-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Undersea Cable Cutting: Prelude to War?
- Thread starter LoneGunman
- Start date
LoneGunman
Expert Member
"Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush."
I think any normal person would set more store in what the above person says,
than in some politically uneducated forum member..
Delusional Bush Dances Toward War
by Ray McGovern
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12611
Events of the last week offer a metaphorical glimpse at the delusion pervading President George W. Bush's White House and other enclaves of Iraq supporters in Washington. Bush and the First Lady spent last Monday clowning with the Easter Bunny (White House counsel Fred Fielding having donned the costume).
At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), war cheerleaders, dressed as academicians, were delivering a panegyric on how peaceful and stable the situation in Iraq had become. The "surge," they announced, had nipped a civil war in the bud...
..Meanwhile, back in the southern Iraq city of Basra and elsewhere, full-blown civil war seemed about to explode. And in Baghdad, formerly protected folks were getting killed by mortar and rocket fire in what is customarily referred to as "the highly fortified Green Zone.."
...Why attack Iran? Well, also, just because! Because, as Bush is fond of saying, he is commander in chief. And he considers the U.S. armed forces his plaything. And because he can. Never mind the consequences. When has anyone held George W. Bush accountable for consequences?
Worse still, Bush's open-ended rhetorical commitment to defend Israel if attacked could spell big trouble. If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush has said, "We will defend our ally, no ifs, ands, or buts." That is great rhetoric; trouble is that it surrenders the initiative to the Israelis, who have it within their power to provoke the Iranians..."
..Eight months ago, Dr. Frank and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated on an article we called "Dangers of a Cornered Bush." The president and his imperial court now have 10 more months to act out. The scenarios we explored in that memo are still worth pondering.
Let me close with a remark Seymour Hersh made last year, even though it may seem flippant and in no way conveys the enormity of the danger we face in the coming months:
"These guys are scary as hell… you can't use the word 'delusional,' for it's actually a medical term. Wacky. That's a fair word."
With so much destructive power at the disposal of George W. Bush, we need to be increasingly alert to signs that additional delusional policies are about to be executed.
I think any normal person would set more store in what the above person says,
than in some politically uneducated forum member..
Delusional Bush Dances Toward War
by Ray McGovern
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12611
Events of the last week offer a metaphorical glimpse at the delusion pervading President George W. Bush's White House and other enclaves of Iraq supporters in Washington. Bush and the First Lady spent last Monday clowning with the Easter Bunny (White House counsel Fred Fielding having donned the costume).
At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), war cheerleaders, dressed as academicians, were delivering a panegyric on how peaceful and stable the situation in Iraq had become. The "surge," they announced, had nipped a civil war in the bud...
..Meanwhile, back in the southern Iraq city of Basra and elsewhere, full-blown civil war seemed about to explode. And in Baghdad, formerly protected folks were getting killed by mortar and rocket fire in what is customarily referred to as "the highly fortified Green Zone.."
...Why attack Iran? Well, also, just because! Because, as Bush is fond of saying, he is commander in chief. And he considers the U.S. armed forces his plaything. And because he can. Never mind the consequences. When has anyone held George W. Bush accountable for consequences?
Worse still, Bush's open-ended rhetorical commitment to defend Israel if attacked could spell big trouble. If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush has said, "We will defend our ally, no ifs, ands, or buts." That is great rhetoric; trouble is that it surrenders the initiative to the Israelis, who have it within their power to provoke the Iranians..."
..Eight months ago, Dr. Frank and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated on an article we called "Dangers of a Cornered Bush." The president and his imperial court now have 10 more months to act out. The scenarios we explored in that memo are still worth pondering.
Let me close with a remark Seymour Hersh made last year, even though it may seem flippant and in no way conveys the enormity of the danger we face in the coming months:
"These guys are scary as hell… you can't use the word 'delusional,' for it's actually a medical term. Wacky. That's a fair word."
With so much destructive power at the disposal of George W. Bush, we need to be increasingly alert to signs that additional delusional policies are about to be executed.
Balstrome
Banned
Could this be the national security thing that was mentioned about landing cables here.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
"Heres a question, how easy is it for any idiot with an anchor to break these pipes? It looks like a lightly funded terrorist group could achieve pretty large results for doing something like this."
'lightly funded terrorist group'?? do some research, these aren't tiny pipes, in shallow water, which you can dive down to, off a little dinghy. Diagrams are available online.
'lightly funded terrorist group'?? do some research, these aren't tiny pipes, in shallow water, which you can dive down to, off a little dinghy. Diagrams are available online.
Dick Cheney’s message has been received: Saudi Arabia and Israel prepare for Nuclear War while Iran tries to broker peace
ROFL classic tinfoil hat stuff that is
u read the rest of the article?
I got to "then why are Saudi Arabia and Israel preparing for Nuclear War?'" and couldn't go on. My eyes teared up from laughing sorry
I got to "then why are Saudi Arabia and Israel preparing for Nuclear War?'" and couldn't go on. My eyes teared up from laughing sorry
lol..fair enough.
But if you do read on there are some interesting things there...esp re this article where they say that they are prepared to use nukes in Iran if they had to.
Well firstly the site 'antiwar' already throws credibility out the window. But we'll ignore that. The chances of nukes being used against Iran is pretty much zero. Honestly can anyone short of a conspiracy nut think otherwise. What objective could nukes possibly achieve?
You need to wean yourself off this conspiracy mumbo jumbo. This is reality not a Hollywood film set or some wasted college kid's fantasy
Last edited:
Well firstly the site 'antiwar' already throws credibility out the window. But we'll ignore that. The chances of nukes being used against Iran is pretty much zero. Honestly can anyone short of a conspiracy nut think other wise. What objective could nukes possibly achieve?
You need to wean yourself off this conspiracy mumbo jumbo. This is reality not a Hollywood film set or some wasted college kid's fantasy
I would agree with you on this.
No one wants radio active oil.
The oilfields are safe for now.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
a) pointing to a site hosting an article by a very respected journalist, and saying 'oh but its hosted on an antiwar site, is misdirection.
What counts are the facts of the article, not the hosting site. You think reality and facts are only relevant when what exactly -they are hosted on official mainstream news sites?
There are only 5 news corporations in the USA, that control all newspapers, radio, TV and magazines.
But you're going to sit and ignore quoted facts until they appear on one of the 5 subdivisions of these 5 companies?
Thats absurd. People arent quoting from obvious bad news sites like newsmax, or worldnet daily. Seymour Hirsch is
a major journalist for the New York Times.
technically, WMD's have been used in Iraq for some time. So called 'depleted' uranium
is radioactive, remains active on the battlefield after the event, and has caused a variety of increasing problems with the civilian population.
(These factors mean DU weaponry is illegal under international law and definitions of WMD's)
So comments about nukes not being used because of 'radioactive' oil, are moot. The area is already radioactive.
Recall the news items from UK showing a strange rise in radioactivity, courtesy of the winds from the Middle East. Add to this the effects of DU, the so-called Gulf War syndrome, which has meant some 60-70 % (if memory serves me right) of gulf war 1 troops, are requiring medical treatment.
Furthermore, as you folks seem to not know much about nuclear weaponry, or the practical methods of how nuclear weapons 'work' - the different tonnage and methods of destruction for each 'grade' of tonnage - its part of standard military strategy to pattern low yield nukes onto targets to create a higher PSI (pounds per square inch) destructive capability. In simpler english, its quite easy to use 4-6 smaller nukes to create a destructive capacity more in keeping with a massively higher kiloton system, without the higher radioactive fallout.
What counts are the facts of the article, not the hosting site. You think reality and facts are only relevant when what exactly -they are hosted on official mainstream news sites?
There are only 5 news corporations in the USA, that control all newspapers, radio, TV and magazines.
But you're going to sit and ignore quoted facts until they appear on one of the 5 subdivisions of these 5 companies?
Thats absurd. People arent quoting from obvious bad news sites like newsmax, or worldnet daily. Seymour Hirsch is
a major journalist for the New York Times.
technically, WMD's have been used in Iraq for some time. So called 'depleted' uranium
is radioactive, remains active on the battlefield after the event, and has caused a variety of increasing problems with the civilian population.
(These factors mean DU weaponry is illegal under international law and definitions of WMD's)
So comments about nukes not being used because of 'radioactive' oil, are moot. The area is already radioactive.
Recall the news items from UK showing a strange rise in radioactivity, courtesy of the winds from the Middle East. Add to this the effects of DU, the so-called Gulf War syndrome, which has meant some 60-70 % (if memory serves me right) of gulf war 1 troops, are requiring medical treatment.
Furthermore, as you folks seem to not know much about nuclear weaponry, or the practical methods of how nuclear weapons 'work' - the different tonnage and methods of destruction for each 'grade' of tonnage - its part of standard military strategy to pattern low yield nukes onto targets to create a higher PSI (pounds per square inch) destructive capability. In simpler english, its quite easy to use 4-6 smaller nukes to create a destructive capacity more in keeping with a massively higher kiloton system, without the higher radioactive fallout.
Dick Cheney’s message has been received: Saudi Arabia and Israel prepare for Nuclear War while Iran tries to broker peace
ROFL classic tinfoil hat stuff that is
To dream up some of these conspiracy theories, you've either been without your tinfoil hat for some time, or smoking something strong (a Barry White comes to mind).
LoneGunman
Expert Member
The biggest conspiracy theories seem to come from the US government itself, with regard to Iraq and Iran..
Almost every single "fact" that the US government stated about Iraq, has since been proved to be a lie. No chemical weapons, atomic bombs, WMD's, rockets, UAV's. Nothing. No Al Qeada either. (Despite the current renaming of insurgents as Al Qeada - there werent any there under Saddam, who hated them).
You have to be ferociously actively stupid, and seriously uneducated, to believe the latest 'bunch of facts' being put out, to justify war.
Almost every single "fact" that the US government stated about Iraq, has since been proved to be a lie. No chemical weapons, atomic bombs, WMD's, rockets, UAV's. Nothing. No Al Qeada either. (Despite the current renaming of insurgents as Al Qeada - there werent any there under Saddam, who hated them).
You have to be ferociously actively stupid, and seriously uneducated, to believe the latest 'bunch of facts' being put out, to justify war.
You have to be ferociously actively stupid, on mind altering drugs, and seriously uneducated, to believe the latest 'conspiracy theories' being put out.
d0b33
Honorary Master
That's true... you would think by now people would be more skeptical about claims made by the Bush administration.