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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
All I can say is "got a pass to Mount Weather?" For those of us that don't, better take a serious look at this and stop it before it happens. If it does, it may be too late, and off to "camp" we go.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I'd like to bring up another point....

Joint Chiefs of Staff don't freak out about normal military contingency planning. The article states:




The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told.



And this just in:






Top general: Why Iraq Was a Mistake

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

More...



Face it, this is an out of control administration at odds with the militray and even itself...

How else can you account for these recent stories:

Rice admits `tactical' errors

Powell: U.S. made 'serious mistakes' in Iraq

And even the BIG GUY himself:




WITHIN a week's time of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's admitting the commission of errors in Iraq, now it was the turn of President George Bush to admit on Thursday: "the US military made mistakes in Iraq".

After Rice now it is Bush



Isn't it interesting that this administration is now messaging that the problem was a tactical one??? i.e...THE MILITARY's FAULT!!!


What slime...

I have no doubt the original story is true. You are seeing their strategic "decision making" in real time...



[edit on 9-4-2006 by loam]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stompk
All I can say is "got a pass to Mount Weather?" For those of us that don't, better take a serious look at this and stop it before it happens. If it does, it may be too late, and off to "camp" we go.


what is that surposed to mean??



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm still looking for the word "preemptive" in the article you quoted loam. I've read it three or four times in three or four different places, and haven't been able to find it yet.


Zaph, I have already explained this. 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 says "to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads." If that does not meet the definition of preemption, I don't know what does.


Uh no. What that says is that our REASON for going to war is to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. It doesn't say that we're going to start dropping nukes all over Iraq to stop their weapons program.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uh no. What that says is that our REASON for going to war is to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. It doesn't say that we're going to start dropping nukes all over Iraq to stop their weapons program.


link Aparently they are looking for a more 'diplomatic' solution to the problem..but how is iran going to take that?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uh no. What that says is that our REASON for going to war is to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. It doesn't say that we're going to start dropping nukes all over Iraq to stop their weapons program.


Zaph, buddy, I'm worried about you...

It says:

The Bush administration...is planning...to use nuclear weapons...against Iran...to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads.

That is plain English...and VERY clear.

Did you think preemption required several nuclear attacks?


In my book, one just about does it, don't you think? :shk:



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Loam here are a few of them:

Here is a link to the original 2005 article:

www.newyorker.com...

Here is alink to his article on Abu Grahib

www.newyorker.com...

Here is a link to an article about Seymour Hersh, You will see it is not flattering at all:

www.berkeley.edu...

Here is a link to one of his articles saying he U.S. has been taken over by a cult:

www.democracynow.org.../01/26/1450204

Here is a link to an interview he did in Illinois:

www.democracynow.org.../05/11/142250

Here is a link to another article about the man himself:

archive.salon.com...

Here is a link to an interview that will absolutely make your blood boil (Hersh says we intentionally let Al Qaeda escape at trap at Kunduz in Afganistan.)

www.pbs.org...

Here is a link to another interview with Mr. Hersh--this one also condems our current Secretary of State as well as the Bush administration:

www.alternet.org...

There are more, but these should give you the flavor of the man. As a point of fact, let me say that other than the My Lai, Vietnam and Abu Ghraib, Iraq articles Mr. Hersh has not provided any documentation to back up his stories and claims.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
...these should give you the flavor of the man...




They do... Sounds like there are some REAL journalists left in the world. Thank GOD for that!



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Let me put it this way. If Mr. Hersh were posting his articles, etc. on ATS he would rightfully be deluged with "NO" votes because of bias and for not providing links, or other supporting documentation to back up his assertions.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
The Bush administration...is planning...to use nuclear weapons...against Iran...to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads.


kinda like taking a toy away from a todler for not playing nice...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Astronomer68
...these should give you the flavor of the man...




They do... Sounds like there are some REAL journalists left in the world. Thank GOD for that!




Yeah right! That is all the world needs is a few more like him. NOT :shk:



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 9ine_Lives

Originally posted by loam
The Bush administration...is planning...to use nuclear weapons...against Iran...to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads.


kinda like taking a toy away from a todler for not playing nice...



???


Looks to me like Bush is the toddler who is not playing nice - and I do NOT want that man to have access to nuclear weapons.

Enough already!

When is the world going to take this fool's toys away?


.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
When is the world going to take this fool's toys away?


You mean the fool away from the toys...


[edit on 9-4-2006 by loam]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by 9ine_Lives

Originally posted by loam
The Bush administration...is planning...to use nuclear weapons...against Iran...to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads.


kinda like taking a toy away from a todler for not playing nice...



???


Looks to me like Bush is the toddler who is not playing nice - and I do NOT want that man to have access to nuclear weapons.

Enough already!

When is the world going to take this fool's toys away?

.


lol, Why done they ALL get rid of their toys and grow up and stop fighting???



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

I think the reporter is getting a little carried away here. I doubt that even Bush would start off using a nuclear weapons, when a series of conventional preemptive strikes would certainly get the message across to Iran that the US/world means business. I likewise doubt the US would make a preemptive strike without concurrence from the UN.


Well you have to understand that it doesn't say that he's going to begin by using the massive A-bombs or even more powerful, Hydrogen Bombs to destroy massive cities. The plan is to use tactical nuclear weapons. If you've ever seen the video of the nuclear cannon; it would be more like that I think. I think this is also the reason for the 700 ton test in the Nevada Test Site; they said they are going to see the effects of certain bunker-buster bombs with that scheduled test; so that could be testing so they can plan how to use tactical nuclear weapons to quickly dismantle Iran in a war.

Just my 2 cents.


Mod Edit: Corrected error in code.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Well you have to understand that it doesn't say that he's going to begin by using the massive A-bombs or even more powerful, Hydrogen Bombs to destroy massive cities. The plan is to use tactical nuclear weapons. If you've ever seen the video of the nuclear cannon; it would be more like that I think. I think this is also the reason for the 700 ton test in the Nevada Test Site; they said they are going to see the effects of certain bunker-buster bombs with that scheduled test; so that could be testing so they can plan how to use tactical nuclear weapons to quickly dismantle Iran in a war.

Just my 2 cents.


Thats very good thinking, i didnt even think they could have been doing that...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
About time....we got nukes, might as well use one.


If another country is trying to develope nuclear weapons, and is considered by N.A.T.O. to be an agressive country, then I personally feel that it is well with in our international rights to launch a preemptive strike, to secure peace in the region. I know lots of people are against using nukes, but, if thats the ONLY way, after trying talking to the country in question, then yeah, use a small tactical nuke to remove the problem. We have nukes so small the the ground zero area will be extremely limited. We already paided for them, so I say might as well use one. And it DOES NOT matter what KIND of attack we use all the extremists are all going to freak out and whine and complain till jesus comes......yeah I said it, use a nuke.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
True, but it's possible to get the job done without using any type of nuclear weapons. I think we would be better off using another one of our other solutions instead of showing the world once again that we (U.S.) are too good for the rules that rest of the world has to follow.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyraxx
About time....we got nukes, might as well use one.


If another country is trying to develope nuclear weapons, and is considered by N.A.T.O. to be an agressive country, then I personally feel that it is well with in our international rights to launch a preemptive strike, to secure peace in the region. I know lots of people are against using nukes, but, if thats the ONLY way, after trying talking to the country in question, then yeah, use a small tactical nuke to remove the problem. We have nukes so small the the ground zero area will be extremely limited. We already paided for them, so I say might as well use one. And it DOES NOT matter what KIND of attack we use all the extremists are all going to freak out and whine and complain till jesus comes......yeah I said it, use a nuke.


is it really the US's place to disarm this country??



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This isn't funny, but in a way it's hysterical.

"Okay ya'll. We don't want them to have weapons. But we have weapons. So let's use the weapons to prevent them from having their nucular weapons." *makes gasping laugh*




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join