Say it ain't so, Joe
 

So your theory is we should nuke Teheran now?

He's not really dead! Where is Curtis LeMay when you need him?
 

I agree that the guy who looks dead in some of those photos is alive in others.

On the basis of this evidence, I now agree that we should nuke Lebanon and let God sort 'em out.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

No offence to Spanky, what difference does it make if he advocates it. The truth is our military already has it as a contingency plan. Your boy Seymour Hersh has reported on it. Ty probably has a link.

Sidd, why don't you weigh in, if the choice is tactical nukes on Iran before they can strike Tel Aviv, which would you choose? Did you read Bernard Lewis' article in yesterday's WSJ, where he details why MAD doesn't work with an Arab nuke? I don't think anyone but some of Ty's nutty blog pals could argue that he is a respected scholar on the ME. I have no problem advocating using tactical nukes on Iran before they get a bomb and drop it on Tel Aviv or sell it to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah.

Do you?

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Just curious to hear what he thinks (and to get him off the "courageous or stubborn... you decide!" discussion).




If those are the only choices, the former. But this is a classic b.s. approach to making policy decisions. Here is a helpful illustration.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20060806

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

If it gets to that point, you better damn well believe it.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Re-read the question. "Now"?

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Why do you read in things that aren't there? Per my posts, there is no reason to nuke Tehran now (and I don't see that slave is advocating that). Using tactical nukes and.or bunker busting bombs or other appropriate air delivered bombs to target every place where we have any reason to believe there might be nuclear programs or significant or target worth military apparatus is enough.

Either way, I can predict a losing strategy now, do nothing. Which is exactly what the UN/Moveon.org dems and Weurope would have us do. Or not.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Okay, I can agree with that, It's obviously "courageous", but Ty can never admit to the truth.


No kidding, but per my last post, once they have the nukes it will be too late, so we can frame all sorts of permutations of grey as to what our choices and policies would, should, can be, but a year or two from now, when we wake one morning and instead of the towers falling we are watching a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv it will be too late. Maybe there weren't WMDs, maybe our intel in Iraq was bad, maybe that was a hasty war, but in the present situation, it seems pretty clear what the party's intent is and indepdently it seems somewaht clear that they are moving perilously close to acheiving the instrumentality to carry out the intent. I think sitting and waiting and talking are going to buy us nothing but tragic results. Of a historical scope beyond 911.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

I was asking a question, and not to you. But earlier you said we should target Iran's leaders. Earlier than that you said their nuclear program and military capacity. Then i noted the problem of figuring out exactly where those are. So you said their leaders, who Israel could find for us. So I asked about nuking Tehran. so you said we should just target their military capacity and nuclear programs, or every place where we might believe those to be. But you say you don't advocate nuking Tehran, so I guess you know that there is no reason to believe that Iran has any military capacity or nuclear efforts in Tehran. But attacking every potential military or nuclear site with tactical nukes would pretty much wipe the country off the map anyway. But now you'll say that's not what you are advocating. So now you'll say something else that is different than what you said before or now or later because, well, you are either crazy or just a troll.

In any event -- my question stands, and I mean it seriously. Do we really have a military option -- one that this Admin might actually use? I submit that the Iraq adventure has so depleted our military resources, alienated our allies, and damaged the credibility of our intelligence and military that we do not.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

We could target their leaders without nuking Tehran. Ahmadinejad is not in hiding. He makes public appearances.

I am guessing that they don't have major military installations in downtown Tehran.

I am also guessing that we have some intelligence, however imperfect, as to where there are actual military targets.

We go with that without putting any troops on the ground.

I believe, as I noted Seymour Hersh has reported on, all of those scenarios are part of the military planning that the administration has done. Why do you ignore it and keep asking the same question? Why is the above, or part of it, not the basis for a military option? I am not claiming that is a perfect or full and final resolution option, but it is an option.

Isn't only a military option if it has a 100% chance of being 100% successful? What part of the above is not viable, in whole or in part?

See if you can answer without personal denigration.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Assuming you are right, and doing nothing is the only course of action, when they nuke Israel off the map next year, do we just sit back and wait for them to nuke us, because we have such a damaged credibility or do hand over the keys to the country and reconstitute as an Islamic rEpublic beholden to the Mullahs?

He's not really dead! Where is Curtis LeMay when you need him?
 

Jesus. It's hard to believe the NY Times ran with this.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...o%20dust.0.jpg
This photo is so staged, forget about the impossibility of dustless bodies. It's looks like a bunch of 6th graders shooting a cheap home movie. Plus you can just tell the rescuer dude just combed his mustachio.

(Nice biceps on the undead dude, though)

Trending (Good news)
 

From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the oppposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.


Yes, Lamont and the MoveOn crowd are going to be the saviours of the party. Go Dems, Go! LOL!


eta: I wonder if Bush could get the 26th Amendment repealed in time to run again in '08? Thoughts?

Trending (Good news)
 

Assuming he did....

...do you of all people really want 4 more years of Bill Clinton?

Because he'd win in a rout.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Dude, you can't take them all out for good. I'm with you. I think there's a malignant sector of the Arab world you can do nothing with but kill.

But you can't "take them out." There are too many, and the act of taking them out just creates more of them.

The best we can do is contain them with strongmen. We have Libya under control... We need to get back to installing dictators. You can't let these nuts pick their own govts.

Until we somehow educate these people and give them money, they'll be Islamic nuts, and nothing we can do with them. Nukes wouldn't even work. The fuckers aren't advanced enough to respond sensibly, like the Japanese. They're still tribal over there. Break the leader and you get a million cockroaches running all over the place, fighting one and another and only uniting to fight us.

Evolution is the only solution to the Arab Street.