Comments on: Bombs Away Bolton Strikes Again

By: scrotobaggins

scrotobaggins — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:38:54 +0000

I wonder if anyone here will bring up the European Elections, what were the results and why … perhaps what it means for Obama:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8088838.stm

By: opit

opit — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:04:37 +0000

I’ve got links back to at least 2005 to plans to strike Iran.2 years ago last February Russian intelligence had the wind up figuring an attack was imminent. Global Research.ca has detailed Carrier Groups ( yep – plural ! ) in the puddle off Iran. Iran, incidentally, has supersonic missiles that ‘jink’ on the way in to naval targets.
Putin thought to put the U.S. on notice that Russia would consider an attack on Iran as if it were an attack on Russia itself ! Yep despite 2 CIA reports basically calling stories of Iranian nuke weapons research ‘fairy tales’ – ‘Yellowcake, Anyone ? – the push is on to call reactor fuel potential weapons materiel.
I suspect Russia might have objections to that sort of tech in their backyard ! That’s why they aren’t too keen to have the U.S. install missiles in Poland, etc.
Last time that circus went up there were bases in Cuba to reciprocate for them being in Ankara, Turkey. JFK might have been able to persuade a couple of people that hadn’t been such a nifty idea !
Did you even catch the retaliatory salient this time ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/03/russia-arctic-nuclear-power-stations
It’s just another chapter in an old, old story
http://antiflag.lyrics.info/anatomyofyourenemy.html
I’ve assembled information on this topic…it never goes away.
http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2009/05/30/us-russia-disarmament-negotiations-related-data

By: scrotobaggins

scrotobaggins — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:25:56 +0000

Jack/tas: What’s wrong with a sober discussion and development of a strategy against Iran’s Nuclear Program?? Does anyone here think a Nuclear Armed Iran would be a good thing? If not, what if anything should we do about it?

There’s nothing wrong or irresponsible about pushing for Military action in this case. Allowing Iran to have Nuclear Armed long range missiles, to continue the current “nothingness” strategy could have more dangerous consequences down the road.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis we were taken to the brink of Nuclear War, how cool headed was that thinking Jack? Khrushchev set up Nukes right at our doorstep. He purposefully tested JFK, who was perceived as too young and weak. JFK escalated the situation via a Naval Blockade and Airael Reconnaissance directly over Cuba. He busted the Soviets for lying at the UN, embarrassing Khrushchev. Had the Soviets not removed the Missiles, ie backed off, what would JFK have done next?? Seems we are at this point with Iran and unlike the Soviets, they are not backing off.

Seems you guys are upset at any talk of a strike against Iran. Seems what Bolton is doing makes sense, get the topic out there and plan a strategy at each step.

By: Jack Jodell

Jack Jodell — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:57:24 +0000

Mr. Bolton, neocon that he is, sounds that familiar neocon refrainof preemptive military action, only this time he is advocating its use by proxy, having Israel do the job. It is the typical blinders-on, one-way-only approach he and his cohorts have advocated for the past 12 years, and it could prove to be disastrously premature. For Iran faces a monumental election today, one which could alter the shape of history in the Middle East. Should Ahmedinijad be defeated, a kinder and gentler Iran could emerge. Just as during the Cuban Missile Crisis and again in the 1991 Gulf War, cooler heads should and must prevail here, at least for the moment, to prevent an out of control escalation of the situation. Rash moves like Bolton advocates will only fan the flame of discord in that highly volatile region. .