120 Tomahawk Missiles and Japan Tragedy

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bearice, Mar 22, 2011.

Is 120 Tomahawk missile strike a cover-up for Japan's nuclear tragedy?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
  2. No

    5 vote(s)
  1. I was thinking there is good possibility that the 120 Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Libya is a cover-up/smokescreen for Japan's multiple nuclear reactors/plants destruction so that the world attention gets diverted from Japan which has been a massive nuclear tragedy.

    When I first read about the 120 Tomahawk missile strike, I thought these 120 missiles have been fired in past 5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was highly surprised to know 120 Tomahawk missiles have been fired in a single day on Libya.
  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    i was thinking that you're a lunatic and every time i read one of your threads, some of my brain cells commit suicide.
  3. Sea/Ocean is also lunatic since Moon causes tidal waves in oceans.

    So Bearice is Sea/Ocean. Be careful. Everybody knows what happened in Japan 10 days back.
  4. Eight


    Only the weak cells die, the strong ones remain and have learned the lesson
  5. Ricter



    +1 (for post count)
  6. Other forum:

    7 days ago the idea of war on Libya was completely rejected by the majority of the UN security council. The US position was against a military involvement in Libya. Here's what MSN published of Hilary Clinton's address to the House of appropriations committee I believe just prior to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

    This is from the West Australian dated March 11, 2011.


    Clinton also expressed deep doubts about proposals to set up a "no-fly" zone over Libya, saying previous no-fly zones set up over Iraq and Serbia had had little effect…

    "Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable," Clinton said.

    Clinton said the United States was focusing on humanitarian relief and building links to Libya's opposition groups… Clinton... said a proposed a no-fly zone over the country may not be the best one.

    "I want to remind people that we had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out of office," Clinton said.

    "We had a no-fly zone and then we had 78 days of bombing in Serbia. It did not get Milosevic out of office. It did not get him out of Kosovo until we put troops on the ground with our allies…"


    Now what happened to change things in just 7 days?

    I suggest the possibility the Libyan war is a useful distraction from the nuclear catastrophe developing in Japan. England, France, and the US are heavily invested in nuclear energy. You might want to look at the involvement or planned involvement of governments to establish a nuclear energy sector in those other countries supporting the 'humanitarian' military strike against Libya.

    The radiation situation in Japan is far worst than many governments are letting on, that is those governments heavily invested in new nuclear construction projects. You just can't miss the fact the process of evacuating international personnel has been quietly accelerated largely under the public radar over the past two days.

    Most if not all of the international search and rescue teams have left Japan two days ago. Compare this to Christchurch where the last international USAR left more than three weeks after the earthquake. The Japanese search and rescue team were still in Christchurch right up until the earthquake in Japan.

    Add to that the US military have been evacuating from Honshu island since two days ago.

    The insanity of starting a new war in Northern Africa suddenly begins to appear more logical. Rational no, logical yes.'
  7. Ricter


    Considering this idea anew in light of the developments in Libya, where it appears that trucks also have to be bombed to enforce this "no fly" zone (lol), I think terror management theory is a good explanation. That's not too different from your own.
  8. Wars are won and lost on the ground, not in the air. This is warfare 101.
  9. Ricter


    I disagree with that, but it doesn't matter. The coalition voted on a no-fly zone, not bombing non-flight related buildings, Gaddifi's house for example, and vehicles. This is expanding into a do-what-we-want operation. Which helps explain Russia and China's reactions.
  10. The no fly zone is a waste of money, and resources. If we really want Gaddafi gone, will have to put boots down and expel. Air power cannot hold land. It is not designed for that.

    So my biggest beef is that they consistently violate the Powell doctrine, if we must go into war, hit em with the kitchen sink, because they have left us with no other options.

    If we stick to the Powell doctrine, when we go to war, they would be very very short.
    #10     Mar 23, 2011