Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

How credible do you think this report is?
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 8 15:10:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 8 15:18:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Original report.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact


 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 8 16:15:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”


summed up in one sentence

The New Yorker is generally cautious about it's reports and backing up claims with credible sources.

This doesn't surprise me at all.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 8 20:25:24 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This shouldn't surprise anybody.
Our military has a contingency plan for every possible scenario with any given country on the planet.
It's part of their mission.
Given the circumstances in Iran today, I wouldn't feel comfortable if we didn't have plans such as these.

Of course if we had made any kind of move against Hitler before he killed 6 million people, the press would have stirred up every liberal around to demonstrate against our govt.
Roosevelt could very well have been impeached for such a thing.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Apr 8 20:29:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >Our military has a contingency plan >for every possible scenario with any given country on the planet.



Even the Federated States of Micronesia?!?!?!


 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 8 21:32:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Of course if we had made any kind of move against Hitler before he killed 6 million people, the press would have stirred up every liberal around to demonstrate against our govt.

Yes...as we all know Hilter and Saddam were exactly the same situations. If we hadn't done a pre-emtive invasion of Iraq, Saddam would have tried to take over the world....with all those WMD's he had...Oh, yeah...nevermind.

We are no longer living in the '30's, hif. Any comparison to a country choosing a policy of neutrality then has little to do with the world we live in today.


*If you seriously believe our current government contingency plans for Iran or North Korea are anywhere near the same as the "plans" we have for all the other countries in the world then I think you've been reading "Survivor" magazine too much. It's like comparing apples and oranges.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 8 22:03:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Of course if we had made any kind of move against Hitler before he killed 6 million people, the press would have stirred up every liberal around to demonstrate against our govt.
>
>Yes...as we all know Hilter and Saddam were exactly the same situations. If we hadn't done a pre-emtive invasion of Iraq, Saddam would have tried to take over the world....with all those WMD's he had...Oh, yeah...nevermind.
>
>We are no longer living in the '30's, hif. Any comparison to a country choosing a policy of neutrality then has little to do with the world we live in today.
>
Funny, no one thought Hitler would do what he did either. And As I said, if there had been a pre-emptive strike on him, what do you think the reaction would have been ?
Duh . . . .
>*If you seriously believe our current government contingency plans for Iran or North Korea are anywhere near the same as the "plans" we have for all the other countries in the world then I think you've been reading "Survivor" magazine too much. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
>
It would be ludicrous to think the contingency plans for Iran and North Korea would be similar to plans for other countries. Why in hell would they be?
>
You know everyone keep saying we're in it for the oil, but it seems to me that we are pretty much the only country that has not profited from Saddam, a la the oil for food scandal. Sure don't see a lot of moral outrage there from the liberal press, that's for sure.


 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 8 23:44:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You know everyone keep saying we're in it for the oil, but it seems to me that we are pretty much the only country that has not profited from Saddam,

A major miscalculation by those idiots too (just one of many...from the number of troops needed, to the strength of the insurgents, to the reaction of our occupation by the civilians, to the civil war between the two muslim factions...) Do you remember anything about how they assured us that the oil revenue from Saddam's fields would bring in billions to offset the cost...well it hasn't brought in diddley-squat compared to the billions us taxpayers are shelling out.
And I don't see the moral outrage coming from conservatives like you.


 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 9 06:21:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Imagine though, what kind of a moral outrage would follow from a liberal having started the war with this kind of benefit.


As I said in earlier threads, I'd probably be an ideological republican too, but the double standardness of the republicans and the fact that it seems to be lead by people who are incompetent (which doesn't mean stupid per se) to be in such positions, along with the general idea that as a regular voter you're being fucked in the ass to profit the guys on top while they'd feel too good to piss on your head if it was on fire, all of that combined would probably lead to me voting for one of the fringe parties


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 9 08:35:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>As I said in earlier threads, I'd probably be an ideological republican too, but the double standardness of the republicans and the fact that it seems to be lead by people who are incompetent (which doesn't mean stupid per se) to be in such positions, along with the general idea that as a regular voter you're being fucked in the ass to profit the guys on top while they'd feel too good to piss on your head if it was on fire,


I have to hand it to you, Christophe. You just hit the nail on the head summing up the republican leadership here now.


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Apr 9 10:10:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Funny, no one thought Hitler would do what he did either. And As I said, if there had been a pre-emptive strike on him, what do you think the reaction would have been ?

Liar Liar Liar McGee!
In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed and hailed by lots of people in America as a-okay, including one Mr. Charles Lindberg. By 1937, the World knew about their effects. There were a great deal of large protests in NY, LA, and Chicago against the Nazi Party. In '39, when a great deal of people were getting letters from their families over getting thrown into- sorry- relocated to (just like our proud Native American) ghettos, the American government petitioned the German Government to stop. They received back a kindly response of "Go Fuck Yourself," but in German, of course. So then when all the letters stopped all at once, everyone assumed they were fine fine fine, they even took an unexpected vacation. Awesome!

Back to Iraq:
U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09report.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=2ae9b3b3cb19f9e8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"WASHINGTON, April 8 — An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials."


Sorry, but you can't read this. It's the evillllll liberal media and they'll gay-ify aborted babies from stem cells or something as soon as you this.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 10:45:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>As I said in earlier threads, I'd probably be an ideological republican too, but the double standardness of the republicans and the fact that it seems to be lead by people who are incompetent (which doesn't mean stupid per se) to be in such positions, along with the general idea that as a regular voter you're being fucked in the ass to profit the guys on top while they'd feel too good to piss on your head if it was on fire,
>
>
>I have to hand it to you, Christophe. You just hit the nail on the head summing up the republican leadership here now.
>
No ever said the republicans were mistake free, but they are trying to do something. That's way more than the democrats ever did. Let's not forget that Clinton had many opportunities to weaken al qaeda and did absolutely nothing.
It's better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. And we are far from failing, though the dems would wish it so.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 10:47:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Funny, no one thought Hitler would do what he did either. And As I said, if there had been a pre-emptive strike on him, what do you think the reaction would have been ?
>
>Liar Liar Liar McGee!
>In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed and hailed by lots of people in America as a-okay, including one Mr. Charles Lindberg. By 1937, the World knew about their effects. There were a great deal of large protests in NY, LA, and Chicago against the Nazi Party. In '39, when a great deal of people were getting letters from their families over getting thrown into- sorry- relocated to (just like our proud Native American) ghettos, the American government petitioned the German Government to stop. They received back a kindly response of "Go Fuck Yourself," but in German, of course. So then when all the letters stopped all at once, everyone assumed they were fine fine fine, they even took an unexpected vacation. Awesome!
>
Yeah, those Nuremberg laws really set the stage for WW2 eh ?

>Back to Iraq:
>U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09report.html?hp&ex=1144641600&en=2ae9b3b3cb19f9e8&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>
>"WASHINGTON, April 8 — An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials."
>
Whaddya expect from the NY times ?
Would you actually try to day they don't have a liberal bias ?
Who ever said Iraq was turning into Disneyland ?
It is getting better a little bit at a time though.


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Apr 9 11:12:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yeah, those Nuremberg laws really set the stage for WW2 eh ?

There are 7 ways that didn't answer the question at hand.


>Whaddya expect from the NY times ?
I expect accurate news and reporting, and look at that! I find accurate news and reporting!

>Would you actually try to [s]ay they don't have a liberal bias ?
Yes, their editorial section has a liberal bias. When it comes to accuracy in news and reporting I find them only second to the BBC.

>Who ever said Iraq was turning into Disneyland ?
The President and Vice-President. Also, the Defense Secretary.

>It is getting better a little bit at a time though.
According to their plans for war, it should have been ironed clean no more than a year after the initial invasion. This is year 3 and a month and the chaos has not gotten better, it has just changed.


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 9 12:00:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>No ever said the republicans were mistake free, but they are trying to do something. That's way more than the democrats ever did. Let's not forget that Clinton had many opportunities to weaken al qaeda and did absolutely nothing.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

"In 1993, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In retaliation, Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, which involved cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons facility in Khartoum, Sudan that was believed to be tied to bin Laden. Clinton also gave orders authorizing the arrest or, if need be, assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden."

"Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks stated they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation"

Clark (Clinton's top man on the terrorism issue) gave Rice and top security officials a powerpoint presentation during the transition period:
"In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime."

The Bush adminstration response?
"The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush."

They sat on it : (

A fact: Clinton tried to kill Osama.
"Clinton ordered two U.S. Navy submarines to stay on station in the northern Arabian Sea, ready to attack if bin Laden's coordinates could be determined."

So what happened?
"...the missiles could be used only if bin Laden's whereabouts were known, and the CIA never definitively delivered that information. By early 2000, Clinton was becoming infuriated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden's movements. "We've got to do better than this," he scribbled on one memo. "This is unsatisfactory."

______________________________

My point... In hindsight the Clinton could have done more, but to say he "did absolutely nothing" once again shows me that the truth has nothing to do with your opinions.

Your outrage should also be directed at the Bush Administration for being warned repeatedly by the outgoing Clinton team of the imminant thread al queada posed, and their subsquent dropping of the ball untill 9/11 happened.






 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Sun Apr 9 12:32:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>Do you remember anything about how they assured us that the oil revenue from Saddam's fields would bring in billions to offset the cost...well it hasn't brought in diddley-squat compared to the billions us taxpayers are shelling out.

Sadly that's very true. We can't have oil revenue if there isn't much oil coming out of Iraq. Think of it as a long term investment. Once we create a working puppet government in Iraq we will have control of the oil until it's all gone.

Does anyone really think that the US will simply hand over control once a government is in place. Oil production in Iraq will be like the Panama Canal, but only once we give it back in 50 years it will be worthless, this time.



About the original article posted by Mr. Misses. I don't belive that nuclear weapons will be used in any war anytime soon. The problem with using nuclear weapons is if you use them, then someone else might do the same in response. And the US can't risk that happening. But I do believe that the US government is planning some kind of offensive against Iran.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 12:32:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>No ever said the republicans were mistake free, but they are trying to do something. That's way more than the democrats ever did. Let's not forget that Clinton had many opportunities to weaken al qaeda and did absolutely nothing.
>
>Do you just make this stuff up as you go?
>
>"In 1993, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In retaliation, Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, which involved cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons facility in Khartoum, Sudan that was believed to be tied to bin Laden. Clinton also gave orders authorizing the arrest or, if need be, assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden."
>
Um, exactly how effective was the response ? How many terrorists were killed, not counting empty tents ?
What was his follow up after learning his response was tantamount to nothing ?
Do you realize he fired more cruise missiles at empty targets than during the entire war against Saddam ?
I won't even go into the aspirin factory debacle.

>"Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks stated they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation"
>
>Clark (Clinton's top man on the terrorism issue) gave Rice and top security officials a powerpoint presentation during the transition period:
>"In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime."
>
>The Bush adminstration response?
>"The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush."
>
>They sat on it : (
>
>A fact: Clinton tried to kill Osama.
>"Clinton ordered two U.S. Navy submarines to stay on station in the northern Arabian Sea, ready to attack if bin Laden's coordinates could be determined."
>
>So what happened?
>"...the missiles could be used only if bin Laden's whereabouts were known, and the CIA never definitively delivered that information. By early 2000, Clinton was becoming infuriated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden's movements. "We've got to do better than this," he scribbled on one memo. "This is unsatisfactory."
>
>______________________________
>
>My point... In hindsight the Clinton could have done more, but to say he "did absolutely nothing" once again shows me that the truth has nothing to do with your opinions.
>
What Clinton did was tantamount to nothing. He neither killed nor captured one single terrorist.
He bemoans the intelligence shortcomings at the same time he gutted the CIA's budget.
He was offered Osama by the government of Sudan and refused him.
The truth has become a matter of opinion to you Addie.

>Your outrage should also be directed at the Bush Administration for being warned repeatedly by the outgoing Clinton team of the imminant thread al queada posed, and their subsquent dropping of the ball untill 9/11 happened.
>
Dropped the ball ?
He gets inaugurated in Jan and the towers fall in Sep, what would you have had him do ? Attack ?
Yeah sure.
Duh, it wouldn't have mattered, because whatever he did, the liberals would have decried it as not the right thing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 12:36:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:
>addi said:
>
>>Do you remember anything about how they assured us that the oil revenue from Saddam's fields would bring in billions to offset the cost...well it hasn't brought in diddley-squat compared to the billions us taxpayers are shelling out.
>
>Sadly that's very true. We can't have oil revenue if there isn't much oil coming out of Iraq. Think of it as a long term investment. Once we create a working puppet government in Iraq we will have control of the oil until it's all gone.
>
You mean like all the other puppet governments we have around the world ?

>Does anyone really think that the US will simply hand over control once a government is in place. Oil production in Iraq will be like the Panama Canal, but only once we give it back in 50 years it will be worthless, this time.
>
Yeah, that's true we didn't turn over control to Japan, Germany, or France did we ?
>About the original article posted by Mr. Misses. I don't belive that nuclear weapons will be used in any war anytime soon. The problem with using nuclear weapons is if you use them, then someone else might do the same in response. And the US can't risk that happening. But I do believe that the US government is planning some kind of offensive against Iran.
>
I seriously doubt any nuclear weapon will be used against Iran. What for ?
We have already demonstrated we have enough technologically advance conventional weapons to render nuclear action unnecessary.
And yes, it would be foolish to think we aren't planning for an attack on Iran should it become necessary.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 12:39:49 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yeah, those Nuremberg laws really set the stage for WW2 eh ?
>
>There are 7 ways that didn't answer the question at hand.
>
Actually the question was mine and it was what would the press have done if we had made a premptive strike on Hitler ?

>>Whaddya expect from the NY times ?
>I expect accurate news and reporting, and look at that! I find accurate news and reporting!
>
>>Would you actually try to [s]ay they don't have a liberal bias ?
>Yes, their editorial section has a liberal bias. When it comes to accuracy in news and reporting I find them only second to the BBC.
>
Ha, and the BBC doesn't have a liberal bias ?

>>Who ever said Iraq was turning into Disneyland ?
>The President and Vice-President. Also, the Defense Secretary.
>
No they said things were getting better and they are.

>>It is getting better a little bit at a time though.

>According to their plans for war, it should have been ironed clean no more than a year after the initial invasion. This is year 3 and a month and the chaos has not gotten better, it has just changed.
>
I seem to remember them saying it would take years.


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 9 13:15:37 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:


>Um, exactly how effective was the response ?

Such a gift you have for twisting words. You said Clinton did nothing. I posted just SOME of the attempts he made to recognise terrorist threats. The point was not on the outcome of his actions, rather that he did see osama and alqueda as a serious threat and tried to do something. Remember this was all before the 9/11 attacks. Bush had the ball dropped directly in his court and he's done everything he could to give the game away to the terrorists. Afganistan is in control of the warlords (check out some other source than Fox and tell me that's wrong). Iraq is, for all practical purposes, on the verge of an all out civil war. Meanwhile terrorist cells continue to grow in cities all over the world, and the worlds opinion of Bush's foreign policy is in the toilet.

And you have the gall to write from the safety and comfort of your secure home here that things are looking better in Iraq? You are clueless about what's really happening there.


>Dropped the ball ?
>He gets inaugurated in Jan and the towers fall in Sep, what would you have had him do ?

For a start take the many warnings the CLinton administration gave him about al queda seriously. He didn't. He waited untill after the fact to do a damn thing...and then he gets sidetracted to his (and his business cronies) personal priorities and attacks a country where NO single significant connection to al queda has been found.

I have never in my life said something like this before, but I really feel Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others should be tarred and feathered and then exported to a third world country to see what life is really about. They all have blood on their hands.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 9 18:19:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>
>>Um, exactly how effective was the response ?
>
>Such a gift you have for twisting words. You said Clinton did nothing. I posted just SOME of the attempts he made to recognise terrorist threats. The point was not on the outcome of his actions, rather that he did see osama and alqueda as a serious threat and tried to do something. Remember this was all before the 9/11 attacks. Bush had the ball dropped directly in his court and he's done everything he could to give the game away to the terrorists. Afganistan is in control of the warlords (check out some other source than Fox and tell me that's wrong). Iraq is, for all practical purposes, on the verge of an all out civil war. Meanwhile terrorist cells continue to grow in cities all over the world, and the worlds opinion of Bush's foreign policy is in the toilet.
>
>And you have the gall to write from the safety and comfort of your secure home here that things are looking better in Iraq? You are clueless about what's really happening there.
>
>
>>Dropped the ball ?
>>He gets inaugurated in Jan and the towers fall in Sep, what would you have had him do ?
>
>For a start take the many warnings the CLinton administration gave him about al queda seriously. He didn't. He waited untill after the fact to do a damn thing...and then he gets sidetracted to his (and his business cronies) personal priorities and attacks a country where NO single significant connection to al queda has been found.
>
Why should he take them seriously, Clinton didn't.
You actually believe dropping a bunch of cruise missiles on an empty camp is a serious response ? What else did he do ?
He did nothing and the cruise missiles he did launch were a smoke screen to cover up his problems at home.



 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 9 18:23:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>He did nothing and the cruise missiles he did launch were a smoke screen to cover up his problems at home.


I'm sure the bush administration would shrug at such diversion tactics.


Seriously, hif.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]