US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

[conjur]

Bush declines to exclude nuclear strike on Iran
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene...17370115_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day.

Bush said in Washington he would discuss Iran's nuclear activities with China's President Hu Jintao this week and avoided ruling out nuclear retaliation if diplomatic efforts fail.

Asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so."

I keep waiting for the Propagandist to break out into his Slim Pickens impersonation.

 

[conjur]

Scott Ritter
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/20/2037

That?s why when I speak of Iran, I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It?s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn?t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn?t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.

 

[IdioticBuffoon]

Originally posted by: conjur
"With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn?t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."

Spot on! If the American public were to just read these few lines, memorize them, spread it to every nook and cranny in the country, there is no way that the neocons and the warhawks can have their say.

 

[Lemon law]

The Herch article is a long well researched read. What is especially interesting is the flat statement that Bush now thinks stopping Iran by any means necessary will be his legacy.

Given his botch in Iraq is one out of two all he can hope for????

Also interesting is the supposed strategy for victory-------sustained bonbing of Iran will convince the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs. Gaining us a pro US Iranian government.

Sound suspiciously close to the rationale for Iraq----we will be greeted with flowers and candy. Sadly when that did not happen,
Bush had and has yet to have a plan B.

But that is all Bush seems to need is a this might work-----with no consideration to the possibility this might be a giant mistake.

EARTH TO BUSH EARTH TO BUSH_____THIS WILL BE A GIANT MISTAKE------and the world will have no choice but
to send GWB to the Hague------if angry mobs here don't tear him limb from limb.

But invading Iran will be a final legacy for Bush---and the USA----as the entire world allies together to stop us.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Herch article is a long well researched read. What is especially interesting is the flat statement that Bush now thinks stopping Iran by any means necessary will be his legacy.

Given his botch in Iraq is one out of two all he can hope for????

Also interesting is the supposed strategy for victory-------sustained bonbing of Iran will convince the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs. Gaining us a pro US Iranian government.

Sound suspiciously close to the rationale for Iraq----we will be greeted with flowers and candy. Sadly when that did not happen,
Bush had and has yet to have a plan B.

But that is all Bush seems to need is a this might work-----with no consideration to the possibility this might be a giant mistake.

EARTH TO BUSH EARTH TO BUSH_____THIS WILL BE A GIANT MISTAKE------and the world will have no choice but
to send GWB to the Hague------if angry mobs here don't tear him limb from limb.

But invading Iran will be a final legacy for Bush---and the USA----as the entire world allies together to stop us.

you seem to be forgetting that most of the free world is against Iran at this point. They will sanction the hell out of them for 6 months to a year before any bombing takes place; but, when that is shown to be totally and completely ineffective, then the entire free world might support military action. (and it wont be in the form of an "invasion." It will be a substained bombing campaign conducted by the French, English, US, and even the Germans!)

bet.

 

[RMich]

I can't imagine anything more likely to plunge us into the abyss than using nuclear weapons in the Middle East based on the fear of what a country might do in the future. Within a week of our using nukes on Iran, Pakistan would be in the hands of our worst enemies, and Pakistan already has operational nuclear weapons.

And before anybody gives that nonsense about "well, they are only tactical nuclear weapons, not like Hiroshima..." The weapon used in Hiroshima was 20 kilotons. A warhead that size would nowadays be called a TACTICAL nuclear weapon. Let me remind you that during Gulf War I, Saddam allowed a bunch of children to use one of his bomb shelters. We bombed it. The next day, the news networks were filled with pictures of dead children being removed from the wreckage. Even if our targetting is flawless, we could easily be played for fools this way in Iran. "We had this marvelous underground shelter so we used it to protect our women and children and then the Americans dropped an A-Bomb on it!" How many wanna-be martyrs would that inspire? But hey, what makes you think we know the correct targets? How much did we know about the Iraqi nuclear program? Remember when Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan? Was there even anything there? We don't know.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sudbous.htm

Bombing, short of genocide, is not going to lead to the kind of regime change the neocons are hoping for. Bombing didn't undermine Churchill, and it didn't undermine Hitler, and so far no one has proposed bombing on the scale used in the European theatre of WWII (in terms of targeting civilians, I mean).

I thought this was so nuts I sent emails to both my US Senators. I am in Virginia, so that means Allen and Warner. Allen responded promptly, but whoever answered my letter apparently did not know the difference between Iraq and Iran, because they sent me a stock letter about how necessary it is to stay the course in Iraq. In my email, the only mention I made of Iraq was to say that nuking Iran would doubtless inflame the insurgency and lead to more suicide attacks on US soldiers. So Allen's staffers can't read, I guess. Warner's reply came later and was more chilling. His letter was all about how Iran is so dangerous it must be stopped at all costs. While the words "nuclear weapons" did not appear in Warner's reply, it seemed he had a lengthy justification for war against Iran READY IN HIS WORD PROCESSOR for his staffers to send out. Warner is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It made me think he knows something his colleague Senator Allen doesn't know.

Bush is crazy enough to do it. We can't begin impeaching him a moment too soon, IMHO. BTW, before W became president, I considered myself a Republican.