Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, has a frightening new article on the likelihood of
nuclear war:
'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date...
The war plan against Iran appears to be nuclear:
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
Worst of all, we seem to have reached a point where Bush has no choice (politically speaking) but to launch an attack. According to Paul Craig Roberts,
There is no doubt that Iran will be attacked. The Israeli government and the neoconservatives have been demanding it.
The question is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no prospect of being able to occupy?
A former member of the National Security Council gave me a possible answer. Bush can bury his defeat in Iraq with a “victory” in Iran.
6 comments:
so odd. this morning i awoke with this nagging weight of the inevitable. smelled like sulphur. felt like hell.
the question is, can we stop it? and how?
scream like mad, loud and often.
I'm not willing to lie to myself, but I've been going bonkers trying to convince myself these crooks would do no such thing as launch a nuclear attack. After all, what good could come from such an atrocity, even to them? But this morning I read an article at HuffPo by Joe Palermo. (must read, btw) and found this comment, which chilled me to the bone:
Sir, you mention the US could bankrupt itself if such a scenario occurs. Now THAT may be the cornerstone upon which this entire bushco disaster resides, evident to some of us since 911.
Could it be that bankrupting the USA is precisely the objective of this "Armageddon" tragedy, one in which bushmonkey is the moronic front man, a simian "Educator in Chief" to a truly manipulated populace?
The former Soviet Union was bankrupted by its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, thanks to CIA-funded Bin Laden "freedom fighters." When the USSR became insolvent, global financial vultures moved in to gain control of industry, infrastructure and ressources for a pittance. These groups have no national allegiances -- their only loyalty is to greed, and national "leaders" serve/worship these financial interests. Hence, the Soviet Union was dismantled, piece by piece. Only under a very clever Putin is Russia rising from its ashes.
Bushco invaded Afghanistan, expanded into Iraq (and soon beyond), hence the replay of USSR over-extension and defeat. It is only a question of time as to how long the USA can stave off bankruptcy.
When the economy collapses as it did in the USSR, global financial forces will move in for the fire sale: everything must go, for pennies on the dollar. Americans will become ever more docile serfs, enslaved in their own country.
If bush can remain useful to the puppet-masters, he will survive to worship what he has wrought. If however he becomes an impediment to them he will be destroyed by the very people who installed him in the WH...very soon.
BTW, I am not at all convinced that Baker and the Carlyle Group aren't in cahoots with the forces bent on bankrupting the USA and further enslaving its populace.
By: canardtahiti on January 18, 2007 at 06:49am
looks like Russia is openly admitting selling arms to Iran, which only means that gloves are coming off. Another little bit news is that Belaruse is also openly backing Iran's right to nuclear technology (after the little argument over oil supplies with Russia). And China's insiders are saying that the Vice President of China is not happy with the warm receiption that was given to Olmert by the country's president (which had to involve talks about attacking Iran and China's role and/or reaction).
I think the senario is unfolding before our eyes (well, you got to look hard sometimes).
dr elsewhere,
There is an article on truthdig that you may find interesting. It is a so called analysis of Bush.
I dont know how to post a live link, but it is called "Bush and the psychology of incompetent decisions" by Briggs ans Briggs'
It may explain Bush's look of fear that we discussed a few posts ago.I'd like to hear your thought on it.
Sorry, that site was truthout, and not truthdig.
ah, beeta, thanks for that! i got that alert from truthout this morning on email, and it's on my list. which grows longer and longer with every breath....
hoping to post something in a sec, but not on that.
regardless, i do think we can all agree the W is very dysfunctional. and now he's a very cornered dysfunctional. which equals very dangerous....
Post a Comment