| |
|
#1
04-09-2006, 08:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran?
Are they nuts?!
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html 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. President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: 'The new Hitler' Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme. Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran. Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans. This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action. The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants. Click to enlarge Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously. 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. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said. The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees. The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action. Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' " Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy". Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups. The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium". -------------------------------- Hmm.... 
|
| . |
|
#2
04-09-2006, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would suggest it is Bush that is the new "Hitler" personally...
The neocons are neonazis too IMO. It'll all end in tears and there isn't much we can do about it anyway. American nukes Iran, Russia and China hit America and then it's game over for most of us.... The funny thing is a lot of these "end of the world" theories include Bush in them.... Rather disturbing. It's a good time to move to New Zealand I would suggest.... 
|
|
#5
04-09-2006, 12:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
To wit:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/st...001028,00.html Iran 'shoots down unmanned plane' From correspondents in Tehran April 09, 2006 IRAN had shot down an unmanned surveillance plane in the south amid reports that the United States is planning military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a press report said today. "This plane had taken off from Iraq and was filming border areas," a report in the hardline Jumhuri Eslami newspaper said. It added the Islamic Republic "officials have obtained information from the plane system and recordings", without giving any further details. US publications reported over the weekend that the White House was studying options for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities to pressure Tehran to abandon its controversial nuclear program. The US media has reported that the US military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear activity not accessible to satellites.
|
|
#6
04-09-2006, 12:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Has everyone gone nuts?
Of course it is okay for the USA to continue nuclear weapon development. Just nobody else can. This whole world seem to be filled trigger happy paranoid freaks. The Middle East is the worst. Always living on edge from the rest of the world. Of course they're going to develop their country defenses, just like we did years ago. The way we keep supressing them, we're all gonna fry one day. Forget about global warming and earth's natural changes...we're going to destroy ourselves without any help from anything else. So sad. This is never the right answer. No matter where. 
|
|
#7
04-09-2006, 01:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/09/hersh-military
Hersh: Our Military Is ‘Very Loyal to the President, But They’re Getting to the Edge’ This morning on CNN, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh addressed the uproar at the highest levels of the U.S. military over plans to launch a massive strike against Iran that would include nuclear weapons: What I’m writing here is that if this [plan to use nukes] isn’t removed — and I say this very seriously, I’ve been around this town for 40 years — some senior officers are prepared to resign. They’re that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. … [O]ne thing about our military, they’re very loyal to the president, but they’re getting to the edge. They’re getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the President. Watch it: http://images1.americanprogress.org/...sh.320.240.mov Hersh also addressed claims today by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is “completely nuts.” Hersh’s response: “He didn’t deny there’s serious planning about the military strike, is the point. He’s absolutely right about a nuclear option, but there is planning for conventional war.” Full transcript: HERSH: When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs and the planners then wanted to walk back that option [to use nuclear weapons], what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House — people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the Vice President’s office — said “No, let’s keep it in the plan. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.” They refuse to take it out. What I’m writing here is that if this isn’t removed — and I say this very seriously, I’ve been around this town for 40 years — some senior officers are prepared to resign. They’re that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. Again, let me make the point, you’re giving a range of options early in the planning, to be sure of getting rid of it, you give that option. … BLITZER: Some senior military officers are prepared to resign? HERSH: I’m saying if this isn’t walked back and if the President isn’t told that you cannot do it — and once the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, some senior members of the military say to the President, let’s get the nuclear option off the table, it will be taken off. He will not defy the military in a formal report. Unless something specific is told to the White House that you’ve got to drop the dream of a nuclear option, and that’s exactly the issue I’m talking about, people have said to me they would resign. BLITZER: Do you want to name names? HERSH: Are you kidding? BLITZER: I’m giving you the opportunity. HERSH: No. You know why? Because this is a punitive government right now. This is a government that pretty much has its back against the wall, as you’ve been saying all morning in iraq, and in the military — one thing about our military, they’re very loyal to the president, but they’re getting to the edge. They’re getting to the edge with not only Rumsfeld, but with Cheney and the President.
|
|
#8
04-09-2006, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Bush may be out in 2 years, but the problems he's created will be around for decades. What if the military can't recover, and we actually need them for DEEFENSE one day soon? (Link from AMERICAblog  http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met....12f4345e.html Army faces a major officer shortage Web Posted: 04/08/2006 12:00 AM CDT Sig Christenson Express-News Military Writer Army Capt. Jeanne Hull put in her walking papers after 10 months in Bosnia and logging back-to-back stints in Mosul and Baghdad that ran two years. Tired of war and ready for something new, the West Point graduate set her sights on graduate school. She wasn't alone. "A lot a lot of my classmates, if they are not out already, a lot of them want to get out," said Hull, 27, of Colorado Springs, Colo. The Army expects to be short 2,500 captains and majors this year, with the number rising to 3,300 in 2007. These officers are the Army's seed corn, the people who 10 years from now should be leading battalions and brigades. "We're ruining an Army that took us 30 years to build," Republican maverick Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told a group of reporters at a recent conference. The Army blames its expansion from 33 to 42 brigades, growing its force by 30,000 soldiers to 512,000, as the reason for the dip. But Hull and others point to the Army personnel drawdown that followed the end of the Cold War, conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rapid rate of deployments and aggressive corporate recruiters trying to lure the best and brightest officers into high-paying, private-sector jobs. The Army denies the shortage is a crisis, but its top civilian, Francis J. Harvey, acknowledged concerns, telling the Washington Post: "We are worried." Harvey later downplayed the problem in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying the attrition rate is slightly above the average of 8 percent and is being countered by the production of new young officers. Those outside the Army who are familiar with the problem say it must be reversed if the service is to avoid going "hollow" as it did in the wake of Vietnam, reaching the point where it couldn't win wars. The hard part is convincing officers to stay in after enduring two and even three combat deployments. The war-weary Hull, who graduated fifth in her West Point class of 947 cadets, had planned to leave the Army even before flying out of Baghdad in June 2005. She chose Princeton after being accepted by a Who's Who of the world's elite universities — Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Cambridge and King's College in London. The sticking point wasn't going to graduate school but how she'd get there. Before it would pay her way, the Army wanted her to first attend the Intelligence Advanced Course, a prerequisite for a company command. After that she would have had to up to three years in the field before going back to school. Her boss, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversaw the creation of Iraq's security forces, decided to bend the rules. Hull became one of the first captains to enter Princeton under the Advance Civilian Schooling Program without first attending the captain's career course and putting in time as a company commander. "I did (bypass the process)," Hull concedes, "but I would have gotten out if I hadn't had the opportunity." Perhaps in recognition of the forces drawing officers out of uniform, the Army since has loosened its rules for admitting people to the program and increased the number of offices entering it from 412 to 600. The Army also is promoting young officers faster. It has offered West Point and ROTC cadets who will be commissioned this year the chance to attend a fully funded graduate school in exchange of three more years of active duty. So far 300 cadets have signed up for the deal. The idea is to blunt the temptation of officers, more than a few of them with families, to trade Army green for safety and a slower pace of life. There's no shortage of headhunters looking for them. One company, the Lucas Group, held seminars in Killeen near Fort Hood, a Marine base in Miramar, Calif., and Fort Benning, Ga., in recent weeks. The Army paints a rosier picture, particularly among enlistees. It notes that two of three soldiers eligible for re-enlistment are signing up so far this century. The overall re-enlistment rate for active-duty soldiers is higher than the period prior to 9-11, Army Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said, calling it "high, even by our standards." He cited "patriotic fervor and a desire to not leave the service before getting into the fight against terrorists" as factors in those retention trends. Retention has been strong among active-duty soldiers, with the Army exceeding its target each year since the terrorist attacks. But large bonuses offered to veteran troops, particularly those in the war zone where the benefits aren't taxed, are a likely driver in the equation. Today, 48.5 percent of all re-enlistments occur while soldiers are overseas. Cash payouts average $12,800 under the Deployed Selective Re-enlistment bonus. Hilferty said last year's 8.6 percent attrition rate for lieutenants and captains was slightly above average but lower than the loss of junior officers in 1999 and 2000. The Army also saw a rise in the exit of lieutenants and captains in 2004, but the jump came after a "historically low" attrition year in 2003, he said, insisting the numbers show "that we do not have a serious problem." In the National Guard, which has played a significant role in the occupation, the number of first-term and career enlistees staying in exceeded the guard's goal from 2001 through 2003, but fell short by 835 soldiers in 2004.
|
|
#9
04-10-2006, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's time for the rest of the world to take preemptive action and wipe out the biggest threat to the world today; the US.
The religious zealots that seized power in 2000 are the greatest threat to the world at the momentand must be taken dead or alive. I have to admit that I am essentially anti-american, the establishment and government mainly, but any ordinary person who voted epsecially in 2004 for Bush is just as much in my sights. I have a problem with any country with the world's largest nuclear arsenal and yet won't allow independent inspectors in to check them. EDIT: I am also totally against many policies of my own country, but unfortunately Australian policy has become tied up with the United States under our current Prime Minister, so essentially I am criticising policies of both.
__________________
Tynan
|
|
#10
04-10-2006, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Especially chilling when you consider Bush can't even pronounce the word.
__________________
Children of the world the forgotten chimpanzee..in the eyes of the world you have done so much for me. ..SLN.
|
|
#11
04-10-2006, 02:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Darn...
Quote:
 ) Shrub wants to ruin my (OUR) day by starting WWIII  Yep, sounds typical of my luck...the Cubs are playing great and WWIII is soon to put an end to the great playing of the Northsiders!!! As Ozzy Osbourne once sarcastically sang "Thank God for the bomb...Nuke ya, Nuke ya"
__________________
"To acknowledge death is to accept freedom and responsibility."
|
|
#12
04-10-2006, 11:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Spoken like a true Cubs fan!
__________________
- Mary  made by dissention
|
|
#13
04-10-2006, 11:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
- Mary made by dissention
|
|
#15
04-10-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bush has only two years left and needs to start rebuilding the Republican government image before the next election so, and you heard it here first, this is my theory :
Bush says diplomatic means in Iran is the only way to go. This eases world pressure on the USA and talks will start. Bush will do as much possible to rebuild the image he has ruined in the past term. But inside the pentagon and white house other plans, including tactical nuclear weapons are put int motion. The government has already set up the voting system for the next election which can be manipulated electronically very easily and you may find the republicans get in again with a new candidate against opinion polls. Once the election is over "evidence" of Iranian nuclear activity will surface and America will find one more sorry excuse to invade a nation. In go the B2 bombers and off you guys go to war again when you haven't even finished the last two properly. The "new" government has a potential 8 years to create more mayhem and war with a new figurehead president. OR Bush is out of time and will force the issue regardless of international or public opinion. He will launch an attack (possibly nuclear) on Iran and will provoke another world war and quite possibly will go down as the last president in US history. I really wouldn't put it past him. The Neocon regime is as bad as Nazi Germany IMO.
|
 |
|
|
BEKKA BRAMLETT - I Got News For You - CD - **Excellent Condition** - RARE
$49.99
NEW - JOE COCKER - Take Me Home HTF UK CD Single feat. Bekka Bramlett
$7.49
Bekka Bramlett "I Got News For You" CD In Mint. Shongaloo Records LLC 1707. 2009
$45.00
BEKKA BRAMLETT - I Got News For You - CD - **Excellent Condition** - RARE
$49.75
RARE Fleetwood Mac Dave Mason Bekka Bramlett Era 93 Original WB Press Kit w 8x10
$69.99
If your'e gonna GO (as in really GO..as in nuked), then you might as well sit on the beach and enjoy it while you can.....
Linear Mode
