Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

[Pharaoh]

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/26/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- 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 US (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.

The US 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.

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 US hegemony.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15118.htm

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[chelsea0011]

1. Neocons want total control of the Mid East at all costs.

[Thickasabrick]

2. I still think this is a crock of shit. I may be wrong but he needs the

support of the rest of the world to do something like this - and the only one who supports him in doing this is Israel.

The Chinese and Russians are heavily invested there - it's just not going to happen.

[soothsayer]

3. According to the New Yorker * and cheney have been begging

to nuke Iran, but the military doesn't want them to (won't really even work----very large country, tough terrain)

[file83]

6. Maybe that is why all these former US generals as of late have been

demanding Rumsfeld resign. Maybe they know that if Rumsfeld stays in control - the generals still working will have to carry out the orders of Bush to do the nuking.

They use Iraq as the only reason to fire Rumsfeld - but maybe there are more reasons?

[file83]

4. Mere speculation. Although, it wouldn't surprise many if he did.

[kimmerspixelated]

5. wantin' ain't gettin'!

But no, I wouldn't put it past them.

[Imagevision]

7. Why Bush Won't Nuke Iran - China & Russia's gas/oil supplier

[Poppyseedman]

8. Never going to happen

Their ruse will be exposed if they become so blatant in their policy as to nuke Iran. The American people will not stand for it and they know it.

Now if they could convince Israel to nuke, maybe.

[Pharaoh]

9. Ha! you think these asshats are going to ask our permission?

sorry, but these guys are plain crazy, that's the whole problem

THEY ARE FUCKING CRAZY!!!!!:nuke:

[Poppyseedman]

You can be as crazy as a loon,

but if you are voted out of office, you are still a loon, a loon without power.

Nuke Iran and the GOP will be out of power for 40 years. They won't do it.

[Pharaoh]

11. This is about the rapture

and all that stuff, these guys don't think like we do....:eyes:

sorry, but they really don't, they are nuts!

[sweetheart]

10. The miltiary services are not ready

This is not a budgeted expense, just in case people think they're gonna
get more for the price of 1 war. While their at it, they'll throw in
cuba and venezuela for free, and as a free gift, a resurgent taliban and
a massive escalation of iraqi chatter as the tet offensive begins.

[TrogL]

17. the nukes are already bought and paid for

Dubya wants to go beyond a war-time pResident. He wants to be the second nuclear pResident.

[sweetheart]

18. I have a nuclear war scenario game.

I can, with great effort, set up a nuclear battlefield sceneario
for you using command and conquor 'generals' a computer video game
for battlefield scenarios.

If you use a nuclear battlefield scenario, what you discover is that
you need more of them, weapons miss, they don't launch, and anyone who's
taken a box of bullets to the range knows how fast they run out... you need
a lotta nukes once you open that door, as everyone is a potential target,
and it takes several strikes to eliminate a single nuclear threat, whereas,
multiple nulcear threats require an arsenal of ginourmous proportions.

No shit hoppy, the first thing that they do after fire is 'reload'. The cost
of a single reaload is in the billions, let alone the trillions lost strategically
by the mere firing.

[nealmhughes]

12. Here is what the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterrey has

to say on the consequence of a war with Iran:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences


By Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster
Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterrey Institute of International Studies 12 August 2004, updated 9 September 2004

"An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Global Research from Canada:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAR20060821&articleId=3027

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

August 21, 2006


"Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back."

However, the report will make uncomfortable reading at the White House, our correspondent says.

In a series of recent speeches, President George W Bush has been portraying the war in Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. This report implies while that may be true, that it is a front of America's own making.

In the past, Mr Bush has dismissed such reasoning by arguing that Islamic militants had hated the US long before it invaded Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what James Madison said about permanent war:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us contrast Perle, Kristol and Gingrich:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/kristol_suggests_iranians_would_embrace_regime_change.htm

Think Progress 21 August 2006:

Now, with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, with Bush losing control of world events, and with the threats to national security growing worse, no one could possibly still believe this plan, could they? Think again.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is still pushing this radical vision. He now uses the excuse of Hezbollah terrorist attacks — what he calls “Iran’s Proxy War” — to push the United States deeper into a regional war against Iran and Syria:

We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

Perle has already weighed in in a June 25 Washington Post editorial decrying Bush’s “ignominious retreat” on Iran. He, too, wants war. Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press this Sunday said we were already in World War III and that the US needed to take direct action against North Korea and Iran. Less well known pundits have flooded cable news and talk radio this weekend beating the war drums. Meanwhile, David Wurmser is ensconced in Vice-President Cheney’s office, and his neoconservative colleague Elliot Abrams (the convicted Iran-Contra felon who urged war with Iraq in a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton) directs Middle East policy on the National Security Council staff.

The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both. These profoundly dangerous policies have to be exposed and stopped before they do even more harm to U.S. national security then they already have.

– Joseph Cirincione
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NeoCons have no idea of the size and terrain and tenacity of the Persians as well as the potential -- and likely -- ire of Iran's oil customers. This has to be the most ridiculous sabre-rattling rabble one has witnessed in recent times. A war with Iran would be disastrous to the region, the security of the West and Mideast, diplomatic realations would be set back 200 years, and who knows the ultimate figurative and literal fallout? They were wrong on Iraq and they will be even more wrong on Iran. They simply must be stopped.

[Pharaoh]

14. Well said!

[nealmhughes]

15. Wish I could take the credit, but except for the concluding short parag.

this is the work of Salama, Ruster, and Nazemroaya and Circioni... I guess being an academic librarian comes in handy sometimes, eh? I just happened to have all those handy on WordPad for a webpage I am producing for students to research the Iran/US "nuclear crisis."

[Pharaoh]

19. yes your concluding paragraph

was perfect.........

backed me up perfectly....:hi:

[bullimiami]

13. truly insane.

[xchrom]

16. if israel is insistent on the use of arms against iran

then the u.s. will take the task on.

the u.s. will not allow israel to become the center of a universe of muslim anger.

they would rather absorb that themselves -- mistaken{for both israel and the u.s.} in their belief that they could survive the outrage.

[jmowreader]

20. My opinion on the aftermath of such an order from Bush

I am going to do two analyses of the aftermath of George W. Bush, installed president of the United States, ordering the military to start a war against Iran via nuclear release.

Scenario 1: If a nuclear attack is conducted
In the history of warfare, there have only ever been two nuclear attacks--at Hiroshima, Japan, and at Nagasaki, Japan. Both were conducted by the United States. These strikes were intended to end a war that the Japanese government initiated and that had been prosecuted for several years.

George W. Bush is currently planning to order the third, against unspecified targets inside Iran. There is currently no state of war between the Republic of Iran and any other nation.

Should this happen, first expect Israel to be annihilated. There is almost universal hatred for Israel in the Middle East. As Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East, any attack by the United States against a Muslim nation will be seen as a favor to Israel, which will be repaid by Israel's destruction. Unfortunately, because the United States is currently being led by people who are actively trying to get Jesus to return (an event commonly known as "the Rapture"), and because the destruction of Israel is required for the Rapture to take place, getting Israel blown off the face of the map may be part of the plan. Whether intentional or not, Israel will cease to exist.

Second, expect an economic boycott of the United States by all of the nations in the Middle East, and by the Chinese. China can kill us in one of two ways: by imposing an embargo on all exports to the United States (bad) and by calling in the loans they've made to us (worse).

Third, Iran is a very strong ally of Russia, who has the equipment they need to either invade or nuke the United States. Pissing off the Bear isn't a good idea.

Fourth, we will become an international pariah. No nation that has eschewed the use of nuclear weapons will be our ally. Nor will any nation that has them.

Last but definitely not least, OPEC will completely stop selling oil to the United States.

Net result: The United States will become the world's first Amish nation.

Scenario 2: Mutiny
Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice says "any person who is subject to the UCMJ who, with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny." Basically, it's a conspiracy charge.

This, unfortunately, is what I think will really happen if Mr. Bush tries to nuke Iran. Forget the "big red button" that the president is supposed to be able to push to end the world. If the president, or George W. Bush in this case, wants to try to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, he must call for his military aide to bring the special suitcase Richard Nixon named "the football." In it are some secret codes. The president, or Bush in this case, reads one of them off to a military officer who passes them on until they get to the people who have the "big red button" in front of them. (Actually, it's a pair of keyswitches on opposite sides of the room which must be turned at the exact same moment.) Somewhere between Bush reading today's code over his secure phone and the two majors in a sealed bunker somewhere who are the people who actually bring the world to an end, is a colonel or a two-star general who will send his unit to Washington to attack the White House and behead Dubya with a machete before he gets another chance to turn Iran into glass.