It's raining nukes!!!
C.I.R. Press Editorial
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- I was shocked to see the newest headline claiming we are going to be using nuclear weapons on Iran. OK, I admit, I am surprised this scare tactic hasn't been used more. And to be clear, I am an advocate for our nuclear deterrent forces. Nuclear weapons exist in the world; to the lefts chagrin I am more comfortable with them in US hands than any other nation.
In many situations I would rather [on paper] use nuclear weapons to bring a country to its knees and in the meantime not have to lose a single soldier. Then those nags over at the DoS remind me that we have to maintain diplomatic relations with countries. And yes, even I can understand that "nuking" countries left and right may not be the best of ways to make friends, or peace, around the globe. But no one could ever twist my arm hard enough to want to take the "nuclear option" (that phrase has caught on, even in politics) off the table. I want it there, I want it known. The real reason for our nuclear weapons is so we don't use them.
How stupid you say? No, they are there to make sure that other countries know we are the biggest and baddest on the block. For the most part you don't go around pissing that guy off. I don't want any liberals, anyone, leaving a reply that we should just get rid of them if we aren't going to use them. Well how often do police officers have to use their firearms? I am willing to venture a guess that it is a low percentage, lets take all the firearms away. Let's take all pepper spray away from women; most of them have it for years and never use it. That is what we hope and pray for.
We could use nuclear weapons on facilities in the desert to prevent Iran from using that location. I hear you, I hear you. "But...They are in bunkers so there is no way we can do anything about it." You jackasses. You need a refresher in a thing called the "American Spirit." We do what we put our mind to. Even if what is deep in the bunker is not destroyed, fine. You don't need to do that. If there is a tunnel to get in and out of a facility, well I invite you to do the math if parts of the tunnel to “get to” the location cave in. You cannot use what you cannot reach. And should you want to explore the nuclear realm, use a nuke to cave in the tunnel. Monitor the area, if they send anyone to go near that tunnel you know damn well there is an important reason.
I conclude with what made me get my "skivvies in a bunch." Where does this miracle of a story generate from, the British press. Which has not been fans of the US, Bush, war, anything. So that made me really laugh. The British press informing me about the US military options. Then it just got better. Their source for the story, none other than Sy Hersh. Mr. Abu Ghraib himself. The one caught in multiple lies in regards to many later depictions he made of things he really hadn't seen... but knew, just because, well he did. (But just can't prove it. Hmm, reminds me of...can't put my finger on it...DAN RATHER and MARY MAPES! I am guessing without "the blue dress" our thoughts would have been outrageous lies. But we knew it! All jokes aside...)
I am just curious Mr. Hersh, these details you mention...
... which persona are they coming from?
Reporting, in and of itself, is a thing of the past. I encourage you to read the entire New Yorker article. Now everyone is too involved with predicting. That is no way to run news, you end up getting most things wrong or flawed and in the meantime may make lunatic Presidents set on getting rid of Israel start to think the next night or two may be the last chance he has to do it.
-md
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- I was shocked to see the newest headline claiming we are going to be using nuclear weapons on Iran. OK, I admit, I am surprised this scare tactic hasn't been used more. And to be clear, I am an advocate for our nuclear deterrent forces. Nuclear weapons exist in the world; to the lefts chagrin I am more comfortable with them in US hands than any other nation.
In many situations I would rather [on paper] use nuclear weapons to bring a country to its knees and in the meantime not have to lose a single soldier. Then those nags over at the DoS remind me that we have to maintain diplomatic relations with countries. And yes, even I can understand that "nuking" countries left and right may not be the best of ways to make friends, or peace, around the globe. But no one could ever twist my arm hard enough to want to take the "nuclear option" (that phrase has caught on, even in politics) off the table. I want it there, I want it known. The real reason for our nuclear weapons is so we don't use them.
How stupid you say? No, they are there to make sure that other countries know we are the biggest and baddest on the block. For the most part you don't go around pissing that guy off. I don't want any liberals, anyone, leaving a reply that we should just get rid of them if we aren't going to use them. Well how often do police officers have to use their firearms? I am willing to venture a guess that it is a low percentage, lets take all the firearms away. Let's take all pepper spray away from women; most of them have it for years and never use it. That is what we hope and pray for.
We could use nuclear weapons on facilities in the desert to prevent Iran from using that location. I hear you, I hear you. "But...They are in bunkers so there is no way we can do anything about it." You jackasses. You need a refresher in a thing called the "American Spirit." We do what we put our mind to. Even if what is deep in the bunker is not destroyed, fine. You don't need to do that. If there is a tunnel to get in and out of a facility, well I invite you to do the math if parts of the tunnel to “get to” the location cave in. You cannot use what you cannot reach. And should you want to explore the nuclear realm, use a nuke to cave in the tunnel. Monitor the area, if they send anyone to go near that tunnel you know damn well there is an important reason.
I conclude with what made me get my "skivvies in a bunch." Where does this miracle of a story generate from, the British press. Which has not been fans of the US, Bush, war, anything. So that made me really laugh. The British press informing me about the US military options. Then it just got better. Their source for the story, none other than Sy Hersh. Mr. Abu Ghraib himself. The one caught in multiple lies in regards to many later depictions he made of things he really hadn't seen... but knew, just because, well he did. (But just can't prove it. Hmm, reminds me of...can't put my finger on it...DAN RATHER and MARY MAPES! I am guessing without "the blue dress" our thoughts would have been outrageous lies. But we knew it! All jokes aside...)
I am just curious Mr. Hersh, these details you mention...
There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers
through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.
Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.” (New Yorker)
... which persona are they coming from?
Reporting, in and of itself, is a thing of the past. I encourage you to read the entire New Yorker article. Now everyone is too involved with predicting. That is no way to run news, you end up getting most things wrong or flawed and in the meantime may make lunatic Presidents set on getting rid of Israel start to think the next night or two may be the last chance he has to do it.
-md
posted by MDConservative at 21:32
<< Home