top
Anti-War
Anti-War
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Mandela warns Bush over Iraq

by Who is more dangerous Bush or Hussein ?
An expansionist jingoistic dictator threatens the world. All evidence shows that this leader not only has access to nuclear and chemical weapons but even thought about using them in a recent conflict (to destroy caves at Tora Bora). Can this crazed unelected leader be stopped with sanctions or will an alliance need to be built to remove him from office with force?
bush1.jpg
Nelson Mandela has warned President Bush that his administration risks destroying the United Nations if it attacks Iraq without international support.
BBC News has learned that Mr Mandela spoke directly to the US president to urge him to show restraint, saying a military strike would undermine the trust between America and a spectrum of international opinion.

The former South African president is an influential figure

Mr Mandela is also said to be seeking a meeting with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to express his concerns.

Nelson Mandela is a natural ally of those who want to see the UN play a pivotal and decisive role, but he is also an iconic figure and a voice that both Mr Bush and Mr Blair will find hard to ignore.
§There is a real chance that this rogue state is prepared to use WMD
by Who is more dangerous Bush or Hussein ?
bush2.jpg
"Make the desert glow for a thousand years. Wipe them off the face of the Earth. Pulverize them. Such is the unrestrained blood lust that masquerades as military punditry these days. The Washington Times has called on the Bush administration the use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan and Iraq. Absurd? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had the question put to them directly and neither would rule out the use of nuclear bombs as an option. Rumsfeld's deputy, the blood-thirsty, Paul Wolfowitz has warned that the Pentagon is poised to unleash "a very big hammer", a hammer capable of "ending states that support terrorism." (Rumsfeld says the Pentagon has identified nearly 60 such states.)"

http://www.counterpunch.org/nukelite.html
§Remove him from power before these new weapons are developed!
by Who is more dangerous Bush or Hussein ?
bush3.jpg
The Bush Doctrine on Nuclear Weapons

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 March 2002

Six months after the World Trade Center attack, the Bush Administration has formulated a new military policy. The Bush Doctrine is being promoted as a response to terrorism. But, practically speaking, its potential applications have less to do with combating terrorism than they do with asserting the dominance of American military power at home and in the world.

The most dangerous aspect of the Bush Doctrine is its resurrection of the idea of tactical nuclear weapons, the Strangelovian notion that the threat of nuclear attack has a legitimate place in international diplomacy, and that the use of nuclear weapons can serve a tactical function under battlefield conditions.

The Bush Administration s Nuclear Posture Review proposes building a new generation of small nuclear bombs to be used against terrorists hiding in caves, as well as against underground command posts and biological weapon facilities. The goal, says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is to provide the president with a range of options to defeat any aggressor.

The model for a war against terrorism is Afghanistan, of course. There, remnants of Al Qaida have been hiding out in mountain caves - not very successfully it seems. More to the point, terrorists in caves cannot launch missiles, hijack planes or drive truck bombs into buildings in the manner of our own made-in-America terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. The military doesn\\\'t even have to use conventional bombs to defeat terrorists in caves. Soldiers can surround the caves and starve them into submission.

Terrorists are dangerous because they operate in large populations. The Bush Administration has tried to link every terrorist group from the jungles of the Philippines to the deserts of the Middle East to bin Laden\\\'s Al Qaida network. In the world according to Bush, any country we don\\\'t like is part of bin Laden\\\'s gang. But the world is full of powerless people with grievances to bear, some legitimate, others not; some Arab or Muslim, some, even, as we have seen, self-described Christian and American. The terrorists who most threaten us, as police investigations have shown, do not live in caves, but in cities like Hamburg, Miami and New York. Is the Pentagon planning to nuke Miami because some inspired patriot, part of some anti-terrorist neighborhood watch, sees two Arab-American men walking in the neighborhood? Do we drop a small earth-penetrating nuclear weapon on New York in order to destroy a terrorist cell in a basement apartment in Queens?

Generals, it is often said, are always fighting the previous war. In terms of fighting terrorism, Afghanistan is an anomaly. It had a civil war going on before the American intervention and an oppressive government that most Afghans are happy to be rid of. Afghani nationalists also saw bin Laden\\\'s Al Qaida as foreign occupiers. These advantages are not easily replicated, not in Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya or even Iraq, all of which Bush has recklessly asserted are potential targets of our nuclear arsenal. People who are threatened or attacked don\\\'t always roll over. They usually fight back.

The new nuclear weapons that Bush wants to build will take years to develop, so practically speaking they have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any current real or imagined terrorist threat. What they do have to do with is the violation and destruction of all existing agreements regarding nuclear weapons. This is the real essence of the Bush Administration\\\'s nuclear policy. Because it\\\'s part of a pattern, I consider it a doctrine. To begin with, the Administrations pursuit of an anti-missile missile violates the anti-ballistic missile [ABM] treaty. The Administration is also at odds with Russian over agreed-upon reductions of nuclear weapons. The Russians want to destroy all weapons except those they believe they need for mutual deterrence. But the U.S. doesn\\\'t want to destroy any of its excess weapons. It merely wants to store them - quite a difference. And now Bush is proposing this new generation of nuclear weapons that, in order to become operational, will have to be tested. This means violating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and ending the moratorium on underground testing.

The predictable result of The Bush Doctrine will be a new arms race. Russia and China won\\\'t sit idly by with the United States building and threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons and describing them as targets. The Bush Doctrine represents a decisive break with Cold War doctrine in which nuclear weapons were seen as strategic deterrents, mutual assurance that no country would use nuclear weapons against any other. It\\\'s true that the United States considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam and elsewhere, but it\\\'s significant that such an option was always rejected. Now, insists President Bush, all options are on the table. Bush\\\'s disregard for international agreements and opinion is as dangerous as it is monumental.

In collapsing the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and destroying the balance of mutual deterrence, the Bush Doctrine opens the nuclear genie of nuclear proliferation. By agreeing to limit nuclear weapons, the United States had contributed to their containment. By violating treaties, funding research, conducting new tests, and building more bombs, the U.S. virtually assures that nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists or hostile nations.

The Bush Administration claims that terrorists are trying to build nuclear weapons. Should we believe that? If the nuclear threat was real, would the Administration still be encouraging the continued operation and further construction of highly vulnerable nuclear power plants which in a terrorist attack would lay waste to a vast area? It\\\'s difficult to know what to believe. But it\\\'s certainly evident that the Bush Doctrine on nuclear weapons has nothing to do with stopping terror. On the contrary, it is a reckless and needless provocation that increases the danger not only of a nuclear holocaust but of terrorist attacks against the American people.

Marty Jezer
Published by Common Dreams © 2002 by Marty Jezer


§US Has A Huge Amount Of Chemical Weapons Too!!!
by Regime Change Needed In Rogue State
stockpilemap.gif
"The U.S. chemical weapons stockpile consists of 30,599.55 tons of unitary (single component) agent and 680.19 tons of binary components."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1996/b012496_bt024-96.html

"The United States stockpile of unitary lethal chemical warfare munitions consists of various rockets, projectiles, mines, and bulk items containing blister agents (mustard H, HD, HT) and nerve agents (VX, GB). About 60% of this stockpile is in bulk storage containers; 40% is stored in munitions, many of which are now obsolete. The stockpile is stored at eight sites throughout the Continental US (Edgewood Chemical Activity, MD; Anniston Chemical Activity, AL; Blue Grass Chemical Activity, KY; Newport Chemical Depot, IN; Pine Bluff Chemical Activity, AR; Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO; Deseret Chemical Activity, UT; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR) and at one site outside of the Continental US on Johnston Atoll. "
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm
Add Your Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Ffutal
Thu, Sep 12, 2002 12:36PM
sdfasdf
Wed, Sep 11, 2002 9:59AM
......
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 11:53PM
.......
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 11:52PM
truthteller
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 9:10PM
truthteller
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 9:10PM
Average Joe
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 5:42PM
we
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 7:53AM
this war was supposed to reduce terrorism?
Tue, Sep 10, 2002 7:48AM
butman
Wed, Sep 4, 2002 6:01PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network