Dave Lindorff: This Is Like Hitler's Suicide Order from the Bunker

[marmar]

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

This is like Hitler's Suicide Order from the Bunker
This is madness!

I wrote last September that Bush was gearing up for war with Iran, as evidenced by the moving up of the deployment date of the carrier group headed by the recently re-fueled and re-armed USS Eisenhower, some of whose crewmembers had leaked that its mission was to attack Iran.

At the time, there was considerable skepticism expressed about the article, which appeared in the Nation’s online edition.

Now, four months later, it is widely assumed in Europe that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran, and even in the U.S., members of Congress are openly talking about their concern that Bush is planning to attack Iran.

Does anyone think this is lunacy?

The U.S. is deeply mired in a losing war in Iraq, and is also losing Afghanistan to a resurgent Taliban. The Pentagon is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with the measly 21,500 additional troops Bush has vowed to send to Iraq, and the 4000 troops that his commanders in Afghanistan are asking for. .....(more)

The rest of the piece is at: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

[NoSheep]

1. Yes. I think this is lunacy.

:argh:

[yardwork]

2. Count me in for thinking that this is lunacy

w has gone completely around the bend.

[EVDebs]

22. He does seem bent upon removing all doubt. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Consider this to be Kafka in a nonfiction genre.

A nightmare from which one can't awake.

Hitler was crazy to continue to defend Berlin against the Russians, using prepubescent boys and old women while he paced under the city in his Bunker. But he did it anyway.

Somehow the criterium of sanity becomes irrelevent during times like this, does it?

[jschurchin]

4. He's fucking nuts and..............

we are nuts if we go along with this madness. The cross eyed country fuck needs to be impeached NOW.

[marmar]

13. Harsh....but oh so true.

He's like a child that's found his dad's gun.

[tbyg52]

27. And his dad's credit card

Oh, wait--it's *our* credit card....!

[ClintonTyree]

5. The entire CONservative agenda is complete lunacy...

from top to bottom. I can't think of one thing they support that is actually good for America and the majority of Americans. Not one. Everything is skewed toward corporate America and the rich. That's it. Their entire agenda.

[Sir Jeffrey]

6. This article says it well..

Our Representatives opposed to a third war against Iran need to pass a binding resolution requiring Bush to get prior approval BEFORE he moves against Iran militarily.

While everyone is quibbling over Iraq, I fear Bush will push us into Iran like Robert Reich mentioned today.

[marmar]

14. "I fear Bush will push us into Iran like Robert Reich mentioned today."

Yup. There's no doubt in my mind that he wants to.

[yellowcanine]

7. More like Hitler invading Russia but one Hitler comparison is as apt as another I suppose.

[Ganja Ninja]

17. Like Hitler refusing his general's request to retreat from ..

Stalingrad. That is where the war of aggression ended for the Germans and from then on they were on the defensive.

[marmar]

20. True that. A lot of people dismiss the comparisons to Der Fuhrer....

but they become a little clearer every day.

[aquart]

8. I thought Iraq was lunacy. I was right.

This....this isn't even a viable possibility. But, I agree with you, viable ain't what George is going for.

He'll happily start a war with Iran...and leave the rest of us poor bastards to deal with it.

Any chance he'll do the other thing Hitler did? With Eva?

[Golden Raisin]

9. Yes it is lunacy and we will

wake up some morning soon to discover Bush unilaterally bombed Iran the night before with no consultation with Congress.

[marmar]

12. That's my fear.

:scared:

[bdamomma]

15. I am grateful that I made it through another nite to the next day.

we have to do something we have to surgically remove this cancer from our country.

[Old and In the Way]

10. If you are a war criminal who'll probably get indicted....what do you have to lose?

Best case scenario is you attack and when the nation implodes in anger, you can declare martial law and rule as a real dictator. Maybe you win, maybe you don't...but what's the downside for trying it?

[Phredicles]

11. By early '45 wasn't Hitler ordering counteroffensives with armies that

didn't actually exist? I this that's what the Dear Leader is planning to invade Iran with, too.:scared::grr::puke:

[Cass]

16. Bush is off his rocker. If he thinks attacking Iran is going to be a cakewalk

he's a fruitcake. They will fight back and they also have some bad-ass friends.

[paparush]

18. Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Bush will use small nukes in Iran

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the war theater. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners).

The stated objective is to:

"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13)

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.

[marmar]

19. He seems absolutely craven about using a nuke...

Like his life will be unfulfilled if he doesn't get to use one.

[scarletwoman]

26. Oh damn. I never thought about it that way, but I think you are absolutely correct!

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH! Why isn't anyone stopping him? :banghead:

sw

[Fovea]

21. Of course it is lunacy, like a serial killer

Dubya is a lunatic.
He gave up his self medicating with Jack Daniels and coke and
learned to worship his anger and hatred like a new faith with an old name.
That god demands blood sacrifice. Human blood only, please.

He says all options are on the table with Iran, which is what he said about Iraq.
But Iran is not Iraq.
Yes, this behavior is George's ritual of invocation of rage/god. Like the hit man
in Pulp Fiction, he is telling us that he is losing control.

We let him do this before. Why let him again? We know his M.O.

BTW, he says that there will be no draft, but he also said New Orleans
would be rebuilt.

[kestrel91316]

23. Of course it's lunacy. But Bush doesn't give a rat's patootie

what you or I or anybody else thinks.

[JackRiddler]

24. There is most likely a method here...

When we get past the idea that Bush per se is in charge of anything. This is a gang, and its fronting personalities (Bush, even Cheney) are expendable. Ask yourself, who benefits from an attack on Iran? To be honest, I have trouble thinking of very many.

I do believe, in the end: it ain't happening. My bet is this is the final posturing, face-saving before some form of capitulation.

Or, as per the reply above, they're preparing to go with the only strategy that even allows an attack on Iran (nukes). Then the demonic is fully in charge, and I am a bit of a fool for having looked for materialist explanations when indeed insanity was running everything.

[scarletwoman]

25. Is active malevolence a form of insanity? Is megalomania? Is power lust? Is blood lust?

These people are profoundly anti-life. They derive personal satisfaction in having the power to deal death and destruction on whomever they please, wherever they please. They embody the very WORST parts of human nature.

sw