Pre-emptive nuclear madness: an Iraq legacy
by yarra Tuesday, Jan 22 2008, 2:00pm
It was certain! Failing to adequately deal with the illegal, pre-emptive strike on Iraq has given license to the same criminals and sociopaths to adopt pre-emptive NUCLEAR strikes today! The conventional pre-emptive strike on Iraq was based on lies; the result is the first holocaust of the 21st century but that HORRENDOUS REALITY seems to have been overlooked by the psychopaths who drafted the latest nuclear strike manifesto in Western Europe.
ICBM -- phallus compensation
The world is no doubt filled with confidence after the pre-emptive conventional military intervention in Iraq – imagine the consequences had nuclear weapons been utilised! We expect any pre-emptive nuclear attack from NATO to be an even greater ‘success story’ than the Iraq fiasco – the foaming mad dogs of war must be stopped!
Fortunately the Guardian (see link) has listed the names of the signatories to this insane document – the manifesto actually constitutes irrefutable evidence of mental incompetence. However, the law has been thoroughly corrupted or made subservient to criminal interests. Would anyone be surprised if the signatories to this insane document were to meet with strange accidents and other debilitating calamities in the very near future?
Some people value their lives and take affront when insane militarists threaten the existence of all life on earth – as proof of the madness of militarists the issue is listed for debate in the future! A mad hatter’s nuclear tea party, no doubt!
In view of the seriousness of the situation and to compensate for broken links in the future, we have decided to publish a local article in full:
Pre-emptive nuclear strikes an option
© 2008 News Limited
January 22, 2008
THE West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, a radical new manifesto argues.
The document - written by five of the West's most senior military officers and strategists - has been presented to the Pentagon and NATO's secretary-general.
They argue there is a need for urgent and comprehensive reform of NATO, The Guardian reports.
A new pact - involving the United States, NATO and the European Union - was also essential to face the challenges ahead, they said.
The manifesto is likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the paper said.
The authors include some of the top defence minds in the West, including General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and NATO's ex-supreme commander in Europe.
The others are General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO's military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the United Kingdom.
The former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" as there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world", The Guardian reports.
It said the manifesto had been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom were unable or unwilling to publicly air their views.
"The risk of further (nuclear) proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors wrote, according to The Guardian.
"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
It identified a number of key threats to the West's values and way of life, including international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
It also cited the weakening of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO and the EU.
To prevail, they said, NATO's decision-taking methods must be overhauled, moving to a majority rather than a consensus model, putting an end to national vetoes.
A new "directorate" of US, European and NATO leaders must also be established to respond rapidly to crises.
The five also proposed the use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings,'' The Guardian reported.
Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call''.
"This report means that the core of the NATO establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the West is adrift and not facing up to the challenges," he told the paper.
Naumann admitted the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial'' even among the five authors.
But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said.
Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."
COMMENTSshow latest comments first show comment titles only
jump to comment 1
George Bush and White House issued 935 false statements after September 11
by via reed - news.com.au Tuesday, Jan 22 2008, 8:31pm
by staff writers
January 23, 2008 06:24pm
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
According to the study, 935 false statements were issued by the White House in the two years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
In speeches, briefings and interviews, President Bush and other officials stated “unequivocally” on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda, or had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them.
“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaeda,” wrote the study’s authors Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith.
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
The other officials named in the study are vice president Dick Cheney, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
“The cumulative effect of these false statements – amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts – was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war,” the study concluded.
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
© 2008 News Limited
<< back to stories