Which Side Are You On?
|Friday, December 11,2009 00:36|
|By Carl Herman|
"The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance."
The chapter on Theater Nuclear Operations begins with a foreboding quote:
“Who suspected Pearl Harbor would occur? Who suspected that Hitler would really be as dreadful as he turned out to be? You know, the worst possible case is generally worse than the imagination can imagine.”
And “Theater Nuclear Weapons Use” lists its first example for use as: “An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.”
“Theater Nuclear Weapons Use” has it’s third example as: “Attacks on 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.”
Regarding this development of US nuclear weapon policy use, the Washington Post reported:
So let’s summarize this data succinctly: official and authoritative US policy for the use of nuclear weapons has first-strike plans to strike targets “intending to use WMD” against a US ally.
Please read the previous sentence again.
Let’s review the US rhetoric concerning Iran. US political “leaders” state Iran threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” and they have a “nuclear program.” In other words, Iran intends to develop a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel. Therefore, per US policy, Iran is a target for a US nuclear first-strike pre-emptive attack to destroy their intended use of WMD against a US ally.
The US is terrorizing Iran with threat of an unannounced nuclear attack. Or is it announced?
"This is a signal that patience is running out. We can't continue talks for talks' sake. We can't have round after round of fruitless negotiations, circular negotiations that don't get us where we want to get." - Glyn Davies, US envoy to IAEA.
"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out. If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences." - Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary.
“The clock is ticking…the picture is not a good one.” – James Jones, US National Security Advisor.
“Wipe Israel off the map”? Let’s be clear this is contrived propaganda that is nothing at all what President Ahmadinejad said. Click here to read in detail the actual translation, compare with “wipe Israel off the map” or “threatens Israel’s existence” and conclude the obvious: US political leaders are lying to set the stage for war with Iran, just as they did for war with Iraq. What did Mr. Ahmadinejad say?
In his speech, Ahmadinejad said people once thought it was impossible to remove the Shah as Iran’s dictator, but it was done. He then said that people thought the Soviet government and Saddam’s government would never fall. He then quoted Ayatollah Khomeini’s words from speeches he gave encouraging Iran’s persistence to oppose the Shah’s government that translate awkwardly into English as, “erase from the page of time.” Unless Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were advocating for the destruction of their own country, the speech’s meaning is to encourage the Iranian people to persist for change in Israel’s government.
If you have friends and/or professionals fluent in Farsi, they can confirm this information for you.
“Nuclear program”? Iran is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty for the legal development of nuclear energy. Threat of war includes rhetoric of Iran “not meeting their legal obligations.” This is a lie of omission. For full discussion, click here and here. The briefest summary: all 16 US intelligence agencies and the international body responsible for inspecting Iran’s facilities agree that Iran is only producing nuclear energy and not weapons. There is no evidence of nuclear weapons development. Again, for complete explanation and documentation, click on the links.
Historical context: These current lies to justify the terrorism of a first-strike nuclear attack is in the context of vicious US history with Iran. The US overthrew Iran’s democracy with CIA Operation Ajax in 1953, and installed a US-friendly dictator who ruled for 26 years until 1979. When Iran exerted their democracy, the US gave sanction for the dictator who murdered thousands of Iranians fighting for their freedom and refused extradition. In 1980, the US supported Saddam in an unlawful War of Aggression invasion of Iran. The US supplied military intelligence, loans, approved sales of components for chemical weapons, destroyed Iranian oil platforms, and shot down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian airspace. The war lasted until 1988 and killed at least 200,000 Iranians defending their nation from US-backed invasion.
A real threat to justify another war with Iran is a false flag attack, where the US attacks one of our own targets, plants evidence, and blames Iran.
For helpful comparison, imagine how Americans would react if China acted toward us as we act toward Iran.
And please keep in mind that all the reasons given to attack Iraq are now known to have been false at the time they were told to the American people.
And also know that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a new one in Iran are absolutely illegal under US and international law. For a full explanation and one of the most valuable investments of your time to understand, click here. The briefest explanation is unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attackterminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
I have four videos:
As always, please share this video with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help you build a better future.