El Baradei was praised by the Nobel chairman for resisting U.S. pressures to find the hard nuclear evidence against Iran
they could use in their plans to justify attack.
That may not be enough to stop the U.S. and Israel from attacking Iran.

The director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapons stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.

One of the strongest influences in the Bush Administration are the Neo-Conservatives. They fill many of the top positions in the Bush Administration. Their war plans for the U.S. in the Middle East have so far been implemented, such as their phoney war with Iraq. It was promoted before the 9/11 attack- the "Pearl Harbour" the Neocons claimed they needed to justify the war to the American people. Although the war was based on a number of lies - now well-known and publicised, both the Republicans and Democrats want victory over Iraq - nothing less. This and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's silence about the war lie's is one of many indications that the Democrats have sold out to the Republicans and that the American system of Democracy has been corrupted by the military/industrial complex, other corporates, the oil interests and other special interests.

Steven P. Weisman wrote in The New York Times of Nov. 19 that the “biggest challenge” in President George W. Bush’s second term is “how to contain” Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, however, Iran constitutes no threat to the United States. Its “threat” is to Israel, according to “some” (read neocons) in the administration who believe that Iran supports violence against Israel and helps the resistance in Iraq.

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.

....For the first time in history criminal leaders have nuclear arsenals to impose their will and have said they are prepared to use them. The US, UK, Israel and other 'Coalition of the Willing' nations are waging illegal, unjustified wars and have threatened opponents with nuclear weapons to achieve their objectives. It is a giant conspiracy that threatens to destroy all humanity.

Five days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed the nation that the U.S. government would begin working "the dark side" to defeat its enemies in a new global war. "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion," Cheney declared on NBC's "Meet the Press." He added, "It's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal."

"Was 9/11 more than just an attack? Could the Bush administration have had anything to gain from the attack? Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story."    Watch it online. Real video   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

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.

Blair's bid to allow police to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge has failed in Parliament.
..... It is very clear, that the public needs a massive educational effort by top experts and speakers using every means of modern communication on the truths of our perilous situation. I think that would motivate enough people to stop Bush, Blair and Howard from committing more and perhaps far worse war crimes. Unless quick action is taken we are unlikely to be able stop the deterioration to more wars and worse disasters.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was due to risk his first major defeat in parliament overnight (NZT) in a bid to allow police to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

This report of Dr Robert White's paper on some of the historical background to N.Z.'s 1984 nuclear-free legislation contains many useful and valuable facts.
As the originator of the campaign to make New Zealand a nuclear free zone, I will offer some comment and point out a few gaps. These can be examined in greater detail on our website: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz/archives/creationnznf.htm
The article does not mention the importance of the local and national nuclear free zone campaign in causing the Labour Party to make the decision for David Lange to propose in 1984:
" If we are elected government of New Zealand we will make the whole country nuclear free."

Dr Robert White spoke to the July meeting of the Auckland Branch of ESR to comment on the historical background to New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation in 1984, and comment on the present situation.
On 14 July 1984 the Labour Government came to power and introduced the first nuclear-free policy for weapons and reactors on ships that New Zealand had ever had. It also established NZ as the first ever, single-nation, nuclear weapons-free zone. NZ is the only country that has put its nuclear-free policy into law which is comprehensive and expresses our complete rejection of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, or having anything to do with them. For many New Zealanders it is very symbolic and has won our country international recognition as an advocate of a nuclear-free world.

Over 350(US) billion dollars yearly finances the US Global War On Terror (GWOT).
As the following report by the Center For Defense Information shows, much of it is wasted. Some 12 billion cannot be accounted for. As pointed out in other papers on this site, the U.S. continues to create enemies in order to justify ever increasing defence budgets. These in turn help make arms corporations very, very wealthy. Naturally that assures continuing large campaign donations from the mainly republican arms trade corporations to ensure Bush and other Republican candidates and chosen Democrats get re-elected.

From Sept. 11, 2001, to last week, the federal government has spent $357 billion on the “Global War on Terror.” These expenses include military operations, reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and security at U.S. bases and embassies overseas.

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.

In discussing the nuclear free issue (which I am in full agreement with) someone replied two days ago "its just a farce because our hospitals are nuclear powered." I have heard this before - is this correct and if so how.

Hospitals do a lot of radiation for medical purposes, with which we have always agreed. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association has always agreed with the peaceful applications of nuclear technology for medical and industrial uses. However hospitals are not nuclear powered, but powered by electricity. There is no nuclear power in NZ.

David Lange was a great man in many ways. His brilliant wit and his grasp of any topic for debate were the first things one noticed. To my mind his most valuable contribution to mankind was that he chose to make the vitally important stand for world nuclear disarmament by declaring New Zealand nuclear free. This was an idea that I had been promoting since 1981. It developed out of 36 years of peacework since the first nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. I am deeply grateful that he recognised the potential good this policy could achieve.
........  "I can smell the uranium on your breadth"

Although written in 2002, the following article gives a blueprint on how the US can create covertly, the very terrorism they condemn and which they use to justify wars - such as the much-predicted war on Iran. It may seem puzzling and counterproductive why the so-called terrorists in Iraq seem to be attacking Sunnis and Shiites in the apparent attempt to foment a civil or religious war between the two factions. Why would they do that if the objective is to get rid of US occupation?
On the other hand if a civil war did develop in Iraq, the US would have a reason to remain rather than withdraw, thus giving them a motive to foment a civil war between the two factions.
The British used similar techniques called "divide and rule" - setting one faction against another - in building their Empire.

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.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times.

Throughout human history, we have created many ingenious reasons to go to war - thousands of wars. PNAC's US Empire plans and methods may be diabolically evil, but also extremely cunning and effectively sold by all the techniques of modern communication. The US people have been carefully shielded from knowing about the myriad of lies and P2OG operations to deceive them into supporting, and believing in the validity of Bush's "war on terror". Now we are entering a new stage in the Empire building plan.

Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.
Adolf Hitler clearly spelled out his plans to destroy the Jews and launch wars of conquest to secure German domination of world affairs in his 1925 book, long before he ever assumed power. Despite the zig-zags of rhetoric he later employed, the various PR spins and temporary justifications offered for this or that particular policy, any attentive reader of his vile regurgitation could have divined his intentions as he drove his country – and the world – to murderous upheaval.

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.

Democracies Kill Their Employees

NZ Soldiers Treated As Nuclear Guinea Pigs
In 1957 the UK government, with the collaboration of the NZ government, deliberately and knowingly exposed UK and NZ servicemen and their future descendants to nuclear radiation, resulting in disease, suffering, pain, genetic damage and eventual death. It's all in the article and on Expose, TV1, Thursday Sept 22, 2005.

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.

A very strong case can be made that if National wins the election, the nuclear free laws will soon be gone, if not "by lunch time" at least by "dinner time" or just ignored; nuclear ships will recommence visits to NZ ports; ANZUS or it's equivalent will be restored; NZ combat troops will be sent to Iraq and likely to other wars started by the Bush Administration, such as wars on Iran and Syria.

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.
SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION TO BAN WEAPONS AND WARFARE IN SPACE

CANBERRA: Nuclear experts raised concerns yesterday that militants could get hold of enough material to build a "dirty bomb" from two unsecured sources of radioactive waste found in Southeast Asia.
Experts from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Ansto) have been searching Southeast Asia and the Pacific for the past year for radioactive waste to ensure it is disposed of properly and cannot be used in a contamination bomb.
Ansto chief of operations Ron Cameron declined to name the countries involved, but said most of the nuclear material in the region had been used in hospitals and medical centres for X-rays and for radiation treatment for cancer patients.

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.

Feedback on Nuclear Free NZ issues raised on "Agenda" TVNZ 1, Sunday August 13.
US President Bush's nuclear weapons policy and pre-emptive war policy are major reasons why New Zealand should not change it's nuclear free legislation. He is planning to make new nuclear weapons and resume testing, and has sabotaged the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference...
These are points that should have been raised with ex-US Deputy Secretary Kenneth Dawn when talking about NZ-US relations.
They are strong reasons for keeping New Zealand nuclear-free.

Although this book was written in 1993, it is an excellent source book on the basic dangers of an accidental nuclear war that destroys our planet. He details many near misses. As a previous minute-man officer he is well-qualified to write such a book. Bruce Blair is now president of the Centre for Defense Information in Washington, and the author of many new papers updating these dangers.

The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet Union has not eliminated the threat posed to international security by nuclear weapons. The Soviet breakup actually created a new set of dangers: the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and the illicit transfer of nuclear warheads, technology, or expertise to the Third World.

After 60 years of studying nuclear issues, I agree with famous anti-nuclear activist Dr Helen Caldicott who recently warned that 'the re-election of Bush means endless war and probably a nuclear war during the next four years.'
.... People's last thoughts will probably be: "I wish I had faced the facts, been less apathetic and done something positive to prevent it".

or How Easily Accidents or Terrorists Can Start A World Nuclear War

Op-ed for August 6th the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima - signed by the Mayor of Hiroshima and co-signed by 72 Belgian mayors
Sixty years ago at 8:15 a.m. the sun was radiant in a blue and silent sky when the U.S. B-29 Enola Gay bomber appeared as a shining silver bird above the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Seconds later it dropped the uranium bomb 'Little Boy' which was detonated 580 meters above the city. The bomb instantly created a blinding flash and firestorm of up to 4000 degrees Celsius. Never before had a bomb of 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent been dropped above a city with hundred of thousands of people. It immediately turned the city into a living nightmare, where thousands of people burned alive, while thousands of others were killed by the enormous blast which destroyed most buildings. The city was soon changed in a ghost-town, with heavily burned people and enormous suffering everywhere. There was hardly any medical help as hospitals, doctors and nurses had not been spared by the atomic bomb.

NOTE: As Iraq descends ever deeper into chaos, especially in Baghdad, the American and European media have long since ceased reporting from its streets. Instead, they report from the safety of their hotels, citing information they get
from Iraqi runners. However, courageous American journalist Dahr Jamail has become famous worldwide for his unique "Iraq Dispatches". He continues to risk his life to interview Iraqis on the streets, and thus provides much of the world with its only accurate picture of the conditions inside Iraq. In this fascinating article, Mr. Jamail interviews American military veterans who've returned from the Iraq War.

As the blood of US soldiers continues to drain into the hot sands of Iraq over the last several days with at least 27 US soldiers killed and the approval rating for his handling of the debacle in Iraq dropping to an all-time low of 38%, Mr. Bush commented from the comforts of his ranch in Crawford, Texas today, “We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq.”

Are we Worried? In a recent piece, The Media's Roving Eye, trying to establish a timeline that would offer context for the Plame case, I wrote the following:
"Vice President Cheney started the administration's atomic drumbeat to war in Iraq with a series of speeches on Saddam's supposed nuclear capabilities and desires beginning in August of 2002. (The crucial role of Cheney, whose eye was first caught by a Defense Intelligence Agency report on the Niger uranium documents back in February 2002, in the events that would become the Plame case, has been poorly covered...)"

In a recent piece, The Media's Roving Eye, trying to establish a timeline that would offer context for the Plame case, I wrote the following:
"Vice President Cheney started the administration's atomic drumbeat to war in Iraq with a series of speeches on Saddam's supposed nuclear capabilities and desires beginning in August of 2002. (The crucial role of Cheney, whose eye was first caught by a Defense Intelligence Agency report on the Niger uranium documents back in February 2002, in the events that would become the Plame case, has been poorly covered...)"

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.

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.

Everyone should see this DU documentary on Sunday June 26 at 11.00 pm on TV1 in NZ.
Poisoning the Iraq people and neighbouring states with DU weapons and residue is bad enough. But with a half life of 4.5 billion years, eventually DU dust will drift around the planet and contaminate all life.
That's all of us regardless of where we live, including our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Unless we can stop manufacture and use of this evil weapon (already used by the USA and UK in four wars), the whole planet will be poisoned.
It's time the NZ government took a position on banning DU weapons. Concerned citizens and nations took a stand to ban land mines. It was successful. The same kind of concern can apply to DU weapons which are far worse.
Ban them

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.

ACT and National are very keen to resume visits by US and UK nuclear warships, as the following article shows.
The following comments will refute Ken Shirley's main points and show the duplicity of National.So for ACT and National to try and focus the debate on nuclear-powered ships alone is a duplicious nonsense.
They know that can mean nuclear weapons will be brought into NZ ports - and the possibility of that happening, will make NZ a potential nuclear target - for potential enemies to strike at US ships, or the ports they use.

New nuclear weapons are to be made and nuclear testing resumed.
Amazingly there is little or no protest and surprisingly little comment. The media has presented these doctrines as the most normal thing in the world - just what's needed in the great war against global terrorism. Who could object to that? God's anointed - our Emperor George Bush - can never be wrong.

The United States joined with other states to wreck the nuclear non-proliferation treaty’s 2005 review conference. Patricia Lewis of the United Nations Institute of Disarmament Research examines what went wrong.

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.

..... A major goal of the Israeli government is military action against Iran. AIPAC, an American proxy of the Israeli government, with Franklin's help, has been pressuring members of Congress to support military strikes against Iran.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Eliezer Shakedi said Monday that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran in light of its nuclear activity.
But in a meeting with reporters, Shakedi wouldn't say whether he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission alone, as it did when it bombed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981.
When asked whether Israel has a plan for the Iranian nuclear program, Shakedi replied, "You know that for obvious reasons, I won't say even a word."

US Warns about Nuclear Proliferation, While It Proliferates

"The Energy Department now spends 35% more on the US nuclear arsenal each year than it did between 1948 and 1991(when it spent the equivalent of $4.2 billion annually in current dollars) The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "plans to increase spending on the US arsenal to $7.6 billion by 2009"
"Even the Pentagon's own Defence Science Board has come round to the view that there is no need to rebuild large numbers of high yield "legacy" nuclear weapons to support a credible and effective deterrence policy."

Guess What? We're Spending Twice As Much

Now on Nuclear Weapons Than We Did Ten Years Ago
Experts have nodded approvingly at President Bush’s program for non-proliferation enforcement. Leaders of all the nuclear nations agree—for the record—that the nuclear ogre must be brought under control.
But here’s the problem. Any nation that might be inclined to live by the President’s nuclear control words has to be highly unsettled by his deeds.

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.

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.”

PILGRIMAGE TO STOP A GLOBAL HIROSHIMA

Increasing Dangers of a Nuclear War Make it Urgent to Preserve the NPT and N.Z.’s Nuclear Free Law.
Here is your chance to make a difference to our future - the future of our children and grandchildren.
This Might Be Our Last Chance - Let's All Say No Together to Save Our Planet and Its People.

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.

Pentagon transformation is well underway. The U.S. military is increasingly being converted into a global oil protection service. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" whose job is to teach this new way of warfare to high-level military officers from all branches of services and to top level CIA operatives. Thomas Barnett is a professor at the Navy War College in Rhode Island. He is author of the controversial book The Pentagon’s New Map that identifies a "non-integrating gap" in the world that is resisting corporate globalization. Barnett defines the gap as parts of Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia all of which are key oil-producing regions of the world.

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.”

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.”

Will Bush Empire Go Nuclear in 2005

The US will not accept defeat in Iraq, and is likely to militarily over extend itself there, and with their other neocon-planned conquests in the Middle East. That will place them in what I believe is a pre-planned position: of either accepting defeat, or using nuclear weapons "to avoid defeat of freedom and democracy". The mass media in the US has demonstrated that it can be relied on to back Bush - and deliver a propagandised US public, that will mainly support nuclear weapons use to avoid defeat in "the war on terrorism".

The Empire in the Year 2005

The Iraqi resistance has proven that the US Empire is not invincible. With over 1500 combat deaths, close to 25,000 disabled soldiers and over 35,000 suffering severe "mental illnesses", the US occupation army is incapable of bringing the colonial war to a victorious conclusion.
...The logic of Washington for 2005 is that the War must continue, victory must be secured – no matter what the cost in human lives, Iraqi or US. The treasury and the budget is hostage to the Logic of War: to defend the image of imperial invincibility, the empire will be brought to its knees.