SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (283632)4/10/2006 9:31:26 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573849
 
re: I didn't comment on Mr. Hersh's article when you linked to it earlier. I have been trying to work out the ramifications of what would happen if they did it. There just isn't any real upside to this, it is all downside with options that range from horrible to much, much worse. At least we would have some motivation to wean ourselves off of oil. Because the available supply would only be a fraction of what is available now.

If it can be substantiated that Bush et al are seriously considering unilaterally using nukes to solve a political (not yet military) problem, then the Republicans need to step up now and remove him from office. This is pure insanity, Dr. Strangelove insanity.

These guys are off the deep end and holding the future of the world in their hands.



To: combjelly who wrote (283632)4/10/2006 9:37:12 AM
From: Alighieri  Respond to of 1573849
 
Bush critics alarmed over reports of possible strike on Iran

Mon Apr 10, 4:11 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Critics of the George W. Bush administration expressed alarm about explosive new reports that the president is mulling military options to knock out
Iran's nuclear program.

Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US television Sunday that he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky.

"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on
Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he said.

Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of reports this weekend saying that the administration is seriously considering military action against Iran, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts.

The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility.

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," Hersh quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition" show that a "messianic" president feels driven to try to contain Iran and that the White House is determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong objections from some top
Pentagon officials.

"It's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) in an uproar," he said.

"He (Bush) thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it," said Hersh, the reporter who also broke the
Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

Hersh reports in his article that the administration already has advance forces on the ground in Iran.

"I think it's fraught with danger. But they're there," he told CNN.

Frederick Jones, spokesman for the National Security Council, which advises the president, told AFP: "The US government has been very clear about its approach in dealing with Iran."

"As the president has said repeatedly, we, the US, along with the international community, are seeking a diplomatic solution."

Democratic Senator
John Kerry, one of the administration's most outspoken critics, assailed the White House for what he said is its over-reliance on military might.

"That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration," the former Democratic presidential contender said.

"For us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any non-proliferation efforts and the military assessment is, it would not work," he told NBC television's "Meet the Press" program.

Meanwhile, according to a report Sunday in the Washington Post, Bush is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear program.

Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the newspaper said no attack appears likely in the short term, but officials are using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of its intentions.

The paper said Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends. The White House, in its new National Security Strategy, labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.

Zinni said he shared Washington's concerns about Tehran's motives, but said diplomatic efforts should first be exhausted.

"I believe that if the international community would stand fast, the Russians and the Chinese would stay with us, I think that kind of pressure, the fear of being isolated and condemned as a rogue state could have the effect that we need to halt the program.

"I'm not saying that there isn't a military action that will become necessary at some point," Zinni continued.

"But I believe ... when you take that military action, you have to ask the question, 'and then what?' Because you're going to have a series of those 'and then whats' down the road," he said.

Hersh told CNN however, that the White House has spurned Tehran's overtures for dialogue.

"This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms," he said.

"He's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes everybody," he said.



To: combjelly who wrote (283632)4/11/2006 4:48:55 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1573849
 
Think about it though. If they are willing to start a nuclear war for political advantage, why would they use lesser measures in an actual election?

And that's why so many of us are worried.



To: combjelly who wrote (283632)4/20/2006 3:54:21 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573849
 
Use of nuclear weapons would just be galactically stupid.

I agree. OTOH I think Hersh's implication that the administration would do such a thing is not based on anything solid enough to give it any serious consideration.