Letter to the Editor
An open letter to the citizens of the world. Even though Bush is president of the United States Bush affects every person on the planet - and not for the better. Bush has become a global menace and I call on the people of the world to do everything in their power to stop him. I would remind you that Bush has no problem with the idea of influencing other countries and way he sees fit.
I am concerned that if Bush isn't removed from office that we are going to end up in World War III but the end of this decade. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and we are controlled by madmen who were never elected in the first place. A year ago today Bush was talking about using nuclear weapons against Iraq in a war we now know he faked. I would ask you - what will the world look like 4 years from now if Bush isn't removed?
For years America has been the beacon for freedom and democracy and has come to the aid of countries who's liberties were threatened. Today it is us who are coming to you because our liberty is threatened. And - we are a very dangerous nation - to dangerous to be in the wrong hands. Please help us.
--------
Nuclear weapons on the table in a Iraqi war
By Lance Gay
- The Bush administration won't take nuclear weapons off the table as military planners sketch out a war in Iraq and weigh whether Saddam Hussein would likely lash back with chemical or biological weapons if cornered.
In a policy publicly unveiled in December, the White House said America's strategy is to consider all options against any use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on American troops or U.S. allies.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or forces abroad, and friends and allies," it says.
Critics say the new policy removes nuclear weapons from their special classification, and makes the Pentagon consider wider use of them. The Pentagon has already studied the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs to destroy underground bunkers or buried stockpiles or chemical or biological weapons.
In a report sent to Congress last year, the military concluded that new generations of laser-guided conventional weapons were so accurate they could do a better bunker-busting job than nuclear weapons, which aren't as accurate. Furthermore, nuclear explosions could create so much damage they might spread chemical or biological weapons to surrounding civilian areas, and make it more difficult to clean up contaminated areas once the war is over, the military concluded.
Some military analysts say the Bush administration is forcing a shift in how the military would use nuclear weapons.
"There is a greater willingness to entertain a nuclear response," said Michael Levi, deputy director of the strategic security project at the American Federation of Scientists. Levi contended that it's possible under the new doctrine that the U.S. military could respond to a chemical weapons attack with nuclear weapons, although he expects that any decision would hinge on how many people were killed in an Iraqi attack.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, and also has used the weapons against Iraqi Kurds. But he did not use them during the Persian Gulf War, or install chemical weapons on Scud missiles he sent to Israel.
Levi said he expects Saddam will use chemical weapons, both against U.S troops and Israel, this time. "It is difficult to deter someone who has nothing to lose," he said.
Francois Boo, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, said a new war with Iraq would be different because President Bush has repeatedly declared his intention this time to depose Saddam and his regime. U.N. weapons inspectors say they have not yet had an accounting for vast stocks of VX nerve gas, chemicals used to make mustard gas, or stockpiles of anthrax that Iraq has hidden.
"The restrictions are gone, and he will try to create as many casualties as possible," Boo said. Boo said he also expects Saddam would order the use of chemical weapons in a last-ditch effort to blunt an American attack.
But responding to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons "would cause more harm than good," and would send a message to other countries that the nuclear threshold has been lowered. "It's very unlikely we would turn Iraq into a giant glass bowl," he said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said using nuclear weapons in Iraq would also cause a backlash against the United States in the Arab world, and be a recruiting tool for terrorists. "Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression."
Bush went in to the war with Iraq with closed eyes. Anybody in southern Europe that has had dealings with Arabs ( I had Arabs and Jews as a crew on a yacht and they worked wonderfully and close together as an excellent team ) knows their mentality, which is not malicious but different than our own.
UNDERSTANDING is what Bush cannot fathom out, it requires intelligence.
He wanted to get Cheney`s old company
some good rewards from the oilfields, and to pay back the Texas multibillionaires who put him into power. His biggest achievement was however to create worldwide more terrorism than ever before. WE CAN ALLOVER THE WORLD THANK GEORGE W.BUSH FOR BRINGING ABOUT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION TO THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE: HE MUST BE PUT BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES COURT::::
HE IS 1000 TIMES WORSE THAN ADOLF HITLER..
amen brother
Posted by: patrick jenkins at May 5, 2004 05:28 PMI agree totallly
Posted by: Craig Collison at May 12, 2004 09:20 PMI completely disagree. But what else is new? The idea that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for all the worlds problems is laughable. By the way, WW3 started the minute 19 MUSLIM hijackers flew jets into the WTC and the pentagon. Go ahead and play ostrich, but that was the ISLAMO-FASCISTS terrorist faction declaring war on us!! How is Checnyen MUSLIM terrorists killing all those kids in russia our doing? That is Islamic terror, and it is not even remotely related to us, other than the fact that AL-QUEDA is funding them. That just means Russia and the U.S. face a common enemy. ISLAMIC WACKO TERRORISTS!! Face up to this, and stop trying to appease cowards who knowingly blow up women and children. Not incidentally, but on purpose, with malice aforethought. If you can't handle the fight, get out of the way, so that those of us who have before and will again can do. AIR ASSUALT!!
Posted by: Steve at September 3, 2004 11:37 PMHey Steve, you need to be educated brother. Im sure you mean well but let me tell you, Bush IS the biggest threat to America. Let me give you a quick overview of the last four years....
1.) 2000 Elections...All major American news agencies agree Vice President Gore is the projected winner, all votes counted, except in Florida.
Guess who is Governor of Florida, Steve?
Jeb Bush. George W's brother. Perhaps its coincidence but when you also look at the fact that the vote tallying for Florida was overseen by a member of Bush's campaign chairman it seems less likely.
You could argue that the election was won by public opinion, but a Fox News exec John Ellis was the first broadcast to have his public opinion favor Bush.
John Ellis is Bush's cousin.
2.) On the days following Sept. 11th members of the Bin Laden family were ALLOWED to leave the U.S. without ever being questioned. Steve, when someone commits a murder, much less a thousand or so murders in just a few moments...wouldn't you normally question the family?
3.) When we finally put ground forces into Afghanistan it was 2 MONTHS after the attacks...Im pretty sure Osama got a head start on us.
Do you know how many troops we had in Afghanistan?
1,100. Do you know how many police officers take the beat in New York city in a day? Well over 1500. Does that sound like we're "taking the initiative" as Bush would put it.
4.) The current president placed into Afghanistan by us, was in fact an advisor to the Haliburton company on Arab relations and buisness. After the new president of Afghanistan was put into power he immediately approved a measure to open up a pipeline for natural gas through his country. The company hired for building it...Haliburton. Up until 2000 Vice President Dick Cheney ran Haliburton. He still has a financial interest in the company as does much of Bush's administration.
Do you know what a conflict of interest is Steve?
5.) Under public hearings and in news conferences our President and his advisors claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They claimed Suddam had strong ties to Al Qaida and the Bin Ladens. They claimed a nuclear stockpile was being
grown.
Do you know how many weapons of mass destruction, biological or otherwise, nuclear weapons, or ties the UN inspectors found? Do you know how many our own troops and Intel folks found?
The answer on both counts is : zero.
6.) When the United States invaded or "liberated" Baghdad guess which one of the following was the only place guarded by our troops?
A.) Suddam's Ministries on Defense and Weapons
B.)Suddam's Prisons, Estates, or Civilain areas
C.) Suddam's taken bunkers
D.) Suddam's oil fields.
If you answered "D" you would be correct.
Now Bush is talking about "Re-building" Iraq. He is defending his "take charge" attitude, in going ahead with the Iraq invasion without the U.N's agreement. And of course there is plenty of renconstruction work to be done....I wonder which companies will get the jobs? I wonder who will profit most from this continuing "War on Terror"?
Make no doubt Steve, we do have enemies in the world. We do have to take care of terrorists threats. And we should alway support our troops, only sending them to war when it is absolutely UNAVOIDABLE. But the definition of terrorist is someone who uses fear to manipulate others, and then profits from that.
The biggest terrorist threat today is the one sitting in the oval office.
Think about it Steve, do the homework for yourself and just think about it.
Posted by: Glen at October 10, 2004 07:51 PMgo get bush. Am I the onlyhuman in the US that has a question about foreign oil or am I letting my imagination run? According to some squirlly member of the current administation we are only importing 13-14% of our oil from offseas. So is the other 87% being produced right here and in Alaska? This would mean that Bushl,, Cheney, Rumsfields et all are working on starving the american people to death and doing away with democracy as we know it. But what is one more lie to these Guys. It looks like America, however is beginning to wake up. PLESE PLEASE
use my name
Marjorie Thompson
Louisville, Kentucky