El Baradei was praised by the Nobel chairman for resisting U.S. pressures to find the hard nuclear evidence against Iran
they could use in their plans to justify attack.
That may not be enough to stop the U.S. and Israel from attacking Iran.

The director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapons stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.

One of the strongest influences in the Bush Administration are the Neo-Conservatives. They fill many of the top positions in the Bush Administration. Their war plans for the U.S. in the Middle East have so far been implemented, such as their phoney war with Iraq. It was promoted before the 9/11 attack- the "Pearl Harbour" the Neocons claimed they needed to justify the war to the American people. Although the war was based on a number of lies - now well-known and publicised, both the Republicans and Democrats want victory over Iraq - nothing less. This and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's silence about the war lie's is one of many indications that the Democrats have sold out to the Republicans and that the American system of Democracy has been corrupted by the military/industrial complex, other corporates, the oil interests and other special interests.

Steven P. Weisman wrote in The New York Times of Nov. 19 that the “biggest challenge” in President George W. Bush’s second term is “how to contain” Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, however, Iran constitutes no threat to the United States. Its “threat” is to Israel, according to “some” (read neocons) in the administration who believe that Iran supports violence against Israel and helps the resistance in Iraq.

This article gives an excellent case for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and for other states to acquire them who might become potential US targets.
However in the case of Iran, according to Scott Ritter and other experts, the US is almost ready to strike and as the following article illustrates, US media is daily conditioning the US public that Iran is an enemy that should be attacked before it gets nuclear weapons and attacks the US.

Is there a case to be made for allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the interests of peace? Or has all the air been sucked out of the debate by American and Israeli demagogues who dominate the airwaves?
The case for a nuclear Iran doesn’t emerge from fear-mongering or saber-rattling, like the alternate view, but from reason and respect for widely accepted facts; both of which are sadly missing from the analysis appearing in the western media.

Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics who writes extensively on nuclear issues. His conclusions are similar to mine and to others who study and analyse nuclear policies. Such as Dr Helen Caldicott who has predicted a nuclear war during Bush's second term.
As Dr. Hirsch suggests: the time for discussion and protest about a potential, clandestine, sudden nuclear attack on Iran is now, not after the damage has been done.

Or will the world allow it to happen?
The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear.

.....The next U.S. pre-emptive war could be against Iran, and/or Syria. Both have been mentioned as potential targets by Bush, as has North Korea if it dares to try and make nuclear weapons.
...... From the following record, and George Bush's actions and statements, we know what to expect.
Hopefully this should encourage people to work to keep New Zealand nuclear-free, and encourage other countries to adopt this step toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

Blair's bid to allow police to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge has failed in Parliament.
..... It is very clear, that the public needs a massive educational effort by top experts and speakers using every means of modern communication on the truths of our perilous situation. I think that would motivate enough people to stop Bush, Blair and Howard from committing more and perhaps far worse war crimes. Unless quick action is taken we are unlikely to be able stop the deterioration to more wars and worse disasters.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was due to risk his first major defeat in parliament overnight (NZT) in a bid to allow police to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

The following short, humorous piece raises some very profound and disturbing questions about the London bombings. Using the alleged terrorist action as justification, Tony Blair is trying to push draconian anti-terrorist laws through the UK Parliament. These proposed laws seem to have little real purpose in opposing and detecting terrorists. But they would be very effective in intimidating the public, silencing dissent, curtailing civil liberties, and generally increasing control of the general public. Tony Blair is deeply enmeshed in a web of deceit, using a tissue of lies to deceive the UK public and Parliament into supporting the illegal invasion, occupation and continued war on the Iraqi people.

Some Questions They Will Not Be Asking - And Certainly Not Answering:

Sir,
I have been researching nuclear war issues since 1945, when some 200,000 people were killed by nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then you have adjusted the hands of your Doomsday Clock 18 times - closer or further from midnight and nuclear war. This depended on developments in nuclear weapon technology, national policies and international threats and crisis. The last time was in 2002 when you moved it from 9 to 7 minutes to midnight. This was because the U.S. rejected a series of arms control treaties and announced its withdrawal from the ABM treaty; nuclear weapons proliferation to India and Pakistan and the so-called ' terrorist threat'. It is now 3 years later and I suggest the threat of a nuclear war has increased to the highest level yet for the following 10 reasons:

It's the 60th anniversary of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which premiered in December, 1945, just a few months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The goal of the magazine has always been simple, if somewhat ambitious: to save the world by working to minimize the threat of nuclear war. It came out of a time when physicists were central players in questions of international security. It came out of a time when physicists were central players in questions of international security.

Mankind has created a number of ways which could be used to trigger an extinction process, as assessed by this article by editors of the Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists in Dec 2004. Some factors not assessed, even more relevant today are: 1. The possibility of an unbalanced, rogue and/or ideologically-driven government gaining power and deliberately implementing a strategy of war and terror attacks which then escalate into a self-extinction process. Some suspect this may already be happening....

Loose nukes, nanobots, smallpox, oh my! In this age of endless imagining, and some very real risks, which terrorist threats should be taken most seriously?

A search on "Pre-emptive Nuclear War" revealed there are 1,750,000 entries on Google.
They illustrate the colossal investment in designing and making various types of nuclear weapons and the strategies to use them.
Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the nuclear arms race during the last 65 years since 1945. Now think about the paltry fig-leaf sum devoted to peace and disarmament and the suspicion and rejection of those working in this field. These facts and reflections tell you something about humanity and our runaway race toward extinction.

A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons. While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy. If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.

This 2003 paper gives a historical record of the development of nuclear war as a tool to achieve US military objectives.
No longer were nuclear weapons to be regarded as a deterrent "last resort" type of doomsday device. There was a new doctrine to use nuclear weapons first or "pre-emptively" - supposedly before the claimed enemy had a chance to use what the Pentagon calls "weapons of mass destruction" against the US.
The Pentagon will supply the so-called "intelligence" to justify it. This would likely be a phoney doctored intelligence, similar to what they supplied to justify the war on Iraq with a litany of accusations later found to be false.
Based on what they knew to be lies, Bush for the US and Blair for the UK , nevertheless warned they might use nuclear weapons against Iraq if Iraq resisted the US-UK invasion with WMD.
The alleged WMD could be anything the Bush Administration chose to define as WMD.

It Keeps Getting Scarier and Scarier
...The prospect of the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq adds a new, even more horrifying dimension to the threat of war in the Persian Gulf. LaRouche has already called on President Bush to renounce this madness.
The leak of the Jan. 10, 2003 document did not come in a vacuum. For the past year, the Bush Administration has been moving, step by step, to overturn a fifty year policy of keeping nuclear weapons on the shelf, as part of America's strategic deterrent. Here is a short chronology:
In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

In discussing the nuclear free issue (which I am in full agreement with) someone replied two days ago "its just a farce because our hospitals are nuclear powered." I have heard this before - is this correct and if so how.

Hospitals do a lot of radiation for medical purposes, with which we have always agreed. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association has always agreed with the peaceful applications of nuclear technology for medical and industrial uses. However hospitals are not nuclear powered, but powered by electricity. There is no nuclear power in NZ.

David Lange was a great man in many ways. His brilliant wit and his grasp of any topic for debate were the first things one noticed. To my mind his most valuable contribution to mankind was that he chose to make the vitally important stand for world nuclear disarmament by declaring New Zealand nuclear free. This was an idea that I had been promoting since 1981. It developed out of 36 years of peacework since the first nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. I am deeply grateful that he recognised the potential good this policy could achieve.
........  "I can smell the uranium on your breadth"

There are many important peace issues and Flyby News gives you vital information about them, as does this web site. Flyby also suggests constructive ways to help and things you can do.

This space ship was traveling at record speeds, more than 10 miles per second, and carrying more than 72 pounds of radioactive plutonium on board. It was only seconds away from a possible inadvertent reentry into Earth's atmosphere, which would have released more than 400,000 curies of radiation in a breathable/ingest able form. This could have resulted in millions of fatalities, and untold suffering for generations to come.
NoFlyby's Press Release, "The FORCE Behind Cassini" explains why NASA might have conducted such a high-risk civilian space mission. Flyby News covers this issue of the militarization of space and other concerns vital for life's survival in the 21st Century.

Although written in 2002, the following article gives a blueprint on how the US can create covertly, the very terrorism they condemn and which they use to justify wars - such as the much-predicted war on Iran. It may seem puzzling and counterproductive why the so-called terrorists in Iraq seem to be attacking Sunnis and Shiites in the apparent attempt to foment a civil or religious war between the two factions. Why would they do that if the objective is to get rid of US occupation?
On the other hand if a civil war did develop in Iraq, the US would have a reason to remain rather than withdraw, thus giving them a motive to foment a civil war between the two factions.
The British used similar techniques called "divide and rule" - setting one faction against another - in building their Empire.

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times.

Throughout human history, we have created many ingenious reasons to go to war - thousands of wars. PNAC's US Empire plans and methods may be diabolically evil, but also extremely cunning and effectively sold by all the techniques of modern communication. The US people have been carefully shielded from knowing about the myriad of lies and P2OG operations to deceive them into supporting, and believing in the validity of Bush's "war on terror". Now we are entering a new stage in the Empire building plan.

Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.
Adolf Hitler clearly spelled out his plans to destroy the Jews and launch wars of conquest to secure German domination of world affairs in his 1925 book, long before he ever assumed power. Despite the zig-zags of rhetoric he later employed, the various PR spins and temporary justifications offered for this or that particular policy, any attentive reader of his vile regurgitation could have divined his intentions as he drove his country – and the world – to murderous upheaval.

n the article below, past US presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche predicts a new Bush neocon-generated terrorist attack on the US. This will be used as an excuse to launch a nuclear attack on Iran, as 9/11 was used to launch an attack on Iraq.
Iraq was accused by a litany of false accusations and outright lies before Bush launched his war. Iran will be similarly accused to justify a US attack. The US people were fooled by Bush's Iraq lies. They approved and re-elected him. As before, the media will repeat the lies justifying the US attack and back new 'patriot' laws suppressing civil liberties, conscription of Americans for war, and smothering any criticism or dissent. Congress and the Senate will fall over themselves praising Bush's leadership and heroism in this time of crisis. Bush's popularity will skyrocket.

And Leading World Into Global Disaster
Former Democratic nominee for President and Labor Party Presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche, claims martial law is right around the corner if Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons aren't removed from their stranglehold on government.
He likes to call President Bush “Georgie Porgie” and Vice President Cheney “Hitler in a bunker.” He considers Bush a half-wit and a “nominal President” while classifying Cheney, actually in control of the country, as trigger-happy and a Hitler-type mad-hatter.

If you care about the future you must read these articles
...Today nuclear war threats have become greater than ever with at least 8 nuclear weapon states and a growth in global crisis points where a nuclear war could start. The new nuclear war doctrines allow a US president to start a pre-emptive nuclear war which could grow to destroy civilisation. We believe there are many better ways to deal with terrorist and WMD threats than destroying innocent people, if not the world. What do you think?

...Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.
The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

In spite of National hecklers causing her to cut short her speech, Helen Clark emphasised her party's nuclear-free
message to Canterbury University students today September 13.
I hope there is still time for this message, and for the range of nuclear issues and consequences if it is changed, to be communicated to voters, so that they take it into account when voting - as they did in 1984 and 1987 when Labour treated it as an important issue.
As mentioned in my September 7 posting, previous Labour leaflets circulated to homes, omitted this important issue.
In fact nuclear issues, and the dangers of a nuclear war, are more important in 2005 than in 1984 when Labour first used this benefit during an election.
NZ media were a bit more honest then and more accurately reported the dangers of nuclear war under US President, Ronald Reagan. People were better informed. Today, the NZ media is much more under foreign control. Most openly support the Bush Regime and illegal war on Iraq. That means that much of the real news about nuclear dangers under Bush and the extremism of the Bush regime is either suppressed, not mentioned at all, or completely misrepresented.

There were good people in Germany in the 1930's who understood what was happening there at the time, but were too afraid to do anything about it because of the political climate. Such a climate now exists in this country and there are good people again who are frozen in fear of ending up like JFK.
After the tribal wars ended on Easter Island, the few remaining residents eventually resorted to cannibalism, not only as a means of survival, but as an accepted ritual. Could that be the end result of where we are presently headed?

Pentagon's Actions Towards Depleted Uranium Use 'Beyond Treason'
Popular activist-broadcaster, Joyce Riley, hits government 'right between the eyes' with powerful new documentary exposing cover-up of depleted uranium illnesses, leaving Gulf War troops sick and dying.

Carefully analyse the Russian warning below. It is an ominous warning, but unlikely to deter the Bush Administration's advanced war plans for Iran.
All governments should know about Bush's policies on pre-emptive nuclear war, instructions to the Pentagon for a nuclear assault plan that might be used against Iran, taking out those nations the President decrees could become potential enemies, his 'Axis of Evil' speech and what it means, his Nuclear Posture Review, warning that up to 7 nations could be attacked with US nuclear weapons including Russia and China and the 3 crisis situations that could set it off: (1) The Middle East, (2) The Korean Peninsula (3) China and Taiwan. There are more. The self-justifying, self-fulfilling delusional aspects of Bush's reality, as he chooses to define and express in his recent speeches, also have to be taken into account. Never forget that Bush and Blair manufactured the hideous situation they studiously defend and continue in spite of being exposed as dangerous liars.

"We consider that it would be counter-productive and dangerous to use force, the serious consequences of which would be barely predictable." warning from the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Bush Administration about prospective plans to attack Iran.

Feedback on Nuclear Free NZ issues raised on "Agenda" TVNZ 1, Sunday August 13.
US President Bush's nuclear weapons policy and pre-emptive war policy are major reasons why New Zealand should not change it's nuclear free legislation. He is planning to make new nuclear weapons and resume testing, and has sabotaged the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference...
These are points that should have been raised with ex-US Deputy Secretary Kenneth Dawn when talking about NZ-US relations.
They are strong reasons for keeping New Zealand nuclear-free.

Although this book was written in 1993, it is an excellent source book on the basic dangers of an accidental nuclear war that destroys our planet. He details many near misses. As a previous minute-man officer he is well-qualified to write such a book. Bruce Blair is now president of the Centre for Defense Information in Washington, and the author of many new papers updating these dangers.

The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet Union has not eliminated the threat posed to international security by nuclear weapons. The Soviet breakup actually created a new set of dangers: the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and the illicit transfer of nuclear warheads, technology, or expertise to the Third World.

Are we Worried? In a recent piece, The Media's Roving Eye, trying to establish a timeline that would offer context for the Plame case, I wrote the following:
"Vice President Cheney started the administration's atomic drumbeat to war in Iraq with a series of speeches on Saddam's supposed nuclear capabilities and desires beginning in August of 2002. (The crucial role of Cheney, whose eye was first caught by a Defense Intelligence Agency report on the Niger uranium documents back in February 2002, in the events that would become the Plame case, has been poorly covered...)"

To stop further slaughter in the Middle East, please take action on the possibility of massive bombing, invasion and slaughter of Palestinians by Israel. Some of Sharon's most ardent supporters believe God gave Palestinian territory to Israel 3,000 years ago, and that therefore Israel has the right to drive Palestinians off the land and then possess it as their own. The expansion of Israel into Palestine and building Jewish settlements on Palestine land, is a part of this policy and was initiated by Sharon. Israel needs resistance by the Palestinians and the consequent killing of some Jews, which they call "terrorism", in order to justify continued expansion, bulldogging Palestinian homes and stealing their land.

What May Come After the Evacuation of Jewish Settlers from the Gaza Strip
We feel that it is urgent and necessary to raise the alarm regarding what may come during and after evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967, in the event that the evacuation is implemented.

Here is a good example of how Bush supporters accuse those with serious concerns about protecting and preserving the environment, of being potential criminals endangering the environment. To get rid of or intimidate their opponents, right wing Bush supporters accuse them of planning criminal, destructive acts. Using this kind of climate as their cover, Bush supporters are more able to exploit the environment, while denying there is any problem - such as in the case of rapid global warming.

Equating eco-activists with terrorism is now commonplace among conservative mouthpieces and the FBI alike. Currently, about 20 million people tune in to Rush Limbaugh every week. His lingo is now conservative lingua franca. Limbaugh figured out that if you repeat your best lines -- e.g., "environmentalist wackos" -- often enough, they become more than just funny catchphrases; they become a reconfiguration of reality and a call to arms. In his world (and it's a world in which a lot of people live), you can't be an environmentalist and escape wacko-ism.

"War crimes: Violations of the law and customs of war."
- Principles of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment, Principle VI b (1950)
It couldn't be clearer that the American people don't realize - or don't care - that their own nation is committing numerous war crimes and is on an unsustainable collision-course with the rest of humankind. If they did, they'd be idiomatically stating the obvious: "Something's gotta give, or this planet's toast!"

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running a drill exercise for an unnamed company which revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as was happening in real life on July 7th.

Can you imagine that in a time of peace at the end of the cold war, with the US recognised as the only superpower, the US military takes 68 cents of every tax dollar for defence, as against only 32 cents on everything else. And it's not enough, they want more.

Many Americans believe that 19 cents on defense for every 81 cents on non-defense is a reasonable way to spend a tax dollar. But by another calculation, the tax dollar splits 68 cents for defense and 32 cents on everything else. It is a common misconception that U.S. defense expenditure is equivalent to the Department of Defense outlays. Instead of $436.4 billion of defense expenditure, as Congressional budgeteers count, government statisticians in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) counted $548.0 billion for calendar year 2004—a whopping $112 billion difference. And by our own calculations, U.S. defense expenditure is much higher than even the BEA's numbers suggest, namely $765.6 billion in calendar year 2004—about $330 billion or than the Department of Defense outlays.

....Some believe his [Bush] Administration was implicated in committing the 9/11 attacks - the new 'Pearl Harbour' called for in the neocon PNAC papers. Without 9/11, his lies and war crimes would not be possible. So far, he has got away with all these crimes, consolidated and increased his power domestically and externally. He is absolutely committed to continue these crimes, and will likely increase them. There seems to be no serious and powerful opposition from the Democrats or others, such as the mass media, to Bush's administration and actions.

In answer to U.S. Ambassador Swindells (July 5) the theory that humanity must exist under the threat of global nuclear destruction for reasons of security was rejected by New Zealanders when they enacted the Nuclear Free Act in 1987. In spite of the end of the cold war, why do Russia and the U.S. still have thousands of nuclear missiles ready for instant launch against each other.

Obviously the US does not need the poisonous U-238 for security as claimed. The US is already the one and only super power and can destroy any enemy, even the whole of humanity, at any time. In these perilous times, it is not beyond possibility that an 'End Times Nuclear War' would be launched by a religious Fundamentalist nutter Administration. They may think it is time for the religious Armageddon that Fundamentalists believe was promised in the Bible.

NEW YORK - The United States plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported on Monday.
The newspaper quoted project managers as saying most, if not all, of the new plutonium was intended for secret missions. The officials would not disclose details, but the newspaper said the plutonium in the past powered espionage devices.
The Times said Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the US Energy Department, vigorously denied in a recent interview any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Frazier was quoted as saying.
Officials at the Energy Department could not be reached for comment.

When the public liars sat down together -- in Crawford, in the Pentagon, in the Oval Office, at 10 Downing Street -- and very deliberately, very guilefully and very knowingly devised their act of mass murder in Iraq, it is unlikely they gave any thought to the most vulnerable targets of their war crime: the children. So in considering this aspect of the bloodbath, we should give the liars the benefit of the doubt. Let's not make them more monstrous than they are. Let's stick to the facts.

Everyone should see this DU documentary on Sunday June 26 at 11.00 pm on TV1 in NZ.
Poisoning the Iraq people and neighbouring states with DU weapons and residue is bad enough. But with a half life of 4.5 billion years, eventually DU dust will drift around the planet and contaminate all life.
That's all of us regardless of where we live, including our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Unless we can stop manufacture and use of this evil weapon (already used by the USA and UK in four wars), the whole planet will be poisoned.
It's time the NZ government took a position on banning DU weapons. Concerned citizens and nations took a stand to ban land mines. It was successful. The same kind of concern can apply to DU weapons which are far worse.
Ban them

. . . . evidence that the 9/11 attacks were were not as portrayed by the Bush Administration and the mass media.
I suggest that this tragedy and its implications, and the actions that have flowed from it, be of the greatest concern to responsible people everywhere. Two wars have been justified - Afghanistan and Iraq - on the basis of the official story of the 9/11 attack. The centre piece of the Bush Administration is the enormously expensive and destructive so-called "war on terror". More wars (perhaps on Iran and Syria and others) have been suggested.

Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
See also Possible Bush Conspiracy in 9/11 Now A College Course

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

ACT and National are very keen to resume visits by US and UK nuclear warships, as the following article shows.
The following comments will refute Ken Shirley's main points and show the duplicity of National.So for ACT and National to try and focus the debate on nuclear-powered ships alone is a duplicious nonsense.
They know that can mean nuclear weapons will be brought into NZ ports - and the possibility of that happening, will make NZ a potential nuclear target - for potential enemies to strike at US ships, or the ports they use.

New nuclear weapons are to be made and nuclear testing resumed.
Amazingly there is little or no protest and surprisingly little comment. The media has presented these doctrines as the most normal thing in the world - just what's needed in the great war against global terrorism. Who could object to that? God's anointed - our Emperor George Bush - can never be wrong.

This story is a good illustration of how the Bush Administration wants to change the news to suit its policies.
They wish people to believe that there is no global warming threat. Anything that challenges their view gets altered to suit. They don't want to take any measures that would reduce the US's large contribution to global warming.

A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported yesterday.

The ever larger circles of war and destruction, promised by George Bush and his "poodle" coalition of the 'not so willing', has a nuclear component most overlook, or are not aware of.

...This education is a vast waste of the resources and potential of the young. It is boring beyond belief and useless--except to the powers and interests that depend on it. When A Ukranian student, a three-week arrival on these shores, writes the best-organized and most profound essay in English of the class, American education has something to answer for--especially to our youth.

The United States joined with other states to wreck the nuclear non-proliferation treaty’s 2005 review conference. Patricia Lewis of the United Nations Institute of Disarmament Research examines what went wrong.

The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) was launched in 1999 to focus specifically on trying to achieve a global ban on the manufacture, testing, and use of depleted uranium weapons.

First Consider The Evidence, Then Draw Your Own Conclusions
Let us consider the possibility that the USA has become addicted, in an economic sense, to war. While the evidence offered below is by no means exhaustive, it is directly relevant and highly probative. Therefore, the reader should consider ALL of the evidence in Exhibits A through D before judging whether or not a prima facie case has been made that America is economically addicted to war.

The radioactive microscopic dust residue from depleted uranium weapons has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and eventually drifts from wherever it was first used, around the world. It kills and causes life-threatening diseases wherever it goes, and also contaminates the gene pool causing hideously malformed foetuses.
The US and UK like it because it is such an effective battlefield weapon; so they keep defending it's usage.
They have used D.U. weapons in 4 wars so far. It also kills or contaminates many US and UK war veterans and their offspring. There is a very large amount of evidence of it's damage, and many groups working to outlaw such weapons.
The long-term effects around the world are potentially devastating for the human race, as D.U. goes on killing forever.

“After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death.”

In 1987, the sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion: the corporate offensive". He described how in the United States "great progress [had been] made towards the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy", whose principal aim was to identify a rapacious business state "with every cherished human value". The power and meaning of true democracy, of the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to the propaganda of advertising, public relations and corporate-run news. This "model of ideological control", he predicted, would be adopted by other countries, such as Britain.