Bush set to nuke Iran over weapons. UK Paper claims

[Mr.Vicchio]

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts. President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

Here ya go!

[rmnunez]

For your reference, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each hit with 20 Kiloton bombs yielding about 800 thousand tons of radioactive debris, though these were detonated above the surface.

[Scribbler1]

It doesn't matter if the nuke just blows out a few windows. The term "Nuclear Weapon" has had the stigma of being the ULTIMATE WMD since after WW2 and if that nitwit in the White House thinks he will be seen as anything other than rabid lunatic for using ANOTHER one then he IS a rabid lunatic. He will also look like a two-faced hypocrite.

These stories have been a bit off the mark before and I'll not make an opinion on it until we know more, but if it is even partly true Bush is just plain unbalanced and he needs to be restrained, even IF it means Blofeld becomes president.

[rmnunez]

ANOTHER one? Didn't know he'd used one before.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez ANOTHER one? Didn't know he'd used one before.

The U.S. used it before, and don't tell me you didn't know what I meant.

[PatrickHenry]

Chossudovsky has been saying the same thing...
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...articleId=2032

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense". The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons. As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population". Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2). It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life. Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the war theater. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners).

[Clarence]

What do you think will happen over there, Vic? Somethings gotta give, right?

Now would be the time for a good president of the United States to say...

Quote by: Clarence Imitating a reasonable president To the people of the world...The United States no longer believes it is right to use nuclear weapons. We believe it was more wrong than right to do 50 years ago. However, it is well known that we have massive destructive abilities. Now...The United States will not tolerate another nuclear launch. Ever. By ourselves or others. We will retain our destructive powers to enforce our new nuclear policy. We are going to allow Iran and any other country to build nuclear power plants. We are going to urge the world to find, use, and dispose of nuclear materials, together, through the United Nations. The United Nations is anything we humans make it. The United States are moving forward with strong intentions of keeping this global agreement a positive orginization. We intend to acknowledge our mistakes in the name of progress. We request those harmed by our mistakes to forgive us our trespasses. And we will forgive any trespasses against us. Those on this earth who've been effected in a positive way by the United State's policies, please help others forgive us. America will be taking more time to look inward. We have to stop the bleeding in the delta. We need to put more energy into our energy policies. We need to adjust emphasis from the global war against fear, to the domestic causes of pain and mental suffering through terror. The United States will not lose contact with the world. Our new Nuclear policy is clear. Make clean power and do it safely. Do not believe that we will not confront aggressors. If Iran or Isreal engage in nuclear warfare, You can bet we will assume a hostile demeanor. That being said, I believe our military absence will be missed in various places in the world. We regret that some people will lose some level of security. We urge the people of the world to manage by using their heart and minds with good intentions. They will then find their own united states with security by nature as opossed to might. Try hard and request aid through the United Nations from now on. We intend to hold our end up. Eagerly. The world faces a crisis in the middle east. The world is responsible to varying degrees. When we admit our mistakes at the UN, we hope the world reaches out together to lift these people out that vicious cycle. Do not punish the United States out of spite and do not trample us when we're down. Help, with good intentions and be rewarded. We do not intend to ask for help within our own borders, but we request compromise when seeking help in rebuilding the middle east. As america rebounds, like humans always do, expect us to once again lead the world to some degree. The american economy is large and the people strong and diverse. Do not expect us to have nothing to say concerning foriegn affairs . We may be moving away from global security but americans will never quiver in fear. We encourage fear mongers and killers to keep this in mind as our military receeds from it's far reaches. People of the world. Let us move forward as living beings. Peace sells and the United States is now back in business. We are a capitalist democracy with emphasis on Liberty and Justice for All, once again. Thank you all for listening and have a good evening.

I wrote this speech for George Bush. He could pull it off. Picture him reading the first paragraph. Definitly would have my attention if he spit it similar. This shit is getting crazy. F***ing wackos. We need a leader. A regular hero. but that's a high order. These cats would eat a good person alive. Diplomacy is a lost art.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I think you are smoking something that shouldn't be legal to be honest. I say RIGHT FREAKING ON GEORGE! Nuke those bastages before they start lobbing nukes into Israel, or worse.

But then, I believe in ya know, self defense, the right to own guns, that sort of thing.... Call em crazy.

WYou are right, really, we should NEVER have nuked Japan, we should have invaded and killed millions instead of several hundred thousand. That would have been better. Really in teh end.

And we shoudl have never made more, I mean M.A.D. was crazy but it worked.

Anyone that thinks the answer is just "play nice" obviously has little grasp of human history, and would be doomed to repeat it.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Iran has no ICBMs - Defense Minister Ivanov http://en.rian.ru/world/20060407/45433928.html

The United States and Israel, which are Tehran's main opponents, reacted skeptically to this show of force and said Iran was deliberately bluffing and over-exaggerating its military potential in the context of possible UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions.

These statements seem logical because six U.S. carrier task forces are far more powerful than the Iranian Armed Forces. Four of them are deployed in the Persian Gulf, while two others are plying the southern Mediterranean. Each carrier task force has 80 to 90 modern warplanes, compared to the 360 aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. According to experts, the technical state of 40-60% of these planes leaves much to be desired.

The Pentagon would therefore easily establish regional air supremacy over the Persian Gulf, just like it did in the war against Iraq. It should not be doubted that U.S. warplanes would destroy any potentially hostile ship in the Strait of Hormuz and deprive Tehran of its ship-launched Fajr-3 missiles and Hut torpedoes.

Experts say the United States will not attack Iran before September, if it sums up resolve to do so. General James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would establish complete control over Afghanistan this August, rather than in October-November 2006. The United States will not declare war on Iran, unless it makes sure that Afghanistan is secured.
On the other hand, Washington should not delay the Iranian operation in the context of the congressional election this November. Consequently, September - October seem like an optimal deadline for attacking Iran.

Iran therefore has enough time to display its determination and to accomplish several objectives. For instance, it could try to persuade the international community that Washington's efforts aiming to force Tehran to renounce its right to uranium enrichment operations are both dangerous and unjustified. Iran could also try to convince the UNSC that its nuclear file should be returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And, finally, Iran, which unequivocally wants to be a leading Mideastern power, could make Washington nervous and show that the United States is not omnipotent. It seems that Tehran will not give up its positions without a fight and that it will try to force Washington to heed its interests.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060407/45452731.html

We shall have to watch how the rhetoric grows in Washington. Or will the visit by the IAEA open the doors to a "Wonderful" diplomatic solution

[Mr.Vicchio]

Hey, if there is a peaceful way to do this, let's do it. While Iran has no ICBM's, they can hit Isreal, and a nuclear exchange between Iran and Isreal would be.. most nasty.

[Matt W]

You think it's a good idea to start lobbing nukes around? Mr.V, are you SERIOUS?!?!!?!? You really think Russia & China would take that lying down? Do you think you'd have any allies left? You may think it's great not to 'play nice', but the world survives through diplomacy. If you can't see that, then I really fear for your sanity. Always remember - the rest of the world doesn't share your viewpoint - and think about how we'd react. It's not a pretty picture.

[Allas]

Iran's problem is, that it has completely neglected and forgotten the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, of course, the megalomaniac it recently elected president.

To many rogue nations are toying with the idea of nuclear weapons. I think it has become time to issue a good old fashion ultimatum: Do as you are told or get bitch slapped. Doing so, would serve more than the purpose of simply ending Iran's reign of terror. It would also send a clear signal to the rest of the world, that toying with nuclear weapons is toying with western paranoia.

And for the record, i am entirely for using a nuclear bunker buster, if that is what is required to end Iran's nuclear program once and for all.

[Matt W]

And America's problem would appear to be that it thinks it can issue such ultimantums. And you expect to be able to win a war on terror? Get a grip.

[Allas]

And i mentioned American specifically where? Personally, i'd love to see the old NATO nations do it jointly.
The entire problem is, America seems to be unwilling to, once again, issue such ultimatums - ultimatums that require no follow up such as Iraq.

And no, i have no such delusions, i do not expect there to a "victory" day in regards to terror.

[Osborn F Enready]

Do you guys like the blue water or clear water in the toilet as we flush?

The global march is on, third world war just ahead.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio WYou are right, really, we should NEVER have nuked Japan, we should have invaded and killed millions instead of several hundred thousand. That would have been better. Really in teh end.

I said more wrong than right. Not all wrong. I think the world would love it if we said this. Just simple diplomacy in the way of compromise.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio But then, I believe in ya know, self defense, the right to own guns, that sort of thing.... Call em crazy.

No, I call YOU crazy. Do you do this village idiot act at parties? If so I'd like to hire you.

The right to own guns does NOT, and never did give you the right to shoot your neighbor because you THINK he also owns a gun and you think he might shoot the guy down the street. There is NO "right to pretend you're a cop".

WYou are right, really, we should NEVER have nuked Japan, we should have invaded and killed millions instead of several hundred thousand. That would have been better. Really in teh end.

This stuff is over the top even for you, Vicchio. I would wait for you to explain how Japan and Iran are the same, or even how ANY two wars are exactly the same. In fact, I would wait for you to explain how we can justify a preemptive nuclear strike on a country because it made threatening noises against another country without that country firing a shot.


I WOULD wait, but even medical science hasn't progressed to the point where it can keep people alive until hell freezes over, so I don't think I'll get an answer. I have noticed lately you pop in with indefensible positions and disappear without answering any questions you raise, only to surface a week later to do it all again. Your modem isn't THAT slow, Vicchio. The act is old.

[Athena]

Quote by: Matt W You think it's a good idea to start lobbing nukes around? Mr.V, are you SERIOUS?!?!!?!? You really think Russia & China would take that lying down? Do you think you'd have any allies left? You may think it's great not to 'play nice', but the world survives through diplomacy. If you can't see that, then I really fear for your sanity. Always remember - the rest of the world doesn't share your viewpoint - and think about how we'd react. It's not a pretty picture.

Thank you Matt. I was trying to figure out how to say what you said, and you did a very good job of it.

I hate war protesting, but it looks like we need to get more serious in our opposition to Bush. I hope this threat to Iran, crashes his ratings.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Athena I hate war protesting, but it looks like we need to get more serious in our opposition to Bush. I hope this threat to Iran, crashes his ratings.

His ratings are already at an all-time low, and that's not counting anything he might do with Iran.

LINK

Washington - President George W Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq, his campaign against international terror and his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security. The AP-Ipsos poll is loaded with grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power. Nearly 70% of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the largest percentage of the Bush presidency and 13 points higher than a year ago.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, what do you think Iran is going to do if no one steps up and stops them?

That's right, develop nuclear weapons. If ANY OF YOU believe they truely just want to produce power (while sitting on top of... billions of barrels of oil) I have nothing further to say to you.

The point of Iran/Japan was, if it takes a nuclear strike to stop a bigger disaster, by all means do it.

What do you think would happen if even a single ballistic missle is launched from Iran on a trajectory towards Iseal? Isreal HAS nukes and WILL respond, M.A.D. And then what happens? You have maybe 5-10? 25? Air Burst Thermo Nuclear detonations across the middle east, killing MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

A Surgical strike, deep ground hits... no, no where near that.


But you guys just hear "Bush, Iran Nuke" and you freak out, you don't stop to contemplate worst case scenario.

TAKE YOUR DAMN HATE BUSH BLINDERS OFF AND THINK OUT SIDE THE BOX.

Damn. I swear, you people are stuck on "uh.. Bush is bad man... nukes are bad man... peace love dope". This sin't some political protest moment, this is the world looking down the barrel at Iran and so far no one is willing to ddo anything and hopeing it all just "goes away".

grrr... whatever, you guys finish this debate, on how evil Bush is, how whatever delusions you want too, and I'll just hope to God I am dead wrong and we don't see half of Isreal and Iran glassed by a nuke exchange.