Is Bush seriously considering using nuclear weapons against Iran?

[Syrinx]

Poll question: Is Bush seriously considering using nuclear weapons against Iran?

I don't know. I find it horrifying and almost beyond belief. But these people are batshit crazy.

I have a cousin in the Air Force that has been on a "secret mission." He was sent away and can't even tell his mom where he went. Maybe related, maybe not. I don't know.

I'm looking for guidance from DU. I don't know what to believe.

Do you think there is a real possibility that our government is going to nuke Iran?

[maddezmom]

1. voted no

but I think there is a huge possibility of * using conventional bombs.

[AussieDave]

14. I agree - he wants to attack Iran, but not with nukes

Two wars are never enough.


Terra terra terra BOO !!!!!!!!!

[wakeme2008]

2. I did not vote... Had their been a Not Now with the Cat out of the Bag

I would have voted for that. :)

IMHO He WAS thinking about it, but with the reaction to even the thought of him using one not being a good one, Rove took it off the table. . .

[Trevelyan]

3. Voted yes because of the Harper's article American Coup d'Etat

What was Russell Tice referring to in his danger to America beyond the NSA domestic spy scandal? The Congress didn't want to know about it, whatever it was.
http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition
"This seems...odd.

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

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.

Or, if you are like me, you'll at least be curious to know what it looks like when the actual bosses take over."

[unschooler]

4. Nuclear war "plans" might well be leaked if the intended recipient

of the "leak" is the Iranian government.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Here's what I believe ...

Take it for what it's worth considering the first thing I believe is that I should definitely be asleep right now.

Six years ago, I never would have conceived of the idea that the United States would openly adopt a doctrine of preemptive war.

Six years ago, I never would have believed the AG of the United States would find and publicize a legal justification for torture.

Six years ago, I never would have believed the United States would openly declare invalid the principles of the Geneva Conventions as binding on its actions in wartime.

Six years ago, I never would have believed the United States would be universally hated for its aggressive and destructive foreign policy.

I believe all these things now. None of them would have made sense to me before they took place. This doesn't make sense. I fully believe it.

Whether he will do it is another matter. I'm running 50/50 on that right now, but I didn't even give Reagan those kinds of odds against the Russians. That is, I never really thought he would start it, intentionally.

This guy ... Note his "non-denial denial" today, calling the Hersh article "wild speculation." That's not a declaration that he'd never consider such a thing. It's a declaration that Hersh doesn't know for certain what his plans are, and that is clearly the truth since no one outside his private circle really does. Bush is a psychopath. He's dangerous. He threatens all of us. He'll do it.

[Syrinx]

8. I wish I could nominate a sub-thread!

Beautiful, as always! :hi:

[RoyGBiv]

26. Well, thank you ...

I guess it wasn't bad for 4am. I should write more when I'm half conscious. :-)

:toast:

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. A very good summary

and I too think it's a possibility now, because of Bush. I suspect (and hope) that there are enough advisors who have the intelligence to see how disasterous it would be, and they'll be able to talk him out of it. An attack with conventional weapons still looks quite likely, though - it is possible that floating the nuclear idea was just bargaining, so that some people will say "look, he's being proportionate, he didn't use nuclear weapons".

[RoyGBiv]

28. My only hope ...

My only hope is the military, which despite its excesses, really isn't filled with stupid people. Historical studies have concluded the military would have refused Nixon had he gone too far, and I can only hope some of that same mindset is still around.

[Hekate]

13. That's how I see it too, Roy. The only time * looks genuine to me, he's...

...talking about dealing out death and destruction. The rest of the time he lies -- he gets all shifty-eyed and squirmy, among other behaviors, when he has to talk about how much he cares for humanity.

But when Bush talks about killing people and destroying nations, he gets focused and he means what he says. His body language becomes that of a bully or a wife-beater -- "I'm the man in charge here, got it?" -- and altogether gives me the creeps. But I believe he tells the truth at those times.

Would he actually push the button? as we used to say back when it was only JFK and Krushchev. Or is this just saber-rattling? another phrase from the past.

Well... we are currently witnessing this administration re-using the propaganda script from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Only this time they're including the idea that the US could use nukes in a first-strike war of choice.

Over the weekend I heard there's another wave of generals about to retire from the Pentagon because they cannot stomach what is about to happen and they can't change it or stop it.

And six years ago, I would never have believed...

Hekate
Cry, the beloved country

[RoyGBiv]

27. You're exactly correct ...

He even gets a gleam in his eye and seems coherent whenever death and destruction is involved. I sometimes fancy he seems himself as one of the Four Horseman and takes glory in the association.

Regarding JFK/Krushchev specifically, this is one of my recurring nightmares. I keep wonder what would have happened had Shrub been in the White House that October, and I can't come to any other conclusion than I wouldn't be here today. At other times he makes me think of a character in a movie called _By Dawn's Early Light_. It came out near the so-called end of the Cold War and dealt with the possibility of a group of Russian hardliners taking control of a missile silo and firing at the US intentionally to instigate a war and then efforts by an injured and out-of-the-loop President trying to stop it from spiraling out of control. Some cabinent member, like Interior Secretary or something played by Darren McGavin was acting President and was being spurred on by one of the Joint Chiefs who was probably modeled after Curtis Lemay to "win" the nuclear war. I see Shrub as McGavin's character.

Twenty years ago I'd wake up in the morning and feel thankful I didn't see any mushroom clouds. I haven't had that intense of a fear since the 90's, but it has rapidly come back to me.

[allemand]

6. It's part of Cheney's long-time love affair with tactical nuclear weapons.

He and others seems to be fascinated by the idea of making nukes "usable". If I remember correctly, Colin Powell mentions Cheney's passion for "battlefield" nukes in his memoirs. Cheney also considered using them during the first Gulf War.

So, are they "seriously considering using nuclear weapons"? Most probably, yes.

Are they "going to nuke Iran"? I don't think so. Will they attack Iran in the end? Paul Krugman believes that this is indeed possible:

"Yes He Would"
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0410-26.htm

[liberal N proud]

7. It is part of the PNAC master plan

[FloridaPat]

9. * has been pushing for the use of nuclear bombs since he got in office

He's tried to get more funding for testing, but so far congress has said no. He suggested using nuclear bombs more often, and most of the military people said no. The ones in a position to refuse to comply in case of an order from the president have been quietly removed from their positions over the last 5 years. PNAC calls for lots of wars. We don't have the man-power to do that. If * calls for a draft he's dead meat. So nukes make for a sweet deal for him - no need for man-power and not dead citizens around to be tried for war crimes (nukes bodies vaporize).

I knew he tried for more nuke funding this year. I don't remember if congress is now considering it. He has been leading up to using nukes as much as he has been leading up to invading Iraq.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I voted "no."

I, then, reread the question. You asked about "BUSH," not the US. Could Bush consider it...YES! He is a simpleton, actually, he is a megalomaniac. However, I do believe that there are those who can reign in his bigoted, small-minded ass. I don't believe we will see an attack on Iran...it is a "wag the dog" scenario. It is nothing more than a method to try to distract from the folly known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[nolabels]

12. What has he to lose?

The guy grows more psycho everyday and it has become cyclical and self-perpetuating. I just hope by the time he gets to that point (most) everybody will have figured out that he truly is the gone bonkers poster child


http://muzeumhumoru.onet.pl/1138799,1773,art.html

[patricia92243]

15. Nuclear scatter bombs - not THE big one. Can't remember where I read it.

[DemonFighterLives]

16. The righties that I talk to have been schooled in the belief that

nuking is a good thing. They are all for funding and turning the middle East to a sheet of glass.
I guess they don't realize that there the crap comes back around.

Dumbya has made the world much more dangerous and the blind followers love it.
:nuke:

[bdamomma]

17. With so many

of us giving our comments and opinions about this maniac in office, are we going to do anything about this next pre emptive attack? Action speaks louder than words.

[DemonFighterLives]

20. Welcome to DU!

I am nearly out of answers. There is not much progress on any front. The only positive is the numbskulls poll ratings have fallen to the bottom. The last 29% are deluded fundies who wish to go down with the ship.
Big problem finding a dem with his/her head screwed on straight and the guts to call dubco on the lies. The ultimate problem is the voting machines. I saw a Diebold van driving around in MN while going to my sanctuary. I didn't know what to do, flip the dude off, run him off the road, but I just fumed. MN voting has been relatively pure so far as I know.
It is tar and feather time or hide and hunker down time, depending on the amount of fight anyone has.
:hi:

[newportdadde]

18. No to nukes and to Iran at all, it was the plan but Iraq caused to many

delays and problems.

[Eric J in MN]

19. I don't know about Bush personally, but I believe that Cheney

likes the idea of dropping a nuclear bomb, and that Cheney is running things.

[DemonFighterLives]

21. you mean the 37%er is the fiigurehead

and the 12%er wears the pants? God the pukes have a mess on their hands. They can't clean house enough to be respected for quite some time.
:9

[Eric J in MN]

22. Yes, and I'm not saying Bush would oppose dropping a nuke

on Iran if they told him we needed to for "freedom." I just don't know if Bush has been informed yet.

[Random_Australian]

23. The most you'll drop is one. There are some things which would

cause the rest of the world to intervene, and nuking without proper pretense is one of them.

I *hope* that the repukes in charge remember that. There are entire nations who only go along with the BS because it is economically advantageous.... if that stops, America won't be the world #1 anymore.... or at least not some lone superpower.... like you truly ever were, but still it would result in a massive downward shift in American power. The repukes have cultivated power too long to throw it away.

However, fundies can lose touch with reality, thus causeing one nuke. Things'll snap back pretty quick if you go too far, though, but perhaps too quickly.

But yes, the outside view here is that America would be insane to nuke anyone without freaking good reason. However, the inside view I get from DU tells me they may well be not grounded in reality.

[lonestarnot]

24. This nut case is going to do whatever he can to destroy America.

He must go!

[nolabels]

25. *'s whole miserable life has been a failure and the old adage goes......

misery loves company (which would be not a good thing:yoiks: )

I myself am not going to going spend much time contemplating the implications, everybody eventually is going to go one day anyway, so why worry about it?

[pitohui]

29. eff no you're being played

the missiles were launched five minutes ago

way to make alzheimer's a strength!

[Strawman]

30. Yep. Megalomania: the last refuge of a failed Presidency

[Horseradish]

31. "considering"? Yes

friend of mine was talking with an USAF pilot a while back at a bar while he was on leave. Friend asked simply, "What's the weather like in Iran these days?" The pilot answered something like "Arid" and then went on to talk about flying in and out of Iran, never knowing what his cargo was. I'd say 50/50 on the myth angle, but I'm not discounting anything these days.

And that's why the "Saddam stashed all his WMDs in Syria via the Russians" thing doesn't play very well. Our surveillence is 24/7 -- we can track an anaconda through the rain forest from 50,000 ft. Well, maybe not that's reaching, but you get my drift ...

[Syrinx]

32. I just remembered something about my cousin

If anyone wants to send him mail at his "undisclosed location," they have to address the envelope something like this:

John Smith
KDEWQ HY38GF3

It's something like that. I don't remember exactly how it goes. But no city, state or country. Just some kind of secret code.

I had never heard of anything like that, but perhaps it's common knowledge to the more military savvy.