Article

2007-11-19 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-11-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 What a crock of sh*t. Where's the EU in all this? There ain't no "Germany" no more.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2007-11-19 08:26|| 2007-11-19 08:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Though it is conceivable that after the shock of losing Washington or Chicago, the U.S.--or Britain after Birmingham, France after Lyon--would, even without an address certain, release a second strike, it is very unlikely that, even with an address certain, any nuclear power would launch in behalf of another nation, NATO ally or not, absent an explicit arrangement such as the dual-key structure during the Cold War.

This ought to change. While certainly a delicate arrangement at best, there needs to be a ~~clear message~~ riot act read out to Islam. Namely, how a single terrorist nuclear strike anywhere in the West or Israel buys all of them an E Ticket ride straight to Hell.

Although such unanimity is sorely wanting at present, cracks are beginning to appear in Europe's nescient façade. With Sarkozy militating against Iran's nuclear adventurism there can now be some justifiable hope that the Europeans will finally begin to understand the threat they face. Even the slightest comprehension thereof should be sufficient to awaken them to the need for a renewed NATO policy ofas Bush himself described the 9-11 atrocity in his address to a joint session of congress on September 20, 2001"An [atomic] attack on one, is an attack on all", with devastating retaliation being the bottom line.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-19 09:32|| 2007-11-19 09:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Judging by some recent conversation, I would say the West lacks the stomach to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. I include a direct attack by, for example, Iran on a city in the continental United States. Let alone, say, Britain retaliating on behalf of Belgium.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-11-19 10:34|| 2007-11-19 10:34|| Front Page Top

#4 I include a direct attack by, for example, Iran on a city in the continental United States.

However grim it might sound, I'd like to think that our military would have the courage to mutiny and set about retaliating against Iran with a massive nuclear bombardment. Any Commander in Chief so spineless as to not answer such an atrocity would be guilty of both malfeasance and treason. I'd also like to think that the majority of American people would take to the streets in support of any officers who had authorized such a response.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-19 10:48|| 2007-11-19 10:48|| Front Page Top

#5 CASPIAN SEA SUMMIT > RUSSIA - basically, + formally, any attack by the US [NATO] on Iran IS AN ATTACK ON RUSSIA. Saddam-era PUTIN DOCTRINE > argues that THE POST-9-11 USA WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SOLELY CONTROL + DOMINATE THE WORLD'S OIL SUPPLIES.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 19:35|| 2007-11-19 19:35|| Front Page Top

23:53 WTF
23:41 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:09 Redneck Jim
23:06 Eric Jablow
23:00 Barbara Skolaut
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:58 Zenster
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:53 Redneck Jim
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:48 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:40 Grumenk Philalzabod0723
22:37 DMFD
22:36 The Democrats
22:33 Verlaine
22:32 DMFD