Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Is this true? Is the US really drawing up plans for a nuclear strike on Iran in the event of another terrorist attack on the American mainland? Anyone seen any verification of this anywhere, or is it just a rumour? I fucking hope so.

Because, let's face it, another terrorist strike on US soil is pretty much inevitable (as our own dear Metropolitan Police keep pointlessly telling us is the case with London). If anything, it's amazing they've got away without another one for nearly four years...


Blogger Voice 1 said...

Personally, I wouldn't put anything past the bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers in power in the US Nose MonKey.

This article appeared in the Arctic Beacon along the same lines a few days ago:


Cheney’s orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of The American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:

“Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi’s article.

So, even if Iran is not found to be involved in any terrorist attack, according to this article, Cheney believes that it's right to "Nuke Iran".

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nose Monkey? They were absolutely unnecessary murderous atrocities as well.

8/09/2005 02:54:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

By the way, anyone reading from New Zealand? Hell Pizzas deserves your custom.


8/09/2005 02:56:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Not sure I agree with "unnecessary" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and at least the Japanese had actually started it in that case... (But then again, as debates here over the weekend attest to, I'm not convinced of the necessity of H & N either. And some historians have argued, fairly convincingly in some cases, that US oil sanctions against Japan were tantamount to a deliberate attempt to provoke war. But let's not get into that one again...)

8/09/2005 03:00:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

_Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nose Monkey? They were absolutely unnecessary murderous atrocities as well._

Actually, NM, I'd really like to hear the justifications of someone who is so sure of his case that he can make that sort of statement. He must have some as-yet-undisclosed data that should be made available to the rest of mankind.

8/09/2005 03:04:00 pm  
Blogger Geoff said...

Iran is one of the few foreign policy areas where a partnership of France, the UK & Germany have worked together in taking the lead role in trying to find a solution.

I get the impression that the neocons (who hate the idea of Europe ever taking their own line) are just itching for negotiations to fail so they can 'prove' that talking doesn't work and only the agressive US approach can work with 'those kind of people'.

Unfortunately I suspect it's exactly this kind of US Sabre-rattling that will doom the European mission to failure. Which I suspect is entirely deliberate on the US's part. They'd hate to see the EU develop a more confident role on the World Stage, or one where the UK & France / Geramny co-operate rather than bicker.

8/09/2005 03:06:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

As Nosemonkey has stated that they doesn't really want to get into Hiroshima and Nagasaki again, then I will not do so, however, Jarndyce, there is plenty of publicly available information which shows that Japan was ready to surrender.

Geoff, well said. A strong European voice does not suit those in power in the US, it is in their interests to divide, not unite.

8/09/2005 03:11:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

V1: I'm well aware of that. However, there is also plenty of "publicly available information" that says the exact opposite. Therefore, making the sort of strong assertion you did is, at best, unwise.

8/09/2005 03:23:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/09/2005 03:29:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Without going into details, once again jarndyce, in my book the murder of roughly a quarter of a million people is an unnecessary atrocity, you could almost say terroristic given the political and strategic aims behind those atrocities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

8/09/2005 03:31:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

I can see it's almost pointless debating this with you... but I suggest you look into jus in bello, among other things. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly acts of war, and therefore not murder. I wouldn't debate that the motives may have been terroristic (though that depends on whether you think terrorism can be carried out by other than non-state actors). And you still haven't provided your killer bit of evidence that makes you so sure that these acts were unnecessary.

In my book, claiming such certainty about something from a distance of 60 years, that necessitates a reading of strategic aims that you couldn't possible have any real knowledge of, when there are plenty of plausible facts to back up multiple interpretations, is (and I'm being charitable) foolish.

8/09/2005 03:44:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Jarndyce, Nosemonkey has already stated that they would rather not get into this subject on this thread, as it is off topic. I will say that we all have our own opinions; to describe someone as foolish because they don't share the same opinion as yourself is, in my opinion, unwise.

If you condemn one act which involves the killing of tens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, then you should also condemn another act which involves the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. That has always been my view, as I don't agree with killing innocent people, maybe you have a different opinion, who knows, and that is why I remarked back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my original comment.

Those atrocities should have taught the world to never allow something similar to happen again, but, if these reports are true, then we know at least that those in the rogue regime in Washington don't learn anything.

8/09/2005 04:10:00 pm  
Blogger sean said...

Iraq, it turns out, was a strategic error. I supported it, lukewarmly, from the start, so it pains me to say it.
At best, it now looks like we're just going to replace a bloodthirsty but secular tyranny, Saddam, with a democratically elected but deeply unpleasant theocratic regime, arguable more inimical to western interests. And all at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, allied and Iraqi.
I mention this cause I now think Iran should have been the target from the off - which it sounds like the neo-cons are now realising. Iran is much more a sponsor of terrorism, suicide bombs, and now it looks like it's gonna get nukes.
Although I do not support pre-emptive strikes on Iran, yet, if it does come close to nuclear weapons, what are the alternatives? If America doesn't hit it, Israel will.
Any suggestions from anyone for a non pre-emptive strike policy, if they get nukes? It's a lot tougher to work this one out than sitting in your armchair waffling trite, dim and foolish remarks about the immorality of Hiroshima.

8/09/2005 04:21:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

You'd agree with a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran Sean, regardless of any facts? No doubt you're from one of our "civilised societies". Yes, checking on your profile, you are.

And you're a "journalist" as well apparently. From your tone, it sounds like you're from one of the Murdoch owned stable, in which case, I wouldn't really class you as a "journalist", at least not in a traditional investigative type sense of the word.

However, regardless of that you've already admitted you've made one mistake, just like your warmongering friends have, who's to say you won't make another?

8/09/2005 04:26:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Oh, and additionally Sean, how many more innocents will have to die to satisfy your bloodlust and so called "mistakes"?

8/09/2005 04:28:00 pm  
Blogger sean said...

Thanks voice! and likewise, I see from your blog that you are a barely literate lefty, obsessed by anti-Americanism, with a crush on George Galloway, and just a hint of anti-Semitism to boot.
Nice psyche you got going there.
If you read my post you would see that I said 'I do not support pre-emptive strikes on Iran, yet'. Note the use of the word 'not'. Nor any mention of 'nuclear strikes' at all.
What I was doing was posing the hypothesis. If Iran is close to nukes, and refuses to disarm, what do we do? If we don't it, Israel will. And then we really will have World War 3.
As for Iraq, I said in my first post that it was a strategic error. But it wasn't an error I made. I believed Blair on WMDs, I also thought there was a moral case for removing Saddam.
Blair lied on the first, the second remains true - what has gone wrong is the strategic handling of Iraq afterwards.
And one should examine the alterntive. The anti-war people would have left Saddam in power, murdering tens of thousands. That doesn't feel better to me. Just different.
Maybe there was no solution, maybe it was lose-lose. Intriguing. But probably beyond your thought processes.

8/09/2005 04:40:00 pm  
Blogger Eric S said...

Oh, simmer down. The US has contingencies drawn up to use nukes in just about any given situation, on just about any target. This is hardly 'breaking news'. Do you think the French don't have contingencies drawn up for their nukes? What about the Pakistanis, or the Israelis? If you really think that nuking Iran is a serious, imminent threat, then you're not in touch with reality. Perhaps the US simply *wants* the Iranian regime to wonder if we'll really pull the trigger. If that deters them from engaging in some kind of nefarious behavior (and yes, evil is not limited to the Bush regime...), then it has value. Do you think that 'playing nice' with the mullahs in Iran will really pay dividends? Can you honestly say "I trust their motives, they're just misunderstood."?

You say: "If you condemn one act which involves the killing of tens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, then you should also condemn another act which involves the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

Textbook moral equivalence! Countless millions of people died in the Second World war. What makes the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so special? Would you be as interested if they were wiped out by incendiary bombs? Or if they were slowly starved to death throughout the 1940s as the Allies laid siege to the Home Islands?

What was the ALTERNATIVE? Sue for peace, leaving Hitler and Tojo free to work on their little Lebensraum/Prosperity Sphere projects?

You also conveniently overlook the role played by the Allies (particularly the US) in postwar Japan and Europe. Did we continue to terrorize the Japanese and German people? Did we oppress them, steal their wealth, and leave them groveling in the dirt? No.

The atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in the death camps also should have taught the world a lesson. Yet we still saw genocide in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The murder of millions in the Soviet Union should have taught the world a lesson. Every day we're faced with lessons that just don't sink in. To lump the entire history of human conflict into one big morally equivalent pot seems to be just a *bit* on the simplistic side, though.

8/09/2005 04:46:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

Yes, V1, we all have our own opinions. But some are backed up and revised with reference to known facts, while others are just the repetition of memes, which become no truer in the repetition. If you read what I wrote, you'll discover that I haven't questioned your take on Hiroshima, just the force with which you hold onto it, in the face of as much evidence contradicting as supporting your claim. That is what makes your position foolish.

And this is pure cop out (I assume thrown out there in the absence of anything concrete to say):

If you condemn one act which involves the killing of tens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, then you should also condemn another act which involves the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Just another soft-left-humanist meme, worthy but essentially meaningless. If you can't see the difference between, say, Hiroshima and Halabja/Rwanda/Auschwitz and so on, just that all involve "killing innocent people", then as Sean says, you're doing no more than sitting in your armchair waffling trite, dim and foolish remarks. And believe me, I can scarcely believe I'm aggeeing with Sean.

8/09/2005 04:49:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Oh, how charming, a reply from you Sean, may I enquire, do you not usually use paragraphs in your "journalism"?

As i've mentioned previously, you've admitted you made a mistake by believing Blair when he said that Iraq had those weapons of mass destruction, I don't think they found any Sean. And if you were any real "journalist", then you would have known months before the invasion of Iraq that intelligence sources were saying that Iraq destroyed its WMD programme in the 1990s.

Anti Bush regime does not actually equate with anti Americanism, as for your ridiculous anti semitic charge, i'm just going to ignore it. Given that you claim to be a journalist, you're not very good at comprehension Sean.

Nosemonkey's original post was actually regarding a nuclear strike Sean, so how else should I have read your comments?

As for leaving Saddam in power, and I bet you've heard this before, but if you were really in agreement with sorting out the source of all these brutal dictators and rogue regimes then a good idea would be to stop doing business with them, stop giving them financial assistance and stop arming them to the teeth.

Now, there's a radical idea ey Sean? An ethical foreign policy, remember those days many years ago now that Robin Cook spoke of that?

Of course, rabid righties very often have no ethics and very twisted morals.

Regards Sean, oh and if you do reply, please try and compose your reply with paragraphs, it's much easier to read.

8/09/2005 04:51:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Morals may be meaningless to some people Jarndyce, but they aren't to me.

Additionally, as I stated, I was trying to get back on topic, as it was patrly my fault that this thread drifted off topic.

8/09/2005 04:54:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

*pours drink*

*puts feet up*

*settles back in chair*

*remains uninvolved but entertained*

8/09/2005 04:55:00 pm  
Blogger sean said...

Oooh, it's a bit steamy in here this afternoon, innit?

Hey Voice, here's a paragraph.

And here's another one.

And another!

And, by the way,





See! I can do it!

And thankyou, Jarndyce. Bless.

8/09/2005 04:58:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Talking of pre-emptive strikes...

8/09/2005 05:03:00 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

What, no reply Sean, oh well, seems you don't want to delve too much into your errors of judgement.

That's not a good trait for a journalist Sean, perhaps you should have some time off to maybe retrain, and recompose yourself.

Well, that was fun, i'll be off now. Thanks for hosting us Nosemonkey that was thoroughly enjoyable.


8/09/2005 05:04:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

V1: is that it? Your only response to the substantive points I've made in several posts above? I'm afraid what you have is a (well-intentioned but so universal as to be vacuous) meme not a proper system of morality - morals require engagement with critical thought.

And here's one last one for you: turn your recurrent meme on its head and what you'll come up with is a series of assertions so preposterous that barely any living human being could hold to them. That's what makes them foolish.

[Go on try it, it's fun: I don't condemn the murder of thousands of innocent people; morals are meaningless to me; the murder of a (hypothetical) quarter of a million people is a necessary atrocity; and so on...]

8/09/2005 05:12:00 pm  
Blogger Eric S said...

Well said, Jarndyce.

In any case, we all do have something in common. We're all toy soldiers in Nosemonkey's sandbox!!!

8/09/2005 05:22:00 pm  
Blogger sean said...

I agree. Such a shame he's scarpered. I was all set for a good ding-dong then. To fire me up before I nip to the pub.
Have to say, that strange chap Voice has one of the most tendentiously boring blogs in the history of blogs. And that's saying something.
Oy vay.

8/09/2005 05:35:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Anyway, now that it's all calmed down...

Eric - I have no doubt that the US has plans to nuke anyone and everyone, including the UK. (That whole thing about plans for an invasion of Canada that came out a while back, for example.) It would be silly not to have contingency plans in place for any eventuality.

The thing that triggered alarm bells here was the specific mention of strikes coming after another 9/11 style attack. It sounds like these would be different from the standard "nuke Iran" plans which have doubtless existed for decades.

Naturally the plans would have to shift if/when Iran gets nuclear reactors, as these would obviously become new targets - it's just the direct reference to terrorism which got me concerned. And to using nukes, for that matter. High-powered conventional weapons should be enough to take out any Iranian nuclear plants, surely?

8/09/2005 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger Eric S said...

Understood...again, though, I think in large part it's just a revised form of MAD. Essentially it's a message to the mullahs: "If you sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and they detonate it in New York, we will nuke Tehran into a flat, glassy plain."

Harsh? Yes. Lacking nuance? Possibly. Effective? Time will tell.

As for Iranian nuclear facilities, many of them are literally built into the sides of mountains, buried underground, and otherwise hardened to make them very difficult to observe and attack. This is purely hypothetical, of course, but I would suspect that plans would be put in place to use nukes to deny access to entire areas that are known to house nuclear facilities, etc. Instead of attempting to target every hidden entrance and every significant building, simply drop a few nukes in the area and deny access to *everything*. Intact underground facilities aren't much use if you can't approach them for another 500 years...

Again...it's harsh, but it's highly unlikely that such a plan will ever be implemented. There are so many other more tangible things to worry about in the world, like the millions starving in Niger. I wouldn't really put this too high on the list of concerns.

8/09/2005 06:07:00 pm  
Blogger Eric S said...

Oh, and regarding Canada...of course we have plans to invade. Don't turn your back, Canada. Once the 80% of Americans who can't find Canada on a globe figure out where you're located, we're coming for you.

8/09/2005 06:09:00 pm  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

I blogged about this a month ago. Well, not about this particular story, but I discussed why Iran should, and would, be a target; I also blogged about why we chose Iraq and Afghanistan instead.

Much of it is pure speculation, but it's starting to look like I may be right...


8/10/2005 01:29:00 am  
Anonymous mag said...

ot a little but what about the Russia/China issue? The us admin must be have a hissy fit over that!!
Something which may not be appearing in UK media is the Cindy Sheehan story. Check http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Cindy_Sheehan
she just may make a difference!!!!

Mag Australia

8/10/2005 08:58:00 am  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

Christ, it's like America's answer to Rose Gentil!

I think it's very unfortunate that she misses her son; maybe she should have stopped him joining the army. I mean, surely part of the deal when your son joins the army is the possibility that he will get killed. After all, that's what soldiers do, isn't it; kill or be killed...?

8/10/2005 01:59:00 pm  
Blogger D-Notice said...


Never had one of my posts linked to before...

8/10/2005 03:20:00 pm  
Blogger PoliticalHack said...

I'd agree that if you join the military, you accept that the outcome may be death or incapacity. I've always argued that there is an unwritten agreement between a volunteer military and a democratic government. In return for accepting their fate, the military expect that the politicians won't send them into harm's way unnecessarily. The Iraq adventure wasn't necessary, so Cindy and everyone else has an absolute right to be angry.

8/11/2005 10:31:00 am  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

WWII wasn't necessary either. Hitler did not want to go to war with Britain.

So, tough...?

8/15/2005 01:26:00 pm  
Blogger Eddie said...

PoliticalHack Wrote
"I'd agree that if you join the military, you accept that the outcome may be death or incapacity. I've always argued that there is an unwritten agreement between a volunteer military and a democratic government. In return for accepting their fate, the military expect that the politicians won't send them into harm's way unnecessarily. The Iraq adventure wasn't necessary, so Cindy and everyone else has an absolute right to be angry. "

Isn't that argument hurt by the fact that her son went to Iraq, came back safe, re-inlisted and was then sent back. I would agree with you that if he was against the war and got sent just because he had enlisted before the war, and had not had time to get out that your argument would be pretty strong, but this case seams to be somewhat weaker.

8/16/2005 03:36:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

(Mostly) Britain
(Mostly) Europe)
Regional Expertise
New Blogroll Additions

Archives by Date

02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003 | 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003 | 04/25/2004 - 05/02/2004 | 05/09/2004 - 05/16/2004 | 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004 | 08/29/2004 - 09/05/2004 | 09/05/2004 - 09/12/2004 | 09/12/2004 - 09/19/2004 | 09/19/2004 - 09/26/2004 | 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004 | 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004 | 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004 | 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004 | 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004 | 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004 | 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004 | 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004 | 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004 | 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004 | 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004 | 12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004 | 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004 | 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005 | 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005 | 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005 | 01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005 | 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005 | 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005 | 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005 | 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005 | 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005 | 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005 | 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005 | 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005 | 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005 | 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005 | 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005 | 04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005 | 04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005 | 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005 | 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005 | 05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005 | 05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005 | 05/22/2005 - 05/29/2005 | 05/29/2005 - 06/05/2005 | 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005 | 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005 | 06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005 | 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005 | 07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005 | 07/10/2005 - 07/17/2005 | 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005 | 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005 | 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005 | 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005 | 08/14/2005 - 08/21/2005 | 08/21/2005 - 08/28/2005 | 08/28/2005 - 09/04/2005 | 09/04/2005 - 09/11/2005 | 09/11/2005 - 09/18/2005 | 09/18/2005 - 09/25/2005 | 09/25/2005 - 10/02/2005 | 10/02/2005 - 10/09/2005 | 10/09/2005 - 10/16/2005 | 10/16/2005 - 10/23/2005 | 10/30/2005 - 11/06/2005 | 11/06/2005 - 11/13/2005 | 11/13/2005 - 11/20/2005 | 11/20/2005 - 11/27/2005 | 11/27/2005 - 12/04/2005 | 12/04/2005 - 12/11/2005 | 12/11/2005 - 12/18/2005 | 12/18/2005 - 12/25/2005 | 12/25/2005 - 01/01/2006 | 01/01/2006 - 01/08/2006 | 01/08/2006 - 01/15/2006 | 01/15/2006 - 01/22/2006 | 01/22/2006 - 01/29/2006 | 01/29/2006 - 02/05/2006 | 02/05/2006 - 02/12/2006 | 02/12/2006 - 02/19/2006 | 02/19/2006 - 02/26/2006 | 02/26/2006 - 03/05/2006 | 03/05/2006 - 03/12/2006 | 03/12/2006 - 03/19/2006 | 03/19/2006 - 03/26/2006 | 03/26/2006 - 04/02/2006 | 04/02/2006 - 04/09/2006 | 04/09/2006 - 04/16/2006 | 04/16/2006 - 04/23/2006 | 04/23/2006 - 04/30/2006 | 04/30/2006 - 05/07/2006 | 05/07/2006 - 05/14/2006 | 05/14/2006 - 05/21/2006 | 05/21/2006 - 05/28/2006 | 05/28/2006 - 06/04/2006 | 06/04/2006 - 06/11/2006 | 06/11/2006 - 06/18/2006 | 06/18/2006 - 06/25/2006 | 06/25/2006 - 07/02/2006 | 07/02/2006 - 07/09/2006 | 07/09/2006 - 07/16/2006 | 07/16/2006 - 07/23/2006 | 07/23/2006 - 07/30/2006 | 07/30/2006 - 08/06/2006 | 08/06/2006 - 08/13/2006 | 08/13/2006 - 08/20/2006 | 08/20/2006 - 08/27/2006 | 08/27/2006 - 09/03/2006 | 09/03/2006 - 09/10/2006 | 09/10/2006 - 09/17/2006 | 09/17/2006 - 09/24/2006 | 09/24/2006 - 10/01/2006 | 10/08/2006 - 10/15/2006 | 10/15/2006 - 10/22/2006 | 10/22/2006 - 10/29/2006 | 10/29/2006 - 11/05/2006 | 11/05/2006 - 11/12/2006 | 11/12/2006 - 11/19/2006 | 11/19/2006 - 11/26/2006 | 11/26/2006 - 12/03/2006 |

Blog Pimping

«#Blogging Brits?»
Is my Blog HOT or NOT?
Eatonweb portal
Who Links To Me
Technorati profile

Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst help?

Politics Blog Top Sites

Top of the British Blogs
blog search directory
Advertise on blogs