Hey, guys? You think, just maybe, that the "nuke Iran" hysteria

[Redstone]

that's gripping this place is, just maybe, a symptom of us swallowing the bait? Something, just maybe, to keep us distracted so we don't pay attention to something else?

What, specifically, that "something else" may be, I'm not qualified to judge. But it's there, somewhere. Probably in the Plame thing.

Besides, don't you think that if bush orders the use of nuclear weapons on a country with which we are not at war, there will be a mutiny by at least one branch of the US military? The generals are not crazy.

I'm telling you right now, the administration is NOT planning on nuking Iran. I think that they're just barely sane enough to know if they tried to, the military would not carry out that order. Not only are the generals not crazy, they're not stupid either.

Flame away if you must.

Redstone

[RevCheesehead]

1. Redstone makes sense.

:hi:

[shenmue]

2. Right on target

I think that's exactly what it is. So we don't notice how every person in this administration deserves to be indicted.

[tatertop]

3. I think bush is going to nuke Iran for sure

I think the next two years will bring the world
sadness beyond belief. Everything these bastards have done leads me
to believe this. Past is prologue.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

4. I agree Redstone!! It's just saber rattling!!

:popcorn: :applause:

[rzemanfl]

10. MOAB was "just saber rattling" "shock and awe" came not much

more than a week later... "Divine Strake" is on June 2nd...

[Redstone]

12. MOAB, the bomb? No, that was around for years before.

Trust me.

Redstone

[rzemanfl]

22. Tested on March 11, 2003. See this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/

Trust, but verify...

[Redstone]

38. For the first time that THE PUBLIC knew about.

Note the capitalization.

Redstone

[rzemanfl]

50. The article says the bomb was under development since late

in '02-but of course this government lies like a rug. My point is that the saber was rattled and then used 8 days later.

[Redstone]

51. And it's not a bad point at all. I just don't think it's applicable now.

Nukes are, after all, a whole different thing. Yes?

Redstone

[rzemanfl]

54. I never believed the Supreme Court would pick a President, I

never believed 19 Arabs could hijack airliners and take down the World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon, I never believed the United States would attack another country without being attacked first, I never believed the government would lie to the World about WMD, I never believed Bush could steal the 2004 election and get away with it, etc., etc.,

I no longer put anything past these scum.

[wickerwoman]

61. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you.

Arguably, we have already lowered the nuclear bar so far it's almost invisible. I never would have believed Americans would stand for dropping DU on people, but change the name, avoid the "n" word, and the public doesn't seem to have much trouble swallowing it. They'll repackage it as a "bunker-buster" or a "mini-nuke" and the sheep will traipse happily along where Bush follows.

I think there are a number of people in the defense department who are eager to clear out some of the old hardware to make room for new multi-million dollar projects. As long as they don't call it a nuclear weapon, the media will sit back commenting on the pretty colors and more Americans won't have a clue what's going on.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

14. There's a big difference between the two.

:popcorn:

[rzemanfl]

17. That being?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

20. Nuclear weapons.

:popcorn:

[rzemanfl]

23. What is the purpose of a 700 ton conventional "bomb?" n/t

[tocqueville]

24. see post #21

[Redstone]

19. Hey, if that's not that toxic microwave "popcorn" crap, can I have a bit?

I'll eat some of the real stuff now and again, but literally cannot be in the house if someone cooks that biohazard they call "microwave popcorn."

(Think I'll ge flamed for this, too?)

Redstone

[LeftyMom]

31. Good idea, 'cause that stuff is nasty

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/nov/science/rr_popcorn.html

I heard the face butter was making the people who work in the factory sick, let me see if I can find a link.

Oh, lung transplants. Nothing major. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-20-2002-20809.asp

[Redstone]

37. Yes, I've heard about the hideous health problems the workers have. And

people still EAT that stuff? Yech.

Redstone

[LeftyMom]

40. It's gross and stinks up a house for days.

LeftyKid and I just heat organic popcorn kernels (they're less than a dollar a pound in the bulk section bulk and we don't have to worry about GMOs) and then flavor them with melted earth balance, which is a vegan margarine, or we heat them with canola oil and sugar to make kettle corn. It's so much better than the crap in a bag and much cheaper too.

[Redstone]

44. Well, we use the hot-air popper And Land O' Lakes marg. But kinda

the same idea.

I don't know what it is about the microwave popcorn crap. I understand that I can't stand the smell of shellfish because I'm allergic to it, so it's a defense mechanism. But I am not exaggerating; I can't be in the house with microwave popcorn.

Redstone

[countryjake]

62. Not to distract from the topic...

but isn't there something about the linings of those bags that affects the popcorn when heated, also? I couldn't resist a chance to interrupt here and bash microwave popcorn...just the smell of that crap gags me! Would never allow it in my house, either.

[Jane Austin]

39. I'm with you on the Microwave Popcorn thing . . .

but only the butter-flavored kind.

That smell stays in your house - - or break room - - for days and in the microwave for ever.

I kind of like the "Natural" kind, especially Central Market's Organic Natural Light.

But that fake butter stuff is sickening. Literally makes me gag.

To me it smells like oily gardenias.

Blechh.

[AllieB]

5. I agree. I think they are trying to distract us away from Leakgate.

But this administration is so batshit crazy, it's hard not to believe that attacking Iran isn't on the agenda.

[KittyWampus]

26. "they"? Hersch is "they"? Hersch is trying to distract us?

[AllieB]

43. I have seen Sy Hersch speak several times

I've read his work. I have great respect for him as a journalist. It's a bit of a stretch to accuse someone of believing Sy Hersch is a plant for the Bushies and understanding that Rove may be trying to distract attention from all the criminals in the Bush admin by focusing on Iran.

[Redstone]

52. And he is immune to being used? Nobody is.

Redstone

[ramblin_dave]

6. Some said his threats of war on Iraq were just to create a

credible threat. They were wrong. He ordered the attack and the military carried it out.

[jsamuel]

29. not a bad point

[havocmom]

7. While I do think there are a few crazy bastards left over from Nixon days

who think now would be a good time to pick a fight the Russians would get involved with, I do not think the military brass is that nuts.

I only sleep at night because I cannot believe they would actually trust DimSon with the REAL codes in that 'football' thing they follow him around with.

I do worry that the branch of the armed forces most likely to follow an insane order would be the Air Force. All those fundies at the Academy make me worry a bit about that branch.

[C_U_L8R]

8. It's a perfect Rove distraction

that serves two purposes...
it draws attention away from the REAL crimes in this country
and it scares the shit out of the Iranians

(Reagan was supposed to pretend he was nuts to spook
the Russians into thinking he may just press the button)

Rove is just trying to create enough confusion
and anxiety so NO ONE can focus...
and catch em in the act.

[KittyWampus]

27. Hersch works for Rove now?

[C_U_L8R]

35. I didn't say that

I'm just saying my suspicions go way up when
multiple "stories" come up .. especially when they
distract away from very damaging issues.
It would not be the first time KKKArl and Co
used such tactics to great success

That said... this nuke iran business may be very real...
and it is really scary shit. I just want to be sure
we're not being "wound up" with spin

[AllieB]

45. Exactly. It may be real since the Bush admin is nuts.

However, Iran could take the focus of the increasing number of criminals in the Bush administration.

[rzemanfl]

9. They will use only the Air Force religious zealots for this

operation. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=2560401&mesg_id=2560401

[xray s]

11. I think Bush is just feeding his base

Blood thirsty bastards have been wanting to nuke the "sand niggers" for years.

They need a steady diet of hate and death to stay on the Bush ranch.

[Ksec]

13. Nuking would be their only choice

The military is stretched thin already. Theres no way they could mount an invasion . Iran knows this. If he nuked any country he'd be hung, dont worry about it. It aint gonna happen.
And this brings us back to your point. Its no more than misdirection. A smokescreen to take attention away from the shape hes got the US into.

[symbolman]

66. Here's what worries me as to troops

someone quoted an aide or general saying that Southern Iraq would light up like an Xmas tree should we 'nuke' Iran..

So suppose they move all the troops forward to the borders of Iran, to avoid the damage to the south in Iraq. Wouldn't that put the troops BETWEEN TWO NUKE fields?

Wouldn't they all DIE from that? over 100,000 troops IRRADIATED from both sides?

That's one of the ugly scenarios I'm imagining..

btw, I told my wife this was 'saber rattling' to keep HER from Rattling.. she has parents in Baltimore and worries that if Bush can pre-emptively attack, then why won't the Iranians? IF they used the same Bush Doctrine they would of course have NO CHOICE, and since no one's really watching the ports, the Baltimore one is only 60 miles away from Wash DC..

So a blast zone would be about that (with my wife's family GONE) and Wash would look like the Omega Man or Planet of the Apes..

Madness. Mutually Assured Destruction has gone out the window, there are now SUITCASE NUKES, and they don't leave a trail in the sky to tell you where they came from.. not to mention if Russia has been selling Nuke goodies to the Iranians why wouldn't THEY step up to the plate and tell Bush in no uncertain terms, "Touch Iran and you'll be glowing in the dark.." I'm sure we still have ICBMS aimed at Russia just in case, but how about China?

How about a WHOLE LOT of countries stepping up to the plate and telling Bush where to GET OFF at this point?

Better than a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get :)

Good post my friend.

[Speck Tater]

15. The one thing you can be sure about with these guys is...

They are playing us. It's a Punch and Judy puppet show to keep us looking at the drama while they pick our pockets or sneak up behind us with a knife. One thing you can't do it take anything they do or say at face value.

[NYC]

16. I don't think at least one branch of the military will mutiny.

Professional army vs. citizen army.

Otherwise known as enlisted vs. drafted.

The Imperial Presidency
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
Copyright 1973
Page 198

...The Commander in Chief clause gave every President nominal command of the Army and Navy. But it could not guarantee him, as Johnson and Nixon discovered in Vietnam, the loyalty of the soldiers in the field, nor the support of their families back home. When a citizen army had a war it believed in, like the Second World War, it fought with unsurpassed courage; but, thrown into a war it could not understand, it could become sullen and disaffected. Nixon now tried to solve the problem of the undependable army, and thereby elliminate one more check on presidential war, by replacing the army made up of civilans by an army made up of professional soldiers.

Had such an army existed in the 1960s, public criticism of the Indochina War would have been much slower to emerge. Even as it was, so long as the Americans killing and dying in Vietnam were sons of poor whites and poor blacks, the American middle class remained generally uninvolved. It was only when the contraction of educational deferments in 1967 and 1968 exposed their own sons to the draft that they (and, in many cases, their sons too) first began to wonder whether the American interest was after all worth the sacrifice of American lives. It was then that opinion began to change. Had conscription been on an egalitarian basis, the middle class would undoubtedly have swung against the war much earlier.

A citizen army is a projection of a whole nation and therefore has the capacity to find means of resisting a President who wants to fight wars in which the nation does not believe. A professional army is by definition a much more compliant and reliable instrument of presidential war. Its members are in the army by their own free choice. Because they believe in their career, they do not have to believe in a particular war. This would not matter if the United States needed only a very small army -- say, the 189,839 of the Army of 1939. But Nixon planned a very large professional army -- 2,233,000 men. The establishment of a vast professional army could only liberate Presidents for a wider range of foreign adventure.

READ THIS:
A vast professional army, in addition, could provide dangerous temptations to the imperial Presidency at home. Tocqueville had long since pointed out the different consequences a citizen army and a professional army had for a democracy. When men were conscripted into an army, a few might acquire a taste for military life, "but the majority, being enlisted against their will and ever ready to go back to their homes," found military service not a chosen vocation but a vexatious duty. "They do not therefore imbibe the spirit of the army, or rather they infuse the spirit of the community at large into the army and retain it there." But a professional army "forms a small nation by itself, where the mind is less enlarged and habits are more rude than in the nation at large." Its officers in particular "contract tastes and wants wholly distinct from those of the nation." In consequence, "military revolutions, which are scarcely ever to be apprehended in aristocracies, are always to be dreaded among democratic nations."

It was not unkown for professional officers in the citizen army to complain about a want of discipline and patriotism in the nation. Nor was it inconceivable that the existence of an army professional in all its ranks might suggest things to a President who regarded dissent as a form of subversion or anarchy and wished to restore law and order in the name of national security. Seven Days in May (an excellent movie*) might seem melodramatic fantasy, but President Kennedy, who knew the military, wanted it filmed as a warning to the nation. In any case, there seemed no advantage in compounding problems of an already volatile political society by introducing into it a "small nation by itself," united by professional prejudices, resentments and ambitions and possessing a monopoly of the weapons of war. Here, it would appear, was precisely the large and permanent military establishment which, as Hamilton had written in the Eighth Federalist, tended to destroy civil and political rights of the people and which, as Madison had said in 1812, was forbidden by the principles of our free government.

*It is I, NYC, who say it is an excellent movie, not Schlesinger.
Schlesinger also wrote about war against a non-nation.

[gordianot]

18. For the last 6 years Bush has demanded hysteria.

They feed off hysteria, I am convinced they require hysteria to survive and will go to whatever lengths.

[tocqueville]

21. I agree with you for a simple reason

bunker-buster nukes don't exist. The worse you could do is to blow up plenty of radioactive dust in the atmosphere, but never penetrate deep enough. It's not worth it.

With conventional weapons you can take out the these plants and some bunkers as well. Some of them won't be taken out, and many of them are probably decoys placed in populated areas to create outrage.

the biggest explosion conducted by the US was the one called Castle Bravo. The yield was 15 megatons (the bunker buster stuff would be in kilotons). The explosion left a crater of 250 feet (75 m) in depth.

which means that a facility deeply buried (km) inside an old mine inside a mountain, would hardly shake with a 10 kt nuke...

but it doesn't mean that some nuts would try anyway.

[rzemanfl]

25. I think you mean "in" not by. n/t Note, I am wrong on this. n/t

[rzemanfl]

30. I stand corrected, Castle Bravo was indeed the biggest bomb

tested by the U.S. although bigger ones were made. I still recall as a kid seeing a pen chart of the barometric pressure in Milwaukee when the Russians set off that 50 megaton monster. The pressure wave was clearly visible.

[tocqueville]

33. aaaah da Tsar Bomba

now you're talking...

[tocqueville]

28. some facts about bunker busters

More recently the US has developed a series of custom made bombs to penetrate hardened or deeply buried structures:

Depth of Penetration War head designation Weapon Systems
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 1.8 m (6 ft) BLU-109 Penetrator (Mark 84 bomb) GBU-10, GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-118/B Thermobaric Warhead GBU-15, GBU-24, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: more than 6 m (20 ft) BLU-113 Super Penetrator GBU-28, GBU-37

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster

The Bush administration removed its request for funding of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, US Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the Department of Energy's fiscal 2006 budget at the department's request.

While the project for the RNEP seems to be in fact cancelled, Jane's Information Group speculates work may continue under another name.

the fact that the explosion would be nuclear wouldn't change very much to the penetration

[WilliamPitt]

32. Agreed

I was concerned enough about potential conflict with Iran enough to write about the consequences:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml

There may yet be conflict, because the leaders in Iran and America are spherically batshit-crazy; that is, they are batshit crazy from every conceivable angle.

But the idea that these guys are going to drop a nuke ANYWHERE in the Middle East is beyond fantasy, in my opinion. The entire region would lose its mind, and specifically there would possibly/probably/certainly be some kind of fundamentalist revolt in Pakistan, where Musharraf is holding on for dear life. That means the fundamentalists would now have Pakistan's nukes, which would cause India to freak out completely, etc.

Add to this the fact that Iran enjoys a strong position over the Persian Gulf; the Iranian mountains above the Gulf are perfect placements for cruise and anti-ship missile batteries. They also have missiles now that travel at Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. If we dropped a nuke on Iran, those batteries would open up and sink every American warship and oil tanker within range inside the Gulf...a body of water with only one small exit. Which is also commanded by Iran.

I think you're right about the brass not letting this happen, but I also think it wouldn't get that far. These guys are crazy enough to send an Eagle Strike into Iran and bomb a nuclear facility conventionally, but they aren't going to nuke anyone.

[FatDave]

57. Everything you say makes sense...however...

I worry that you're giving Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney too much credit. Yes, nuking Iran would be an obvious disaster. But invading Iraq was an obvious disaster too, and they did that anyway. Have you ever known this bunch to actually consider the consequences of their actions? They dream up an ideal but unlikely scenario (greeted as liberators, last throes, the Iranians will rise up against their government) and somehow convince themselves that it will play out that way.

If anybody else were in charge, I'd agree with you completely. But these guys have proven time and time again that they're f*cking loons. Besides, I think armageddon's a good thing in their book.

Anyhow, I hope you're right but I fear you may not be.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Let's see if I understand this correctly...

...the NeoCons said they would attack Afghanistan, and they did.

...the NeoCons said they would attack Iraq, and they did.

...the NeoCons said they would reduce taxes for the top 1%, and they did.

...the NeoCons said they would try to destroy Social Security, and they almost did it.

...the NeoCons said they would try to destroy Medicare, and they almost did it.

...so, the NeoCons said they're thinking about using nukes on Iran. Think they'll try it?

[Imagevision]

41. Nuke Iran? nah! - Bush distraction - like Bush is going to nuke anyone

without UN. approval -- he already bombed the shit out of Iraq with phoney intel - this is Rove tap dance around the current list of bad Bush moves, Katrina,medicare,SS. etc. etc. -- leaders in Iraq say civil war has startedm Bush says no, who ya going to believe, Bush is into a serious out of control downward spiral and hasn't a clue how to pull out of it even when using Rove's fancy act.

After November impeachment proceedings will be headline newsm but, that's my opinion.

[Redstone]

48. My sincere wishes for you to be correct about this:

"After November impeachment proceedings will be headline news..."

I'm not sure that's an accurate prediction, but I very much hope you end up being right, and I wrong.

If it happens, be sure to remind me that you predicted it, because I will gladly buy you as much beer as you can drink in a night for doing so.

Redstone

[LoKnLoD]

36. I think Hersch

has been around long enough and is smart enough to know he was being fed a line of bullshit by his sources. I don't think he would put his name on a story if he wasn't sure it was true.

[Individualist]

46. You're right; Hersch is no fool

Also, anyone who is familiar with PNAC knows that one of their primary objectives is destabilization of the Middle East.

[AndyTiedye]

42. It Would Be BatShit Insane to Attack Iran...

...but they ARE batshit insane. :scared:

[dailykoff]

47. Could be, but they've been saying this since at least 9/11/05.

No doubt that date was intentionally chosen.

I think they mean it, and they'll do it, unless we can stop them. They meant to invade Iraq, too, and they did.

[otohara]

49. You Know What They Say About Rumors

they usually come true. These people are insane -

[nonconformist]

53. No flames, but I don't agree.

And here's why - to make that claim, you are assuming:

1. That Seymour Hersch is participating in the deception, either willingly (very doubtful) or unwillingly (he's no spring chicken, I doubt he can be fooled easily).

2. That someone in this administration thinks that a "nuke Iran" story is a GOOD distraction.

Remember, the article says that the idea of nukes is only being floated. I also don't think they'll actually use nuclear weapons, but they did also float the idea of nuking Iraq. So I think the KEY, the theme to this, is that we ARE going to attack Iran, and they're just floating ideas on how to carry this out. The most disconcerting parts of this story are the ideology guiding Bush and his thought process - and that isn't the type of "distraction" this administration wants in the least.

[savemefromdumbya]

55. There's a lot of 'something else' right now

there's so much being unearthed about Bush junta that they will need a distraction.

[Imagevision]

56. With civil war already in gear in Iraq, Bush is going to nuke Iran?

November isn't getting further away, Rove latest tactics/tap dances just ain't helping the chimp out in the slightest, Bush isn't in for any miracle surprises of good news/events -- as investigationsm court proceedings continue to expose this phoney so called president for the liar he has been from day one!

Nke Iran, sure, maybe it'll create an atmosphere of something bigger...more important to concentrate on,
remember, it wasn't the "Plame leak" it was Bush's Plame leak lie that matters...

[cry baby]

58. I didn't think he was crazy enough to hit Iraq either, but he did.

I think he is just plain insane, so we can't associate bushit with logical thinking here.

[ladjf]

59. I'm suspicious that Iran's statement that they had proof that the

U.S. has worked with Al Queda in planning and carrying out attacks just might be true. If so, Bush would not risk being uncovered.

[Raksha]

60. I wondered about that too.

I'm concerned and I'm going to keep my eyes and ears open, but it could be a distraction. Although I have no doubt Sy Hersh wrote the article in good faith.

[BlueIris]

63. Sometimes people ask why I love you, Red. This is why.

I don't "feel" that they will do it, either.

[Marie26]

64. I believe it

Consider the source. During the Iraq War lead-up, the Bush Adm. propaganda went to people like Judith Miller & Bob Woodward. These were the "reporters" who were in contact w/high level Bush officials/neocons. Sy Hersh reported on the reality of the war - the screw-ups & misplanning & Abu Ghraib torture - the stuff Bush didn't want us to hear about. This is because Hersh's sources were the old-time military officers who were tired of Bushco's antics. Bush doesn't like Hersh, at all. If they were going to leak a story as a "diversion", they would have chosen a different reporter. So, this story is probably not coming from Bushco., but from the low-level military officials who now know about this plan. That gives it more creditability, IMO.

[DaveJ]

65. I believe it too...

I'm not just flinging B*sh hatred here. He is absolutely the type of maniac who would do it. Case in point, I have a 14 year old daughter who would set off a nuke, if it could get her out of doing her math homework. B*sh is like that, except a hundred times more un-conscientious. He will do it if that's what it takes to draw attention away from his other shortcomings.

Edit: After all an Iran devastated by fallout would finally make Iraq look good in comparison.

[Nay]

67. * cabal floats the nuke 'em idea, so when they attack w/only conv

conventional weapons, everyone is RELIEVED instead of horrified! And it will work!