NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

I also want to point out that if we do decide to go to war with Iran, supposedly, all hell will break loose here. A while ago, I was doing a search on "Red Alert", because of a thread hear on ats saying something about kids not allowed to go home when our alert system was on red. What came up from that search was a ton of sites from the millitias here in the US. They said they were on red alert because if we went to war with Iran it would be nuclear. They planned on overthrowing the govt. before the nukes were used.

(a note to Mr. Govt. guy who might be reading this - since I have the internet through sbc who was bought out by AT&T - I am not in the millitia, I do not have any connections with the millitia, this is just what I read on the net....OK? )

Iran Reaches Key Step in Nuclear Process

Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that Iran "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process.

More...

And of course, there is this in the same article:

President Bush said Monday the reports were "wild speculation." He said his vow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons "doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

But the White House was not ruling out a military response and said "normal defense and intelligence planning" was under way.

Deja vu, anybody?

Originally posted by loam

Iran Reaches Key Step in Nuclear Process

Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that Iran "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process.

More...

And of course, there is this in the same article:

President Bush said Monday the reports were "wild speculation." He said his vow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons "doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

But the White House was not ruling out a military response and said "normal defense and intelligence planning" was under way.

Deja vu, anybody?

First off, when are we going back to the security council with Iran, I think we got two more weeks until its been 30 days. After that security council meeting, or maybe 1 more after that, I say it's party time!

I think the U.S and friends should throw a big party for them, you know the kind with tons of beautiful fireworks overhead! We should make sure the fireworks are close enough for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get a good look at them.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
Ok.....so the only difference is that a battlefield nuke will damage a building or whatever and a dirty bomb wont?

I Nuclear weapon, regardless of explosive yield, employs nuclear fissile material as the explosive charge in the weapon, creating not only the blast, but spreading the radiation. A dirty bomb, by contrast, uses conventional explosives to create the blast and uses that blast, usually smaller, to spread radioactive material into the air and surrounding area to spread.

I apologize if anyone else has already posted this link (I searched every page of the thread for the word "times" and "online" and found no urls), but here is a slightly more extensive article regarding this from the Sunday Times Online.

Senior military planners at the Pentagon met recently to assess such an attack’s chances of success. They told the White House that they had yet to map all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and that several were buried under deep granite mountains. A strike now could set the mullahs’ programme back only a couple of years at most.

Fast-forward to 2008 and the picture changes. By then more intelligence will have been gathered on the location of sites. And, crucially, Big Blu should be ready.
...
“We’re in a state of flux about military action,” said a White House insider. “We can bomb the sites, but what then?” Will America hold its nerve if events take a sharp turn for the worse?

Link

[edit on 11-4-2006 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by rich23

Some questions the thoughtful among you might like to ponder.

1) Why does the US media always take any assertion made by its government as truthful, even in the face of evidence of deliberate deception?

2) Why do the Iranians hate the US? (A clue: the words "they hate us for our freedoms" are not evidence of thought: a retired CIA analyst was recently quoted as saying - quite rightly - they hate us for our policies)

3) Why do some people in every country insist that their country is the greatest in the world? Can they all be right? Can ANY of them be right?


[edit on 10-4-2006 by rich23]

Some answers for the intellectually slothful and elitist Neocommunist:

1) Have you been sleeping in a cave with your little islamo fascist buds? The Mainstream American Media has been non stop "Bush is a lier" since 2000! The left is coming apart at the seams and the Main stream media is leading the "sky is falling" rote.

2) American policies that support freedom, human rights, and not least the right even to exist at all!

3) I'd like to answer this one with a question of my own: Why do some people in every country insist theirs is the worst the world has ever known? Oh, that's right, there aren't any folks like that in the world except HERE and we gottem pouring out of our ears! (you're making my eyes bleed wienie)

I have said it once and I will say it again. we will not overtly attack Iran...the talk of using nukes is deeply unsettling at best but the fact is if we do or attempt to do anything to Iran (and I am, as a Baha'i no fan of the Iranian government) China will become involved and it doesn't have to invade this time like it did in Korea, after all it holds all the IOU's. All they will have to do is just threaten to call in the notes we owe them and it will bring the American economy to a shrieking halt. If the Bush administration doesn't know or understand this, they are bigger fools than I imagined.

Originally posted by grover
I have said it once and I will say it again. we will not overtly attack Iran...the talk of using nukes is deeply unsettling at best but the fact is if we do or attempt to do anything to Iran (and I am, as a Baha'i no fan of the Iranian government) China will become involved and it doesn't have to invade this time like it did in Korea, after all it holds all the IOU's. All they will have to do is just threaten to call in the notes we owe them and it will bring the American economy to a shrieking halt. If the Bush administration doesn't know or understand this, they are bigger fools than I imagined.

do you understand how dependant China is on our economy? Which country imports the most from China? It would go both ways. It would be foolish for China to pull its cash because the business of both countries would be drastically effected. China doesnt want to go into a depression anymore than we do!!!!

Originally posted by mrsdudara
I also want to point out that if we do decide to go to war with Iran, supposedly, all hell will break loose here. A while ago, I was doing a search on "Red Alert", because of a thread hear on ats saying something about kids not allowed to go home when our alert system was on red. What came up from that search was a ton of sites from the millitias here in the US. They said they were on red alert because if we went to war with Iran it would be nuclear. They planned on overthrowing the govt. before the nukes were used.

(a note to Mr. Govt. guy who might be reading this - since I have the internet through sbc who was bought out by AT&T - I am not in the millitia, I do not have any connections with the millitia, this is just what I read on the net....OK?

)

This is crazy!!! If this is real, so real then, the bush's crazy administration will be thrown out and hangle!! YEAH!! So we could avoid the nuclear world war 3!!

And Low Orbit, sorry but USA is also dependant to China. The average joe would scream if he couldn't buy a new TV or anything else... or all prices would be X2-3 if China stop selling to the US and the american economy would collapse and China would be happy so they would turn their economy to a war one to the goal of invading US because US is after the China's butt for some time and their final objective is China, just looking at countries that are invaded by US...

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by mrsdudara
I also want to point out that if we do decide to go to war with Iran, supposedly, all hell will break loose here. A while ago, I was doing a search on "Red Alert", because of a thread hear on ats saying something about kids not allowed to go home when our alert system was on red. What came up from that search was a ton of sites from the millitias here in the US. They said they were on red alert because if we went to war with Iran it would be nuclear. They planned on overthrowing the govt. before the nukes were used.

(a note to Mr. Govt. guy who might be reading this - since I have the internet through sbc who was bought out by AT&T - I am not in the millitia, I do not have any connections with the millitia, this is just what I read on the net....OK?

)

This is crazy!!! If this is real, so real then, the bush's crazy administration will be thrown out and hangle!! YEAH!! So we could avoid the nuclear world war 3!!

And Low Orbit, sorry but USA is also dependant to China. The average joe would scream if he couldn't buy a new TV or anything else... or all prices would be X2-3 if China stop selling to the US and the american economy would collapse and China would be happy so they would turn their economy to a war one to the goal of invading US because US is after the China's butt for some time and their final objective is China, just looking at countries that are invaded by US...

Read the entire post Vit, both economies are dependant on eachother NO ONE wins. The reason why China looks to be the final object is because of the way they have been spending on national defense. It takes two to tango and the second in this dance is China. Why you might ask, because the Cold War never died, it just went dormant for a few decades. You are correct in stating that the U.S. is strategically setting up the stage around China(kind of like what happened to the USSR), especially with its recent negotiations with India. If you don't think China is working just as hard to expand its territory you would be mistaken, look at Taiwan.


A good idea for the dems would be to introduce a final Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty for ALL countries. This is the only way to solve this problem without millions dying.

Even the US?? I think it may not pass the congress or the dems will be crucified by the weapons lobby... But the next leader in the dem, if Kerry, is a Skulls And Bones, so he need a war, and McCain, a republican like Bush, is not very trustable... If Hilary is elected then maybe... but is she a Bilderberger or a Skulls and Bones? If so, we are doomed!

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Vitchilo]

I'll betcha the overseas chatter is going a mile a minute. The NSA must be working overtime.

Originally posted by desert rat
I'll betcha the overseas chatter is going a mile a minute. The NSA must be working overtime.

Yeah but it's not that hard, when they are tired, they switch for illegal immigrants, it's cheaper! Why not use them? They are cheaper and nobody will believe they ever worked at NSA!

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Vitchilo]

The chinese would not have to pull their loans, only threaten to do so...as for someone saying that the Chinese want to invade America well thats just silly...we were able to invade Iraq because we have the power to do so, but there isn't a country on earth that has the long arm that we do to stretch acroos the Pacific and attack us for any substained time, not even china, the supply line is simply too long and vernable. The thing is China is not about to let a war, especially if the potential for nukes is there, break out with one of its biggest oil sources.

Originally posted by grover
The chinese would not have to pull their loans, only threaten to do so...as for someone saying that the Chinese want to invade America well thats just silly...we were able to invade Iraq because we have the power to do so, but there isn't a country on earth that has the long arm that we do to stretch acroos the Pacific and attack us for any substained time, not even china, the supply line is simply too long and vernable. The thing is China is not about to let a war, especially if the potential for nukes is there, break out with one of its biggest oil sources.

Regardless. for the short term we should check the Chinese Currency. Their currency is 20-30 percent undervalued. We can not let them keep this advantage over us for much longer. Something must give!

Ah, Earlybird! How entertaining! No actual answers to any of my questions, but good comedy value nonetheless. I have to admit it's people like you that make my visits to this board rather infrequent, as I prefer a grown-up conversation, but, just for the hell of it...

Some answers for the intellectually slothful and elitist Neocommunist:

Now if you could only back those assertions up... never mind acknowledging that "elitist Neocommunist" is something of an oxymoron. Please try to a) define what a "Neocommunist" is: and b) explain why combining that term with "elitist" is not oxymoronic.

Me? I'm a Taoist, not an ideologue.

1) Have you been sleeping in a cave with your little islamo fascist buds? The Mainstream American Media has been non stop "Bush is a lier" since 2000! The left is coming apart at the seams and the Main stream media is leading the "sky is falling" rote.

"islamo fascist buds". Ah yes, the old playground favourite "Saddam is your boyfriend, Saddam is your boyfriend!".

Here's a little experiment you could try. Take a mainstream newspaper, say the NYT. Count the number of times the words "US officials say", "administration officials say" or similar occur in each article. Then see if any of the reporters goes OUTSIDE the administration to validate these assertions, preferably to an opposing viewpoint. If they do - which is rare - these viewpoints will be ridiculed or marginalised.

Hmm. This does require you to count AND read at the same time.

And - by the way - it's spelled 'liar'.

My point is that people like your good self are falling for the same old pile of dreck you were sold on Iraq - and look where that's got your country.

2) American policies that support freedom, human rights, and not least the right even to exist at all!

Had you noticed that 'the right even to exist at all' is covered under the general heading of 'human rights'? If you're going to add rhetorical flourishes like that, try to make sure they add to your message rather than being simply redundant.

Now I DID say try not to use the old 'they hate us for our freedoms'. It's just a bit knee-jerk (or, to put it another way, 'intellectually slothful')... and in the case of Iran, the way you've phrased it (adding the word 'policies' to make it look like your doing something other than trotting out that tired old line I wanted to get away from) , it certainly doesn't stand up to historical analysis. Remember (or, more likely, learn for the first time) that the US overthrew the democratic, human-rights-oriented regime of Mossadegh, and imposed the Shah, giving him the SAVAK, a secret police that made the KGB look like little girls playing with dolls. No freedom or human rights for the Iranians, thanks to the US. And its POLICIES. The Shah's rule was so terrible that it made fundamentalism look like a GOOD OPTION.

Oh, and talking about supporting human rights while condoning torture isn't a terribly consistent or morally tenable position. Your country is making QUITE the name for itself what with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition (or, to translate from Newspeak, 'kidnapping for purposes of torture') and a network of secret prisons across Europe and elsewhere. But the name it's making is as a secretive, bullying and neofascist power.

Plus, I should think that the tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq alone, were their ghosts to have a voice, might have something to say about their 'right to even exist'. Next!

3) I'd like to answer this one with a question of my own: Why do some people in every country insist theirs is the worst the world has ever known? Oh, that's right, there aren't any folks like that in the world except HERE and we gottem pouring out of our ears! (you're making my eyes bleed wienie)

First, you didn't answer my question.

Second, I don't insist my country is the worst the world has ever known. I'm from the UK, and that's good and bad, like most places. It's nice being somewhere that's post-imperialist - there's something rather ugly about the imperial mind-set. To pull it off successfully, you have to believe a bunch of stuff that simply isn't true, the most important tenets being

a) my country is the best in the world
b) we're bringing civilisation to everyone else
c) if they don't like it, or, heaven forbid! actually resist, then the violence that ensues is ALL THEIR FAULT.

You may recognise here a mindset very common among Americans. That would be because the covert stage of US imperialism (or hegemony, if you don't like that word) is over and now people are overtly speaking of the US empire. That's a sure sign of decline.

The bad side of being in the UK is that it's got US bases in it (like over a hundred other countries in the world) which messes up our independence - and means that we have US nukes pointed at us - and that Tony's head is right up Dubya's a$$. That absolutely sucks. He dragged us into the mess that has been made of Iraq. Even Wilson had the sense to stay the hell away from Vietnam.

Oh, and 'wienie'. NICE touch. Very grown-up. It rather sums up the level of your argument, which is long on insult and short on logic and fact. I would say that your eyes were bleeding because of all the effort you were putting into thinking... but I don't see much result of that effort, so I'll just guess it's the usual blind rage.

Have a nice day!

Hi Low Orbit - one quick question. You say that China is expanding its territories. You give the example of Taiwan. I wouldn't say that's a particularly good example because of the historical link between the two territories. The only other example I can think of (and if there are others I'm keen to know) is Tibet, which doesn't immediately spring to mind as being full of strategic value unless you're really really keen on mountaineering...

On the other hand, the US is extending its influence throughout the world. In the run up to invading Afghanistan I remember suddenly that troops were being stationed in places in the former Soviet Union and thinking, wow, when did THAT happen? I forget how many countries the US has permanent bases in, but it's over the hundred mark. Does anyone out there know how many bases China has outside its own territories?

I posted this a long long time ago but by now everyone's forgotten:

www.timesonline.co.uk...



They've been planning this a while now, that was September 2005. To sum that whole article up:

If the pentagon says there's a "threat" of any sort to America, the only thing stopping a nuclear bomb is the president. Our President is more trigger-happy than a mentally-derranged ww2 veteran. No senate approval, no courts, just a matter of the president saying "yes" or "no".

May God truley help us all

Originally posted by rich23
Hi Low Orbit - one quick question. You say that China is expanding its territories. You give the example of Taiwan. I wouldn't say that's a particularly good example because of the historical link between the two territories. The only other example I can think of (and if there are others I'm keen to know) is Tibet, which doesn't immediately spring to mind as being full of strategic value unless you're really really keen on mountaineering...

On the other hand, the US is extending its influence throughout the world. In the run up to invading Afghanistan I remember suddenly that troops were being stationed in places in the former Soviet Union and thinking, wow, when did THAT happen? I forget how many countries the US has permanent bases in, but it's over the hundred mark. Does anyone out there know how many bases China has outside its own territories?

When did it happen, us in Soviets Satelites, probably early on in the Reagan Administration. This has been our approach to international politics dating back to the end of WW2. Taiwan and Tibet are great examples and the hate China feels for Japan can not be underestimated. What is dangerous is to hear what China thinks about Taiwan matched to what they are spending on defense. If a country is smart their Foreign Policy should match their expenditures for defense that's how you get the most bang for your buck. This is what I belive to be the case for China, and the U.S.

The cold war will only die when every country including the U.S. abandon its technology. The cold war has only mutated

loam

I was watching the news when that article came out, I guess that the evidence of regardless of what decision the UN may take Iran will go ahead on their ambitions of nuclear power.

The invisible death line has been set for April 28 so if you follow the time line to the attack on Iraq it pretty much sounds the same.

Yes is Déjà vu, but with a twist I imagine that it will be no invasion just surgical strikes.

I believe is the smart thing to do rather than submit our nation into another war with the deficit where is at now.