Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
Paul Craig Roberts | October 01 2005

Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."

In the case of Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration is using diplomacy not for diplomatic purposes of reaching agreements, but in order to set the two countries up for nuclear attack. In the case of Iran, the Bush administration's plan is now obvious. The Bush administration is leveling false charges against Iran, just as it did against Iraq, of conspiring to make nuclear weapons. These charges are known to be false by the Bush administration and by the entire world.

For the past two years the International Atomic Energy Agency has had unfettered access to inspect Iran for any sign of a nuclear weapons program. The head of the IAEA has announced that there is no sign of a weapons program. The Bush administration nevertheless insists that Iran is making weapons, but can produce no evidence. As in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration substitutes allegations for facts.

Gordon Prather, an expert on the subject, has reported the straight facts in fine detail. Readers can become familiar with them by consulting his archive at Antiwar.com.

By bullying the 35 members of the IAEA, the Bush administration last week managed to get 22 votes that could lead to the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council. The Bush administration will now lobby for the referral. Once it has the referral, even if the Security Council does not act on it, the Bush administration can use it as an excuse to attack Iran. The Bush administration knows that few Americans have any knowledge of international law and procedures and will simply believe whatever President Bush says. The highly concentrated US media is a proven walkover for the war-mongering Bush administration.

As Dr. Prather has shown, Iran has gone beyond compliance to propose that new additional safeguards be established to monitor its nuclear energy program. The bad intentions are on the part of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration's plan is to create Iranian intransigence in place of cooperation by forcing the Iranian government to stand up to the bullying by reducing its cooperation. The goal of the Bush administration is to attack Iran, not to create cooperative relationships.

Needless to say, Iranians are angry at the Bush administration's manipulation of the IAEA members. Last Wednesday protesters in Tehran attacked the British embassy, which serves as a proxy for the non-existent US embassy, and legislation was introduced that, if it passes, will scale back Iran's cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has also threatened to cut off oil deliveries to some of the countries that caved in to US pressure, thereby permitting the US to increase tensions and escalate the conflict.

The Bush administration is betting that it can demonize Iran the way it did Iraq. As both Congress and the American public have failed to hold Bush accountable for deceiving them about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the administration assumes that its tactics will work a second time.

However, a nuclear attack on Iran would leave the Bush administration isolated. The US would instantly become a pariah nation, loathed and hated everywhere else.

Moreover, it would leave our battered troops in Iraq in a perilous situation. The only reason our army in Iraq has not been destroyed is that the Shi'ites, who comprise the vast majority of the population, have not taken up arms against us, expecting the US to turn over Iraq to them. As the Iraqi Shi'ites are allied with the Iranians, who also are Shi'ite, the US cannot attack Iran without destroying its position in Iraq.

The Bush administration, filled with hubris and delusion, is too stupid to know this.

The American people need to ask themselves why of all the countries in the world, only the US and Israel believe that it is imperative to attack Iran. If Iran is such a threat to the world, why isn't Russia, for example, concerned and ready to invade?

Americans need to ask themselves the same question about North Korea. Why is the US, half a world away, so concerned about North Korea? If North Korea is such a threat, would not China, sitting on its border, know it? Wouldn't Japan know it? South Korea? Wouldn't some other country besides the US see the problem and take action? According to the Voice of America (August 11, 2005), "Senior South Korean officials on Thursday defended what they say is North Korea's 'natural right' to pursue civilian nuclear power. The move may cause friction with the United States, which has expressed firm opposition to the North having any nuclear facilities whatsoever."

If the US doesn't want other countries to develop nuclear weapons, the US must stop bombing, invading and threatening invasions and nuclear attacks. How does President Bush serve the cause of peace by making countries paranoid by declaring them to be our enemies.

For there to be peace, the US must drop its belligerent role. The proper function of diplomacy is to build trust by drawing countries into economic and cultural relationships, not to isolate them for attack. It is past time for the US to give up its quarter century feud with Iran. US interference in Iranian internal affairs was the source of the feud. We need to acknowledge it and get over it.

The Korean war ended a half century ago. Isn't it time the US acknowledged the war's end and signed a treaty with North Korea? The Korean war was essentially a war between the US and China. It was Chinese troops that prevented American victory. Yet we are getting on with China, a much greater potential threat to the US than North Korea or Iran could ever be.

By creating instability in the Middle East, the US undermines Israel's security. As a few thousand Iraqi insurgents have proven, American armies are not going to be able to sit over the oil in the Middle East. If we can't produce enough valuable goods or maintain a strong currency, we won't have access to the oil. There is no possibility whatsoever of the US pushing around powers like China, India, or Russia.

Bush's hubris makes him unrealistic. He greatly overestimates America's power. Congress and the American people must find a way to supply the judgment that is missing in the executive branch.

There would be no terrorism if the US would stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries and if Israel stopped stealing the West Bank from the Palestinians. The Bush administration knows this, and that is why the administration spreads the propagandistic lie that "they" (Muslims) hate us and our way of life. This lie is the excuse for American aggression.
 

manda

Council Member
Jul 3, 2005
2,007
0
36
swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
 

Andygal

Electoral Member
May 13, 2005
518
0
16
BC
RE: Bush is Cooking Up Tw

If the US lobs a hot one at anybody we are all in biiiiig trouble. If nukes start flying around all bets are off and we are liabile to be dead by the end of the year.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Bush is Cooking Up Tw

Don't worry about it Andy...some of us grew up under that constant threat. You get used to it.

I don't think the US will get away with using nukes. I think that's the tipping point when the international community will stand up and say, "Feck you, Georgie. Enough is enough already."
 

Hank C Cheyenne

Electoral Member
Sep 17, 2005
403
0
16
Calgary, Alberta.
.....ahhhh the only thing Bush is cooking up is frying the terrorist bastards before his term is up...

...you guys see the bombing in Indonesia, and they are suspecting Al Qaida behind these cowardly attacks....wtf is wrong with these people...they have no shame....
Damn I am soo happy we reelected Bush so we can go after and punish these sub-par humans!

.....everytime I hear the Coalition troops pounding insurgents I can't help but smile.......these monster don't deserve to live...
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

Hank C Cheyenne said:
.....ahhhh the only thing Bush is cooking up is frying the terrorist bastards before his term is up...

...you guys see the bombing in Indonesia, and they are suspecting Al Qaida behind these cowardly attacks....wtf is wrong with these people...they have no shame....
Damn I am soo happy we reelected Bush so we can go after and punish these sub-par humans!

.....everytime I hear the Coalition troops pounding insurgents I can't help but smile.......these monster don't deserve to live...
:roll: :roll: :roll:

rather vindictive, ain't cha?? Sounds like ya get a rush/high every time the bushgoons attack and destroy! ---------- weird
 

Hank C Cheyenne

Electoral Member
Sep 17, 2005
403
0
16
Calgary, Alberta.
yea vindictive I am!
.......these hate filled people just killed 23 innocents but you seem to be fine with that........ whatever thats exactally why you and people alike have no power...... its funny how you have to live mad about Bush in for 3 more years.........ahhhh life has its little bonuses
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Bush is Cooking Up Tw

It was 26 last I heard, Hank. Did they resurrect some or what? It's not a problem you can solve without seriously considering the root causes and both you and Georgie are incapable of doing that.

These invasions have nothing to do with terrorism though. Just because you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean the rest of us have.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

Hank C Cheyenne said:
yea vindictive I am!
.......these hate filled people just killed 23 innocents but you seem to be fine with that........

vindictive AND presumptuous.


What is really disturbing is that the media/ news coverage about this last atrocity is so limited. And there is simply Not enough cause /effect analysis ......so we can better comprehend this irrational conduct. Until "we" understand it better....... "we" are just shooting wildly and into the dark. Two FECKING wars and not the slightest deterrant re: terrorism......WHY?? Because WAR is NOT the solution to this serious problem.......and has only intensified it. And until the thick skulled ,narrow minded , egotistical neo fascists get it through their lame brain heads that their actions/attitude only fosters more terrorism......there will be not much change in the world dynamic......and people all over will live in some level of fear /concern.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: RE: Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

Hank C Cheyenne said:
.....ahhhh the only thing Bush is cooking up is frying the terrorist bastards before his term is up...

...you guys see the bombing in Indonesia, and they are suspecting Al Qaida behind these cowardly attacks....wtf is wrong with these people...they have no shame....
Damn I am soo happy we reelected Bush so we can go after and punish these sub-par humans!

.....everytime I hear the Coalition troops pounding insurgents I can't help but smile.......these monster don't deserve to live...

You do realize that about 85% of the world thinks you're a feckin' moron, right?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

Vanni Fucci said:
Hank C Cheyenne said:
.....ahhhh the only thing Bush is cooking up is frying the terrorist bastards before his term is up...

...you guys see the bombing in Indonesia, and they are suspecting Al Qaida behind these cowardly attacks....wtf is wrong with these people...they have no shame....
Damn I am soo happy we reelected Bush so we can go after and punish these sub-par humans!

.....everytime I hear the Coalition troops pounding insurgents I can't help but smile.......these monster don't deserve to live...

You do realize that about 85% of the world thinks you're a feckin' moron, right?

I thought the percentage was higher than that now.... :wink:
 

Hank C Cheyenne

Electoral Member
Sep 17, 2005
403
0
16
Calgary, Alberta.
These invasions have nothing to do with terrorism though. Just because you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean the rest of us have.

...so Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist? ....Iraq is the battle ground now terrorist are coming from all the middle east to do thier deeds. This is the showdown and it must be won....loose and Iraq goes to the radicals and a war torn country goes further into the abyss.....win and there is democracy for the people and Iraq can begin to mend.....there is no woulda should or coulda now! .......we are there right now and if you don't support freedom for the people sit down and shut up..... well whatever its is being done our way so you can bitch all you want to....

What is really disturbing is that the media/ news coverage about this last atrocity is so limited. And there is simply Not enough cause /effect analysis ......so we can better comprehend this irrational conduct. Until "we" understand it better....... "we" are just shooting wildly and into the dark.

its seems when al Quida attacks it very hazy and we really have no idea.......yet you seem to view Bush soo clearly?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
its seems when al Quida attacks it very hazy and we really have no idea.......yet you seem to view Bush soo clearly?


bush is a whole lot easier to figure out.......being the simpleton he is. Al Queda is a complex entity, /organization...... where the workings are not easily defined.

what is not recognized/discussed .........is that all this is also a "mind game"..... and the so called "terrorists" are ahead .....with a built in advantage of "surprise".......etc. They are unpredictable. Bush is predictable.

Suspect that the bush era might go down as : "The Day of the Jacka**"
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
so Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist?

Saddam Hussein is in prison and never led Iran or North Korea. There are no ties between Hussein and bin Laden though. As a secular leader, Hussein was not exactly liked by the religious fanatics of al Quaeda.

Iraq is the battle ground now terrorist are coming from all the middle east to do thier deeds.

That wasn't happening before the illegal invasion.

This is the showdown and it must be won....loose and Iraq goes to the radicals and a war torn country goes further into the abyss.

You can't win, Hank. You lost Vietnam and lose this one because the people are against what you are doing and most of the world understands that you're only there for the oil.

win and there is democracy for the people and Iraq can begin to mend.

Only if you consider puppet governments instaled by the US to ensure the profitability of US corporations to be democracy.

we are there right now and if you don't support freedom for the people sit down and shut up

I do support freedom for the people. That's why I stand firmly against Bush and his thugs.



well whatever its is being done our way so you can bitch all you want to

Actually, you're losing, just like everybody said you would before you illegally invaded.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
bushlet cooking up two new wars??? :twisted:

He has two ongoing ones now... :evil:

Afghanistan: The War With No End
by Justin Huggler

British troops have come under attack in Kabul and Nato forces were targeted in two co-ordinated suicide car bombings in which at least four people died.

The attacks took place as ministers revealed that units are preparing to extend Britain's role in Afghanistan when it takes command of the international peacekeeping operation next year.

John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, told Parliament that Britain faced a "prolonged" involvement in the country. But MPs warned last night that British troops faced being mired in a long-term military commitment to a country in the grip of a growing insurgency.

They insisted yesterday's extension of Britain's role in Afghanistan, four years after troops first arrived, also reflected the size of the task facing coalition forces in Iraq.

Fears for Afghanistan's future emerged in the wake of suggestions, by the British and Iraqi governments, that British troops could begin pulling out of Iraq by the end of next year. For British troops, however, yesterday's violence in Kabul was a taste of what they will face next year when they deploy to the turbulent province of Helmand as part of a move by Nato to take over security in the Taliban heartlands.

At least four people were killed in the attacks, including one German soldier and an Afghan child, but the implications of the attacks were far wider. The insurgency that has been worsening while the world's attention has been focused on Iraq has now reached Kabul.

Mr Reid said British troops had to open fire to defend their camp in Kabul against "unauthorised entry". Few further details emerged, but Mr Reid said British troops were not targeted in the car bombings.

A German soldier died when the Nato vehicle he was travelling in was rammed by a Toyota Corolla stuffed with explosives just after 3pm local time. Two German soldiers and three Afghan civilians were wounded.

An hour later, another Nato vehicle was rammed in a near-identical attack on the same road. Three Afghan civilians were killed, including a young boy, and two Greek soldiers were wounded. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attacks.

"We have plans for more of the same," Mullah Dadullah, a top-ranking Taliban commander, said by satellite phone from an undisclosed location.

The insurgency in Afghanistan has been largely confined to the Pashtun area in the south and east. Until now, British troops have operated in Kabul and the north, where international forces have been largely welcomed by Afghans who suffered persecution under Taliban rule.

But in the south there is widespread support for the insurgency and opposition to any Western presence in Afghanistan. Helmand in particular is notorious even among Afghans for the ferocity of its tribesmen. British troops are moving into the province under a plan for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) to take over security in the area. And it was no coincidence that yesterday's attacks specifically targeted Isaf troops in Kabul.

The message from the Taliban was clear: this is what is waiting for Isaf in the south. But the message was also that the Taliban can now strike in Kabul, which until now has been an oasis of stability largely unaffected by the insurgency.

Kabul is home to 3,000 foreigners, most working for NGOs, who live in an city that often seems utterly disconnected from the rest of the country. Replete with bars and expensive restaurants that sell alcohol to foreigners, but not Afghans, Kabul even boasts two designer boutiques for women's clothes. Yesterday another Afghanistan came crashing up against that world. Both car bombings came on the Jalalabad Road, which has long been the scene of the most serious attacks in Kabul.

There was a suicide bombing on that road in September, and there have been countless improvised bombs hidden along it - partly it is because there are several Western and Afghan military bases, and the UN's headquarters, on it. The road runs through a Pashtun suburb of Kabul where the Pashtun Taliban can operate freely. The fact that so senior a commander has claimed responsibility for the attacks is a sure sign the Taliban are stepping up their actions. Known as Dadullah-I-Leng, or Dadullah the Lame, he is known for his part in massacres of Hazara Shias, which have been described as attempted genocide.

One of the main failures of the Taliban's insurgency has been its inability to attract support among other ethnic communities.

How many more wars can (psychotic) bush start before he launches THE BIG ONE???
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Bush is Cooking Up Tw

Well "W" suffers from an inferiority complex, starting wars makes him feel like a "big man".

I do not think they have troops to start another war but with "W" you never know. I think he would like to invade and clean up "American style" every mid east country, as to him they are easy marks.

Iran would be the toughest and would be lots of bloodshed and I think he is just waiting for the right reason to go into there and Syria, yet the hot bed of terrorism and lack of freedom Saudia Arabia, he does not touch. Bizzare.

Yet he is too scared to straighten out NK or free Tibet, I wonder why?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: Bush is Cooking Up Tw

no1important said:
Well "W" suffers from an inferiority complex, starting wars makes him feel like a "big man".

I do not think they have troops to start another war but with "W" you never know. I think he would like to invade and clean up "American style" every mid east country, as to him they are easy marks.

Iran would be the toughest and would be lots of bloodshed and I think he is just waiting for the right reason to go into there and Syria, yet the hot bed of terrorism and lack of freedom Saudia Arabia, he does not touch. Bizzare.

Yet he is too scared to straighten out NK or free Tibet, I wonder why?

well, isn't that what dysfunctional bullies do??? Intimidate, threaten and attack (torture) the "weaker" ones. It seems to empower them. ( as you say) The only person that matters to bush is bush himself. It is all about his self centered ego... and narcissistic personality. Notice how he is not equipped to handle justified criticism??? He immediately spins it to look like it is the other guys fault.. should have been a snake oil salesman... (but doubtful he would have succeeded at that )