U.S. Warns Iran to Back Down

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know it is wrong on so many counts, but ever since 1979 I've been waiting to kick a little Iranian butt.

j/k guys, well, mostly.

I take it that you also were in the Gulf at that time. Such fond memories of Iranian gunboats coming alongside and then hours upon hours of general quarters... We had our chance to crush them and then blew it.

Actually, my A-Team went in right after hostages were taken in Nov '79. We bought/leased trucks and warehouses to funtion as a safe house when Delta was to take the hostages out. After that fiasco in the desert it took months to get out alive. They were very suspicous of anybody that looked western. duh.

A little unknown fact is those helicopters originated from the USS Okinawa LPH3, the Killer Lady of the Indian Ocean. The filters were removed to increase power and proved to be a fatal mistake. Maybe, you came aboard our ship?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Skyrad 0]

Is it true that they were brought down by FOD from unsecured gear?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

<>



Some people countries just hate competion

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bush is an insane warmonger hell bent on creating death and destruction in a region that is quickly understanding that US policy is bend to our will or die like the rest.

If the Bush is an insane warmonger, what does that say for the head of Iran?

Bush to Iraq: give me Hussein or I'll invade and make him go away. And then figure out what to do next.

Iran to Israel: stop existing. Oh, and watch us develop nukes. Also, would you like to come to our hollocaust denying conference?

As bad a mess as Iraq has become, this Iranian-Israeli brewfest has the great potential for nuclear exchange that I've seen.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Is it true that they were brought down by FOD from unsecured gear?

http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id1.html
Only one mention of the Oki Boat But, at least it was of a worthy cause
I'm kind of mad that he didn't give us more credit.
From the website;
I landed on the Nimitz once. Do you remember how long the Nimitz was deployed at sea without liberty? It was well over 100 days! That's a long time! Well, the reason I was there that day, was to deliver . . . BEER. . . to the USS Nimitz.

That's right, Beer.

It seems the Navy wanted to give their sailors a break, knowing that the ships would be deployed a very long time at sea, so they had our ship, the USS Okinawa load on beer while in Subic Bay in the Philippenes. We were told it was for us for a ship's party, but I now believe it was planned all along. All men on the Nimitz got 2 beers each, and I was one of the men who delivered it.

Oh yes, 2 beers loaded with fermaldahide [sp]. Nasty stuff, thank god for rasian jack!!!

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Zipp0 1]

The real question is do we have the resources and military prestige at the moment to back Iran down.

My guess is no.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,473]

>If the Bush is an insane warmonger, what does that say for the head of Iran?

He's more like the crazy uncle who tells dirty jokes at christmas and generally embarasses the family.

>Bush to Iraq: give me Hussein or I'll invade and make him go away.
>And then figure out what to do next.

>Iran to Israel: stop existing. Oh, and watch us develop nukes. Also,
>would you like to come to our hollocaust denying conference?

I think most people see it as:

Bush - started a war that killed hundreds of thousands.
Ahmadinejad - talks a lot of shit.

Talking a lot of shit is annoying. Killing hundreds of thousands is a bit more serious to most people.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>If the Bush is an insane warmonger, what does that say for the head of Iran?

He's more like the crazy uncle who tells dirty jokes at christmas and generally embarasses the family.

If you were Israel, would you find that comforting? Would you presume that it's all just hot air?

No. Unless you're an idiot, or a country with no ability to do anything about it, you take those sort of wipe off the face of the earth remarks pretty seriously. And when you see that asshole in the basement playing with nuclear materials, you think very strongly about a preemptive strike.

I don't believe Iran would actually do it. But threatening to do it could lead to tens of million dead in the Middle East if it provokes Israel into a grand example of peace through strength. Or billions - it could easily get out of hand as part of the world supports Israel's right to self defense and the other part condemns them. I'd be on Israel's side.

While it's your opinion that Bush started it, I believe Hessein started it in 1990. You can't defeat our difference of opinion with facts because the facts support both stances.

There's little to support Iran's stance. Less than little.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I don't believe Iran would actually do it. But threatening to do it could lead to tens of million dead in the Middle East if it provokes Israel into a grand example of peace through strength. Or billions - it could easily get out of hand as part of the world supports Israel's right to self defense and the other part condemns them. I'd be on Israel's side.

Personally If Tel Aviv dissappers in a mushroom cloud.. I would NOT want to be in ANY large muslim city ANYWHERE.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Bush - started a war that killed hundreds of thousands.
Ahmadinejad - talks a lot of shit.

Talking a lot of shit is annoying. Killing hundreds of thousands is a bit more serious to most people.

Come on, I'm getting really sick of people stating that Bush started the war, he does not have the power alone to initiate any military conflict.

The 2nd session of the 107th congress unanimously passed the resolution to invade Iraq. if you want to point a finger, blame the US society as a whole for electing the representatives that passed the resolution 77 - 23. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame, even a majority of Dems supported the resolution. (25 yeas- 23 nays).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[matthewcline 0]

I just got done with some of the AAR's covering that and the book called "Guests of the Ayatolla" which talks about your role too.

You got Big Hairy Balls Dude!

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[billvon 2,473]

>I'm getting really sick of people stating that Bush started the war . . .

If you believe that Congress started the war, please find the Declaration of War as passed by Congress and post it here. It would end a lot of bickering.

>The 2nd session of the 107th congress unanimously
>passed the resolution to invade Iraq.

Nope. They passed a resolution that said:

-----------------
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
---------------------

In other words, they authorized the president to defend the security of the US and enforce UN resolutions. The UN did not pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, so the only one that applies is (1). However, that's not saying anything new; the president is ALWAYS authorized to use force to defend the US from threats. That is his job as Commander-in-Chief. It would be like passing a new resolution saying police could use their guns to defend themselves, and then saying that justifies a cop shooting a politician he dislikes.

Fortunately, the US constitution provides a means for the congress of the United States to declare war on an enemy. It is called out in Section 8.

-----------
The Congress shall have Power . . .

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
------------

So again, just find that congressional declaration of war and I will agree with you that the congress decided to "invade Iraq." If you cannot find it, you may have to accept the fact that George Bush started this war based on his own decisions concerning UN inspection progress, the goals of the PNAC, the intelligence he had concerning WMD's, and the oil situation in the US and in the rest of the world. Remember, he's the Decider.

[dan_iv 0]

I have, you dismissed the verbiage preceding the articles you cited from H.J.Res.114.

The resolution passed is stated below, the whole point I was trying to make was that this is not a one man show...

The first paragraph reads...

"Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq"...

feel free to read the rest. both the house and senate passed the resolution to use the armed forces against Iraq...


and another paragraph reads.

"Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';"

so, yes they did pass a resolution.

The bad thing about this thread is everyone reading it probably thinks I'm some sort of conservative right wing nut job. I may be a nut job but I'm only searching for the truth.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Is it true that they were brought down by FOD from unsecured gear?

http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id1.html
Only one mention of the Oki Boat But, at least it was of a worthy cause
I'm kind of mad that he didn't give us more credit.
From the website;
I landed on the Nimitz once. Do you remember how long the Nimitz was deployed at sea without liberty? It was well over 100 days! That's a long time! Well, the reason I was there that day, was to deliver . . . BEER. . . to the USS Nimitz.

That's right, Beer.

It seems the Navy wanted to give their sailors a break, knowing that the ships would be deployed a very long time at sea, so they had our ship, the USS Okinawa load on beer while in Subic Bay in the Philippenes. We were told it was for us for a ship's party, but I now believe it was planned all along. All men on the Nimitz got 2 beers each, and I was one of the men who delivered it.

Oh yes, 2 beers loaded with fermaldahide [sp]. Nasty stuff, thank god for rasian jack!!!

Hey. That San Miguel was some pretty good shit for 50 tav(7.5 cents a bottle) back in the mid 70's

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

The reasons behind the current war in Iraq as well as the pressure that is being put on Iran are due to things set in motion well before Bush took office.

Iran is breaking the treaty they signed for Nuclear Non proliferation. There uranium enrichment program they are currently running is a direct dis-regard of the NNPT that they have signed and are a member of.

As I said in another thread, look up UNSCOM and research that to better understand the actual roots to the cause of the Iraq war.

Where was the Iraq war during the eight year Clinton administration? It started up with Bush's dad in office, completely died out during the Clinton years, then started back up again after Bush was elected.

Anything smell just a 'bit' fishy here?

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

I am assuming that this is what you are refering to. The resolutions are also listed. But it has been proven that Iraq did disarm and that no WMD's were found and that Saddam was being truthful (imagine that!). This in itself makes the invasion unlawful. I fully agree that Iran is playing a dangerous game but, a build up in the Gulf and the threat of an invasion will do nothing to deter them. The build up in the late 70's and early 80's should be the lesson to be remembered. That build up became support for Saddam and his war on Iran. This time around we will be on our own with no support from any Arab nations. There is good reason to believe that any threats to Iran will be viewed as a threat to any and all Arab nations. Bend or die is not a good message to send to the Mideast. We are simply out numbered.

have you read the entire report? Saddam did NOT tell the truth.

Here are some quotes from the UN timeline from the Link you supplied, (which I have read).

"9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections."

"12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance."

"Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors."

"Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX."

When is it going to be permissible for Iran or the UN to inspect the US for WMDs? Oh yea, we already admitted to having them, but thats okay, we are not a threat to anyone. All we do is overthrow foreign governments that Bush doesnt like and kill a lot of foreign nationals. We're the good guys!

[nanook 1]

When is an apologist view ever a good defense for any of these arguments of what we do? The feel-good "golden rule" that is taught at home along with the "get-along" between family neighbors is not applicable anywhere else but between the family neighbors and within the home. It's a whole different set of rules in dealing between countries. We are not in the buisness of teaching grade-school kids the "golden-rule", we are in the buisness of protecting us and our allies' interests, Militarily and Economically; hits in both areas are catastrophic to the existance of any country.
Think of it this way: any place inside the U.S and any given European country, there is an advanced culturalization/community and said "do-onto-others" rules can be applied; Between countries, we are still in the Caveman days of pulling allies to protect each other. There is no community therefore no like-community to apply these golden rules the countries.
Golden rules: Way up there on the Heiarchy of needs.
Inter-country: Down there with safety and physiological needs.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Where was the Iraq war during the eight year Clinton administration?

Clinton ordered attacks in Iraq. He also ordered Bosnia and Somalia.

Clinton did seem to ignore terrorists. Reagan did also..OK Ronnie helped raise them.

Bush 2 was the first President to deal with this level of terrorism. He will not be the last.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Where was the Iraq war during the eight year Clinton administration? It started up with Bush's dad in office, completely died out during the Clinton years, then started back up again after Bush was elected.

Anything smell just a 'bit' fishy here?

I guess you forgot about "Desert Fox", th e strikes that Clinton ordered on Iraq...

the only difference between them was at what scale was necessary to achieve the same objective, both Bush Sr. and Clinton Failed to achieve the objective of securing Iraq at those times, and sadly we are still failing to meet the objective.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

When is it going to be permissible for Iran or the UN to inspect the US for WMDs? Oh yea, we already admitted to having them, but thats okay, we are not a threat to anyone. All we do is overthrow foreign governments that Bush doesnt like and kill a lot of foreign nationals. We're the good guys!

When we the US starts enriching uranium, or starts testing nuclear weapons then the UN as an entity I'm sure will request inspections take place.

It's not against any law or treaty to have WMD according to the treaty, however creating new weapons is not permissible, and if the US begins creating new weapons, or states that we are enriching uranium for peacefull purposes without co-operation from UN members, than it will be the responsibility of the UN to ensure that inspections take place.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

When is it going to be permissible for Iran or the UN to inspect the US for WMDs? Oh yea, we already admitted to having them, but thats okay, we are not a threat to anyone. All we do is overthrow foreign governments that Bush doesnt like and kill a lot of foreign nationals. We're the good guys!

When we the US starts enriching uranium, or starts testing nuclear weapons then the UN as an entity I'm sure will request inspections take place.

It's not against any law or treaty to have WMD according to the treaty, however creating new weapons is not permissible, and if the US begins creating new weapons, or states that we are enriching uranium for peacefull purposes without co-operation from UN members, than it will be the responsibility of the UN to ensure that inspections take place.

US plan for new nuclear arsenal
Secret talks may lead to breaking treaties

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday February 19, 2003
The Guardian

The Bush administration is planning a secret meeting in August to discuss the construction of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including "mini-nukes", "bunker-busters" and neutron bombs designed to destroy chemical or biological agents, according to a leaked Pentagon document.
The meeting of senior military officials and US nuclear scientists at the Omaha headquarters of the US Strategic Command would also decide whether to restart nuclear testing and how to convince the American public that the new weapons are necessary.

The leaked preparations for the meeting are the clearest sign yet that the administration is determined to overhaul its nuclear arsenal so that it could be used as part of the new "Bush doctrine" of pre-emption, to strike the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons of rogue states.
Greg Mello, the head of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear watchdog organisation that obtained the Pentagon documents, said the meeting would also prepare the ground for a US breakaway from global arms control treaties, and the moratorium on conducting nuclear tests.

"It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the comprehensive test ban treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with article six of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty," Mr Mello said.

The documents leaked to Mr Mello are the minutes of a meeting in the Pentagon on January 10 this year called by Dale Klein, the assistant to the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to prepare the secret conference, planned for "the week of August 4 2003".

The National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for designing, building and maintaining nuclear weapons, yesterday confirmed the authenticity of the document. But Anson Franklin, the NNSA head of governmental affairs, said: "We have no request from the defence department for any new nuclear weapon, and we have no plans for nuclear testing.

"The fact is that this paper is talking about what-if scenarios and very long range planning," Mr Franklin told the Guardian.

However, non-proliferation groups say the Omaha meeting will bring a new US nuclear arsenal out of the realm of the theoretical and far closer to reality, in the shape of new bombs and a new readiness to use them.

"To me it indicates there are plans proceeding and well under way ... to resume the development, testing and production of new nuclear weapons. It's very serious," said Stephen Schwartz, the publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who added that it opened the US to charges of hypocrisy when it is demanding the disarmament of Iraq and North Korea.

"How can we possibly go to the international community or to these countries and say 'How dare you develop these weapons', when it's exactly what we're doing?" Mr Schwartz said.

The starting point for the January discussion was Mr Rumsfeld's nuclear posture review (NPR), a policy paper published last year that identified Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as potential targets for US nuclear weapons.

According to the Pentagon minutes, the August meeting in Strategic Command's bunker headquarters would discuss how to make weapons to match the new policy. A "future arsenal panel" would consider: "What are the warhead characteristics and advanced concepts we will need in the post-NPR environment?"

The panel would also contemplate the "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPWs [earth-penetrating weapons], enhanced radiation weapons, agent defeat weapons".

This is the menu of weapons being actively considered by the Pentagon. Low-yield means tactical warheads of less than a kiloton, "mini-nukes", which advocates of the new arsenal say represent a far more effective deterrent than the existing huge weapons, because they are more "usable".

Earth-penetrating weapons are "bunker-busters", which would break through the surface of the earth before detonating. US weapons scientists believe they could be used as "agent defeat weapons" used to destroy chemical or biological weapons stored underground. The designers are also looking at low-yield neutron bombs or "enhanced radiation weapons", which could destroy chemical or biological weapons in surface warehouses.

According to the leaked document, the "future arsenal panel" in Omaha would also ask the pivotal question: "What forms of testing will these new designs require?"

The Bush administration has been working to reduce the amount of warning the test sites in the western US desert would need to be reactivated after 10 years lying dormant.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[akarunway 1]

Damned Skippy. That's the only way the U.S. John Q. Public is going to find out about our SECRET weapons programs is thru leaks or when we test them on some foreign SOVEREIGN nation.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[dan_iv 0]

good evidence, are they working with the Illuminati on it?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

good evidence, are they working with the Illuminati on it?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/15/MN79475.DTL

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

You only need to do a search and the info is there on what the Bush admin. has in mind. Use US to build agent defeat weapons

I cannot even imagine what is going on at Lawrence Livermore or at Los Alamos. They are way beyond science fiction.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young