It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush-Cheney Heading For Nuclear Rendevous

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 10:34 PM

WASHINGTON DC/LOS ANGELES -- With the direct threat of military attack against Iran issued Aug. 13 by Bush, the world has entered a phase of new and acute danger of general war. Bush made the threat in an interview with Israeli television. "All options are on the table," said Bush, speaking from his estate in Crawford, Texas. Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country." (Reuters, dateline Jerusalem, August 13, 2005) Bush's comments were ostensibly made in the context of the US campaign to shut down the Iranian nuclear program, but in reality came in the midst of feverish US-UK preparations for a new 9/11 of state-sponsored, false flag synthetic terrorism which is intended in the intentions of the terrorist controllers in London and Washington to set the stage for the attack on Iran, as well as for martial law austerity dictatorships throughout the English-speaking world, and beyond.

Came across this article which more or less summarizes both domestic and international events/issues over the past 6 months as they relate to Iran. Obviously there have been many discussions here on Iran and possible scenarios as seen from a quick search (I apologize if this article has been previously posted).

For those not willing to read it all (rather long) the synopsis is that the U.S. is prepared to use low yield tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if deemed necessary. References to CONPLAN 8022-22 outline that this is a plausible reality. What's needed is of course an event or catalyst on the scale of or greater than 9/11. The article also outlines recent testing in New York for air dispersion testing along with a nuclear drill in the Carolinas.


1) U.S. ground forces/resources are stretched thin. There have been numerous articles here and in the mainstream media to outline that soldier shortages are a reality. I'm not saying draft but that the numbers are not being met.

2) The U.S. has knowingly performed recon on Iran throughout most of the year (probably longer, only going by mainstream media reports).

3) Use of nuclear weapons would solve the issue of "no boots on the ground" in that minimal forces would need to be deployed.

Coupling these brief facts with other aspects of the article it almost appears imminent that something big is going to hit the fan and soon. Obviously an attack on Iran is not a surprise to me, but like the article I'm more concerned about "how" this new war could be triggered. Also the international response to something of this scale would be interesting to say the least.

I encourage you to read the article and look forward to more discussion.


posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:07 PM
Moved from PTS, US Politics. It seems to be less politics and more war on Iran.

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:32 PM
I would not at all be surprised if small tactical nuclear weapons would be CONSIDERED for hardened targets. The fact is, the US would probably just want to take out Irans nuke sites, not invade. If there are targets that conventional "bunker busting" bombs can not destroy, then nukes would be the next option.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:05 AM
Bush on Clinton:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions," Bush warned during the campaign, "then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

We are not in Iraq to free it. We are not there for WMD. We are not there for Saddam. Iraq is a stepping stone and Bush is forgetting his own thoughts.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:08 AM
The international reaction would definately be interesting, on the one hand i could imagine the international community becoming angry but i dont not think they will readily voice their dissent, at least for awhile after the fact.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Rikimaru
The international reaction would definately be interesting, on the one hand i could imagine the international community becoming angry but i dont not think they will readily voice their dissent, at least for awhile after the fact.

I have to dissagree. Russia would be furious (unless of course we got permission before hand) because they are the ones selling Iran nuclear technology, not to mention conventional military hardware. France and Germany will use any excuse they can to keep hating America. China would go crazy since Iran is a great provider of their oil.

All in all, this is an option that I would only use in *dire* circumstances. Unfortunatly, the US may be forced into there use. Iran is apparently conducting a lot of it's nuclear program deep underground where even our most sophisticated conventional bombs and missles would not be effective.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:42 AM
I don't see how we could be forced into there. We have put ourselves in a predicament... yes. Maybe somewhere along the line this administration will understand the true meaning behind "politician".

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:48 AM
From the above mentioned website....

Underlying the entire Iran nuclear question is the hypocrisy of the double standards applied by the US. Just a few weeks earlier, the US had granted India various forms of nuclear assistance, despite India's active nuclear bomb program. Brazil was getting ready to export nuclear fuel, and yet was not targeted in the same way as Iran. The lesson is clear: countries the US is seeking to cultivate are not harassed, but critics of US policy are put through the wringer. Britain, France, and Germany, to some degree caught up in the distorted US view, offered to guarantee Iran that they would not start a nuclear attack on Teheran, but they could not offer any real assurances about what the US, Israel, India, Pakistan, or others might do. It must finally be recalled that the Bush regime's threats of preventive nuclear attack against non-nuclear states as embodied in the September 2002 national security statement, along with its efforts to develop new forms of mini-nukes to use in such sneak attacks, effectively destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in its very foundations. No sovereign state could accept such infringements on its sovereignty as are now being demanded from Iran.

What a scary situation we are now living in!
Are other nations going to be upset? Of course they are and what kind of response back can we anticipate?
But why the hypocrisy as stated above??
What is the reason behind the selection of Iran??
Too many questions I know and some frightening answers when one mulls over the endless stream of possibilities.
I can’t help thinking of the oil situation and their attempt to want to control this. But.....
Gas prices in the US already at a record high...
People of America up in arms over this, no solid reaction from them. I am recalling a few years back the uproar and protest in the UK when petrol prices went crazy. Are people in the US just sitting back and letting it happen?? Freedom of speech we hear constantly! More and more outrage over the war in Iraq, the American people seem to be having enough of this and not seeing any end or timetable to the end. Is the fuse being lit for an uprising of proportions that I don’t want to even think about? As I type, I’m hearing that Bush will be going on TV this afternoon to announce that he is releasing oil reserves to ease the price mainly due to Hurricane Katrina... to ease the situation?
Too many questions asked here, but we need to. We accept what we are spoon fed and told not to question. I find more news online from other sources and hear of events and happenings that the main stream won’t even comment upon. I am thirsty for news and happen to care about what is happening around me and I don’t mean what just influences my day but anyone anywhere in the world!!
This is not meant to be a rant; it’s only the tip of the questions that are flying around in my head. I hope to discuss and explore these.... I await your responses.

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:11 PM
I believe that America would employ TACTICAL nuclear weapons but for one reason: The nuclear material currently being produced by Iran for "convential use" could easily be packed into a dirty bomb and used against the Americans. AS this would constitute a nuclear attack (Bush would consider these dirty bombs as tactical nuclear weapons), a nuclear response is inevitable.

top topics


log in