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 says nuclear strike against Iran is "on the table"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
News flash

Bush says nuclear strike against Iran is "on the table"


the headline was on the seattle times web site, but when you click on the link it take out the "nuclear strike" and puts in "military action" in the headline




Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

"All options are on the table," he said.


from the source above



[edit on 18-4-2006 by bigx01]




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Doesn't say nuclear strike, it says military strike. All options on the table. Don't change his words.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Doesn't say nuclear strike, it says military strike. All options on the table. Don't change his words.



no i said on the front of the web site it says that

here

seattle times

[edit on 18-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Doesn't say nuclear strike, it says military strike. All options on the table. Don't change his words.



Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

"All options are on the table," he said.


He didn't deny it either tho Deltaboy. Still scary.


Pie



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01
no i said on the front of the web site it says that

here

seattle times



Sorry then, the Seattle Times seems to misinterpreted his words then. Don't you just hate that.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

"All options are on the table," he said.



It's true the article does say as the above, which means that Bush has taken a nuclear strike as a possibility. Hopefully Iran won't keep bragging about how they developed this and that, its provoking a possible war here.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

He didn't deny it either tho Deltaboy. Still scary.




No he doesn't deny it either, but he is trying to be ambiguous which is a good strategy to make the Iranians think about their plans. Think of America's policy with Taiwan against China. China doesn't know if the U.S. is willing to defend or not.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Scary stuff. Diplomacy sure didn't work for us in Iraq. Did we somehow get "q" and "n" mixed up, or were we geographically challenged, people mistaking one country for the other? Anyway, I wonder what weapons would they use on us--any we sold to them during the 1980's?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
When will the media get around to asking Iran if they will rule out a nuclear strike against Israel or the US?







seekerof



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I really hope that when Bush says "All options are on the table" it is because his mind has wandered from the question and he is now thinking about lunch...



Mr. President, have you considered the use of nuclear weapons against Iran?

'Dang he said nucular...find an answer that doesn't use that word...find an answer...find an...boy, I'm hungry...what'll I have today? Roast beef or turkey. I get to choose because today's buffet day. Everything laid out before me, the Prez, get to pick what I want...yep that'll be cool.' "All options are on the table."

Thank you Mr. President

'Dang, did I just say that last part out loud? Wait, I didn't say nucular...think, wait, yes...that made sense...I don't need that earpiece thingy all the time...take that Karl!'



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Chaosrain, that was one of the funniest posts I ever read!



'Dang, did I just say that last part out loud? Wait, I didn't say nucular...think, wait, yes...that made sense...I don't need that earpiece thingy all the time...take that Karl!'





posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by bigx01
no i said on the front of the web site it says that

here

seattle times



Sorry then, the Seattle Times seems to misinterpreted his words then. Don't you just hate that.


of course they did that on purpose. which will sell newspapers in the morning. "military action" or "nuclear strike"



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
IMO - maybe bush can table the notion of saving lives instead of killing them


- Ill believe it when I see it. I think Bush has played his highest card (I hope).



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pcxmac
IMO - maybe bush can table the notion of saving lives instead of killing them


- Ill believe it when I see it. I think Bush has played his highest card (I hope).


there are 2 rules in a crisis situation
1 st rule in a crisis stituation: Always negotiate to determine your opponent's strength

2 nd rule in a crisis situation: Always be prepared to have your bluff called

[edit on 18-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
with bush saying that the nuclear option is open i wouldn't be supprised if we provoke an attack like "gulf of tonkin incident" it wont be that hard to provoke iran from doing something similar as north vietnam did



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
No he doesn't deny it either, but he is trying to be ambiguous which is a good strategy to make the Iranians think about their plans. Think of America's policy with Taiwan against China. China doesn't know if the U.S. is willing to defend or not.


No thats a horrible strategy. There is no ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons, you either need to use them or you don't. When we were countering the Soviets we came right out and said that we would use them and set out the exact scenarios where they would be the response.
There was no nuclear ambiguity because we could not afford it. If you can afford nuclear ambiguity then you don't need to use nukes and they should not be an option.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I realize that we have a real threat to consider when some of the smaller countries gain these weapons but why is it whenever someone else gains the ability to create nuclear devices we throw a hissy fit over in the States? Are we the only country dubbed worthy to have that power?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
If he's going to use nuclear weapons (which wouldn't make sense, as they won't hit deep enough to destroy underground networks/stocks, he'll lose most of his allies.

Furthermore, there's no need for nuclear power, as they'll only have the task to destroy the nuclear facilities and military installations.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
This is the first time in memory that I can ever recall a President threatening a nuclear strike publicly.
Scary! Hate to say it, but if they do it they better take out every Arab country over there, because if we don't they'll all gang up on us and retaliate with nukes too. If something like this happened I could see all the Muslim countries banding together to eradicate us. You think???

[edit on 19-4-2006 by zerotolerance]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy
I realize that we have a real threat to consider when some of the smaller countries gain these weapons but why is it whenever someone else gains the ability to create nuclear devices we throw a hissy fit over in the States? Are we the only country dubbed worthy to have that power?


Maybe it's because we know those "someone else's" hate us and would love to see us topple.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join