HowardThis is from Your New Nuclear War
Real Crash- Looking at the Financial System and the War Drive:
The one I love, the nuclear war
This is from your new nuclear war;
This is from the survivors who may be-- left behind;
Amid the chaos, it might just occupy your mind;
This is from your new nuclear war;
Obamaaaaa- he is insane;
Obamaaaaa- he is insane;
(spoof song: R.E.M.- To the One I Love)
pix from Endless Groove at Really Long Link
It has been made clear by the US Joint Chief of Staff, that there is no excuse to attack Iran, at the very least, till it has a nuclear bomb. Only that can be considered a red line. There are inspectors there from the UN and they have not even detected nuclear warhead grade uranium-235 (U-235 at a purity of 90%). '
In addition, considering the dangers of a war triggered with Russia and China, there can be no attack on Iran unless Russia agrees with the United States to do it. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an "independent Israeli attack on Iran." Only the USA and Obama can decide to allow such a monstrosity.
More on this from the geezer (aka- Larouche baby)
U.S. Top Brass Stand Firm Against Nuclear War; Remove Obama Now, While There's Still Time To Prevent It
When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reversed himself on war with Iran on Dec 20, saying that Iran could have nuclear weapons within a year or even less, and going so far as apparently to countenance an Israeli attack on Iran, he was breaking faith with the top US generals, who have told Obama not to launch World War III as ordered by London.
The generals fired back immediately against Panetta. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned the next day through CNN-- Panetta had conspicuously refused to do the day before,-- that a US-Iran war would be a "tragedy for the region and the world."
At about the same time, the Pentagon's press spokesman went still further in repudiating Panetta's remarks. Capt. John Kirby told reporters that the Pentagon's view of Iran's nuclear project had not changed, and added that if Tehran made the decision to produce weapons-grade uranium, it would be detected by UN inspectors who have regular access to the country's facilities. "We also think that --that if they make the decisions that George [spokesman George Little] talked about, that we would be able to detect that and we would have time to deal with it," he said, according to CQ's transcript.
Kirby also repudiated the new White House position echoed by Panetta, which lowered the "red line" for war from possession of a nuclear weapon to the "capability" to make one, and Kirby stuck to this anti-Obama, anti-London this policy under interrogation by hostile press who had realized that there is a policy split.
QUESTION: "And when you say it's a red line, so is the red line then when they kick the inspectors out, because that is the signal you're looking for?"
KIRBY: "No. What the president has said, and the secretary also has reiterated, is the red line is a nuclear-armed Iran. That's the red line."
QUESTION: "I'm so sorry to keep on this, but you say the red line is a nuclear-armed Iran. That means, if I'm understanding you correctly, they would be committed to get the nuclear arms? You're saying a nuclear-armed Iran, not stop it before it becomes nuclear- armed, but the red line is..."
KIRBY: "The line with [read: "is"] nuclear weapons-- that's a red line for the United States. The president has said that. The secretary of defense has made that very clear as well."
Kirby speaks for the Joint Chiefs and their Chairman, and can apparently speak more frankly than they can in their own names. Not only is he the current spokesman, but he was a earlier a close aide to Adm. Mike Mullen, Dempsey's predecessor.
But with Obama in London's pocket, even the Joint Chiefs cannot ultimately prevent a World War III ordered by London; Obama simply must be removed before London gives that final order.
