wpeC.jpg (33803 bytes)

   Daily Blog - Tiger Software

                    October 25, 2007
updated 10/28/2007

       The Bush Doctrine:
      "In War We Trust" 

  Bush's Mad Rush To War
     with Iran. 

     Does He Have A Deadly Date
     with Armageddon?


William Schmidt, - Tiger Software's Creator
      (C) 2007 William Schmidt, Ph. D.  - All Rights Reserved. 

      No reproductions of this blog or quoting from it
      without explicit written consent by its author is permitted.

Back to Home Page - www.tigersoft.com


     Send any comments or questions
      to william_schmidt@hotmail.com



  Latest War Buildup on Iran news:
   10/28/07      The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to
             build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
                   He said: "I'm very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, because that would lead
                   absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and
                   inspection...My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice,
                   we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot
                   add fuel to the fire,"
            See - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_us/us_iran


On July 23rd this year, I opined that it was Bush's decision to launch an
                        attack on Iran, or to take steps that made a war with Iran much more likley, that
                        was making Crude Oil rise so sharply.  I wish it were not so.  But it is.


CRUDE OIL $100 - Very Soon!  

                       wpe13.jpg (66000 bytes) 

Already, the deficits created by Bush's Iraq war are sending the dollar into a steep dive.
                                Think how much faster the dollar will fall if Bush starts another war.

                       wpe13.jpg (33281 bytes)
                       wpe14.jpg (3793 bytes)

Elsewhere, I   have  shown why I am convinced that Bush has evolved from being a
                        pedigreed sadist to a war-mongering menace.  Certainly, he is too dull  to consider
                        nuances like "blow-back" and  too medicocre and verbally inept to find creative
                        diplomatic alternatives to war.  I bet he does not know the name of a single peace
                        treaty from the 19th century.  War is not necessary.  It becomes necessary when
                        the gullible are led by dangerous ideologues like Bush.  Peace has an honorable
                        history, but it must be worked for.   Sadly, a lazy C- legacy at Yale would never
                        have learned any of that.                          

                                     They say if you think education is expensive, you should see how expensive
                        ignorance is.  The only think more expensive is an expensive Yale education
                        wasted on a spolied, mediocre preppie turned into a President through the magic
                        of Amercian mass media and greedy corporate sponsorship.

bush.gif (71623 bytes)
                                 Why Bush's Mad Rush To War with Iran?

                            As Conservative political columnist Thomas Sewell said,
                     "I'm not sure which is scarier,  The gullibility of Americans or Iran with
                      nuclear weapons."

                             Why Would A Nuclear Iran Mean World War III?  Run That By Me
                       Again, George? 

                             If You Loved The War on Iraq, You'll Love The War on Iran.

wpe12.jpg (3012 bytes)                    Poll shows global opposition to Iran - and U.S.

The survey, which polled 57,000 people from 52 countries, showed
39 percent of respondents wanted to see the influence of Iran diminished,
compared with 37 percent for the United States.

Only 14 percent of people taking part in the poll wanted Iran to have more
power while 26 percent thought more U.S. influence would make the world a
better place.
( http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12918 )

                        “If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it’d be a dangerous threat to world peace,”
                   Mr. Bush said. “So I told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III,
                   it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the
                   knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
                          ( )

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers: India, Aghanistan, USSR, Israel and
                  Nato and menaced by the US, which has already overthrown one Democratically
                  elected Iranian Premier, Moassadegh in 1953,  It is only natural that it wants
                  nuclear weapons.  If positions were reversed, wouldn't we want a nuclear
                  deterrent, too.  It wouldn't mean we would want to use them.  That would be
                  foolish.   Well, that' was my first take on Bush's unliateral sanctions today on Iran.

wpe14.jpg (8847 bytes)
Mohammad Mosaddeq (Mossadeq ) (Persian: ???? ????? Mo?ammad Mo?addeq, also Mosaddegh or Mossadegh) (19 May 18825 March 1967) served as the Prime Minister of Iran[1][2] from 1951 to 1953. He was democratically elected to the parliament, and as leader of the nationalists was twice appointed prime minister by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a positive vote of inclination by the parliament.[3] Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, today known as British Petroleum (BP)....

He was eventually removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup d'état was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi [10]. The American operation to encourage it was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,[11][12] the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax,[11)
             (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh )

US Certainly Seems To Be Preparing for War with Iran.

Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq
                and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for
                military action against Iran. The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a
                newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.
                The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened
                targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent
                operational need from theater commanders."  What urgent need? 
It could potentially be used on Taliban
                or al Qaeda hideouts in the caves along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but there would
                be no need to use a stealth bomber there. "The most likely target for this bomb would be Iran's
                flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried."
The MOP is a massive bomb -- 20 feet long and encased in 3.5 inch thick high-performance steel. It is designed to
                penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding..
                ( http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12923 )

                            Again, Why is a Nuclear Iran A Cause for War, George?

"If Iran acquires nuclear weapons it seems very probable that there will be other states in the
                       region that will decide for their own protection they will have to obtain nuclear weapons as well,"
                      Gates said.  "So you would very likely have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."  As weapons
                      or nuclear material became more widely available "the risk of an accident or a miscalculation, or those
                       weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists
, would be substantially increased," he said.

                         "Statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel ought to be "wiped
                  off the map
" offer  little confidence that Tehran would handle possession of nuclear weapons responsibly.
                                             (  US Defense Secretary Robert Gates  )

Perhaps, the real reason this will be so dangerous, is because Israel is very
                  likely to launch its own attack on Iran to pre-emptively destroy its nukes, just as
                  it did in 1981 against Iraq.

Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility... there is no return. Bushehr is
                  likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.  Iran will respond – how can it not? At a
                  minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially,
                  but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict.
                  Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
                  Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with
                 chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According
                 to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:

                            (1)   "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary
                       use of WMD."
                            (2) Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational,
                       or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
                            (3) [O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical
                       or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD
                       attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
                           (4) [T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
                           (5) For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
                           (6) "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations..."
                                      ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649 )

                                              Israel, Arabs and The Nuclear Menace

  For nearly 50 years, Arab leaders were pretty certain that Israel (which has never explicitly
                 acknowledged having nuclear weapons) would not drop the bomb except as a very last resort.
                 That is why Egypt and Syria were unafraid to attack Israel during the October 1973 Yom Kippur
"Israel will not be the first country in the region to use nuclear weapons. Nor will it
                 be the second."
  That seems now to have changed. 
                        And there's another dimmension here.  Many Sunni Arabs hate and dear Shiites.  They would be
                 more than a little nervous at the strength a nuclear Shiite Iran would mean. If Iran gets nukes, will
                 Saudi Arabia and Jordon will want them for their own protection.  And if they get them, then the
                 Egyptians will demand them.
  Surely, there's enough understanding of these dynamics for
                 Washington to try to build support for a Middle Eastern nuclear free zone instead of
                 goading Iran into nuclear weapons with threats instead of dialogue.

                                                             What Must Be Done

                           Given this awful scenario, now is surely the time to use Diplomacy, not bluster!.  Now is no
                      time to refuse to talk to Iran!  Now is the time to restrain Israel and get it into productive talks
                      about a viable Palestinean state.  The US Congress must take steps in these directions if
                      the Bush Administation will not.  World Peace depends on it.

                           Surely, people will not let the Bush Admistration rush us into another war with lies
                      and deceptions.  Americans must not let the pro-Israel lobby dictate Amercan foreign
                      policy.   Israel must not be blindly supported.  It must be led by the US!  Talks must start
                      at once.  If they do not, it is only a matter of time before an anti-Israel terrorist group
                      fires a nedium range rocket with a nuclear weaopon at Haifa or Tel Aviv. 

                          Bush does not have the intellligence, wisdom or creativity to find solutions through
                     diplomacy.   His unilateralism and rhetoric about a World War III demonstrate him
                     to be the most dangerous man on the planet.  

Bush Disdains Diplomacy: Shoot first, talk later

It became apparent in the immediate postwar period that the U.S. decision to use force had been
                     rash and senseless, ignoring the fundamental premise that military might should be the last--not the
                     first--option. There was no near-term threat to the U.S. or its interests. Yet, the U.S. made no attempt
                     to use diplomacy or build a coalition. Rather, it went at the problem assuming that, as the world's
                     dominant power, it had no need to gain the cooperation of the global community that was organized
                     to meet such international challenges. This unprecedented action reflects the approach championed
                     by neoconservative groups for the past decade. Theirs is a doctrine of unilateral and preemptive use
                     of force and disdain for diplomacy, collective security, and multilateral organizations.

                     "Until the Bush Administration, diplomacy was not just another option, but the primary means by
                     which the U.S. worked with other slates to create collective security. Until recently, military muscle
                     was used only when diplomacy failed. An important exception was the gradual slide into the Vietnam
                     War in the 1960s, which also was marked by the misuse of intelligence information and the failure
                      to gain international support and create a global coalition. Although the U.S. was not involved directly,
                     there is no better example of the futility of war than in the Middle East, where conflicts in 1948, 1956,
                    1967, 1973, and 1982 (and 2006) demonstrated the failure of diplomacy. More aggressive international
                    diplomacy might have prevented the Arab attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1967, the British-French-Israeli
                    coalition warfare in 1956, and the disastrous Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

                    "The use of diplomacy seeks to prevent bilateral and regional antagonisms from descending into violence
                    and create the means for building mutual advantage. Diplomats are trained to deal with tense situations
                   and create peaceful solutions. Military action, however, often sparks unintended consequences that worsen
                   geopolitical situations and leave behind desolation and bitterness, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. From 1945 to
                   2000, U.S. policymakers relied primarily on diplomatic instruments and collective security and, when they
                   did not, as in Vietnam, they created economic and social weakness at home."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2710_133/ai_n6114805/pg_1 )
                   See also: http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400042609&view=excerpt )

                                               The Trouble with Incurious George Bush
George W. Bush's biggest problem is that he never knew much about the world around him, and he
                  still does not know much. All of his life, he has been known as a person who does not read, who does not
                  travel unless forced to do so.Note part of a recent New York Times editorial describing Bush's manner
                  of informing himself:   "As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, 'I glance at the headlines' but 'rarely read the
                  stories.' The people who brief him on current events encounter many of the newsmakers personally, he said,
                  and in any case 'probably read the news themselves.' ... Bush isn't dumb, but he's staggeringly incurious
                  and ill informed
about history and politics."   ( http://www.uncuriousgeorge.org/   )    

wpe12.jpg (12678 bytes)   Bush  Immediately Disengaged from MidEast Diplomacy
in 2001. 
(Added 10/27/2007

          On coming into office in 2001, Bush discontinued the
efforts of prior administrations to bring Arabs and Israelis
together in a form of peace settlement.  Where Carter,
Bush I and Clinton engaged in shuttle diplomacy to
keet Palestineans and Israelis from fighting, Bush disengaged
and within 6 months hostilities reached a point of ignition.
Why did Bush disenage?  Apparently, he lacked an
interest and understanding of the word diplomacy and,
though hard, it is a lot easier than ending active warfare.
Bush seemingly did not wish to offend the new right-wing
Israeli  Prime Minister and said nothing in April 2001 when
Israeli soldiers for the first time reoccupied territory
in the Gaza Strip ceded to the PA under the 1993
Oslo peace accords.  In July Bush was silent when
Israel Bulldozers leveled fourteen Palestinian homes
under construction in one of Israel’s biggest demolition
operations in years, provoking tears and stone throwing
at a refugee camp on the northern edge of Jerusalem.
   Details of the modest Bush efforts to retrain Israel
in this period
: 2001-2002.


wpe15.jpg (21498 bytes)            wpe16.jpg (41294 bytes)


                wpe17.jpg (56314 bytes)                                        


Bush's Armageddon Wish  http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06122006.html






Hit Counter