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.

 

NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
dgtempe officials in the pentagon would be remiss in their duties if they did not at least consider the possibility of having to strike Iran over the terrorism issue, or the nuclear issue, or their public remarks concerning Israel, or some other issue, or all of the above. Contingency planning is always going on inside the pentagon--that's their job. However, "intent" to execute such plans is not their perrogative and never has been.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I can only hope you are right. I dont want to freak out daily anymore than anyone else. Lets just hope its just us, flexing our muscles, huh?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Yes, precisely, the Joint Chief of Staff (Pentagon) came up with this plan. The problem here, though, is Bush listening to wrong JC! His "base" he refers to would prefer a war in the Middle East. The military does not want to use nukes. Unlike Bush, the military has seen war.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
It was one thing for Isarel to take out Iraq's nuclear site with conventional weapons. BUT, since Iran has no nuclear weapons as yet, we just think and I reiterate this, think that they might be developing them, to use nuclear weapons against them on a supusition would be a crime against humanity and the dumbest of dumb moves from a dumb presidency. It would hands down destroy any reputation the United States has left standing after 6 years of Bush.

The pathetic thing is the right wing has had a war-on over Iran ever since the hostage crisis of almost bloody 30 years ago. Get over it will ya.

The Iranian people hated thes Shah and over-threw him in 1953 and established a "republic" (note quotation marks) we didn't like this and the CIA helped reinstall him on the Peacock throne for another 26 years or so and helped prop him up. We sowed the seeds of the 79 revolution, and much of what has happened since.

If we use nuclear weapons against them...we will lose the entire middle east for generations and will give Al Qeada (regardless of the fact Iran is Shiia and they are Sunni) its biggest recruiting tool EVER!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The "Bush" plans have most likely been in the "can" since '79. Vindictive folks these Americans. To not have such a plan would be unthinkable... the USA has contingent plans to "wack" whomever in a variety of scenarios - including the America public. Read "Rummy's" Full Spectrum Warfare doctrine... look on AEI or New American Century sites - these "old-boys" don't leave, and are not willing to leave, much to chance. The "game" is rigged and a charade-deluxe.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Does anyone remember the "Doomsday Clock"

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has informed the world what time it is since 1947, when its now-famous "Doomsday Clock" first appeared of the cover of the magazine. Since then, the minute hand of the clock has moved forward and back to reflect the global level of nuclear danger and the state of international security.

www.thebulletin.org...

It's last update was in 2002, and from what I have seen the time between update's is around four years. What will the hands on the clock point to when/if the "Clock" is reset?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Bush has made himself a War president before he leaves the presidential seat he will have another war under his belt.

That the war will be of nuclear nature. . . it all depends how well the intentions and reason that will be fed to us by the administration gets a favored result in public opinion.

But I have no doubt in my mind that it will be another assault to another country and by the way that things have been moving around if you remember the months before invading Iraq it kind of fall in the same line with Iran.

Evil regime, evil country, evil nuclear plants with evil intentions of attacking other countries and producing MWDs, evil terrorist hidding in that country.

I tell you it will sell better than Iraq was.

Perhaps no invasion this time, but nerveless an assault.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
on the contrary, a nuke detonated inside the US will be the catalyst for WWIII but 9/11 would really be the beginning because it is highly possible that we would not be this close to WWIII had that day ended the way it began, peacefully.
The US planned that and let it happen, Bush is the biggest threat to world peace since Hitler. The only way the world will settle down again is if he gets taken out.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Nothing in the report said anything at all about a preemptive strike, furthermore, Bush administration officials have already come out and said the article is wrong. Moreover, the U.K. foreign secretary has come out and said the report is "nuts". Here is a link to his comments:

news.yahoo.com...

loam the way you have characterized the article, especially the headline is unethical at best.





Unethical at best? Are you kidding me? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can't read.

The article begins with the following:




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.



It's clear as day. It does not say, "...to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, but only if Iran attacks Israel or the US first..."

Unethical, indeed.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by loam]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer The US planned that and let it happen, Bush is the biggest threat to world peace since Hitler. The only way the world will settle down again is if he gets taken out.


It always goes back to Bush, a man who can't chew pretzels without choking, being an evil genius who planned the wtc/pentagon attacks in the year or so that he was first in office. How did he plan all that while he was playing all those rounds of golf? Don't answer that.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The US has informed the world in no uncertain terms that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons will NOT be tolerated. It's time for the UN to use every method at its disposal to stop Iran immediately!


[edit on 9-4-2006 by signs]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
has anybody thought of the repercussions in Iraq, if Iran IS attacked.
From what i have heard, the US soliders there are mainly being supported by Shia muslims.

So what do you think their reaction would be, if their Shia brothers and sisters were suddenly attacked in Iran?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Flyer The US planned that and let it happen, Bush is the biggest threat to world peace since Hitler. The only way the world will settle down again is if he gets taken out.


It always goes back to Bush, a man who can't chew pretzels without choking, being an evil genius who planned the wtc/pentagon attacks in the year or so that he was first in office. How did he plan all that while he was playing all those rounds of golf? Don't answer that.


I agree that Bush should be removed from power, but if this conspiracy really is as big as some say then removing Bush isn't going to change anything. After all he's just the puppet. Somebody else is pulling the strings, and those same people would have a new puppet up there in a minute!

My question is how would we go about changing the system from the bottom up? Obviously the most corrupted and evil politicians will have to be banned from politics for life and - in my opinion - held accountable for their crimes. Who has the power to overthrow the government? And isn't that considered treason?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
If both the US and Israel have stated that niether would allow Iran to develop nuclear(aka nucular) weapons I think the best thing for the U.S. would be to leave it to the Israelis since we(me being American) are already in debt due to Iraq. If we don't need to be the front lines we shouldn't be!



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
And everybody stop with the coalition willing forces thing because in the Iraq war, almost all the countries that went with US it was because if that they didn't do so, they would be in deep sh** because the US would have made their economy fall.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Yea, defenitely. There is no coalition in Iraq its over. If the U.S. does use the nuclear strategy, the U.S. will get a response and its not going to be a good one. You see this is the thing. Bush doesn't care if he starts a nuclear war, because he doesnt care about the lives of people (and he showed it on 9/11). If this nuclear war does start, expect Bush to be hiding like a little coward in a bunker in Monatana.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Click picture to enlarge.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
QuietSoul:

Can you verify the "under the guise of modernization" part? Was it in fact a non proliferation item?

And we wonder why we are so poorly respected...


Our word means nothing...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
But I think that they never tested them? So will it works? I think that simulations they did showed that the real efficacity of those was only 20 ft... so it is innefficiant... so to improve them, they will have to test them and it's banned under the NPT...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
dont know if anyone said this BUT napoleon/hitler all over again. if we go to war with iran we are screwed. fighting a 2 front , well 3 front war if you count afghan. its over inless they do nuke. Also, iran is not the last one infact. i knew for some time iran was next no matter what. you take the 2 outside countries then the middle. surge as many troops as you can from both sides while maintaining stability in other 2 countries. Syria is probably next:/



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join