Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby darkbeforedawn » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:38 pm

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran <br> <br>by Paul Craig Roberts <br>The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.<br><br>The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send. <br><br>Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.<br><br>The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case." <br><br>That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views."<br><br>Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.<br><br>Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran. <br><br>Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East. <br><br>Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.<br><br>Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict. <br><br>University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S. <br><br>There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction. <br><br>Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone. <br><br>Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.<br><br>It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.<br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby AlicetheCurious » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:43 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Oh, absolutely. <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dugoboy » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:53 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>DUH!<br><br>this is why this is the stupidest fucking idea i've ever heard. <br><br>i can't even respond to this because the entire concept is retarded. they actually think they can make it without the rest of the world? all this will do is cause suffering at a collosal level the world hasnt seen since 1945! this will make iraq and afghanistan look like child's play. yknow i just looked and simply comparing iraq and iran in land mass..iran is basically as big as 4 iraq's. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.geocities.com/orcthrasher/files/images/Qn38113.gif" BORDER=0> at: 9/27/06 1:59 pm<br></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dbeach » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:59 pm

I have been saying all yr<br><br>Iran will NOT be nuked<br><br>MAYBE Israel will use conventional weapons to take out the reactors lke they did in Iraq in the 80s.<br><br>The neo-cons want to use nukes and bush would nuke his own Country If he has one <br>but not this yr.<br><br>I am disappointed that Roberts wrote this.<br><br>Its more rule by terror and the bushies are quite adapt at playing this game.<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dugoboy » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:00 pm

yea, it would be political suicide to do this. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.geocities.com/orcthrasher/files/images/Qn38113.gif" BORDER=0> at: 9/27/06 2:02 pm<br></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby darkbeforedawn » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:59 pm

Bushco is expendable, remember? Perhaps the real goal is exactly what you say: have the USA self destruct. We have already destroyed 90% of our credibility. Our only point of restraint is that so far we haven't nuked anyone technicaly speaking although, DU is a form of nuke that keeps on nuking forever and we have spread it all over Iraq. I guess it all depends on just who is running this show and what their real goals are--is it for the US to "win"? Sure doesn't seem so. They're either really stupid or there is some other agenda here which is multinational and probably has more to do with us just kicking our stuffing stomped so as to make us more pliable for the big plan? <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dbeach » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:10 pm

VN korea Iraq Afghansistan were/are designed to not win .<br><br>Kissinger admitted that to the Red China Ambassador in 1972 concerning VN {Its in his recent memoirs ...arrogant creep!}<br><br>war is control.<br><br>ties up money and manpower while the rich tighten the security state at the expense of the middle and working classes.<br><br>We are truly paying for our own coffins..cept it will probaly be mass graves like in VN.<br><br>The Iran dude negoiated with GHW Bush in the <br>1980 OCT surprise..<br><br>Once you take his dirty money he owns you.<br><br> ask Ossama , still in hiding ,Bin Laden Bush another CIA relic dusted off for the bush agenda which is the same agenda as the PTB and big bush is one of the PTB<br><br>OSS= pre CIA<br>OS wald<br>OSS ama <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dbeach » Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:28 pm

I dont think the bushies will NUKE iran the stage is Set and the bushies have plenty to hide as usual..but not this yr<br><br>its a trial run<br><br>beneath EVERY bush is DIRT!<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2006/092106PARRY.html">www.baltimorechronicle.co...PARRY.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>"The Bushes & the Truth About Iran<br>by ROBERT PARRY <br>Secret Republican & CIA contacts with Iran’s Islamic regime more than a quarter century ago are relevant today because an underlying theme in the current President Bush’s rationale for war is that direct negotiations with Iran are pointless. But Bush’s own father may know otherwise.Having gone through the diplomatic motions with Iran, George W. Bush is shifting toward a military option that carries severe risks for American soldiers in Iraq as well as for long-term U.S. interests around the world. Yet, despite this looming crisis, the Bush Family continues to withhold key historical facts about U.S.-Iranian relations.<br><br>Those historical facts – relating to Republican contacts with Iran’s Islamic regime more than a quarter century ago – are relevant today because an underlying theme in Bush’s rationale for war is that direct negotiations with Iran are pointless. But Bush’s own father may know otherwise.<br><br>The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations with Iran’s radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, with the goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.<br><br><br>False History<br>The false history surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis also has led to the mistaken conclusion that it was only the specter of Ronald Reagan’s tough-guy image that made Iran buckle in January 1981 and that, therefore, the Iranians respect only force.<br><br>The hostage release on Reagan’s Inauguration Day bathed the new President in an aura of heroism as a leader so feared by America’s enemies that they scrambled to avoid angering him. It was viewed as a case study of how U.S. toughness could restore the proper international order.<br><br>That night, as fireworks lit the skies of Washington, the celebration was not only for a new President and for the freed hostages, but for a new era in which American power would no longer be mocked. That momentum continues to this day in George W. Bush’s “preemptive” wars and the imperial boasts about a “New American Century.”<br><br>However, the reality of that day 25 years ago now appears to have been quite different than was understood at the time. What’s now known about the Iranian hostage crisis suggests that the “coincidence” of the Reagan Inauguration and the Hostage Release was not a case of frightened Iranians cowering before a U.S. President who might just nuke Tehran.<br><br>The evidence indicates that it was a prearranged deal between the Republicans and the Iranians. The Republicans got the hostages and the political bounce; Iran’s Islamic fundamentalists got a secret supply of weapons and various other payoffs. <br><br><br>Bush Meeting<br>The Maclean-Henderson conversation provided important corroboration for the claims by the intelligence operatives, including Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe who said he saw Bush attend a final round of meetings with Iranians in Paris.<br><br>Ben-Menashe said he was in Paris as part of a six-member Israeli delegation that was coordinating the arms deliveries to Iran. He said the key meeting had occurred at the Ritz Hotel in Paris.<br><br>In his memoirs, Profits of War, Ben-Menashe said he recognized several Americans, including Republican congressional aide Robert McFarlane and CIA officers Robert Gates, Donald Gregg and George Cave. Then, Ben-Menashe said, Iranian cleric Mehdi Karrubi arrived and walked into a conference room.<br><br>“A few minutes later George Bush, with the wispy-haired William Casey in front of him, stepped out of the elevator. He smiled, said hello to everyone, and, like Karrubi, hurried into the conference room,” Ben-Menashe wrote.<br><br>Ben-Menashe said the Paris meetings served to finalize a previously outlined agreement calling for release of the 52 hostages in exchange for $52 million, guarantees of arms sales for Iran, and unfreezing of Iranian monies in U.S. banks. The timing, however, was changed, he said, to coincide with Reagan’s expected Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.<br><br>Ben-Menashe, who repeated his allegations under oath in a congressional deposition, received support from several sources, including pilot Heinrich Rupp, who said he flew Casey – then Reagan’s campaign director – from Washington’s National Airport to Paris on a flight that left very late on a rainy night in mid-October.<br><br>Rupp said that after arriving at LeBourget airport outside Paris, he saw a man resembling Bush on the tarmac. The night of Oct. 18 indeed was rainy in the Washington area. Also, sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, placed Casey within a five-minute drive of National Airport late that evening. <br>Other Witnesses<br>There were other bits and pieces of corroboration about the Paris meetings. As early as 1987, Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr had made similar claims about a Paris meeting between Republicans and Iranians. A French arms dealer, Nicholas Ignatiew, told me in 1990 that he had checked with his government contacts and was told that Republicans did meet with Iranians in Paris in mid-October 1980.<br><br>A well-connected French investigative reporter Claude Angeli said his sources inside the French secret service confirmed that the service provided “cover” for a meeting between Republicans and Iranians in France on the weekend of Oct. 18-19, 1980. German journalist Martin Kilian had received a similar account from a top aide to the fiercely anti-communist chief of French intelligence, Alexandre deMarenches.<br><br>Later, deMarenches’s biographer, David Andelman, told congressional investigators under oath that deMarenches admitted that he had helped the Reagan-Bush campaign arrange meetings with Iranians about the hostage issue in the summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting held in Paris in October.<br><br>Andelman said deMarenches ordered that the secret meetings be kept out of his biography because the story could otherwise damage the reputation of his friends, Casey and Bush. “I don’t want to hurt my friend, George Bush,” Andelman recalled deMarenches saying as Bush was seeking re-election in 1992.<br><br>Gates, McFarlane, Gregg and Cave all denied participating in the meeting, though some alibis proved shaky and others were never examined at all. <br><br><br>By the late 1990s, other elements of the Republicans’ October Surprise alibis were collapsing, including pro-Reagan-Bush claims cited prominently by some news organizations, such as the New Republic and Newsweek. [For more details, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or Consortiumnews.com’s “The Bushes & the Death of Reason.”]<br><br>With the Republican defenses falling apart and with many documents from the Reagan-Bush years scheduled for release in 2001, the opportunity to finally learn the truth about the pivotal election of 1980 loomed.<br><br>But George W. Bush got into the White House via a ruling by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the counting of votes in Florida. Then, on his first day in office, his counsel Alberto Gonzales drafted an executive order for Bush that postponed release of the Reagan-Bush records.<br><br>After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush approved another secrecy order that put the records beyond the public’s reach indefinitely, passing down control of many documents to a President’s or a Vice President’s descendants.<br><br>Thus, the truth about how the Reagan-Bush era began in the 1980s – and what was done to contain the Iran-Contra investigations in the late 1980s and early 1990s – might eventually become the property of the noted scholars, the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara.<br><br>The American people will be kept in the dark about their own history, like the subjects of some hereditary dynasty. Without the facts, they also face the possibility of being more easily manipulated by emotional appeals devoid of informed debate.<br><br>That moment has come sooner than many expected. The United States appears to be on the brink of a war with Iran, while many government officials and the citizenry are operating on historical assumptions derived more from fiction than fact. " <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby anotherdrew » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:03 pm

here's a poll question I'd like to see put to "the people" of amercia: Would you aprove or disaprove of the extermination of all non-Americans in the world as a way to garauntee security? Anyone care to guess what the support % would be?<br>I would guess 20-30% would say yes, especially if it permitted survival of majority-english-speaking nations also.<br><br>"Armed madhouse" is right. I just can't believe it, how could they posisbly be so god damn crazy? <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby DireStrike » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:21 pm

It would be at least 35%.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Iran would not dare retaliate<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>There are really some people that believe that. Too bad they happen to run the country... <p></p><i></i>
DireStrike
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: NYC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby sunny » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:26 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Oh, the tiny, diseased little minds of the neocons are a wonder to behold.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby 4911 » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:18 pm

"The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East."<br><br>The fucking broderline psychopathic dumbshits - i tried to tell em, they wouldn listen!! HELP THE FUCKING POOR PEOPLE THERE AND YOU WILL WIN, BOMB THEM AND YOU WILL LOSE<br><br>it is so fucking simple<br><br><br>so fucking simple<br><br><br>the dumbfucks <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby dugoboy » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:48 pm

Yeah iran will just willingly give up? HA! <p>___________________________________________<br>"BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby Gouda » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:21 pm

Paul Craig Roberts has an uncanny touch for reproducing, or mimicking, the shallow analysis of the neocons. Uncanny, I tell ya. <br><br>I can only hope that 20 years from today, Goldman Sachs -- erm, I mean, Honorary Treasury Sec. Paulson -- will come out of the national security state closet for our next national meltdown and enlighten us as deeply as PCR is doing today. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Postby Gouda » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:53 pm

BTW, thanks for the Robert Parry link, dbeach. That's more like it, despite a few questionable assumptions. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to The "War on Terror"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests