Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby Col Quisp » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:23 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This scares the bejeezus outta me! Bush refers to Ahmedinejad as "Hitler." Pentagon officials are threatening to resign over this.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html">telegraph</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=colquisp>Col Quisp</A> at: 4/8/06 8:24 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Col Quisp
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby dbeach » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:50 pm

I am so sad to hear that..During the Holiest days of the yr for Christians..this G W Bush is forcing a nuclear war upon humanity..I am praying for the people of Iran and Iraq and the US military who will get the nuclear fallout in their faces.<br><br>The common foot soldiers are gonna be very ill while the big brass in the pentagon will celebrate this satanic display of US power..<br><br>I have been saying all yr that Iran is NOT gonna be nuked BUT I am getting more and more scared...<br><br><br>I can't say much more on this topic..too painful for me thinking of the pain of the victims..<br>A world gone mad.<br><br>THANX Bush bliar cheny and all your pals..<br><br>Its all being recorded ..some day the party is over for these pompous perps. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

NYT plans to debunk notion of nuking Iran

Postby sunny » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:58 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_Four_officials_deny_report_0408.html">www.rawstory.com/news/200..._0408.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby Dreams End » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:00 pm

This seems...odd. <br><br>I think that there really may be plans for a palace coup, as they seem to be laying the groundwork everywhere. Nuclear warplans are not "leaked." If this is real, it's part of the now very clearly orchestrated campaign to create a climate to support a military ouster of Bush. The idea has been floating around out there since Madsen's piece in 2004, if not before that<br><br>So, if you are an optimist, maybe you'll think that getting rid of Bush, even if done by the military and CIA in a "Fifth of May" scenario, will somehow bring about democracy.<br><br>Or, if you are like me, you'll at least be curious to know what it looks like when the actual bosses take over. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby havanagilla » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:32 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So, if you are an optimist, maybe you'll think that getting rid of Bush, even if done by the military and CIA in a "Fifth of May" scenario, will somehow bring about democracy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Same is happening here. Military "enlightened" coup...it is wierd. happened with Sharon and now more, namely, military is representing a "moderate" approach and curb Settlers, religious right wingers and others who are considered "ideologues" (a derogative terms, in Military circles). One is left with a poor choice bn Bush-like religious fanatics OR cold, calculated, faceless military robots. In Israel they still use straw men (like Amir Peretz I suspect) as a front and in order to play on noble sentiments (socialism, democracy, peace, equality)...In the US, I think they will hide under Hillary's apron for a while. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
havanagilla
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby HMKGrey » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:58 pm

I'm with you guys on the possibility of the military doing something here. <br><br>The only thing is that the Hersch piece has a very slight whiff of disinfo to me. I was going to go through it and highlight all of the little snippets that could - just possibly - be taken either way. There were plenty. The Hitler quote sorta got me too. It's just sort of... well... um, silly. Doesn't seem to belong there. I dunno. <br><br>One thing's for sure though: if he really is getting the real scoop here then I do believe that something will have to give. The nuclear option is just absurd. It's patently fucking absurd and I just can't see the military rolling along with it. <br><br>Unless, that is, we're all so far fucked already that there's no saving us now. <br><br>Sorry for the language but THIS IS FUCKING INSANE. <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby FourthBase » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:06 am

Anyone read the Harper's article about a hypothetical military coup? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby Dreams End » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:37 am

This is not good. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/2006/03/32406_harpers_e.html">excerpts from Harper's "hypothetical" coup issue</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>This is VERY bad. I was worried back during Katrina that the "bring in the cavalry" media circus of General Honore arriving to bail out the city when the civilians could not was a step toward normalizing the idea of military takeovers. (To my discredit, I predicted a statewide or even region wide military takeover, and this did not happen..)<br><br>So, look who's talking in this piece:<br><br>Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University and the author, most recently, of The New American Militarism. He served as an officer in the US Army from 1969 t0 1992.<br><br>Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., staff judge advocate at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In 1992 he published an essay entitled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” Harper’s adds that his views “are personal and do not reflect those of the US Department of Defense.”<br><br>Richard H. Kohn, chair of the curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and editor of the book The United States Military Under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989, among others. <br><br><br>Edward N Luttwak, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of many books, including Coup d’Etat: A Practical Handbook. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>“The only truly existential threat that American democracy might face today,” the Harper’s editors write, could be the “unthinkable” – a military coup. The latest Harper’s pulls together “a panel of experts to discuss the state of our military – its culture, its relationship with the wider society, and the steadfastness of its loyalty to the ideals of democracy and to the US Constitution.” <br><br>Though we’re living under the threat of foreign terrorists, Harper's writes, the only way to “subdue America entirely” would be to “seize the machinery of state itself, to steer it toward malign ends – to carry out, that is, a coup d’etat.” The question is, under what circumstances would our military officers join in such an effort.<br><br><br><br>DUNLAP: One interesting scenario would be a crisis between the branches of government that are expected to control the military. I.e., if the armed forces were caught between the orders of the president, the Congress, or even the courts, and there were no constitutional path to resolve the disagreement.<br><br>KOHN: Wouldn't the armed forces simply freeze? They'd be paralyzed.<br><br>LUTTWAK: It's a very interesting line of inquiry. Let's say a president, exercising his proper and legitimate presidential authority, initiates a military action. Then Congress wakes up and says, "Wait a minute, this president is berserk; he's starting a war, and we're against it." But in the meantime, the military force has already been put in a very compromised situation. If things were moving very fast, the military might well take an unconstitutional action.<br><br> <br><br>"By design the military is authoritarian, socialistic, undemocratic."<br><br>WASIK: Let's get back, though, to the subject of crises, whether real or contrived. It seems as though the American public wants to see the military step in during these situations. A poll taken just after Hurricane Katrina found that 69 percent of people wanted to see the military serve as the primary responder to natural disasters.<br><br>DUNLAP: People don't fully appreciate what the military is. By design it is authoritarian, socialistic, undemocratic. Those qualities help the armed forces to serve their very unique purpose in our society: namely, external defense against foreign enemies. In the military we look to destroy threats, not apprehend them for processing through a system that presumes them innocent until proven guilty. And I should add that if you do try to imprint soldiers with the restraint that a police force needs, then you disadvantage them against the ruthless adversaries that real war involves.<br><br>WASIK: Then why do so many Americans say they want to see the military get involved in law enforcement, "peacekeeping," etc.?<br><br>DUNLAP: Americans today have an incredible trust in the military. In poll after poll they have much more confidence in the armed forces than they do in other institutions. The most recent poll, just this past spring, had trust in the military at 74 percent, while Congress was at 22 percent and the presidency was at 44 percent. In other words, the armed forces are much more trusted than the civilian institutions that are supposed to control them.<br><br> <br><br>Are we experiencing a “creeping coup d’etat” right now?<br><br>BACEVICH: The question that arises is whether, in fact, we're not already experiencing what is in essence a creeping coup d'etat. But it's not people in uniform who are seizing power. It's militarized civilians, who conceive of the world as such a dangerous place that military power has to predominate, that constitutional constraints on the military need to be loosened. The ideology of national security has become ever more woven into our politics. It has been e especially apparent since 9/11, but more broadly it's been going on since the beginning of the Cold War.<br><br>KOHN: The Constitution is being warped.<br><br>BACEVICH: Here we don't need to conjure up hypothetical scenarios of the president deploying troops, etc. We have a president who created a program that directs the National Security Agency, which is part of the military, to engage in domestic eavesdropping.<br><br>LUTTWAK: I don't know if this would be called a coup.<br><br>KOHN: Because it's so incremental?<br><br>LUTTWAK: It's more like an erosion. The president is usurping additional powers. Although what's interesting is that the president's usurpation of this particular power was entirely unnecessary. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which approves terrorism-related requests for wiretaps, can be summoned over the telephone in a matter of minutes. In its entire history, it has said no to a request for surveillance only a handful of times, and those were cases where there was a mistake in the request. Really, even a small-town sheriff can get any interception he wants, so long as after the fact he can show a judge that there was reasonable cause.<br><br>BACEVICH: Bush's move was unnecessary if the object of the exercise was to engage in surveillance. It was very useful indeed if the object is to expand executive power.<br><br>KOHN: Which is exactly what has been the agenda since the beginning of this administration.<br><br>LUTTWAK: Now you're attributing motives.<br><br>BACEVICH: Yes, I am! If you read John Yoo, he suggests that one conscious aim of the project was to eliminate constraints on the chief executive when it comes to matters of national security.<br><br>DUNLAP: I will say that even if it was a completely legal project, there is a question of how appropriate it is for the armed forces to be involved in that kind of activity. Since, as I noted before, the American people have much less confidence in those institutions of civilian control than they do in the armed forces, we need to be very careful about what we ask the military to do, even assuming it's legal.<br><br>WASIK: If we are talking about a "creeping coup" that is already under way, in what direction is it creeping?<br><br>BACEVICH: The creeping coup deflects attention away from domestic priorities and toward national-security matters, so that is where all our resources get deployed. "Leadership" today is what is demonstrated in the national-security realm. The current presidency is interesting in that regard. What has Bush accomplished apart from posturing in the role of commander in chief? He declares wars, he prosecutes wars, he insists we must continue to prosecute wars.<br><br>KOHN: By framing the terrorist threat itself as a war, we tend to look upon our national security from a much more military perspective.<br><br>BACEVICH: We don't get Social Security reform, we don't get immigration reform. The role of the president increasingly comes to be defined by his military function.<br><br>KOHN: And so our foreign policy becomes militarized. We neglect our diplomacy, de-emphasize allies.<br><br> <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby NewKid » Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:46 am

I can see it now:<br><br>"Tonight on CNN -- our question of the day: Would you approve if the United States became a military dictatorship?<br><br><br>Joining us tonight to debate the issue are . . ."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby tigre63 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:07 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, jr., staff judge advocate at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In 1992 he published an essay entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." Harper's adds that his views "are personal and do not reflect those of the US Department of Defense."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Heres a link to his essay:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm">www.carlisle.army.mil/usa...dunlap.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>He named the fictional General that takes over control Gen. Brutus.Its a good read even though it was written in 1992 and some things are irrelavant, but insightful nonetheless.<br><br>At this point it looks like a coup will be the only way to bring justice to our corrupt leaders.<br>Personally I don't think there will be a coup for the sole reason that too many powerful people are making too much money. Of course they would most likely be making money no matter who is in control I suppose. So who knows?<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
tigre63
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:26 am

HMK said:<br>"Unless, that is, we're all so far fucked already that there's no saving us now. <br><br>Sorry for the language but THIS IS FUCKING INSANE." <br><br>Ditto -- I don't know what to make of it either except it is Abso-Fucking-lutely Insane.<br><br>How Incredibly Nuts -- for things to be so bizarre and ass-backwards that a military-led Palace Coup might actually be seen as a Good THING???!!!<br><br>The 'nuke Iran' rumour has been been floating around for at least a year -- I think it's more than JUST disinfo. But there's no doubt in my mind the Bush-fronted neocons are war criminals and that they are extremely dangerous and deluded idealogues who have already schemed and lied to launch two disasterous, illegal and immoral wars. (Plus the unspeakably foul, underhanded betrayal of Haiti by kidnapping Aristide after precipitating a political and economic crisis by illegally witholding already authorized aid-funds and training and arming a gang of cuthroat desperado gangsters with M-16s, machine-guns and grenades).<br><br>If the democratic system indeed is broken with the credibility of honest elections lost and if the illegitimate thugs in power block the system getting fixed, then there aren't many effective options to restore wise leadership and rule of law. It's a cinch the fraudulent Attorney General sure isn't going to hoild the Pres (sic) accountable by-law, or else he'd have Bush arrested on a dozen crimes.<br><br>But as the corruption in Washington is so pervasive, what are the options, who is above reproach?<br><br>I think this crisis of failed leadership and constitutional fraud and abuse of power goes all the way back to the Eisenhower-era CIA-plotted coup against Iran's President Mossadegh, which set the pattern for the many decades of covert anti-democratic interventions, assassinations, subversion, invasions, low-intensity conflict and backing of rightwing tyrannies, under which the massive debt-frauds of IMF/World Bank schemes were sprung.<br><br>The whole inglorious story of double-dealing and counter-purposes and protection of corporate interests which is the 'other' side of the American myth of being a standard-bearer for truth and justice, liberty and peace, ie. the Nazi Ratlines, Gladio networks, P-2, Iran-Contra, BCCI, mafia-connected foreign policy, drug-and-arms smuggling-linked counterespionage, false-flag terrorism, MK-Ultra, domestic propaganda and spying, Inslaw/PROMIS, CIA-fronting Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda, October Surprise, black-budget inter-agency trillion-dollar theft and pilfering, Vietnam War racket, Plan Columbia, 911, and NSA Spying and 'War on Terror' with its Orwellian-style Patriot Act "protections" -- and these are just a better-known sampling of inter-related crimes during the past 40+ years of American history -- underscore the extent that abuse of power and criminal conspiracy have effectively been accomodated and excused by We, The People.<br><br>These frauds and crimes are also part of Our true legacy, extending from the institutionalized dependency we have on the cancer that is the military-defense economy and which has turned into a festering malignancy since Eisenhower first gave us a warning -- with the consequences now before us, a full-blown constitutional crisis that shows we've 'lost' our precious democracy -- we've even lost the illusion that we still had a people-led democracy of government by, for and of The People -- despite what should have been evident by the things we never voted for or were accurately informed about, ie., the true reasons for untold wars and the post-WWII murder of 20+ million people, numerous invasions and provoked insurrections and civil-strife and Death Squads and the sanctioned torture of uncountable tens-of-thousands and the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands because they 'might' have had unacceptable political opinions.<br><br>In a very real sense, the Bush-neocon lies and schemings and wars of Empire are a continuation of everything that has gone before, that is still unacknowledged and crimes that are yet unpunished. Bush claims the unquestioned righteousness of American exceptionalism because he can -- its the Get Out of Jail card that every post-war administration has used -- It used to be called Communism and Cold War, but now its known as War on Terror and War on Drugs and War on Crime (we OUGHT to have a War on Lies and War on Illegitimate Criminal Politicians and their Klpeptocratic Corporate Clients).<br><br>As far as Bush nuking Iran -- I can't imagine Russia and China would be ambivalent about this, nor that India and Pakistan and the 'Stans and the rest of the Middle East and Asia would be too keen about the nuclear fallout contamination let alone the political fallout from such a lunatic, criminal act. I've read that Russia is revamping and upgrading its nuclear weapons stockpile, and we know China is beefing-up its military. I don't think either nation is too happy about what they must see as further proof of America's world-threatening idiocy. We ought to be just as alarmed about how Russia and China could use Bush's pre-emptive doctrine to decide America must be neutralized before America does it to them. And of course -- India and Pakistan have the bomb and might have something to say about the US exploding nuclear bombs in their neighborhood. We (the public) ought to be talking about how nuking Iran will destabilze the world by undermining EVERY treaty and agreement and International body, and may well make the US a reckless pariah (which might be a good thing if it leads to the American public outlawing the Republican party and dismantling the CIA, NSA, (and the other 'secret' agencies that conduct US policy behind closed doors), and significantly reforming the Pentagon and the DoD. But absent a major catastrophe, I doubt these bureacracies would accept the will of the people).<br><br>More likely, as Anon from SF replies to Joseph Cannon's Friday post about the outside-chance liklihood of false-flag terrorism at the Capital:<br>"If 9/11 was an inside job, then 9/11 was just a warmup for the most secretive rampup to an updated version of the 3rd Reich. These folks responsible for 9/11, responsible for implementation of martial law don't care if millions of folks get wasted in the process as long as they hold onto power."<br><br>What's remarkable, and shows how idiotically-scary and crazy these times are, is that it's not wacky to consider the possibility the WH might bomb the Capital to keep hold of power -- it's damn prudent to at least recognize and consider the possibility that a far bigger danger to Americans than an external 'enemy' is MUCH closer to home.<br><br>Maybe THAT's the real reason why the WH didn't seek FISA-court approval for spying, so they wouldn't alert folks here in the states who were onto the treason and betrayal of the Bush Gang.<br><br>Wheels within wheels -- And it all extends from when the US FIRST waged an undeclared covert war on Iran 51 years ago. How much different world history might be, where peace and progress and true justice and global democracy were real, if Foster Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt and the other major coup-plotters re: Iran had been indicted and served 40-year prison sentences (I don't know to what extent Eisenhower was involved, if he wrote-off on it or was effectively blackmailed/coerced -- but likely he could have/should have did more than he did to expose it or prevent it. Almost every war and coup and intervention that has happened since used the same rationale, emboldened by its 'success'.)<br><br>As we saw, one of the first thing Bush jr. did on getting into the WH was to bury the dirty damning secrets of the Bush pere dynasty.<br><br>EVERYTHING about secrets and classified info and closed-door dealmaking is foul and reprehensible and ultimately inconsistent with a genuine open-society under democracy -- in retrospect, the past decades of our 'leadership' have been far more destructive to democracy than the so-called threats of Communism, as the extreme, exaggerated responses were seldom based on anything real or tangible but became excuses to expand American Empire. This isn't even really controversial -- and yet, the vast American sleepwalking sheeple seemingly resist this understanding; Is it any wonder Americans can't grasp why so many nations harbour deepseated suspician and even hostility towards America? Unfortunately, almost everything the Bush neocons have done since they took over the WH has followed the same bullying, arrogant script, having done nothing to improve America's reputation or standing among the world's nations. Bush's version of America has arguably made it a rogue, failed state.<br>But then, he had a lot of help to make it so.<br>Starman<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

It's real

Postby Trifecta » Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:15 am

Yep, it's real, is real, namely ISREAL.<br><br>Iraq, is just an operational hub, so Turkey and the twoing and throwing of the great club, the one where the great white brotherhood and the Muslim brotherhood are one and the same.<br><br>The final attack is the point of the start of human civilisation, mesopatamia must fall before the beast finally shows he owns your arse, the clash of civilisations, as they wipe the birds of te face of the planet, the global economy collapses as a strategic standpoint for control, and the sheeple queue up to be implanted and the severing of the higher self is lost for another few millenia, bla, bla etc etc.<br><br>But, know this and listen up little man. You and only you have the power to stop this, you create and manifest your own realities, so if it is prayer, meditation, just talking or writing with your higher selfs and others, you can from your heart and with deep love for the blue planet stop this bullshit and send these motherfuckers back to whence they came from.<br><br>It is done, the nuke will not go off, but the world will change and then we will see the true power of the meek and their earth.<br><br>Its the battle of the mind, the propaganda to get enough of the useless eaters on side to support the big explosion. Need another peral harbour, another hitler to do it, they dumbed down the populace, invented history, posioned the food and the water, made us jump through their fake hoops, but, no more, never again, never again.<br><br>And all to give the chosen ones their own land, they had to kill millions to get to this point, the mind war, the hypocricy, the last bastion of civility.<br><br>Pray brothers and sisters or queue for hell in eternity. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Trifecta
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 am
Location: mu, the place in between dualism
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby heath7 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:18 am

Float the nuclear option so that the convential warfare option doesn't seem so ridiculous. <br><br>And then when they botch the conventional attack, they'll blame failure on not using nukes in the first place. <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby 4911 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:18 am

lets go waay out on a hypothetical limb here and imagine if it is at all even remotely possible if elements in the mil carried out 911, if they seeded katrina and / or have been dilligently and silently obfusciating the bush cabal since its entry to office, making him look progressively worse and worse. Now, if Bushco was aware of this, then they might start a war (iraq) and send those units that they suspect of this to some foreign land to get them away from their sphere of power. They wouldnt tell anyone either. "Um, we lost control of our mil" is a recipe for internal chaos. meanwhile the people see this and run wholeheartidly from the frying pan into the fire embracing their mil as their saviour, when its actually the mil that started it all...<br><br><br>any takers on that?`Or is it unrealistic... <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush says he'll nuke Iran

Postby sunny » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:25 am

Officials are denying to NYT there are any plans to nuke Iran.<br>Of course they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>would</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> deny it-didn't they deny plans were already in the works to invade Iraq, up until the last minute? This time I hope they are telling the truth.(<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> )<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://tinyurl.com/q9o2f">tinyurl.com/q9o2f</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>U.S. Stepping Up Plans to Attack Iran, New Yorker Article Says <br> E-MailPrint Save By ERIC SCHMITT<br>Published: April 9, 2006<br>WASHINGTON, April 8 — The Bush administration, which publicly advocates negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program, is accelerating military planning for possible attacks against Iran, and has not ruled out using tactical nuclear weapons, according to a new article. <br><br>Skip to next paragraph <br>Readers’ Opinions<br>Forum: The Middle East <br>The article, by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker, asserts that the Pentagon this winter presented the White House with an option to use bunker-buster nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff later sought to drop that option, unidentified officials at the White House resisted, the article stated. <br><br>The article cites numerous anonymous sources, including former Pentagon and intelligence officials, as well as sources described as having ties to the Pentagon but no direct involvement in its decision-making. <br><br>Asked about the article, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, said Saturday: "We're not going to discuss military planning. As the president has said repeatedly, we along with the international community are pursuing a diplomatic solution to the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear program."<br><br>But four Pentagon, military and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran and who were granted anonymity to speak candidly rejected the article's contention that the Bush administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran. <br><br>"I've never heard the issue of nukes taken off or put on the table," a senior Pentagon official said. <br><br>The article also states that American combat troops have been ordered to infiltrate Iran to collect target data and to cultivate relationships with indigenous groups who oppose the government in Tehran. <br><br>"The article contains information that is inaccurate," said Michele Ness, a spokeswoman for the Central Intelligence Agency. She declined to elaborate.<br><br>The article asserts that American carrier-based attack planes have been flying simulated nuclear-bomb runs within range of Iranian coastal radars. A Pentagon official said he was unaware of any such flights, but added that within the last three weeks Iran had ratcheted up its air defenses so high that it accidentally shot one of its own aircraft. <br><br>Senior administration officials, while emphasizing that their preferred path is diplomatic, have not ruled out military attacks if negotiations should fail. Senior officers and Pentagon officials said war planners, in particular Air Force targeting teams, have updated contingencies for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, as they periodically do. But they emphasized that this did not reflect any guidance from the civilian leadership to prepare for military confrontation. <br><br>"There have been no operational plans or options presented to the White House," said the senior Pentagon official.<br><br>Top commanders say the military options range from bad to unimaginable. None guarantee success, planners say, given that dozens of suspected sites are buried deep underground or near urban centers. Many risk causing not only casualties but a political crisis in the Middle East. <br><br>Mr. Hersh is a well-known journalist credited with uncovering major stories including the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1969 and details of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Some military and political officials have contested details of some of his articles, and some critics say he is too eager to report assertions critical of the government that are difficult to fully substantiate. <br><br>Scott Shane contributed reporting for this article.<br><br>____________________________________________________<br><br>First they snark at Hershs' use of anonymous sources, then they use a four of their own.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Next

Return to The "War on Terror"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest