lurker's post titled Disturbing) - we should not support that. Can you not see history repeating itself? Did our current leaders not shake hands with Saddaam? Did we not train up bin Laden? The way we are going about things in this war is not going to leave us any safer - if anything less so - the region is now even more incensed with hate than it was under Sadaam's thumb. I think our best chance at survival (though when our time is up, it's up) is protecting our homeland. Of course we need to keep our hands and ears in the Middle East, and definitely retaliate against any attacks on our soil or Embassies. It's the preemptive idea that I can't get down with.
We should never ever sit through a 9/11. If
Sadaam was responsible then by all means go after him and anyone willing to fight for him. What we are doing in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. In my mind, they are two issues until it can be proven that Saddam had a hand in the Twin Tower attack.
I was young during the Clinton Admin, so I didn't keep up with foreign affairs as much as I do now and I still do not indulge in them a great deal. But now as I look back I think he did a poor job in retaliating against anti-American attacks.
Believe me, Europeans would absolutely laugh at this.
I know....shouldn't even go there with her...
but it was, as you said...mildy entertaining. lol.
Why shouldn't it go on?
The debate will only take a couple of hours. Nothing is going to get resolved that quickly anyway.
I think what we shouldn't do is just
sit here and watch it go down. That simply isn't fair to the millions of families dependent on the industry and in the long run EVERYBODY suffers from it. I think we need to make them not only make more fuel efficient cars but also more affordable ones. Kill all the tax cuts for imports so we can compete in the market and start working on alternative fuels. I don't think anyone has a complete answer for all this yet, I know I don't, but to just sit here and let it happen is asking for even more disaster.
It shouldn't have to, but . . .
people in general suck and are selfish and have no desire to contribute to their communities, and these are almost always the same people that whine and moan about how they don't want governemnt involved.
people in general suck and are selfish and have no desire to contribute to their communities, yet these are almost always the same people that whine and moan about how they don't want government involved.
You shouldn't a-s-s-u-m-e
that because I am not in love with Obama that it means I supported Bush. I for one did not care for Bush at all! I found myself preferring to rub my ears with sandpaper then to listen to his speeches...kinda like I do now, but with Obama!
Then you shouldn't
call yourself a Christian because a Christian finds homosexuality to be sinful and immoral. Me and you worship different Gods, obviously. Mine says homosexuality is an abomination. Love has nothing to do with sodomy.
No I shouldn't have. I was describing me, not you. SM Yes, but the government shouldn't be
encouraging companies to outsource either. Our country has way messed up priorities when the only people making big bucks are entertainers and greedy CEOs. Meanwhile, we've got unemployed people and poverty. Hey, let's send our money, our technology and our private data to a country that HATES us.
So it shouldn't be allowed
because everyone might suddenly become gay and there would be no offspring? How about artificial insemination? This is a new one on me!
Shouldn't your pen name be "ROBOT"? Sorry you couldn't do better......shouldn't have
xx
It shouldn't be about race
But for a lot of people it is. I won't vote for him, but race has nothing to do with it. Interestingly, my 79-year-old aunt thinks we should vote FOR him because of race. She says "Oh, we owe it to them."
Interesting too, I think Obama's commercials have been playing the race card recently - the white one. All of his recent commercials in my area have shown him with his mom and grandparents in cozy home-spun settings.
get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.
The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office.
Shouldn't you be concerned about where
all those millions given to Louisiana to rebuild went to? They went to state park projects in the northern part of the state and then LA governor lost track of where the other millions went to.........
If you're so worried about the residents of NO and want to blame the government for all their woes, maybe you should ask why Mayor Negan had the casinos going full blast the day before the hurricane was due to hit? Why wasn't he getting all his federall funded citizens out of NO? Louisiana has always been a state of corruption much like Illinois and until their citizens demand better, they won't get it! On second thought, with so many criminals ran out of New Orleans, maybe it would be a better place to live!!!! They're probably all back by now though, robbing, stealing, and murdering those those who actually do work for a living....
Shouldn't you have considered all that BEFORE you
xx
This man shouldn't be preaching to anyone.
Rev. Wright Says 'Them Jews' Won't Let Obama Talk to Him
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright says he doesn't have any regrets over his severed relationship with President Obama.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
In a racially charged interview, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said that President Obama hasn't spoken to him since they parted ways last year, because "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."
He suggested White House advisers were keeping the two separate.
"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright said, according to Virginia's Daily Press. "They will not let him ... talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."
Obama left Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago last year following the very public controversy over his inflammatory sermons.
Wright sporadically has granted media interviews and made public appearances since. In the Daily Press article, he also claimed that the president did not send a delegation to the recent world racism conference in Geneva for fear of offending Jews.
"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said.
Wright said he voted for Obama in November and has no regrets over their severed relationship.
"Regret for what ... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?" he said.
The Republicans should have cried foul, but the Dems would just have turned that into sour grapes. You're right, it shouldn't have been posted.
It was a terrible thing to post and completely stupid.
There wasn't a threat made though, and people post stupid things all the time.
If the FBI is watching for stuff like that, they certainly don't need MT Stars to keep a watch for them.
of money from the government. That is just wrong. Of all people that deserve money.....it wouldn't be hollywood!
Another group I've heard complain are athletes. They are complaining because sales of tickets are down. Well.....I'm sorry but I think it is absolutely ridiculous that these athletes make as much as they do anyway.....maybe if they would take a pay cut and lower the ticket prices.....maybe more people could afford to go to games.
I live in Indiana and I am a Colts fan but I am thoroughly ticked that they threatened to leave Indiana unless we built them a new stadium. We built them a new stadium at the expense of the taxpayers and the Colts have sucked major butt since then. I would have told them to pack up and leave and not let the door hit them in the butt on the way out. They make WAY too much money to sit around and make demands like that. They could have easily built their own dang stadium....jerks. Just think about all those local people whose property taxes skyrocketed because the colts demanded a new stadium. I wonder how many people in the Indianapolis area lost their homes because they couldn't afford their property tax? Makes me sick.
And why in the world are the Army and the Air Force, etc. sponsoring race cars? They are pretty much taking taxpayer money to pay to sponsor vehicles that costs a butt load of money. That really chaps my ars too. ARGH!
leaning polling companies, Mrs. The fact, Obamanation's poll numbers are dropping and dramatically. However, I don't think he cares a fig. His real agenda is to destroy the economy, and when anarchy comes and his mask removed, he'll institute marshal law, and set himself up as dictator. That's his plan and those who pull his marionette strings. He is tooooooooooooo stoooooooooopid to do it on his own. That's what he has surrounded himself with left-wing America hating "experts." You'll be singing a different tune before long.
for 20 years know it's 'twice as well to be thought half as good"? And besides, that slogan was stolen from the feminist movement. A woman has to work twice as hard and do twice as well to be thought half as good as a man."
No points for originality. Minus 1 point for grammar.
anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person. Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields.
You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured."
So there are no innocent people in our local prisons? I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.
What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not. Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention. How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists. We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted. We were either beheaded or just simply blown up. Which would you prefer?
marks the location of current message within thread
