Bush Justifies Nuclear Weapons Use

Comment by Larry Ross, April 19, 2006

This article shows that people are being conditioned to accept the potential use of nuclear weapons and to trust President Bush to make the right decisions in this regard, and that there is nothing immoral or peculiar about this, or any use of nuclear weapons that the President decides is right, and that it is permissible and just, to use them. The possibility that huge numbers of Iran men, women and children might be killed and maimed and that the U.S. has no right or reason to commit such crimes, and that events could spiral into global nuclear war, are not questions that were considered by the article.

The psywar strategy seems to be to prepare the public by attempting to formalise the potential use of nuclear weapons in line with the new Pentagon nuclear doctrines of Pre-emptive nuclear war and incorporating nuclear weapon use into conventional military operations. Anything to do with dire consequences, possible global nuclear war and destruction of millions of people and civilisation, is of no interest to the nuclear war planners, and the politicians that order such weapons to be used without provocation, against non-nuclear states.

Edmund Burke would no doubt disagree, and claim he is only reporting the news. But all the above is implied through omission in the following article, a complete lack of questioning and the failure of the editors to publish any follow up article dealing with these crucial questions.

Also Burke shows his bias by blaming Iran for the oil price increases, rather than the Bush Administration who created the war crisis and instability in the middle east, leading to escalating oil prices now at US$72 a barrel.

Another 9/11 terrorist incident in the U.S. is all Bush needs. According to a report posted under "US war with Iran" on this site, Bush will immediately blame Iran - even without any verifiable evidence that Iran was connected to the incident - and then launch a U.S. bombing strike against Iran. It could well be a nuclear strike initially. Or a nuclear strike could follow soon after the initial assault if Iran seriously tries to defend itself causing U.S. casualties.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran

By Edmund Blair, April 18, 2006

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."

Speculation about a U.S. attack has mounted since a report in New Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was mulling the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear sites.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atom bombs, was expected to push for targeted sanctions against Tehran when it meets the U.N. Security Council's other permanent members -- Britain, France, China and Russia -- plus Germany in Moscow.

Continue......