Britian feared U.S. would nuke Afghanistan

Britian feared U.S. would nuke Afghanistan

news.yahoo.com

LONDON (AFP) - Britain joined the United States' invasion to oust the Taliban in 2001 because it feared America would "nuke the #" out of Afghanistan, the former British ambassador to Washington reportedly told a television documentary to be screened Saturday.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 17-6-2007 by Reform America]

I found this article rather amusing, it really puts what other think of the U.S. in perspective. Remeber this is Pre-Iraq, and others thought we would jump the gun.

If this is true, Blair toned down what the U.S. was going, or wanted to do. I thought it was bad now, imagine if Blair hadn't, the U.S. could really be hated more then it is now.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

alot of "ifs" and "buts" there bub. The only one jumping the gun is you. And your way overrating britians influence on the US. I highly doubt we would have nuked afghanistan..

This does seem silly, I agree with pretty much everything semperfoo said.

If we really wanted to nuke Afghanistan I don't think Tony Blair would have been able to stop us. But, that really makes no sense. I mean there's not much to nuke there, those people are already living in the stone age, and all the real bad guys were spread out living in caves and such. In short nuking Afghanistan would probably do little other than piss off neighboring countries which include some allies and some countries that could become very dangerous adversaries.

[edit on 6/17/2007 by djohnsto77]

Why would the US nuke a desert with mountains??? The US wont nuke anyone soon as the after effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are still fresh on the minds of a lot of people. The only way the US will nuke any country is if there back is against the wall and there is no other choice.

I believe the current push for a NWO will negate a Nuke strike because if you have every Nuclear capable country under your wing than there is no reason to Nuke a country. If the "World Population decrease decry" by the NWO is actually true, you may see a Nuke strike against another Third World country just to wipe out a few million people. Since Afghanistan only has a few million I dont see it plausible.

Maybe China????

Me? I got as far as "In comments printed in advance in the Daily Mirror tabloid on Monday, ..."
(*emphasis mine)

Possible? Yeah, sure. Credible?

I think I'll refrain from further comment, until it hits The Enquirer.


 


[bbcode]

[edit on 17-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by semperfoo
alot of "ifs" and "buts" there bub. The only one jumping the gun is you. And your way overrating britians influence on the US. I highly doubt we would have nuked afghanistan..

Deep breaths, no need to get hostile towards me. I said "IF" it's true, I was merely posting an article that had not been brought up yet. Thats the point of this forum. It's not to get mad at the OP because you clearly disagree with an article.

As to me jumping the gun? How so? I never said I believed it. I didn't write the article.

The next time you wish to make a post please take a few deep breaths and actually read the post.

-Reform America

BS, the U.S. wouldn't have nuked Afghanistan.

I agree with semperfoo, and DJ.

IMO this is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by a tabloid from the U.K., and if the former British ambassador to Washington actually said this, this man is looking for political points to score by spreading lies.

Its the Mirror, so its probably trash, although it wouldn't suprise me. These diplomats don't talk in fancy words all the time.

I do remember that on the day my colleagues and I were sitting at work listening to the radio and TV and trying to get more news out of the net and I said "I wouldn't be suprised if there was a city missing tomorrow because the yanks aren't going to put up with that"

Fortunately I was proved wrong

[edit on 18/0607/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

I think I'll refrain from further comment, until it hits The Enquirer.

Yes the whole story is suspect. For me it the 'The Globe" or nothing.

If the Neocon agenda had included using nukes, I doubt Blair would have influenced Tricky Dick Cheney

[edit on 6/18/07 by FredT]

isnt it past Aprils fool or way early?

the United states would not use nukes as it would effect countries around afganistan for one thing and some of those countries have those toys aswell. so any possible chance that those countries are effected by US nukes its MAD.

i will stop now.

First of all there was no need to nuke afghanistan. It was obvious that it wasn't going to be a struggle taking out a few insurgent camps.

On one hand I can actually picture a proposal like this come up within the Bush administration (due to it's complete lack of brains) as a response for 9/11. If it ever was brought up then it was probably put down very quickly - it's obvious what the reaction of the rest of the world would be like. Now again, in especially big bold letters this time, IF such a proposal was ever brought up and the Britts found out about it then this article might have a bit of truth to it. Putting UK troops in afghanistan would definately stop the US from going nuclear there.

Now from the first few post I can already see we have our patriots loosing their heads going "What?! Who said someone could prevent the US from doing something?!" Relax, go across the street and buy yourself some alcohol. All that is being said is if the Brits put troops in Afgan. then the US would, to say the least, think twice or atleast consent Britan about that move. And stop giving Reform America crap for this all he did was start a thread on an article he found. If people will flame posters for the topic of their post how long would this site last?

Regards,
Maestro

You bring up some good points maestro46, but the reality is that we could have launched enough ICBMs and SLBMs with MIRV thermonuclear warheads to basically sterilize Afghanistan before the towers even collapsed if we wanted to. Far before any British troops could be deployed as, almost as you suggest practically human shields, could be deployed there.

I still think this is pure bunk.

~~




here's a link that presents an animation of mini-nuke bunker-busters
which is most likely what would have been used...

now the Union of Concerned Scientists present this visual aid
so you know its slanted to their bias (propaganda)

but evidently there were enough persuasive voices & testimony in the
round table on tactics, that the mininuke/bunker-busters weren't used.
along with the British reluctance??

link: www.UCSUSA.org...

[edit on 19-6-2007 by St Udio]

Originally posted by Reform America
I found this article rather amusing, ...

I found it absurd.

Within a day or two of 9/11 Bush and Blair both talked about a phone call they had. Blair asked Bush what he was thinking of doing. Bush told Blair that he wasn't going to send multi-million dollar missiles to rain in Afghanistan ontop of ten dollar tents.

If Bush wasn't even thinking of sending in cruise missiles .. he certainly wasn't thinking of sending in nukes.

BTW .. this discussion of the conversation was all over the MSM news.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Reform America
I found this article rather amusing, ...

I found it absurd.

Within a day or two of 9/11 Bush and Blair both talked about a phone call they had. Blair asked Bush what he was thinking of doing. Bush told Blair that he wasn't going to send multi-million dollar missiles to rain in Afghanistan ontop of ten dollar tents.

If Bush wasn't even thinking of sending in cruise missiles .. he certainly wasn't thinking of sending in nukes.

BTW .. this discussion of the conversation was all over the MSM news.

You wanna tell me you know that this guy is really thinking?

Hey FlyersFan, didn't Bush also tell you he thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I suppose we should really trust what this guy is thinking.

Politics is where they smilingly tell you they love you with a knife behind their back. Plus IF a proposal was ever brought up you really think that the US goverment would speak out about going nuclear to it's people? How many other secret documents do we not know about. Hell, I've even watched a documentary about how Nixon was thinking about going nuclear in Vietnam. That sounds absurd too doesn't it?

Now everyone who posted in this thread previously - look here:
I completely agree with you that all this is rather ridiculous and that the US would not go nucing a third world country as part of a war effort. All that I am saying is that some idiot in the Bush administration probably brought up a proposal on it and because the American goverment (excluding the bush administration) has common sence they never went forth with it. The only reason why I would give such an obsurd article any thuoght is because it is a British embassador speaking is it not? Now why would he go on speaking anything like this if it is complete bogus. These are politicians and an embassador really has to watch what he says you know.

Regards,
Maestro

EDIT: Bush thinking....rofl, took him 7 years to get a sentence in a speech right.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by maestro46]

[edit on 19-6-2007 by maestro46]

Originally posted by maestro46
You wanna tell me you know that this guy is really thinking?

Hey .. I'm just telling you what was said in the MSM in the first few days after 9/11. Both Bush and Blair said that they had a phone conversation within hours of 9/11 and that Bush told Blair he wasn't going to send multimillion dollar weapons over to bomb some empty 10$ tents.

If he wouldn't send those multi-million$ bombs at that time, then he definately wouldn't send nukes .. not to bomb 10$ tents.

I remember the report because the '10$ tents' comment stuck in my head.