It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bush Planning to use Nuke on Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
This just in from the Telegraph in the UK. Some military chiefs are opposed and the plan is to use a bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapon.

Telegraph Article




The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I don't buy it...

Bush is an idiot but he'd have to be absolutely crazy to use nukes on Iran. He knows damn well the reaction that would result from this. MASSIVE rioting in the streets, ACROSS the globe....

But maybe that is part of the plan....



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
if bush is as dumb as everyone thinks he is maybe he would do something stupid like drop a nuke on iran starting a global nuclear war, but who am i to complain im just one person. to stop a lunatic like bush you need a petition with millions of signatures.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
to stop a lunatic like bush you need a petition with millions of signatures.


Well.. I suggest we get started then..



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I think we all tried something like that back in 2000 and in 2004...

It's called an election and it's the most farsical aspect of our "Democracy."

The only thing we can do, IMO, is wait. We're sure as heck not going to overthrow him and with a Republican-controlled Congress and Supreme Court, there's no way we can win by "democratic" means.


TPL

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
How ironic? Using nuclear weapons to stop the use of nuclear weapons.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Ahh, I was going to post on this, but to late.


theage.com.au

The Administration of President George Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key suspected nuclear weapons facility.


And In House they're calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the new Adolf Hitler. Lovely guys.
But I must say it's good to see some military people condoning war of this sort. Far cry from 40 years ago.

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 9-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
There are like five threads all about this on the board already. This is being planned, so that we have it as an option. It DOES NOT mean that we are going to start dropping nukes on Iran. It means that *IF* there is a reason for us to use them, we already have the targets selected, and the assets to carry them are ready for them.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebatI don't buy it...

Bush is an idiot but he'd have to be absolutely crazy to use nukes on Iran. He knows damn well the reaction that would result from this. MASSIVE rioting in the streets, ACROSS the globe....


Why would riot over nuking Iran? You're assuming people will start caring about the ethics of war all of a sudden? People's butts never got off the couch for a war based on fraud, why should they for attacking Iran with limited yield nukes. I have yet to see any counter demonstrations for 100's of thousands of illegals marching and that hits closer to home.



THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Maybe if the power went out and the food supplies stopped, they might riot.



[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
First off, plenty of people "got off their couch" when we invaded Iraq... you just didn't see it plastered on CNN or Fox.

Second, nuclear weapons is an entirely different ballpark than what we're doing in Iraq. Even if they're limited-yield nukes... the fact that we'd use nukes, what 60 years after Hiroshima/Nagasaki... people would not stand for that.

Besides, in my earlier post I meant people worldwide, not just in the U.S.... and people DEFINATELY took to the streets at the onset of the invasion... 10 times worse if we nuke Iran.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Hey there all .
In my opinion i doubt that bush would nuke iran specificaly because there is oil over there and from what i have heared that is one of the things that he is really interesting in . i think it would be like somewhat blowing up a large bag of money. just a thought let me know what you think

Omega



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
First off, plenty of people "got off their couch" when we invaded Iraq... you just didn't see it plastered on CNN or Fox.


They didn't riot. They generated revenue and increased consumption is what they did, which aids the industrial military complex.


Anti-war demonstrators rally around the world -CNN
Organizers put turnout in Washington at 200,000

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


200,000 out of 350 million meant .0006% gave a crap. A blip on the radar of life and it soon passed.

We shall see if they riot. I wouldn't plan on nor put my faith in others taking actin either. We already have seen how it went when people put their faith in electing these leaders of late. They are very sheep like and most bleat to buy, consume and obey.



[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
I don't put my faith in anyone.

I'm not saying rioting is a GOOD thing either... I just think it would be the inescapable result of a nuclear confrontation.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
I'm not saying rioting is a GOOD thing either... I just think it would be the inescapable result of a nuclear confrontation.


There's always the intangibles in war, since war is a form of destructive chaos and can breed a multitude of unforeseen outcomes. Faith in this case would mean you think they would riot, where as I see the majority thinking nuking Iran would be great entertainment. Either that or it will be duck, cower, and seek cover.

I don't see Americans as a whole getting motivated enough to storm DC and are complacent and desensitized to violence and corruption. Many don't even know who is Dick Cheney, let alone where Iran is or who is Ahmadinejad.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I believe your opinion is somewhat true .
Allthough it wouldnt surprise me if Bush wanted to wage war on iran because as we all know war generates money and it is my opinion that Bush wants all the money he can get for whatever shcemes he has in mind for the future weather it be top secret government funded projects and the like or to build his own golf course.
I was watching the well known 9/11 documentary In Plane Sight and that movie simply blew my mind. But then i found myself thinking one word and that word was ,Why? As my mind started ticking i came up with a theory that this might of happend so Bush could expand his millitary hold on the world.Then it occured to me that when he decided to launch his attack on afghanistan and iraq War was created witcht therefore brings me back to the whole money theory. i would be very interested in hearing other members thoughts on this as i respect everyones opinion and give thought to them. so please let me know what your analysis on this whole thing is. i would appreciate it.

cheers
Omega



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I don't see Americans as a whole getting motivated enough to storm DC and are complacent and desensitized to violence and corruption. Many don't even know who is Dick Cheney, let alone where Iran is or who is Ahmadinejad.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]


I totally agree... but again, I'm speaking more on a global scale. I see Europe, especially France, as well as the MIddle-East going absolutely "balistic" over something like this.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
I totally agree... but again, I'm speaking more on a global scale. I see Europe, especially France, as well as the MIddle-East going absolutely "balistic" over something like this.


Could be in regards to the ME and France. I doubt Bushco cares if they do object though, since rioting in Europe increases the dollar's strength and not the euro's. Rioting in the ME would equate to more reason to bomb Islam. All the daddy war bucks will be still laughing to the bank too.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Yes true allthough it would probably give Bush another chance to make some more money . just a thought

Omega



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
wrong target....it's supposed to be Mecca!!! and Jerusalem.

read my lips Bush, I am joking and always have been. if you do this, you are completely, undeniably NUTS!!!

how can you condemn someone for wanting to develope a technology because it poses such a danger for the rest of the world....and then use that very same technology against them??


I also saw an article where he wants to start making more nukes.....


but, of course we all know it's those pesky terrorists with their boxcutters and airline tickets that are the real threat to world peace!!

really, I king of doubt if he'll use nukes on Iran, China and Russia would both have a fit, as well as most of the arab world, and Europe.

but of course, maybe he is nuts, so who knows...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I think that all that stuff about arabs with there boxcutters is just scapegoating propaganda.i think that he just blamed it on them as an excuse to go to war and make more money.I have read about the supposed terrorists and one of the articals say one of the major terrorists leaders who was supposedly on the plane that crashed into the wtc spoke to his father the day after it happens. also the authorities claim to have found a passport belonging to one of them in the wreackage. now explain to me how a building could be turned to rubble and have smouldering remains on the ground while a complete and untarnished passport turns up amidst it all?? i mean did he throw it out of the plane before he crashed into it?? i think not.
let me know what u think about my opinion i would really appreciate it

cheers
Omega.

ps. I am from Australia so i would be interested to know about the goings on about the subject in the us so let me know what u think .
Many thanks



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join