1
   

Bush Foresaw 0 war casualties

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 05:40 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
"as long as the world is not free of tyrants and madmen who seek to compel their will through violent force, the world will not be free of war."

Words well suited to The Lone Ranger or Superman comic books.


Is it simply the prose to which you object edgar or do you believe that the world can be free of war even with the existence of the likes of Adolph Hitler, Osma bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (to name just a few)?

If the latter, I would be very much interested in your expounding upon that thought.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:19 pm
I have no idea how credible this is, but did find it interesting as a "what if."

So, what if this plays out. Will Bush supporters be in favor of an attack on Iran in the next few days? Will any casualties be accepted as necessary due to the war on terra?


A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent
By Wayne Madsen

10/20/04 "Lebanon Wire" -- According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.

In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.

Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something that must be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause.

The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East. The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House.

White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Council (NSA) during the Reagan Administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with john Stanton of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at [email protected]


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7113.htm
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:41 pm
Another blogger for Kerry, perhaps? Also noted on the main page:

Quote:
If you find this site informative please donate, every donation helps us keep up with hosting costs. Thanks!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:44 pm
squinney wrote:
I have no idea how credible this is, but did find it interesting as a "what if."

So, what if this plays out. Will Bush supporters be in favor of an attack on Iran in the next few days? Will any casualties be accepted as necessary due to the war on terra?


A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent
By Wayne Madsen

10/20/04 "Lebanon Wire" -- According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.

In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.

Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something that must be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause.

The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East. The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House.

White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Council (NSA) during the Reagan Administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with john Stanton of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at [email protected]


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7113.htm




Much as I am disgusted with George Bush...and as much as I am inclined to consider him to be a moron...and as much as I fear these evil people whose advise he seems to heed...

...even I do not think this crew to be that disgusting...that moronic...that evil.

This is a "what if" that belongs in the trash basket.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:44 pm
squinney noted that the source was questionable. I don't think it's true, but it is an interesting scenario.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 07:32 pm
People such as yourself, Finn, want to go all macho into the rest of the world, quixotically thinking you're doing good, spreading democracy and the American way, but the end result so far is selectively bullying the rest of the world and only attacking where it's relatively easy to attack (Iraq was a miscalculation). Why people of your ilk always bring up Hitler as if that answers any doubts about the veracity of your assertions is a cartoon of an argument. (Wo, I certainly don't want to be seen as approving Hitler, therefore I must say it was okay to invade Iraq). Iraq was effectively contained before the invasion, as millions of persons asserted worldwide. The only thing not secured was the mid east oil. But our permanent bases will take care of that. The government we will eventually force on that nation and call democracy is just a perk to make folks feel better.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:06 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
People such as yourself, Finn, want to go all macho into the rest of the world, quixotically thinking you're doing good, spreading democracy and the American way, but the end result so far is selectively bullying the rest of the world and only attacking where it's relatively easy to attack (Iraq was a miscalculation). Why people of your ilk always bring up Hitler as if that answers any doubts about the veracity of your assertions is a cartoon of an argument. (Wo, I certainly don't want to be seen as approving Hitler, therefore I must say it was okay to invade Iraq). Iraq was effectively contained before the invasion, as millions of persons asserted worldwide. The only thing not secured was the mid east oil. But our permanent bases will take care of that. The government we will eventually force on that nation and call democracy is just a perk to make folks feel better.


People of my ilk bring up Hitler when they want an example of a soulless tyrant whose goal in life is to impose his will upon the world through violent force, no matter how insane or improbable that goal may be. He's pretty much the gold standard for such behavior. Why do people of your ilk have such a difficulty with this?

Is it because his example so easily and utterly crushes your wide-eyed fantasy that war need not ever be the tool of the just?

But in honor of your sensibilities, we can remove him from the equation. There are no shortage of replacements to draw from in history, but let's stick with the two I used: Osama bin laden and Saddam Huessein. The latter initiated two wars in the course of his career and both for the advancement of his unsatiable desire for power. That we had him "contained" is a foolish assertion, no matter how many millions of fools may assert it. How did we have him contained? With the sanctions that resulted in the Oil for Food program? What do you think he was planning on doing with the billions he was receiving in kick backs from countries like France and Russia? Do you think absent a war in Iraq that an end would have come to the corruption of the Oil for Food program?

Do you believe that in the absence of a war that the sanctions would have even continued? France and Russia had already been making noises about their lifting.

Or do you believe that he had seen the light? That he had peered into the eyes of that most peaceful of men, Koffi Annan, and been converted to the straight and narrow?

If the notion that as long as such villains keep showing up, war is inevitable is so cartoonish, then surely you can offer the more sober and adult counterpoint. How should the world deal with powerful men of violence who show no inclination of changing their violent ways save in response to greater violence...levelled at them?

I'm also intrigued by your derisive comment that America only bullys those nations that are easy to attack.

It seems unspoken that you would have more use for our militaristic ways if we "picked on somebody our own size." A philosophy drawn from comic books if I ever saw one.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:30 am
If a Hitler analogy is to be used...a better one would be:

Why didn't the people who were backing Hitler...with his extremism and rashness...recognize the danger early enough to avoid having such a piece of shyt come into power and ruin their country...

...and why don't the people backing Bush and his neoconservatives see the same thing?

But come next January...Bush is out.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:45 am
If a Hitler analogy is to be used...a better one would be:

Why didn't the people who were backing Hitler...with his extremism and rashness...recognize the danger early enough to avoid having such a piece of shyt come into power and ruin their country...

...and why don't the people backing Bush and his neoconservatives see the same thing?

But come next January...Bush is out.



Because when peoiple compare the repubicans and Bush to hitler.... well lets just say the people doing the comparing arent worth listening to?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 04:45 am
In the first place, Finn, people of your ilk always accuse me of saying war is never justified, although there is no post of mine on the whole of a2k stating this. Then you bring up Hitler like a grown up threatening a small child with the boogeyman. Next you link bin Laden with crushing Hussein as if the Hitler thing still carries. Finally, you make the mistake of thinking we can't contain this tiny nation after we spent so many years succesfully containing the USSR, as if it has more power than they had. All self justifying scare tactics.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:18 am
Iraq was contained? North Korea was contained?

Under what false illusions?

The Min Bush took away the money Clinton was giving N Korea to "contain them, we see a nuclear program was going on regardless of the billions we spent paying them.......


******************************************
con·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-tn)
tr.v. con·tained, con·tain·ing, con·tains

To have within; hold.
To be capable of holding.
To have as component parts; include or comprise: The album contains many memorable songs.

To hold or keep within limits; restrain: I could hardly contain my curiosity.
To halt the spread or development of; check: Science sought an effective method of containing the disease.
To check the expansion or influence of (a hostile power or ideology) by containment.
Mathematics. To be exactly divisible by.
******************************************

No I do not believe Iraq or N Korea was contained at all
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:36 am
I hope your constant use of dictionary definitions are for the non-english speaking members of this forum AV. Because if they're for your American audience you are seriously underestimating our collective intelligence.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:02 am
Armeyvet provides another example of Finn-think. It ain't enough to talk about Iraq - in addition to Hitler we now have N Korea, as if to say if you don't accept our invasion of Iraq the commie Koreans will get you. Juvenile and disingenious.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:23 am
Finn wrote:
How should the world deal with powerful men of violence who show no inclination of changing their violent ways save in response to greater violence...levelled at them?


Vote them out of office!

I couldn't resist.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:38 am
again "Finn think" is referring to people who dont agree with your less than credible sources and your party rhetoric spinning?

Like I have stated a few times in here... your opinions are just that.... opinions

Just like mine are mine

You dont have to agree...I dont have to agree

Who is right? Who knows....You may be... I may be but who shall sit in judgment....

I wont... but then again I havent called anyone a moron or somehow judge you less qualified , or dealt out insults because you do not agree with me... it kind of ruins your credibility when you have to do that to try and make a point ....

Juvinile eh? Im not the one comparing people in this country to communists because I wont vote who they want to vote foror see things the way they do. I made a very simple statement according to Hitler, North Korea and Iraq....

Your definition of "CONTAINMENT" differs from mine, North Korea was not contained nor was Iraq in my definition of the word...

Not really sure what your definition of the word is, but it doesnt come close to the dictionary termology of it.

So I guess its your own "PERCEPTION" of it versus mine, makes us "percieve" it in 2 different ways, just like you perceive the party spinning to mean one thing and I perceive it to be another....

Perception is indeed a very subjective thing influenced by the values you feel important to you, and how you look at things....
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 08:20 am
Iraq was more contained before we in than after we went in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?th

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 25, 2004


his article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Administration officials said Sunday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings.

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain.

"This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Sunday evening that Saddam Hussein's government "stored weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals and countless other locations," and that the allied forces "have discovered and destroyed perhaps thousands of tons of ordnance of all types." A senior military official noted that HMX and RDX were "available around the world" and not on the nuclear nonproliferation list, even though they are used in the nuclear warheads of many nations.

The Qaqaa facility, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was well known to American intelligence officials: Mr. Hussein made conventional warheads at the site, and the I.A.E.A. dismantled parts of his nuclear program there in the early 1990's after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In the prelude to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Bush cited a number of other "dual use" items - including tubes that the administration contended could be converted to use for the nuclear program - as a justification for invading Iraq.

After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

(just so we won't get into another wmd arugment, the explosives were conventional, nonetheless they should have been watched and not allowed to just be looted by just anybody in "no man's land" as recently as sunday.)
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 09:09 am
Armyvet35
I have been reading some of your long winded screeds and have no intention of getting involved. However, I must make two comments. The first being that because you were involved in the first gulf war you appear to think that makes you some sort of expert on all things Iraq. In fact all things military. May I ask what were you a 3 or 4 star general?
As for Iraq being contained and the invasion being folly and build on lies that my friend has been sufficiently proven. And yes before you ask I served both before and during the Korean war.
Sorry just had to get that off my chest.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 09:17 am
I don't think armyvet35 has claimed to be expert in anything other than having an opinion based on personal experiences au1929.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 09:20 am
MgC
Thanks I sure am interested in your opinion. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 09:24 am
I know you are au1929. That is why I share it so openly! Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 06:09:21