> Date:       Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> Subject:   "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> Craig Roberts

> Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> want.

> Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> the background:
> http://www.***.com/
> Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> vs. Gore.

> The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> American arrogance is impenetrable.

> Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> ===============

> September 26, 2006

> Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> by Paul Craig Roberts
> The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> East.
> The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> troops to send.
> Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> their case."
> That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> cannot curb the _expression of views."
> Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> into Jordan.
> Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> fate.
> Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> alone.
> Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> Find this article at:
> http://www.***.com/

> Date:       Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> Subject:   "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> Craig Roberts

> Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> want.

> Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> the background:
> http://www.***.com/
> Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> vs. Gore.

> The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> American arrogance is impenetrable.

> Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> ===============

> September 26, 2006

> Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> by Paul Craig Roberts
> The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> East.
> The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> troops to send.
> Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> their case."
> That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> cannot curb the _expression of views."
> Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> into Jordan.
> Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> fate.
> Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> alone.
> Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> Find this article at:
> http://www.***.com/

> > Date:  Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> > Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> > Subject:      "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> > Craig Roberts

> > Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> > economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> > meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> > can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> > but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> > recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> > want.

> > Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> > the background:
> > http://www.***.com/
> > Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> > vs. Gore.

> > The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> > people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> > Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> > American arrogance is impenetrable.

> > Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> > ===============

> > September 26, 2006

> > Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> > by Paul Craig Roberts
> > The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> > nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> > can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> > East.
> > The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> > war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> > troops to send.
> > Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> > any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> > hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> > casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> > enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> > The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> > existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> > intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> > let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> > 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> > coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> > Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> > with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> > Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> > Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> > Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> > Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> > century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> > their case."
> > That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> > is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> > longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> > the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> > U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> > the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> > having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> > Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> > nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> > Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> > demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> > cannot curb the _expression of views."
> > Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> > in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> > Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> > defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> > than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> > of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> > Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> > unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> > dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> > do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> > of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> > into Jordan.
> > Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> > Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> > respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> > American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> > rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> > changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> > Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> > force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> > retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> > use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> > Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> > show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> > will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> > the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> > Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> > fate.
> > Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> > weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> > while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> > factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> > University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> > nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> > destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> > pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> > such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> > an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> > Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> > There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> > pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> > distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> > feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> > cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> > Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> > than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> > the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> > alone.
> > Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> > nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> > authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> > drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> > the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> > is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> > there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> > nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> > It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> > government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> > Find this article at:
> > http://www.***.com/

> Date:       Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> Subject:   "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> Craig Roberts

> Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> want.

> Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> the background:
> http://www.***.com/
> Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> vs. Gore.

> The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> American arrogance is impenetrable.

> Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> ===============

> September 26, 2006

> Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> by Paul Craig Roberts
> The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> East.
> The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> troops to send.
> Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> their case."
> That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> cannot curb the _expression of views."
> Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> into Jordan.
> Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> fate.
> Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> alone.
> Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> Find this article at:
> http://www.***.com/

> > > Date:     Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> > > Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> > > Subject: "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> > > Craig Roberts

> > > Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> > > economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> > > meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> > > can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> > > but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> > > recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> > > want.

> > > Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> > > the background:
> > > http://www.***.com/
> > > Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> > > vs. Gore.

> > > The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> > > people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> > > Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> > > American arrogance is impenetrable.

> > > Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> > > ===============

> > > September 26, 2006

> > > Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> > > by Paul Craig Roberts
> > > The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> > > nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> > > can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> > > East.
> > > The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> > > war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> > > troops to send.
> > > Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> > > any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> > > hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> > > casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> > > enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> > > The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> > > existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> > > intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> > > let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> > > 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> > > coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> > > Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> > > with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> > > Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> > > Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> > > Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> > > Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> > > century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> > > their case."
> > > That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> > > is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> > > longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> > > the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> > > U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> > > the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> > > having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> > > Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> > > nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> > > Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> > > demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> > > cannot curb the _expression of views."
> > > Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> > > in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> > > Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> > > defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> > > than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> > > of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> > > Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> > > unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> > > dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> > > do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> > > of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> > > into Jordan.
> > > Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> > > Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> > > respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> > > American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> > > rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> > > changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> > > Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> > > force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> > > retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> > > use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> > > Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> > > show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> > > will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> > > the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> > > Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> > > fate.
> > > Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> > > weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> > > while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> > > factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> > > University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> > > nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> > > destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> > > pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> > > such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> > > an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> > > Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> > > There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> > > pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> > > distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> > > feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> > > cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> > > Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> > > than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> > > the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> > > alone.
> > > Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> > > nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> > > authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> > > drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> > > the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> > > is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> > > there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> > > nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> > > It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> > > government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> > > Find this article at:
> > > http://www.***.com/

> Date:       Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> Subject:   "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> Craig Roberts

> Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> want.

> Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> the background:
> http://www.***.com/
> Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> vs. Gore.

> The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> American arrogance is impenetrable.

> Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> ===============

> September 26, 2006

> Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> by Paul Craig Roberts
> The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> East.
> The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> troops to send.
> Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> their case."
> That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> cannot curb the _expression of views."
> Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> into Jordan.
> Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> fate.
> Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> alone.
> Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

> Find this article at:
> http://www.***.com/

> > > > Date:        Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)

> > > > Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

> > > > Subject:    "dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government"- Paul
> > > > Craig Roberts

> > > > Definitely.  The biggest reason they won't let go is because the US
> > > > economy will otherwise collapse.  This whole Middle East adventure was
> > > > meant to preserve the petrodollar hegemony.  Without the cheap oil, we
> > > > can't continue to support Israel, either.  We don't produce anything
> > > > but weapons, and we have few natural resources,  Our economy cannot
> > > > recover from this without this theft of Arab oil and whatever else we
> > > > want.

> > > > Americans did not care.  Americans hammered people like me, screamin in
> > > > the background:
> > > > http://www.***.com/
> > > > Look at those *STUPID* responses from Lyme victims on the issue of Bush
> > > > vs. Gore.

> > > > The American people are not worth saving.  They don't care about outher
> > > > people, not even other Americans.  We deserve what we get.  Surely
> > > > Americans are not thinking about what happens after we nuke Iran.
> > > > American arrogance is impenetrable.

> > > > Kathleen M.{*filter*}son
> > > > ===============

> > > > September 26, 2006

> > > > Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

> > > > by Paul Craig Roberts
> > > > The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical
> > > > nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they
> > > > can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle
> > > > East.
> > > > The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both
> > > > war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no
> > > > troops to send.
> > > > Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see
> > > > any point in sacrificing its {*filter*} and money for the sake of American
> > > > hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial
> > > > casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not
> > > > enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.
> > > > The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never
> > > > existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and
> > > > intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan,
> > > > let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24,
> > > > 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute
> > > > coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State
> > > > Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are
> > > > with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the
> > > > Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire
> > > > Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure
> > > > Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on
> > > > Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st
> > > > century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting
> > > > their case."
> > > > That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television
> > > > is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no
> > > > longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping
> > > > the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise
> > > > U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from
> > > > the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as
> > > > having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of
> > > > Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the
> > > > nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused
> > > > Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly
> > > > demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we
> > > > cannot curb the _expression of views."
> > > > Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah
> > > > in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and
> > > > Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot
> > > > defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer
> > > > than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out
> > > > of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of
> > > > Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as
> > > > unrest over the American/Israeli {*filter*} against Muslims builds to
> > > > dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who
> > > > do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king
> > > > of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian
> > > > into Jordan.
> > > > Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate.
> > > > Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can
> > > > respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an
> > > > American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and
> > > > rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have
> > > > changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.
> > > > Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating
> > > > force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare
> > > > retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or
> > > > use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.
> > > > Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would
> > > > show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's
> > > > will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize
> > > > the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of
> > > > Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their
> > > > fate.
> > > > Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear
> > > > weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths,
> > > > while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear
> > > > factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.
> > > > University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on
> > > > nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will
> > > > destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell
> > > > pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances,
> > > > such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by
> > > > an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of
> > > > Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.
> > > > There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in
> > > > pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and
> > > > distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is
> > > > feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth
> > > > cooperation in order to avoid destruction.
> > > > Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful
> > > > than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand
> > > > the might of the United States and that America can rule by force
> > > > alone.
> > > > Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of
> > > > nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon
> > > > authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their
> > > > drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on
> > > > the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It
> > > > is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but
> > > > there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of
> > > > nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.
> > > > It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S.
> > > > government and have no organized