Bush won't rule out attack on Iran

[Velk]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
I don't understand why he's going after states which may or may not have nukes while he's ignoring those that do have nukes (north korea).

Because if you invade an aggressive, paranoid state armed with nuclear weapons then they will probably use them.

This is why the WMD excuse with Iraq was a farce right from the start.

 

[Tylanner]

This thread has 0 gravitas.

 

[ajf3]

With no re-election to worry about, this campaign should go much more smoothly since we won't have to pull any punches...

 

[PatboyX]

well, i have to say, it would be foolish to say "we will under no circumstances attack Iran."
it would give them a free pass...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think the answer to that is an unequivocal: HELL YES!

Hey, he's "Declaring solidarity with Europe", something your ilk have been screaming for since the war in Iraq started. As for not ruling out force, of *course* he wouldn't rule out force! They're trying to get Iran to STOP doing anything with nuclear materials; if they remove the threat of force they remove most of their bargaining power, *particularly* in a middle eastern culture scenario.

Until they announce a *certainty* of attack and a buildup of troops at the Iranian border, sit down and shut up. You're not doing ANY good *as usual*.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Again, overreacting here conjur. What incentive would Iran have to comply with the soft-speakiing Europeans if the US set down its big stick?

They're playing a classic good cop/bad cop on the Iranians.

The reason it's failing is that it's so transparent that some twentysomething geek behind his computer can figure it out.

Well, unless you're Conj(ect)ur(e), anyway

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If Russia is not concerned about Iran nukes and they are right next to it, why should we be?

Because America is the "leader of the free world" and has a habit of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, dummy.

Funny that the rest of the world, free or not, loves to suck at America's teet at the same time giving Americ the finger.

No-one wants America until they feel threatened or need assistance.

That's because they like to PRETEND they are morally superior while America is merely more *practical*. What they fail to realize is that the practical and the moral are the same damn thing.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
I don't understand why he's going after states which may or may not have nukes while he's ignoring those that do have nukes (north korea).

Now that is definitely a valid point and a scary question. I wonder how scary the answer will be?

Jason

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
well, i have to say, it would be foolish to say "we will under no circumstances attack Iran."
it would give them a free pass...

Agreed. It's diplomacy 101 to keep all cards on the table no matter the remoteness. The US has never ruled out using nukes in combat, etc... What we have here is just a bunch of hyperventilating from the usual crowd

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think the answer to that is an unequivocal: HELL YES!


Bush declares solidarity
with Europe on Iran
Diplomacy is first choice, he says,
but force cannot be ruled out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6992154/

BRUSSELS - President Bush said Friday that Iran is trying to use the United States? refusal to join European talks over Tehran?s nuclear program as an excuse for not giving up uranium enrichment.

In interviews on the eve of a trip by the president to Europe, Bush stressed that the United States preferred diplomacy and did not want to use military action against Iran over the nuclear question.

?What they?re trying to do is kind of wiggle out. They?re trying to say, ?Well, we won?t do anything because America is not involved.? Well, America is involved. We?re in close consultation with our friends,? Bush said.

He was speaking to Germany?s ARD television, one of a series of interviews he gave Friday prior to a trip to Belgium, Germany and Slovakia next week.

The European Union, represented by France, Britain and Germany, has been trying to persuade Iran to scrap any nuclear weapons-related activities in return for economic incentives.

The United States has rejected European calls for the Bush administration to bolster the EU?s leverage by getting involved in the bargaining and offering incentives of its own for Iran to end uranium enrichment activities.

Washington wants Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions ? which Tehran denies having ? and comply with International Atomic Energy Agency obligations, stop support for terrorism and allow democratic reforms.

In the ARD interview, Bush insisted that he wants a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem and said any talk of a military attack is ?just not the truth.?

?We want diplomacy to work, and I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don?t divide Europe and the United States. And the common goal is for them not to have a nuclear weapon,? Bush told Belgium?s VRT television channel.

'Never ... say never'
?First of all you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president?s first choice,? Bush said, when asked if he could rule out military action against Iran.

?Diplomacy is always the president?s, or at least always my first choice and we?ve got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon,? he said in the interview taped in Washington and broadcast before his arrival in Brussels Sunday for summits with NATO and the EU.

Bush suggested there was no divergence between the policy of Washington and Europe on Iran and said they could succeed together in ensuring that Iran did not develop an atom bomb.

We?ve got a common goal and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon ... I think if we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up and keep the pressure on, we can achieve the objective,? he said.

?I?m convinced again that if the Iranians hear us loud and clear and without any wavering, that they will make the rational decision,? Bush said in an interview with France 3 television.

Israel said Wednesday that Iran was just six months away from having the knowledge to build nuclear weapons.

European leaders are hoping to convince Bush to take a bigger role in the negotiations with Iran. Former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, the European Commission?s ambassador to the United States, said this week the leaders? goal is ?getting the United States involved in a more committed way? in their talks with Iran.

Bush is expected to use his trip to try to soothe ruffled feathers after a first term in which he has been criticized in Europe for riding rough-shod over the views of European leaders, particularly France?s President Jacques Chirac.

Russia proceeds with aid for Iran reactor
His comments came amid debate over Iran's nuclear intentions. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he is convinced Iran does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and said he plans to visit the nation.

Putin, at a meeting with Iranian National Security Council chief Hasan Rohani, also said Russia would continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Moscow has helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, a project that has been heavily criticized by the United States which fears it could be used to help Tehran develop nuclear weapons.

"The latest steps from Iran confirm that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin said.


"We hope that Iran will strictly adhere to all international agreements, in relation to Russia and the international community," he said, adding that he had accepted an invitation by Iran's leadership for him to visit the country.

Russia's nuclear chief is expected in Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the launch of the Russian-built reactor. If the signing goes ahead as planned on Feb. 26, it would pave the way for the deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early 2006.

The protocol is aimed at reducing concerns that Iran could reprocess spent nuclear fuel from the $800 million Bushehr reactor to extract plutonium, which could be used in nuclear weapons. Moscow says that having Iran ship spent nuclear fuel back to Russia, along with international monitoring, will make any such project impossible.

I think his "common goal" is more accurately defined as "privatization of Iranian old fields" and further insurance for protecting poor, helpless Israel (the only country in the MidEast that actually does possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and has also invaded other countries against international law and continues to support state-sponsored terrorism.

"is he insane", a quick answer is....NO.

 

[berserker]

Iran is in a very difficult position. They feel threatened because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They believe that they need nuclear weapons in order to forestall a US invasion. However, if they show signs of developing nukes, we'll invade. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best thing for them to do is what Libya did, become open, submissive, and let themselves be subjected to all-out inspections and regulations. However, I think they are too proud to do that.

I really don't know which way it will turn out.

Disclaimer: my view is that we should make Iran the 51st state.

 

[phillyTIM]

no - the countries in that region need to do what iran and syria have done - band together...form a union (like the EU or USSR)...and rise up against the outsiders (the US)

shove a nuke up george's cheney-whored-butt, make him run and laugh at him!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sillyTIM
no - the countries in that region need to do what iran and syria have done - band together...form a union (like the EU or USSR)...and rise up against the outsiders (the US)

shove a nuke up george's but, make him run and laugh at him!

You know what's sad, the Right Wingers will use stupid comments like yours to try and illustrate how whacko the Liberals are. The truth is your comments aren't really whacko, just childish. Anyone with any sort of common sense woulld see the immaturity of your comments and totally dismiss them.

 

[phillyTIM]

waaaah wahhh -boo hoo - i stick with what i said, hopefully they out there will see and learn from it, and do.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sillyTIM
waaaah wahhh -boo hoo

That's about par for the course for you.

 

[frankie38]

Doesn't this all sound look familiar. I think susitute Middle East w/ SE Asia.
I do believe Iran is next and then Syria. Once that is done Saudi Arabia Baby!

 

[phillyTIM]

no, i believe that in another thread, people said that bush would never attack SA...

he won't now, even when al quaeda is known & proven to have a habitat in SA....bush is a hypocrite

people around here say bush won't attack because it would mean higher gas prices....boo hooo

 

[conjur]

Hmm...now the Bush admin is dabbling with offering Iran membership in the WTO???
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0228/dailyUpdate.html

 

[StageLeft]

CALM THE HECK DOWN. No president would be in his right mind if he ruled out anything. Imagine a cop saying "Hey, thug, stop fighting. I absolutely will not shoot you -- you have my word -- but I really want you to come over here!" The president is just not closing his options.

 

[jjzelinski]

It makes sense, the big fear with Iran right is NOT that they are in a defensive posture, rather, they are in on offensive one. The US is worried that the Shia majority will fall under the influence/rule of the Iranian theocracy. That's the LAST thing the US wants because then SA has, yet again, a hostile neighbor the north. What make sit far worse this time is that SA won't have Saddam to keep the Iranians at bay. Iran realizes they hold the stability of the entire region in their hand. Touting nukes and whatnot is incidental, and liekly a way to make themselves appear as a stronger and more capable ally to the Iraqi Shia's than they really are.

 

[Aimster]

Iran and Syria didn't join together on anything.

The U.S media needs to get better Arab speaking people to translate things.

Syria said "We are working with Iran to improve economic trade". U.S news translated that as "Syria and Iran forming a united front"

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
no, i believe that in another thread, people said that bush would never attack SA...

he won't now, even when al quaeda is known & proven to have a habitat in SA....bush is a hypocrite

people around here say bush won't attack because it would mean higher gas prices....boo hooo

No, many, including myself said we needed to invade SA first. That is the true home of Bin Laden and Terrorism. Also has a lot more Oil than Iraq.

 

[Aimster]

You can invade SA all you want. The govt. is against AL Qaeda. What can the U.S military do that the SA govt. cannot do? What will they find out that the SA govt. doesn't already know?

You can takeover SA, but you cannot get rid of Al Qaeda in SA. It will just make their cause even stronger and good luck replacing the royal family with a friendly West govt.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Again, overreacting here conjur. What incentive would Iran have to comply with the soft-speakiing Europeans if the US set down its big stick?

They're playing a classic good cop/bad cop on the Iranians.

The reason it's failing is that it's so transparent that some twentysomething geek behind his computer can figure it out.

Maybe you should keep up with news source outside the US. The "softies" in Europe have an agreement in place that is slowing down and, up until the past few days, seemed to be closing Iran's nuclear program. If the US joined them in the effort, Iran would no longer a be a problem. The "big stick" the US supposedly carries has had nothing to do with Iran's compliance and willingness to work with the Europeans.

Too bad our country wasn't about diplomacy first and war later, we could have the iran problem solved with no loss of life and no military invasion.

 

[SuperTool]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aWgfUeqxceDo&refer=europe

Iran has agreed to return used nuclear fuel back to Russia. So sky is not falling. The less oil Iran uses to generate domestic electricity, the more oil they have to sell, and the lower the oil prices become. Also, hundreds of thousands of Russian nuclear industry workers will have jobs and be able to feed their families. Moving from fossil fuels to nuclear power is a good thing, IMO.