The Observation Deck

the sporadic bombing clinton administered was perhaps more in line with the scale of "threat" Iraq posed. Maybe we should bomb Belarus every 2 months for a while.

I went into best buy. there were copies of microsoft flight simulator and box cutters for sale everywhere. no criminal background checks were required to buy them. we'd better bomb best buy.


your list of "evidence" leads me to believe you have very tragic encounters with car salesmen every time you buy a car.

ryan costa wrote:...India and Pakistan have a few nukes. They can only drop them off the backs of elephants. They are so overpopulated it doesn't really matter if they use them against each other. Which they probably wouldn't have. They've been having short wars with each other since the partition.

It's unfortunate that your emotional, sweeping statements and lack of useful information discredit the arguments you try to make.

Japan was pretty much flattened by conventional bombing before we nuked them. nukes are psychological.

I mean, maybe you don't really want to be taken seriously...that's cool. It is a lot easier to be pithy and above it all. However those like comedian Bill Maher found themselves curiously without many words on September 12, 2001.
Just in case you actually want the facts on these two countries, (rather than the cartoon version you evidently feel can substitute for genuine information) see below. BTW, not one elephant delivery system mentioned! Doh, speaking of cartoons--you surely don't want to miss The Simpson's Movie now playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_ ... estruction
India is currently thought to have had a stockpile of around 70-120 warheads. India is generally credited with having sufficient fissile material to build 60-200 nuclear weapons, with most reports placing the figure at 85-100. India's first Nuclear test occurred on the 18th of May, 1974. Since then she has conducted another series of test at the Pokhran test range in the state of Rajasthan. Indians routinely note that China was not given much international respect until it developed nuclear weapons and missile delivery capabilities. In terms of nuclear nonproliferation, since India has an extensive civil and military nuclear program, which includes 10 nuclear reactors, uranium mining and milling sites, heavy water production facilities, a uranium enrichment plant, fuel fabrication facilities, and extensive nuclear research capabilities, it is now impossible to stop India's nuclear program by means of a nuclear export control regime. In the future, India plans to commission fast-breeder reactors, thorium 232 reactors (which will yield U233--a plutonium-type substance), and nuclear-powered submarines. In short, India has the capability of becoming an overt nuclear power if it is willing to absorb the short-term economic and political pain that the resulting international sanctions would inflict. The progress in weapons development was made mostly without any help from other nations. Many research and development facilities exists in India, capable of designing and manufacturing advanced missiles and warheads.
~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_a ... estruction
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[4][5] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[6]

The NRDC's and the Carnegie Foundation's estimates of approximately 50 weapons are from 2002-3 estimations.

Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched Uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. The NRDC also thinks that Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons-grade Plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons per annum based on the estimation of 5 kg of Plutonium per warhead. Pakistan also claims that the fissile cores are stored separately from the other non-nuclear explosive packages which, as the Government of Pakistan states, can be put together rather quickly.

Also, by early 2007, the first 8 JF-17 Thunder aircraft [5] (FC-1s) will enter the PAF service. These are pre-production aircraft and more JF-17 Thunder aircraft will follow. These, too, will be capable of nuclear weapons delivery. Pakistan has also ordered 36 Chinese J-10s [6] for its air force for a cost of $1.4 billion. The Pakistan Air Force is in the midst of a great change in terms of capability.

Pakistan has also recently tested its Babur cruise missile having a range of 500km. Its design seems to be influenced by the Tomahawk cruise missile of the US in terms of appearance, however, it is an indigenous weapon. It is a ground-launched version and, according to the Pakistan Military sources, the submarine- and air-delivered versions are soon to follow.

Naval Delivery: PNS Hamza has just been commissioned this year in August, This submarine is an Augosta 90B submarine [7] and, with a number of modifications, will be able to fire ballistic missiles. These modifications may be happening soon. It can also fire Babur Cruise Missiles and that is if the submarine uses larger tubes to fire this missile. Soon, other ships and submarines maybe retrofitted to fire ballistic and cruise missiles.
~~~~~~~

It is funny how he ignores the facts of the video. Gore blasts Bush Sr for NOT addressing Iraq's terrorist ties and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.


Al Gore on Iraq (click here)

the joke about dropping a nuke off the back of an elephant came from david letterman.

It is a fairly certain thing that someone will use a nuke against someone else sooner or later. It may as well be in a place we don't really care about. It is obviously whoever uses a nuke first will get piled on by everyone else.

The documentaries and news followups following the use of the nuke will make everyone feel vigilant about preventing nuclear attacks.

If you are so concerned about pakistan or india having nuclear delivery capablities, perhaps you should have supported going to war against them. If you are concerned about China developing weapons to sell to them, perhaps you should be mindful of everytime Bush repeats lines like, "we need to increase trade to grow the economies".

The over-arching motive of the "global war on terrorism" was a global war on extremist Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. Iraq was not a stronghold or breeding ground(Afghanistan,saudi arabia, Jordan, Kuwait) of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. to paraphrase someone from the GWBush clique, "you go to war against the enemies you have". Priorities, gentlemen.

Saudis and Egyptians and Kuwaitis aren't lining up to become christians or watch the paris hilton sex tapes now that we've occupied Iraq.

I am not a democrat and have not held Gore or Kerry or Clinton or anyone else over your heads. The only thing I can say good about them is...they didn't invade Iraq.

Stephen Eisel wrote:It is funny how he ignores the facts of the video. Gore blasts Bush Sr for NOT addressing Iraq's terrorist ties and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.


Al Gore on Iraq

You know, I'm a usability analyst for web sites and application designs. I never saw the link you had, because it has low affordance (does not look clickable until you mouse-over it, revealing the underlined hyperlink). I wonder if others have missed some of these embedded links? I would encourage color for links ....perhaps a blue color? It would improve the interface (eek, just tried and can't seem to get it to colorize- oh well)

Anyway, it seems like the old damned if you do and damned if you don't conundrum at play. Decisions were made to go back to Iraq - and these people were all a part of it...

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

We lost 3000 lives and a trillion dollars on 9/11-- in one day. If we leave before things are stabilized better, getting back there in force will be very difficult if not impossible. When Iran gets nuclear as is predicted, the whole region will have global significance on a scale never seen since the Cuban missile crisis. Hiding back on our shores will not make the menace any less menacing. If one group takes over in the region, gets nuclear and decides to hold the west (and the U.S. in particular) hostage--popularly known as nuclear blackmail, are those decisions going to be easier to make than staying our course? That's basically what we face, whether GWB is president or soon to be somebody else.


.

Thanks Dustin... I tried changing the color but that did not work. I added the words "click here" thanks again!

Dustin James wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:Anyway, it seems like the old damned if you do and damned if you don't conundrum at play. Decisions were made to go back to Iraq - and these people were all a part of it...

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

We lost 3000 lives and a trillion dollars on 9/11-- in one day. If we leave before things are stabilized better, getting back there in force will be very difficult if not impossible. When Iran gets nuclear as is predicted, the whole region will have global significance on a scale never seen since the Cuban missile crisis. Hiding back on our shores will not make the menace any less menacing. If one group takes over in the region, gets nuclear and decides to hold the west (and the U.S. in particular) hostage--popularly known as nuclear blackmail, are those decisions going to be easier to make than staying our course? That's basically what we face, whether GWB is president or soon to be somebody else.


.

That's what Europe faces. Europe is pretty much one nation when it comes to their foreign policy. They've got nukes, guided missiles, jet craft production capabilities, and geographic proximity.

If Gore and his Cronies had directed us to invade Iraq, we could criticize him. He's gone now, and I do not care about him or his former positions.

Team Bush deserves an 'F' both for invading in the first place, and another 'F' for handling it so badly: They should have fired no more than 5 percent of the former administration, perhaps even keeping Sadam's prime minister in some position of administrative authority. Low level torturers could have then been weeded out using the existing judicial bodies and a few new laws.

LOL! But ignore the fact that Gore and his cronies told us that Iraq had WMD's... Ignore the fact that Gore criticized Bush Sr admin for not doing anything about the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.. Yes, we should all ignore history when it does not help your lame argument...

Stephen Eisel wrote:LOL! But ignore the fact that Gore and his cronies told us that Iraq had WMD's... Ignore the fact that Gore criticized Bush Sr admin for not doing anything about the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.. Yes, we should all ignore history when it does not help your lame argument...

I have made no arguments for Gore. why do you keep dragging gore into this?

I write-in Ross Perot in each presidential election.

The history of Gore is insignificant because he was never responsible for anything.(The consitutional role of the vice president is to break senate tie votes). Granted, Cheney has demonstrated adopting a much larger role in the administration. but so what?

ryan costa wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:LOL! But ignore the fact that Gore and his cronies told us that Iraq had WMD's... Ignore the fact that Gore criticized Bush Sr admin for not doing anything about the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.. Yes, we should all ignore history when it does not help your lame argument...

I have made no arguments for Gore. why do you keep dragging gore into this?

I write-in Ross Perot in each presidential election.

The history of Gore is insignificant because he was never responsible for anything.(The consitutional role of the vice president is to break senate tie votes). Granted, Cheney has demonstrated adopting a much larger role in the administration. but so what?

It shows a non bias pattern by the government that Iraq was a "threat" to the US.

Iran is our next theater of conflict, regardless of who is President. Obama stated he would invade Pakistan if elected.

I'll go into depth on why I've been following Iran even before 9/11, since I was in the mideast long before 9/11, when I have more time.
Doing the domestic thing right now.

Mark Allan Crnolatas

Slight difference, Mark - Obama stated he'd order forces to strike Al Qaeda within Pakistan if Musharref was unable or unwilling to do it himself. He did not say he'd overthrow and destabilize the entire country. It's still a problematic proposal to be certain, but let's not equate it with the regime change doctrine in Iraq and what has been threatened for Iran.

Iran is three times the size of Iraq, and has about three times the population. It shares a massive land border with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What do you hope to accomplish there? Would it take three times the number of troops in Iraq? How do you intend to pay them? Will you pay them by borrowing more from China and Japan and Social Security?

I'm not saying I'm for or against invading Iran, but call it a prediction.

I'll work up a posting as to why I believe that Iran is the next theater of conflict whether it's wanted or not. Oil is the key word though it is not being discussed outwardly. Oil is the key word why we will be in the mideast permenently, as we have been and will be in S. Korea, (time wise not strategic wise) no matter what party is in power and who is President. Just my opinion, of course.

Mark Allan Crnolatas

Iran isn't a bastion of stereotypes like our media enjoys portraying it. The chapter in the book "oil on the brain" about Iran is an adequate snapshot of this.

Here is what I predict invading Iran will result in:

Within a year or two of invading Iran and flipping over their administration, there will be a popular revolt in Saudi Arabia against the Saud Royal family. It will be a low-tech human resources intensive revolt. We may have to destroy the Saudi Village in order to save it.

there are 80 million people in Egypt. About 60 million more than a few decades ago. We'll end up with at least 10 million young egyptian men with nothing more meaningful to do but fight until they win or die in Saudi Arabia. It is going to be a low tech human resource intensive war. Their thought patterns generally parallel those of our own militant conservatives, adjusted for a situation of disadvantage and massive overpopulation.

We may have to use poison gas: it works faster than both napalm and agent orange and machine guns. We may have to enable our allies to use poison gas, should we continue having serious economic "interests" by this time.

I'd rather work towards not having those interests. Maybe if George Bush switched out the 10 seconds of his speeches dedicated to phrases like "increase trade to grow the economy" and "balance the budget by cutting taxes" and replaced them with phrases like "drive smaller cars" and "try to car pool" and "plan your shopping trips. If you forget something, just wait until next week".