Republicans Say Nuclear Bomb Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, June 8, 2007


Only one Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, argues against nuclear bombing of Iran. All others accept Bush lies about Iran and therefore the possible need to nuclear bomb Iran to prevent it from making nuclear weapons.

The Democrats are not much better. They accept Bush's Iran lies including the alleged need to possibly nuclear bomb Iran but they want to talk first to see if Iran will capitulate to US demands.

This is a ridiculous and insane position from many viewpoints.

  1. Iran has no nuclear weapons or plans or program to make them.
  2. Iran is enriching uranium to a level suitable for nuclear power as is its legal right under the NPT treaty.
  3. Iran , as a smaller relatively powerless nation - compared to the nuclear might of the US and Israel. It has a record of non-intervention and non-aggression against other states. It could never aspire to be a threat -nuclear or otherwise - to Israel and the US either of which could completely destroy it.
  4. If Iran did make or acquire a few nuclear weapons or WMD, why should it be considered a nuclear threat deserving of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, anymore that any of the other 7 nuclear weapon states some of whom have substantial nuclear arsenals and missile delivery systems?
  5. Why do some Americans, led by the Bush Administration, think they have the right to dictate who may have, or not have nuclear weapons when they have thousands and have threatened to initiate their use in pre-emptive nuclear wars, or introduce their use into other wars being fought with conventional weapons? It is not this double standard that is a major threat?
  6. Is it not an insane situation, or totally irrational, where a nation without any nuclear weapons can be portrayed as a nuclear threat to nations (Israel and the US) with thousands of nuclear weapons and various delivery systems?
  7. For over 60 years humanity has amassed libraries of information about the global lethality of nuclear weapons, and how easily escalation of any nuclear weapon use can quickly lead to a nuclear Armageddon and self-extinction. So nations, including the US, have directed a huge effort to developing nuclear disarmament and arms control agreements to prevent this and progressively reduce the risk. Bush has withdrawn from or ignored many of these agreements and treaties. Why are so many people ready to completely disregard this information and past efforts and accept a phony, illegal and unjustified use of these weapons to wipe out thousands of Iranians, perhaps triggering a World War III, or a series of lesser catastrophes, for no logical reason? How come they are ready to so easily become part of a major criminal enterprise? And why are so many other people just unconcerned and happily carrying on business as usual, with no involvement or attempt to stop this insanity?
  8. Republicans and many other Americans have accepted the most absurd lies and false and illogical rationalizations of the Bush Administration to use nuclear weapons thus beginning a process which will destroy them and their families and civilization itself.

Even another major non-nuclear bombing attack on Iran can kill thousands and lead to a series of other disastrous consequences.

Yet many people, particularly US Republicans, will not allow themselves to consider the facts of the situation, or these disastrous consequences if they allow their leaders to continue on this path. The fact that they and their families could be engulfed in the consequences and perish is not something that seems to bother them.

If there are future visitors from another planet, they will ponder why a seemingly intelligent aware species did this to itself - just as we sometimes wonder why the Easter Islanders and other ancient cultures became extinct.


US Republicans favour Iran nuclear strike

by Daily Times, June 7, 2007

       * Presidential candidates say Iran must not develop nuclear weapons
* Want Iraq divided on sectarian, ethnic lines if troop surge fails

MANCHESTER, NH: Republican candidates for US president agreed on Tuesday that Iran must not develop atomic weapons even if a tactical nuclear strike is needed to stop it and accused Democrats of being soft on the issue.

The front-runners for the Republican Party nomination in the November 2008 election also squabbled among themselves over a broad immigration overhaul being debated by the US Congress. In a debate in New Hampshire where the country's first primary will be held next year, they were largely in agreement on an issue that President George W Bush considers vital - preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

“You shouldn't take any options off the table,” said the leader in the Republican pack, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, when asked whether a tactical nuclear strike might be necessary. Democratic candidates had their own debate in New Hampshire on Sunday and largely agreed the United States should open direct diplomatic talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. Giuliani said it sounded to him like “Democrats were back in the 1990s.”

A second-tier candidate, California Rep Duncan Hunter, was more direct, saying the United States reserved the right to dissuade Iran militarily. “I would authorise the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to pre-empt those particular centrifuges,” he said, while noting it could probably be done with conventional weapons.

But Texas Rep Ron Paul, a candidate drawing about 2 percent in opinion polls, opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran was no threat to US national security.


Home     Disclaimer/Fair Use