krs
|
posted on September 19, 2001 05:43:45 PM new
This should bring about a dance in the streets at AW, eh?
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department has
recommended to President George W Bush the use of
tactical nuclear weapons as a military option to retaliate for
last week's terrorist attacks in the United States, diplomatic
sources said Tuesday.
It is unknown whether Bush has made any decision. But
military analysts said the president is unlikely to opt for the
use of nuclear weapons because doing so would generate
rebuke from the international community and could even
trigger revenge from the enemy involving weapons of mass
destruction.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=78870
|
pattaylor
|
posted on September 19, 2001 05:50:08 PM new
krs,
I'm confused. Why should this bring about a dance in the streets of AW?
Pat
[email protected]
|
naru
|
posted on September 19, 2001 05:50:37 PM new
Now that would be REALLY stupid. I hope it isn't true.
|
Muriel
|
posted on September 19, 2001 05:54:33 PM new
What Pat said. 
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 19, 2001 05:56:13 PM new
Now that is scarey. Im hoping powell has some say so in what is going on, or rather, what WONT go on.
|
Meya
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:06:32 PM new
Double post
[ edited by Meya on Sep 19, 2001 06:10 PM ]
|
Meya
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:06:33 PM new
What is scary is posting partial quotes that are taken out of context in an effort to mangle what the story really says.
The article goes on to say:
But the Pentagon's suggestion shows the determination of U.S. officials to retaliate for the first massive terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland, the analysts said.
The recommendation appears intended to deter terrorists, they said.
It also states:
Tactical nuclear weapons have been developed to attack very specific targets. The military analysts said Pentagon officials are apparently thinking of using weapons that can reach and destroy terrorists hiding in an underground shelter, limiting damage to non-targets.
Edited because I wasn't done...
I see words like "option" and "unlikely" and "deter". And why are we getting our information from a site out of Japan?
[ edited by Meya on Sep 19, 2001 06:09 PM ]
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:08:46 PM new
Maybe krs needs to go jump in a foxhole. A big surprise might be waiting for him there and he will feel not so down and disgusted.
|
dman3
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:12:28 PM new
wow these Threads are getting stranger by the day since last week.
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:15:46 PM new
What I was refering to can be found in plsmith's thread. Now all we have to do is wait for krs to find it.
|
uaru
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:25:34 PM new
The pentagon recommends nuclear weapons and all the news agencies in the US who are tripping over one another for a story missed it. 
rrrrrrrrrrrrright.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:29:54 PM new
Meya
I don't understand your objection to the excerpt. As you must know, it is not acceptable to reproduce the entire article because that is a copyright infringement. For that reason, short excerpts or summaries are suggested.
That is also why the link is provided so that each poster can read the entire article before posting. It is not necessary for you to post the article in it's entirety for everyone else.
We can all read.
Helen
|
Meya
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:35:59 PM new
I realize we can all read. But many will read the bits and pieces supplied by other people not bother to actually check out the source and or the complete article. Lifting out certain paragraphs that only tell part of the story, especially in a very slanted way is meant to panic others and it serves to "support" the view of the person who makes the post (krs or anyone else for that matter).
At the very least include a note that "this is a partial quote" or something like that. The quote in question was copied not just partially, but paragraphs were lifted that were in the midst of the quoted part which changed the intended reading of the article.
And, if anyone can find this same info on a US supplied news source, I would like to see it.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:41:39 PM new
Meya,
Nonsense, We all have at least as much sense as you do.
Helen
|
uaru
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:46:12 PM new
if anyone can find this same info on a US supplied news source, I would like to see it.
Rumsfeld refused to give Sam Donaldson a direct "no" when asked about the possible use of nuclear weapons. All the news services reported that last Sunday. That's all there is.
If the story krs' topic alludes to was accurate it would be on Reuters, CBS, ABC, NBC, AP, Washington Post, Fox, etc. It isn't on those services for a reason and it isn't because they are afraid to report the news.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 19, 2001 06:47:32 PM new
The article also goes on to say the following in regard to specifically targeted nuclear missiles:
In 1986, the U.S. conducted an air raid on Libya, attempting to target Col. Muammar Qaddafi. In 1998, Washington fired a cruise missile into Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Osama bin Laden, whom the U.S. sees as behind last week's terrorist attacks.
The analysts said that since these attempts failed, it may be assumed that U.S. officials are mulling the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which can cause much greater destruction
But I agree that people should read the article and make their own judgments.
|
Meya
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:00:05 PM new
You know Helen, there is no need to get bitchy. Your comment was not necessary. We all have opinions, and having a differing one doesn't make one stupid.
Oh I know, you didn't outright call me stupid, but you and I and everyone here knows exactly what you meant. If you are unable to reasonably make comments, you resort to thinly veiled insults.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa...
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:00:44 PM new
Underground bunkers that are built right can't be cracked by most bombs. That's why Saddam Hussein is still around. Even so, this is far fetched.
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:02:34 PM new
"thinly veiled"? LOL!
|
Meya
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:03:50 PM new
It was pretty "see through". Even to my poor senseless brain.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:07:09 PM new
Actually they shot off a couple ship loads of cruise missiles before at a million dollars a pop. So if someone claimed the 5 million dollar reward it would be a bargin.
It is also worth mentioning that they seriously depleted the stock of these missiles and they do not have contracts let to replace them in a timely fashion.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:08:37 PM new
Meya, This link is from another paper, The Independent..London
And below the link is an excerpt from the story.
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=93936
Some options need to be ruled out categorically. The suggestion by one defence expert that US policy makers might consider fuel-laden airliners used as guided missiles to be weapons of mass destruction, to which a tactical nuclear response might be justified, lies at the most extreme end of the spectrum. But it is not out of the question. With their judgement impaired by grief and anger, and without easy conventional options to hand, it is just possible that some US officials might be tempted down this path. Crossing the nuclear threshold would be a tragic mistake for which we would all end up paying a heavy price. If necessary, Tony Blair should be ready to make that clear as Clement Atlee did to President Truman during the Korean War.
Helen
|
pattaylor
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:08:46 PM new
Everyone,
That's enough. No more insults, veiled or otherwise. Please remember the respect and consideration portion of the CGs.
If this thread further deteriorates, it will be locked. Please discuss the topic, not the individual.
Pat
[email protected]
|
dman3
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:09:51 PM new
Fear in and of it's self is a terrorist of sorts it will steal your Joy of life if you allow it to..
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
|
hjw
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:55:40 PM new
To illustrate just how far the Hawks are willing to go, read this article. The Washington Times is a major newspaper in Washington DC.
Maybe this will make those people who are ready for war, think again.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010914-87723680.htm
Title...Now is the Time To Use Nuclear Weapons.
Helen
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on September 19, 2001 07:56:45 PM new
No kidding. All these threads are filled with fear.
When Japan vowed to continue fighting after Germany surrendered, President Truman did authorize the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 8, 1945, bringing the war to an end quickly.
And did not again, and after all this time with the ability and means to use them, not just the U.S., no one has. I do not know what the answer is.
Seems the 'War Department' is always aching to use extreme measures.
[email protected]
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 19, 2001 08:14:52 PM new
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=116198
|
krs
|
posted on September 19, 2001 08:27:08 PM new
Meya,
For your information-the taking of the first or second paragraph in any story does not constitute what you have called 'mangling' in "What is scary is posting partial quotes that are taken out of context in an effort to mangle what the story really says".
Instead it is posting the article within the confines of the CGs with the introductory passages as a lead to the story.
If the link did not work for you why not say so instead of attempting once again to ascribe motives to me that I do not have?
|
krs
|
posted on September 19, 2001 08:29:41 PM new
Exactly that, Microbes, and others like it.
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 19, 2001 08:49:34 PM new
The Washington Times is a major newspaper in Washington DC.
I dunno if I'd call that an accurate characterization. They do print a lot of copies, but how many they sell is open to question. It is a subsidized ultra-right-wing screed; even many conservatives find it an embarrassment.
Am I surprised they're advocating use of nukes? Not at all. Actally I'm surprised they aren't trying to acquire their own.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
