US War Policy: Insanely Hypocrital

The Rumsfeld/BushCon war policy holds we (the US) have the right to pre-emptively nuke any country/group that poses an alleged threat to our interests. It basically goes like this: We will nuke you to disarm you of your nukes.

Is it just me, or does anyone else out there see this for what it is? Rumsfeld & crew are thoroughly convinced that its ok for him and his ilk to hold that red button and those codes for mass destruction in his itchy little hands, but his percieved foes (the brown people of the world) do not have such a right to possess that same protection for themselves. They believe themselves to be far superior, and inherently more capable of determining who can possess what. National boundaries be damned.

Rummy & crew are fascists, pure and simple. There has never been a more absurdly arrogant and racist group in power since Hitler gripped Germany. The best way to read this bunch is thus: black is white, day is night. You want the truth when listening to them speak? Take out the names of those they accuse of being terrorists, for example, and replace them with Bush or Rumsfeld - whatever US govt. name applies, and there it is. The truth.

I'll never forget that time Bush (in the most frightening display of freudian slips) said - and I'm paraphrasing - our enemies are always trying to come up with new and better methods to hurt us, and so are we... That was, for Bush, the most creepy, yet truthful statement he's ever mangled.

Here's an article on the BushCons pre-emptive war policy.

Bush's War Plan includes the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Jack A. Smith, Globalresearch.ca
www.uruknet.com...

One of the several reasons the Pentagon may use nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack, Kristensen said, is as a "demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use." Theoretically, had the plan been in full operation at the time, President George W. Bush could have let loose nuclear weapons against Iraq under the false assumption that it possessed WMD and was preparing to attack America. (Bush in October 2002: "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction .... [and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.")

Let's take this one statement and flip names like I mentioned..

Bush in October 2002: "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction .... [and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.

And now the bitter truth:

Bush is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction .... [and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions targeting Iran.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE my country. But this so-called leadership (BushCons) and Neo Con agenda has nothing to do with my country - other than they cull our young and send them off to the killing fields - to do THEIR dirty work for them. That's another reason I cannot abide NeoCons, their cowards and dreamers, not warriors and realists. Wimpy eggheads with no real-world experience.

Hasn't this basically been U.S. Policy since we had nukes
So, whoever sat in the Oval Office and his administration have had like views?
Maybe this administration is less covert in its dialog, but I don't think policy has really changed much

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Hasn't this basically been U.S. Policy since we had nukes

So, whoever sat in the Oval Office and his administration have had like views?
Maybe this administration is less covert in its dialog, but I don't think policy has really changed much

No it hasn't. It was not even our stated policy when we invaded Iraq.

Everyone should read the article I linked to.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


And now the bitter truth:


Bush is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction .... [and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions targeting Iran.

How convient that you leave out the part where Bush has stated force would be used only as a last resort

Last Resort

In addtion as others have pointed out other administrations have had this very same policy for years.

Look how close Kennedy came (after Russia had threatened their use against us)


here are several others.

In my studies of the Middle East, I discovered the U.S. military presence has included other threats to use nuclear weapons to prevent any "Soviet aggression" in the area and especially to protect Israel. In 1956, President Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons if the U.S.S.R. became involved in the Suez Crisis. In 1958, Eisenhower threatened Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria to keep them from interfering in Lebanon. In 1967, President Johnson considered using nuclear weapons during the Arab-Israeli war and the Washington-Moscow hotline was used for the first time. In 1973, during another Arab-Israeli war, President Nixon declared a nuclear alert that moved U.S. readiness to "DEFCON III". In 1979, after the invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter threatened to use "any means necessary", including nuclear weapons, in order to maintain U.S. supremacy in the Middle East. Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which included clashes with Syrian and Soviet troops, nearly triggered a nuclear alert.

PAST THREATS OF WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

[edit on 2/11/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots


How convient that you leave out the part where Bush has stated force would be used only as a last resort

Ok, for those of you who still choose to embrace Bush's version of reality, we saw firsthand with Iraq what Bush means when he says last resort.

Are you really naiive?

Since you refuse to read the link I provided, here are a few quotes to explain this to you.. I hope you will at least read and consider this.

Preemption in concert with a nuclear first strike became implicit U.S. policy in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in late 2001 and has become more explicit since then. During the Cold War, the USSR pledged never to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against nuclear or non-nuclear states, but the U.S. stubbornly refused to follow suit.

Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert and project director at the Federation of American Scientists, wrote the following of CONPLAN in last September’s Arms Control Today: "Foremost among the doctrine’s new features are the incorporation of preemption into U.S. nuclear doctrine and the integration of conventional weapons and missile defenses into strategic planning. . . . The new nuclear doctrine makes it clear that the United States will not necessarily wait for the attack but preempt with nuclear weapons if necessary."

One of the several reasons the Pentagon may use nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack, Kristensen said, is as a "demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use." Theoretically, had the plan been in full operation at the time, President George W. Bush could have let loose nuclear weapons against Iraq under the false assumption that it possessed WMD and was preparing to attack America. (Bush in October 2002: "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction .... [and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.")
www.uruknet.com...

[edit on 2/11/06 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by shots


How convient that you leave out the part where Bush has stated force would be used only as a last resort

Ok, for those of you who still choose to embrace Bush's version of reality, we saw firsthand with Iraq what Bush means when he says last resort.

Here's another example of the NEO CON give peace a chance BS...

Listen to Blair in the House of Commons: "It's important we send a signal of strength" against a regime that has "forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its international obligations". Coming from one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbour, scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words.

However, they begin to make sense when you read Blair's Commons speeches on Iraq of 25 February and 18 March 2003. In both crucial debates - the latter leading to the disastrous vote on the invasion - he used the same or similar expressions to lie that he remained committed to a peaceful resolution. "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament . . ." he said. From the revelations in Philippe Sands's book Lawless World, the scale of his deception is clear. On 31 January 2003, Bush and Blair confirmed their earlier secret decision to attack Iraq.
www.uruknet.com...

How long can people actually continue to embrace outright lies?



[edit on 2/11/06 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by shots


How convient that you leave out the part where Bush has stated force would be used only as a last resort

Ok, for those of you who still choose to embrace Bush's version of reality, we saw firsthand with Iraq what Bush means when he says last resort.

www.uruknet.com...

[edit on 2/11/06 by EastCoastKid]

But I did not just address Bush alone. You are attempting to make this look like a Bush agenda alone when it is not. Unlike you, I addressed several others and if you check the link I provided you will find similar threats from India and Packistan along with more of past Russian threats.

As for your source; sorry, I would not believe that site if my life depended on it simply because those that support the fanatics tend to think it is the only source, when it clearly is not, it only shows one side (the anti Bush side at that)


[edit on 2/11/2006 by shots]

Those who know our history with Iran should be shaking their heads over the insane hypocrisy I mentioned. Here's an excellent example:

For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Muhammed Mossadeq, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran. They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called Savak, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world - in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain.

The US government should really start levelling with us. Afterall, many of us are not children to be handled, despite what those power-mad elites think.

Here's why they want war Iran:

Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China

*Both quotes come from this source:
www.uruknet.com...

Originally posted by shots
As for your source; sorry, I would not believe that site if my life depended on it simply because those that support the fanatics tend to think it is the only source, when it clearly is not, it only shows one side (the anti Bush side at that)

If you think I'm surprised by your adolescent response, I'm not. It's expected.

Here's an article just for you.

*Readers, beware those who place their party loyalty above the good of the whole. It's fascism at its best.

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show
msnbc.msn.com...

Think about it...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


If you think I'm surprised by your adolescent response, I'm not. It's expected.

Yawn, adolescent reponse? You have got to be kidding, I am perhaps two or three times your age, but that is not the topic at hand, but it may show who truly being adolescent here.

You clearly now want to make this look as a party issue when again it is not. I gave several examples that were Republican, Democratic, Pakistani, India and Russian, not to mention the implied threats by NK and Iran. Oh and let us not forget al queda has made it very clear if they had them they would use them against the free world.

Just why you insist on making this into a US alone issue is beyond me :shk:

[edit on 2/11/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Everyone should read the article I linked to.

I'm not impressed.
This site is hardly an unbiased source for US foreign policy for the last 60 years.
www.uruknet.com...

Yawn.

Ok, shots how old are you? As if that means anything.

I'm 36, just so ya know.



So that would make you what, over sixty?

The source is good, whether you folks like it or not. I would re-direct you back to that MSNBC link, to understand your avoidance of fact.

Good luck.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ok, shots how old are you? As if that means anything.

I'm 36, just so ya know.

So that would make you what, over sixty?

Yup I am 67 and I think Grady myself and Astronomer (sp?) are perhaps the oldest on ATS, but I could be wrong.

The source is good, whether you folks like it or not. I would re-direct you back to that MSNBC link, to understand your avoidance of fact.

That is highly subjective and I am not avoiding anything.

Even DontTreadOnMe agrees with me.

I'm not impressed.
This site is hardly an unbiased source for US foreign policy for the last 60 years.
www.uruknet.com...

But the problem is that the policy is only applied to third world countries, I have never seen US using that type of Policy against China, Russia or France.

Why is that? I guess because our political leaders knows from which bark they scratch themselves.

Originally posted by marg6043
But the problem is that the policy is only applied to third world countries, I have never seen US using that type of Policy against China, Russia or France.

Marge you missed the point I was trying to make. ECK implied this was a Bush only policy when it is not.

The Rumsfeld/BushCon war policy holds we (the US) have the right to pre-emptively nuke any country/group that poses an alleged threat to our interests.

Last Resort

If you read the information contained within you will find that other countries have done the very same.




[edit on 2/11/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by marg6043
But the problem is that the policy is only applied to third world countries, I have never seen US using that type of Policy against China, Russia or France.

Why is that? I guess because our political leaders knows from which bark they scratch themselves.

Well, the Cuban missile crisis comes close. We didn't threaten a pre-emptive strike, but Kennedy did promise to retaliate against the USSR if nukes were launched from Cuba. And I don't think he meant using conventional weapons.

But you're still missing the point that shots was making, marg. It isn't a Bush-specific thing, nor a Republican-specific thing.

People I didn't not mention Bush at all I said, Our political leaders

What is wrong with you all,

You need to slow down and read the entire post.

Well, I'll try, marg, but I don't know if I'll be able to, because, remember, I'm a controlled person!

Besides, I was taking issue with your third world statement and showing where we had once "threatened" the USSR with nukes, albeit not pre-emptively.

Sorry for the double post

[edit on 2/11/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by marg6043
People I didn't not mention Bush at all I said, Our political leaders

Our Political leaders infers presence tense Marge. I hope you do realize that.

Or are you contending that Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton are still running the country