People may not be aware of how deeply the criminal neocon system of beliefs have permeated the Bush Administration. It is very pervasive, very committed, criminally insane, and convinced they are right. They have also committed themselves to the potential pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear states they decide to claim are 'suspected of having WMD and suspected of plotting to attack the U.S.'

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is mad. No, I mean seriously ill. Mentally ill. Demonstrably so.

This article gives an excellent case for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and for other states to acquire them who might become potential US targets.
However in the case of Iran, according to Scott Ritter and other experts, the US is almost ready to strike and as the following article illustrates, US media is daily conditioning the US public that Iran is an enemy that should be attacked before it gets nuclear weapons and attacks the US.

Is there a case to be made for allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the interests of peace? Or has all the air been sucked out of the debate by American and Israeli demagogues who dominate the airwaves?
The case for a nuclear Iran doesn’t emerge from fear-mongering or saber-rattling, like the alternate view, but from reason and respect for widely accepted facts; both of which are sadly missing from the analysis appearing in the western media.

Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics who writes extensively on nuclear issues. His conclusions are similar to mine and to others who study and analyse nuclear policies. Such as Dr Helen Caldicott who has predicted a nuclear war during Bush's second term.
As Dr. Hirsch suggests: the time for discussion and protest about a potential, clandestine, sudden nuclear attack on Iran is now, not after the damage has been done.

Or will the world allow it to happen?
The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear.

.....The next U.S. pre-emptive war could be against Iran, and/or Syria. Both have been mentioned as potential targets by Bush, as has North Korea if it dares to try and make nuclear weapons.
...... From the following record, and George Bush's actions and statements, we know what to expect.
Hopefully this should encourage people to work to keep New Zealand nuclear-free, and encourage other countries to adopt this step toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

Sir,
I have been researching nuclear war issues since 1945, when some 200,000 people were killed by nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then you have adjusted the hands of your Doomsday Clock 18 times - closer or further from midnight and nuclear war. This depended on developments in nuclear weapon technology, national policies and international threats and crisis. The last time was in 2002 when you moved it from 9 to 7 minutes to midnight. This was because the U.S. rejected a series of arms control treaties and announced its withdrawal from the ABM treaty; nuclear weapons proliferation to India and Pakistan and the so-called ' terrorist threat'. It is now 3 years later and I suggest the threat of a nuclear war has increased to the highest level yet for the following 10 reasons:

It's the 60th anniversary of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which premiered in December, 1945, just a few months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The goal of the magazine has always been simple, if somewhat ambitious: to save the world by working to minimize the threat of nuclear war. It came out of a time when physicists were central players in questions of international security. It came out of a time when physicists were central players in questions of international security.

Mankind has created a number of ways which could be used to trigger an extinction process, as assessed by this article by editors of the Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists in Dec 2004. Some factors not assessed, even more relevant today are: 1. The possibility of an unbalanced, rogue and/or ideologically-driven government gaining power and deliberately implementing a strategy of war and terror attacks which then escalate into a self-extinction process. Some suspect this may already be happening....

Loose nukes, nanobots, smallpox, oh my! In this age of endless imagining, and some very real risks, which terrorist threats should be taken most seriously?

A search on "Pre-emptive Nuclear War" revealed there are 1,750,000 entries on Google.
They illustrate the colossal investment in designing and making various types of nuclear weapons and the strategies to use them.
Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the nuclear arms race during the last 65 years since 1945. Now think about the paltry fig-leaf sum devoted to peace and disarmament and the suspicion and rejection of those working in this field. These facts and reflections tell you something about humanity and our runaway race toward extinction.

A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons. While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy. If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.

This 2003 paper gives a historical record of the development of nuclear war as a tool to achieve US military objectives.
No longer were nuclear weapons to be regarded as a deterrent "last resort" type of doomsday device. There was a new doctrine to use nuclear weapons first or "pre-emptively" - supposedly before the claimed enemy had a chance to use what the Pentagon calls "weapons of mass destruction" against the US.
The Pentagon will supply the so-called "intelligence" to justify it. This would likely be a phoney doctored intelligence, similar to what they supplied to justify the war on Iraq with a litany of accusations later found to be false.
Based on what they knew to be lies, Bush for the US and Blair for the UK , nevertheless warned they might use nuclear weapons against Iraq if Iraq resisted the US-UK invasion with WMD.
The alleged WMD could be anything the Bush Administration chose to define as WMD.

It Keeps Getting Scarier and Scarier
...The prospect of the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq adds a new, even more horrifying dimension to the threat of war in the Persian Gulf. LaRouche has already called on President Bush to renounce this madness.
The leak of the Jan. 10, 2003 document did not come in a vacuum. For the past year, the Bush Administration has been moving, step by step, to overturn a fifty year policy of keeping nuclear weapons on the shelf, as part of America's strategic deterrent. Here is a short chronology:
In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

n the article below, past US presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche predicts a new Bush neocon-generated terrorist attack on the US. This will be used as an excuse to launch a nuclear attack on Iran, as 9/11 was used to launch an attack on Iraq.
Iraq was accused by a litany of false accusations and outright lies before Bush launched his war. Iran will be similarly accused to justify a US attack. The US people were fooled by Bush's Iraq lies. They approved and re-elected him. As before, the media will repeat the lies justifying the US attack and back new 'patriot' laws suppressing civil liberties, conscription of Americans for war, and smothering any criticism or dissent. Congress and the Senate will fall over themselves praising Bush's leadership and heroism in this time of crisis. Bush's popularity will skyrocket.

And Leading World Into Global Disaster
Former Democratic nominee for President and Labor Party Presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche, claims martial law is right around the corner if Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons aren't removed from their stranglehold on government.
He likes to call President Bush “Georgie Porgie” and Vice President Cheney “Hitler in a bunker.” He considers Bush a half-wit and a “nominal President” while classifying Cheney, actually in control of the country, as trigger-happy and a Hitler-type mad-hatter.

If you care about the future you must read these articles
...Today nuclear war threats have become greater than ever with at least 8 nuclear weapon states and a growth in global crisis points where a nuclear war could start. The new nuclear war doctrines allow a US president to start a pre-emptive nuclear war which could grow to destroy civilisation. We believe there are many better ways to deal with terrorist and WMD threats than destroying innocent people, if not the world. What do you think?

...Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.
The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

In spite of National hecklers causing her to cut short her speech, Helen Clark emphasised her party's nuclear-free
message to Canterbury University students today September 13.
I hope there is still time for this message, and for the range of nuclear issues and consequences if it is changed, to be communicated to voters, so that they take it into account when voting - as they did in 1984 and 1987 when Labour treated it as an important issue.
As mentioned in my September 7 posting, previous Labour leaflets circulated to homes, omitted this important issue.
In fact nuclear issues, and the dangers of a nuclear war, are more important in 2005 than in 1984 when Labour first used this benefit during an election.
NZ media were a bit more honest then and more accurately reported the dangers of nuclear war under US President, Ronald Reagan. People were better informed. Today, the NZ media is much more under foreign control. Most openly support the Bush Regime and illegal war on Iraq. That means that much of the real news about nuclear dangers under Bush and the extremism of the Bush regime is either suppressed, not mentioned at all, or completely misrepresented.

Bush creates a phoney situation, launches a totally unjustified war on Iraq based on a number of untrue accusations; then accuses other middle east nations, such as Syria, of hindering his conquests, even if his accusations are themselves untrue. Then one of his mindless disciples, such as Rep Sam Johnston, call for the US to commit the greatest crime in history - the unprovoked use of nuclear weapons - to enforce Bush's will in the deliberately manufactured situation.
Millions of Americans will be appalled, but millions of Bush supporters will be persuaded that this is the right thing to do.
Increasingly, Bush supporters believe they have some kind of divine right to launch a nuclear armageddon against any imagined opponents, or nations which the Bush Administration claims are opponents.

Washington, DC -- Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) has advocated for attacking Syria with nuclear weapons. Rep. Johnson was quoted telling a recent church gathering, "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore." The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is outraged at Rep. Johnson's statement advocating for mass destruction and genocide and views this as a sad day in our country's tradition when an elected member of the United States Congress openly advocates for attacking another country with nuclear weapons.

Pentagon's Actions Towards Depleted Uranium Use 'Beyond Treason'
Popular activist-broadcaster, Joyce Riley, hits government 'right between the eyes' with powerful new documentary exposing cover-up of depleted uranium illnesses, leaving Gulf War troops sick and dying.

Carefully analyse the Russian warning below. It is an ominous warning, but unlikely to deter the Bush Administration's advanced war plans for Iran.
All governments should know about Bush's policies on pre-emptive nuclear war, instructions to the Pentagon for a nuclear assault plan that might be used against Iran, taking out those nations the President decrees could become potential enemies, his 'Axis of Evil' speech and what it means, his Nuclear Posture Review, warning that up to 7 nations could be attacked with US nuclear weapons including Russia and China and the 3 crisis situations that could set it off: (1) The Middle East, (2) The Korean Peninsula (3) China and Taiwan. There are more. The self-justifying, self-fulfilling delusional aspects of Bush's reality, as he chooses to define and express in his recent speeches, also have to be taken into account. Never forget that Bush and Blair manufactured the hideous situation they studiously defend and continue in spite of being exposed as dangerous liars.

"We consider that it would be counter-productive and dangerous to use force, the serious consequences of which would be barely predictable." warning from the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Bush Administration about prospective plans to attack Iran.

Dr. Helen Caldicott warned earlier this year, that there would probably be a nuclear war during Bush second term.
Now Paul Craig Roberts shows how it can likely happen, if Bush starts a war with Iran.
..... Roberts says, Bush is crazy. However if Bush believes he is following some kind divine plan, and/or believes he is divinely inspired, enough people in our Christian culture share his view to help make it happen.

With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush’s war against Iraq and convinced that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans--a step considered more likely with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president--but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place.

To stop further slaughter in the Middle East, please take action on the possibility of massive bombing, invasion and slaughter of Palestinians by Israel. Some of Sharon's most ardent supporters believe God gave Palestinian territory to Israel 3,000 years ago, and that therefore Israel has the right to drive Palestinians off the land and then possess it as their own. The expansion of Israel into Palestine and building Jewish settlements on Palestine land, is a part of this policy and was initiated by Sharon. Israel needs resistance by the Palestinians and the consequent killing of some Jews, which they call "terrorism", in order to justify continued expansion, bulldogging Palestinian homes and stealing their land.

What May Come After the Evacuation of Jewish Settlers from the Gaza Strip
We feel that it is urgent and necessary to raise the alarm regarding what may come during and after evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967, in the event that the evacuation is implemented.

Can you imagine that in a time of peace at the end of the cold war, with the US recognised as the only superpower, the US military takes 68 cents of every tax dollar for defence, as against only 32 cents on everything else. And it's not enough, they want more.

Many Americans believe that 19 cents on defense for every 81 cents on non-defense is a reasonable way to spend a tax dollar. But by another calculation, the tax dollar splits 68 cents for defense and 32 cents on everything else. It is a common misconception that U.S. defense expenditure is equivalent to the Department of Defense outlays. Instead of $436.4 billion of defense expenditure, as Congressional budgeteers count, government statisticians in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) counted $548.0 billion for calendar year 2004—a whopping $112 billion difference. And by our own calculations, U.S. defense expenditure is much higher than even the BEA's numbers suggest, namely $765.6 billion in calendar year 2004—about $330 billion or than the Department of Defense outlays.

In answer to U.S. Ambassador Swindells (July 5) the theory that humanity must exist under the threat of global nuclear destruction for reasons of security was rejected by New Zealanders when they enacted the Nuclear Free Act in 1987. In spite of the end of the cold war, why do Russia and the U.S. still have thousands of nuclear missiles ready for instant launch against each other.

Obviously the US does not need the poisonous U-238 for security as claimed. The US is already the one and only super power and can destroy any enemy, even the whole of humanity, at any time. In these perilous times, it is not beyond possibility that an 'End Times Nuclear War' would be launched by a religious Fundamentalist nutter Administration. They may think it is time for the religious Armageddon that Fundamentalists believe was promised in the Bible.

NEW YORK - The United States plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported on Monday.
The newspaper quoted project managers as saying most, if not all, of the new plutonium was intended for secret missions. The officials would not disclose details, but the newspaper said the plutonium in the past powered espionage devices.
The Times said Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the US Energy Department, vigorously denied in a recent interview any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Frazier was quoted as saying.
Officials at the Energy Department could not be reached for comment.

Bush knows enemies are much more politically potent vote-getters than peace partners looking for a solution to a very expensive 50 year problem. The US and Korea are still at war and Bush wants to keep it that way. So he spurned Kim's offer of nuclear peace talks.
The US has 10,000 nuclear weapons and Trident subs loaded with nuclear missiles cruising off the Coast of North Korea. They can wipe out North Korea anytime. Nevertheless the US propaganda machine will portray it as the ultra dangerous enemy with it's few nuclear weapons.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-il attempted to engage President Bush directly on the nuclear weapons issue three years ago but the administration spurned the overture, two American experts on Asia said on Wednesday.
Writing in the Washington Post, former U.S. ambassador to South Korea Donald Gregg and former journalist Don Oberdorfer expressed concern that Kim's November 2002 initiative was never pursued and urged Bush to respond positively to his current overture, made last week.

Before another War Breaks Out
The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the so-called threat from Iraq's non-existent WMD's was just an excuse-a smokescreen this administration used as a way to skirt international laws and to sell the war to a gullible media and a misinformed public-the president's cabinet used so they could execute a decades-old plan cooked up by hardcore Neocons to spread democracy throughout the Middle East by conquering "rogue" nations such as Iraq like some modern day Roman Empire. They call it Pax Americana, Latin for "American Peace."

The Downing Street memos have created such a stir that even Congress is rubbing its eyes and awakening from its long slumber to ask questions about the Iraq war: a hearing convened by antiwar Democrats, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has created quite a lot of buzz, generating headlines – and howls of outrage from all the usual suspects, as well as from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank and – surprise, surprise! – Howard "The Scream" Dean. Milbank snarks:
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe. They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."

Bush and Blair connived to deceive their own people and the world, so as to make war on Iraq as the following article documents. Over 100,000 people were killed as a result of the deception of these two leaders, their staff and Ministers. Adding a new dimension of diabolical evil to their plot, they threatened to use nuclear weapons if Iraq resisted their invasion with any weapons which Bush and Blair classified as WMD. That could mean escalation to a nuclear WW III.

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

Call it Star Wars, parts VII-XXII; but last week, just as Revenge of the Sith was opening galaxy-wide -- multiplexes on Tatooine alone were expected to pull in billions -- reporter Tim Weiner revealed on the front page of the New York Times that a new presidential directive will soon essentially green-light the future U.S. militarization of space.
(When, in December 2001, the administration withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which forbade the weaponization of space, it opened the way for exactly the kind of Pentagon R&D that now threatens to come to mutant fruition in the heavens.) Just three days before Weiner's piece appeared, military analyst William Arkin reported in the Washington Post that "early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret 'Interim Global Strike Alert Order,'" preparing the way for devastating attacks against hostile powers developing weapons of mass destruction, air strikes that could be carried out more or less on demand anywhere on the planet and, if so desired, included a "nuclear option."

The radioactive microscopic dust residue from depleted uranium weapons has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and eventually drifts from wherever it was first used, around the world. It kills and causes life-threatening diseases wherever it goes, and also contaminates the gene pool causing hideously malformed foetuses.
The US and UK like it because it is such an effective battlefield weapon; so they keep defending it's usage.
They have used D.U. weapons in 4 wars so far. It also kills or contaminates many US and UK war veterans and their offspring. There is a very large amount of evidence of it's damage, and many groups working to outlaw such weapons.
The long-term effects around the world are potentially devastating for the human race, as D.U. goes on killing forever.

“After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death.”

In 1987, the sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion: the corporate offensive". He described how in the United States "great progress [had been] made towards the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy", whose principal aim was to identify a rapacious business state "with every cherished human value". The power and meaning of true democracy, of the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to the propaganda of advertising, public relations and corporate-run news. This "model of ideological control", he predicted, would be adopted by other countries, such as Britain.

Following this analysis, is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines.
It has much deeper implications than I first thought.
.....Bush, and his ally, the UK, both threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish their objectives - if they claimed their chosen enemy used what Bush and his allies decided was WMD. That is, Bush and his allies threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish military objectives in a war they started based on lies they invented.
I find that mind-blowingly evil and pathologically stupid.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

Competent NZ defence planners would advise against providing future potential enemies with ready-made
nuclear targets in New Zealand.

What this amounts to is that enough people in the US and UK have been fooled and are now courting Global Extinction. They have said: "we'll endorse Bush and Blair so they can do the same again. Of course they don't realise it and most don't think much at all. But the unexpected - nuclear extinction as a result - can easily happen. Without realising it, people are taking part in a lethal, perhaps terminal, gamble, to satisfy our leaders' drive for Empire.

UNITED NATIONS: If the world does not take steps to limit access to technology for making nuclear bomb fuel, we could be headed for a nuclear apocalypse, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog said yesterday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, has proposed a 5-year moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and production of plutonium, but many countries have balked at the idea.
Speaking to reporters at a UN-sponsored conference on nuclear disarmament, ElBaradei said if more and more countries get hold of the technology to make bomb-grade uranium and plutonium, there will be many "virtual nuclear weapon states" that could quickly put together a bomb at any time.

All but unheard in the snarling din are the true voices of peace -- voices calling on the one group of nations to resist the demonic allure of nuclear arms and on the other group to rid themselves of the ones they have, leaving the world with a single standard: no nuclear weapons. Of the countries represented at the conference, fully 183 have found it entirely possible to live without atomic arsenals, and few -- barring a breakdown of the treaty -- show any sign of changing their minds. In the UN General Assembly the vast majority of them have voted regularly for nuclear abolition. Behind those votes stand the people of the world, who, when asked, agree. Even the people of the United States are in the consensus. Presented by AP pollsters in March with the statement, "No country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons," 66% agreed. In other countries, the percentage of supporters is higher. On the day their voices are heard and their will made active, the end of the nuclear age will be in sight.     www.tomdispatch.com - May 23rd edition

Here is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines.
It is a proposal on actions a local commander may request to initiate a limited nuclear war action.
Now the cowboys can really play God!
Real war games for the boys but the world they are gambling with is ours too.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

Once NZ again becomes a nuclear warship host nation, as National wants, we also become a potential target. National wants the nuclear warship ban lifted, so allied warships may again visit us and we can help our allies - the US and UK - in their illegal wars such as the Iraq war.
A general nuclear war can destroy involved nations and some others; perhaps all others eventually; in an afternoon according to all the expert studies I have seen during the last 50 years.

This is a very powerful indictment of Bushism by an angry American lady. With great eloquence and insight she sees where Bush is leading the American people and the consequences for the world.
His poisoning of people with D.U. weapons, not just in Iraq, but eventually everywhere, means extinction for humanity - sooner for some, later for others. With a half life of 4.5 billion years, D.U. Microscopic particles drift around the world, poisoning, causing crippling diseases, and killing forever. There is no doubt whatsoever, that those using these insidious weapons, and those who order them to be used, are mass murderers, guilty of the most heinous war crimes and violations of international law. George Bush and Tony Blair know this - that they are war criminals - but they are willing to take any risks - multiple risks.

Getting the attention of the American people is, for the most part, a futile exercise -- like screaming into the wind. One wonders how many birth defects, such as babies born with no internal organs, fused organs, no brains, no eyes in empty sockets, will it take before Americans join their international counterparts and cry, "Enough!" When will we realize we are the terrorists, and our *weapon of mass destruction is Depleted Uranium?

Blair deliberately suppressed UK Attorney-General's advice that the war was illegal. He also ignored Hans Blix's report to the UN that "no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far".

The Iraq war has erupted as a major Election issue after legal advice warning Tony Blair that the conflict breached international law was sensationally leaked.
The Government's refusal to disclose the advice has been one of the most controversial issues since the war ended, but The Mail on Sunday can now reveal for the first time exactly what counsel Mr Blair received.

at Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review May 2-27
The world community must deliver a unified and unequivocal message that arduously negotiated treaties and international agreements cannot be simply dismissed, undermined or negated. Civil society therefore calls upon all governments to implement the promise embodied in the NPT: a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.

Since 1945 and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuclear bombings, the US has led the way in developing nuclear weapons. A total of nine states now deploy nuclear weapons, supposedly for their security. They were originally portrayed as a deterrent to prevent attack. But now the US, under Bush, has changed the rules. They can now be used for war-making as one of a number of options in a conventional war situation.

More than 30 Nobel laureates have joined hundreds of organizations and lawmakers in signing a statement to be released today calling for all strategic nuclear weapons to be taken off "hair-trigger" and "launch on warning" alerts
(see GSN, June 22, 2004).

Professor Michael Klare, for many years, an internationally recognised specialist in Oil politics and anti-war issues has written the following first-rate paper on US reasons for planning a war against Iran. It's oil again. He, UN WMD inspector Scott Ritter, and others have predicted the US will begin the war in June 2005 unless people stop them.
                  PAN meeting on Monday May 2 at 7.30pm at the Greens office on Bedford Row, Christchurch, NZ

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement.

As the Nobel winners point out, nuclear extinction could happen in an hour - by accident. And this state of instant readiness has been going on for years. As many experts have said, a global holocaust has almost happened several times due to faults in the system, human error, miscalculation and misinterpretations of incoming data.

32 Nobel Laureates and 237 organizations and parliamentarians from around the world have signed a Statement of Endorsement that calls for removing all strategic nuclear weapons from "hair-trigger alert and "Launch on Warning" status. In addition the Statement has been endorsed by the European Parliament and by the Australian Senate.

To justify the war on Iraq and everything since, Bush's neocons wrote in their pre-9/11 Iraq war plans that "we need another Pearl Harbour". 9/11 gave it to them, and they were keen to start the pre-planned Iraq war from the day 9/11 happened. They did not have a shred of real evidence to support this war, so they created a litany of justifying lies. Other articles on this site under "US Elections" and "9/11 Questions" show US election fraud and doubt the 'official' story on the origins of 9/11.

This article below is particularly important because it reveals that the US itself creates many of the terrorism incidents and then blames other for these actions. Thus they are creating the excuse they need for increasing their military action.

The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

If more unjust and illegal wars of aggression are looming on the horizon, it's our job as responsible people of conscience to stop them through either constitutional impeachment proceedings or collective civil disobedience -- which is to say, through our nonviolent noncooperation with evil

Scott Ritter said in a previous article that the US will be ready to start bombing Iran in June 2005, if Bush orders it.
He points out "that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005."

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was
going.
The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the
Iranian nuclear programme.

Step by step, Bush's 'US' is building its new Empire
Every nation not supportive of the continuing US crusade is a possible candidate for US assault.
Evan documents the insane doctrines of pre-emptive US war against anyone, anytime, anywhere the US unilaterally decides to attack. War policies are decided by a small coterie of un-elected, psychopathic neocons selected by President Bush. He has promoted them to the highest ranks of the US government. Bush does not listen to any criticism or alternative advice. They have been planning war against Iraq and other states for many years - long before the 9/11 attack.

Pentagon Confirms That Unilateral Preemptive Strikes Are Now US Policy
The Pentagon has released a new strategic plan, blandly titled "The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," that explicitly endorses unilateral preemptive strikes.
This is yet another indication that the Bush administration is dramatically accelerating away from longstanding doctrines that are upheld by both general international law and seemingly-important transatlantic coalitions like NATO.

But these war crimes are only a beginning. Bush has threatened to widen the war to Iran and Syria. The famous anti-war campaigner, Dr Helen Caldicott says the re-election of Bush means endless wars and the probable use of nuclear weapons as Bush pursues his imperial crusade under the camouflage of “war on terror”
Nelson Mandella calls Bush the most dangerous man in the world. This madman and his crackpot neoconservative regime must be stopped before they destroy the world

Chossudovsky is one of the world's leading analysts of US foreign and military policies.
The following paper proves that. His forte is determining where the US is really headed, and what strategy it intends to use to get there. He does not cover the potential dire consequences of US strategy, at least in this article.
But the consequences are huge. We are looking at the rapid militarization of US society as a whole, and harnessing the resources of the state and the people, to achieve bizarre, even paranoid, and exceedingly dangerous military objectives.

The Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which sketches America's agenda for global military domination.
This redirection of America's military strategy seems to have passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal (see below in annex), not a word has been mentioned in the US media.
There has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious military blueprint. The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's global military design which consists in "enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced weapons systems.

.......And besides, someone has to keep the press honest. In recent weeks Krugman's column has focused heavily on the flaws in the president's Social Security proposal—flaws the media have downplayed, he says, because the press seems "extremely hostile to Social Security as it is" and "really buys into the notion of a crisis."
This might be because Social Security is an issue that is clearly important but that few in the media really understand. To the press, "it became a badge," Krugman says. "You needed to learn about two paragraphs of stuff and then you could go on a panel and sound like a grave, serious person concerned about the problems of the United States."

Disarmament Minister Marian Hobbs will be advocating for a strengthened nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty when she represents New Zealand at the five-yearly NPT review conference in New York in May.
It is 20 years today since former Prime Minister David Lange won the 1985 Oxford Union debate arguing that nuclear weapons were morally indefensible. Today Marian Hobbs reiterated that nuclear disarmament remains New Zealand's ultimate goal.

Although this article below was written in 2003, it does illuminate some of the mysteries of why so many Americans seem to be taken in, and echo, Bush lies and why so many seem to deny the very threatening realities that confront them every day....
....I realise that to many readers this will seem too bizarre to be possible. If so, remember that our supposedly ‘sane’ global society has lived on the brink of a nuclear self-annihilation for 60 years and, in spite of the end of the cold war, continues to work on the means to bring this about. Millions of people know that a nuclear holocaust has almost happened on several occasions, but they do nothing to prevent it or try and change the situation.. It’s a huge industry employing millions of people and costing trillions of dollars. Many people have learned to accept this situation as necessary for global security reasons, or as part of the human environment. The authors say “get smart, and then we will reclaim our Republic.”

US EXPANDS THREAT TO OTHER STATES

StratCom Will Oversee WMD Efforts

U.S. Redesigning Atomic Weapons

U.S.-Israel plan to strike Irans nuclear sites finalized

Experts from the U.S. Defense Department, the Pentagon and Israel have put final touches to a plan to launch a military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, experts at the European Commission based in Brussels, revealed on Sunday.

Space Wars Dream - Will It Fizzle Out Again?

. . . . In this deadly nuclear gamesmanship, would the present or a future US administration ever decide to make a surprise massive first nuclear strike against Russia, China or some other state, taking a calculated risk that they can destroy the retaliatory power of their chosen enemy?

Star Wars Faces a Budget Hit

Unreliability is just one reason why funding is being cut.
The other is the changing nature of potential threats to U.S. security.

Strike against Iran will have huge political costs

A US or Israeli military strike against Iran without UN authorisation would entail huge political costs and be seen as an act of aggression.
According to a short study by George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, such a strike would be less likely to cause Egypt and Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons than would allowing Iran to acquire such weapons. It would be seen as an act of aggression in violation of the enforcement processes envisioned, but ill-defined, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

CIA changes tune on Iraq WMD

A January 18 report, titled "Iraq: No Large-Scale Chemical Warfare Efforts Since Early 1990s," concludes that Saddam Hussein abandoned major chemical weapons programs after the first Gulf War in 1991.

"IRAN WILL BE A "PLAYER"   Another Iranian official said the Europeans were simply trying to clear the way for themselves and Russia to have a monopoly on fuel supply in the region.

DOES BUSH MEAN IT? - YES THEY DO

Look at Dr. Roberts background (at end)consider his experience, and then read his analysis.
In "Does Bush Mean It?, Craig warns us, and shows his concern and reasons for believing "Yes they do"
Everyone should be as concerned as everyone wished Germans had been in 1938.
Except now the predictions are for far, far worse.

Does Bush Mean It?

Readers in numbers beyond my ability to reply individually have challenged me whether President Bush’s inaugural speech is a statement of his intentions or merely a celebration of himself and American democracy. Surely Bush doesn’t believe America has the power to remake the world in its own image other than by being an example for others to follow?
...The answer is that it doesn’t matter whether Bush believes, or even understands, what he said. The neoconservatives believe it, and they control the Bush administration.

N.Korea Reportedly Says it has Atom Bombs

North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China have met for three rounds of talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear weapons ambitions. North Korea has boycotted a fourth round planned before the end of September.

THE COMING WARS     What the Pentagon can now do in secret.

“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”

Reaction to Tsunami Deaths.

Compared to Reaction to Deaths Caused by US Illegal Wars
People and governments gave and pledged billions of dollars to relieve the suffering and rebuild the towns and cities of suffering victims. Thousands offered to work for nothing in order to help the Tsunami victims.
But very few are taking any action, or spending anything at all, to stop the 100,000 horrific deaths and suffering being purposefully inflicted by President Bush, Prime Ministers Blair and Howard and others on Iraqis. Nor do they act or spend to stop the even more horrific nuclear threats.. President Bush, by his actions, demonstrates to people every day, that it is okay to kill, maim, imprison and torture innocent Iraqis. Evidence and trials are not required according Bush, so long as he defines them as a "suspect terrorists or associates". Bush waves his magic propaganda wand and makes these innocent victims different from the Tsunami innocent victims. So the majority of people are unconcerned. Some even believe him.
The question is: How can people have so much sympathy for Tsunami victims, but little or none for the 100,000 + victims of Bush, Blair, Howard, and others of the 'Coalition of the Willing's' illegal war?
It seems to be a dramatic demonstration of how gullible people can be, and how easily manipulated most are to war propaganda, even when they know it's an illegal unjust war.

Total number of deaths from the Tsunami so far: 150,000
Upper limit of deaths from the Tsunami: 300,000 (assuming massive mortality from disease)
Number of immediate fatalities at Hiroshima: Appx 200,000
Estimated number of fatalities for a SINGLE 15-30Kt warhead strike on Bombay (Mumbai) 150-800,000
Estimated number of fatalities from a 'limited' India/Pakistan nuclear exchange: 15 million
I believe that the Tsunami contains lessons for us all, including lessons in how to remove the mutual distrust of each other that might result in the far grimmer scenarios sketched above...
...What these ghastly diabolical numbers show is that so far the Tsunami has merely managed to equal the Hiroshima body - count.

Bush Plans Long Escalating Wars

As Robert Parry points out, Bush plans long wars, is purging any doubters like Colin Powell and installing sycophants who will support his every wish. So rather than have a more moderate second term, Bush plans on more wars. I think he will decide to use nuclear weapons and believe that nuclear weapons use has been built into the neocon middle-east plan. Otherwise why would he lower the nuclear barrier in his new preemptive war doctrines, make new nuclear weapons and plan to resume testing?

George W. Bush’s vision for America’s future is coming into clearer focus following Election 2004: For the next generation or more, it appears the American people will be asked to sacrifice their children, their tax dollars and possibly the remnants of their democracy to what a top U.S. commander now candidly calls the “Long War.”