Bush says force last resort in Iran

[Dr_Strangelove]

We shouldn't invade Iran, but we use take out its nuclear facilities with cruise missles. We can't afford to allow a fundamentalist fascist state get nukes.

799074[/snapback]

Here you are, insulting a whole country calling them fascists, maybe you forgot that part, huh. Here you also are accusing Iran of getting nuclear weapons, even though you have no evidence what so ever of them doing that.

Nuclear technology is not banned in any way, even though you seem to think so.

799833[/snapback]

Very, very good point. I don't believe the United Nations has ever been able to make an enforcable nuclear proliferation treaty. The real question is the matter of what constitutes an actionable threat to national security? The Bush Administration has been struggling with this issue and, obviously, decided to err on the side of discretion.

I will be interested to see what criteria we consider actionable in the case of Iran?

[Wings of Selkhet]

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Well, I'm not worried. Bush only has until 2008 and there's simply not enough time for him to launch another crusade unless a magical swarm of fairies and desert leprechauns lands in Iraq and fixes all of our problems with gold and glitter.

[zephyr]

Oh I know they're patraotic, there was dancing in the streets when 9/11 happened

What a load of nonsense! The only people I saw in the streets of Tehran after 911 were young people lighting candles to sympathize with the victims of that terror attack. You should stop spreading lies and hatred and find something more useful and constructive to say.

As for your assumption that Western fascists need nukes to mess up the world, I suggest you look at the other means; including terrorism that has been employed by them for many decades to mess around the globe. Now that terrorism has hit them back, they're crying and complaining about how bad everybody else!

[Pannkakskungen]

to be fair to talon, he has only gone by the way the media portrays iran, sometimes they are very right, but more often than not the way they describe iran is not the iran i have had the previldge to visit. for example how many people in the west know that an iranian cleric chose to change his gender from a man to a woman and has ruled that a sex change operation is a human right, how many priests or rabbis would be that liberal?

i think its a classic case of where the media is quick to pick up on anything bad about the country, but fails to report anything good about it, and that the fear that is instilled by the media causes the reactions you get from some of the members of the forum. i cant blame peoples perception of iran on them if they dont know an iranian or have never been. we can only hope they choose to learn from primary sources rather than secondary.

799876[/snapback]

Ohh no you don't, don't defend him, or make excuses for him, he has stated that he is very aware of what is going on in Iran, let him show us his great wisdom. If he wants to buy the version of Iran as portraied in media then that is his fault, not ours.

[Dr_Strangelove]

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Well, I'm not worried. Bush only has until 2008 and there's simply not enough time for him to launch another crusade unless a magical swarm of fairies and desert leprechauns lands in Iraq and fixes all of our problems with gold and glitter.

800277[/snapback]

What you need to wonder about then is who is in the White House from 2008 going on. Their is a definite possibility that another conservative takes over after Bush leaves office.

[Pannkakskungen]

Not if Hilary decides to run, not that Im a very big fan of her or her husband, but I have a hard time seeing any republican that could really win against her. But this is a totally diffirent question to what this thread is about really.

[Shadowsleet]

Interesting...earlier, I made a statement that I would not trust Iran, or indeed any such fundamentalist regime, to have nuclear weapons. I simply wouldn't trust them to be able to defend their country or their beliefs in a logical and rational manner...

Since then, I have seem iranians, half iranian, and so on and so forth ripping into Talon, accusing him of saying things he didn't even say, losing their tempers willy nilly, and blablabla...

Very interesting....

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Shadowsleet]

Oh no, what ever shall I do

Anyway....one question to those so convinced that Iran is not, and has no plans to develope nuclear weapons...

If I were a world leader in the middle east, and my neighbour had just been invaded for allegedly having nuclear weapons, allowing in no small part due to the fact that they bluffed the world into believing they did, messed around UN weapon inspectors, and pretty much got everyone riled up.....the last thing I'd be doing is bluffing the world, messing around UN weapon inspectors, and getting everyone riled up.

I would in fact be letting the UN inspectors in, letting them go where they wanted, when they wanted, and making sure the entire world saw I wasn't developing nuclear weapons, and there was absolutely no elbow room whatsoever for anyone to say otherwise.

This guy isn't....so he's basically inviting critisism and suspicion. The only two conclusions I can draw is that...

1 - he's retarded

2 - he's hiding something.

So, which is it?

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Shadowsleet]

Interesting....I'll take that as an avoidance.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Shadowsleet]

Morpheas, after our last encounter, I would have thought you'd realise that using the moral highground of "maturity" is not the most convincing excuse for avoiding a question I pose to you.

[british_patriot]

I have a feeling if USA do declare war on Iran, USA will be on there own. I believe Britain will not help.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[+joc]

I have a feeling if USA do declare war on Iran, USA will be on there own. I believe Britain will not help.

No one is going to Declare War on Iran....however strategic military bombing of suspected nuclear sites is definitely on the drawing board...and Britain will be involved...they have to be...there is no retreat from the war on Terror...what happened in London is childs play to what they are planning for you BP!

[Richdog]

I have a feeling if USA do declare war on Iran, USA will be on there own. I believe Britain will not help.

800825[/snapback]

They wouldn't really have a choice. They are committed to the same path as the USA at the moment... I can't see Blair whelping out now at this stage...

[Pannkakskungen]

Since then, I have seem iranians, half iranian, and so on and so forth ripping into Talon, accusing him of saying things he didn't even say, losing their tempers willy nilly, and blablabla...

800802[/snapback]

Ripping into Talon, where, we have trashed his petty arguments, that is it. What have we accused him of saying that he didnt say? Who lost their temper?

[Pannkakskungen]

I have a feeling if USA do declare war on Iran, USA will be on there own. I believe Britain will not help.

No one is going to Declare War on Iran....however strategic military bombing of suspected nuclear sites is definitely on the drawing board...and Britain will be involved...they have to be...there is no retreat from the war on Terror...what happened in London is childs play to what they are planning for you BP!

800842[/snapback]

"they have to be" is that your argument, why do they have to be, you seem to be assuming a lot of things here. Iraq is one thing, Iran is something completely diffirent, I doubt Blair will be foolish enough to attack Iran as Iran has done nothing wrong in the nuclear question.

I have a feeling if USA do declare war on Iran, USA will be on there own. I believe Britain will not help.

800825[/snapback]

They wouldn't really have a choice. They are committed to the same path as the USA at the moment... I can't see Blair whelping out now at this stage...

800856[/snapback]

Of course Blair has a choice, as I said before, Iraq is so very diffirent from Iran, very few similarities.

[Richdog]

The pressure on Britain to support America would be very high... I can't see Blair doing nothing. And no similarities to iraq? The aim is fight against WMD... how is that not similar to Iraq?

Read this article, it provides a good explanation for my argument... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1463534/posts

The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved

President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.

Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.

It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.

Makes more sense than your argument...

[Baku]

The pressure on Britain to support America would be very high... I can't see Blair doing nothing.  And no similarities to iraq?  The aim is fight against WMD... how is that not similar to Iraq?

Read this article, it provides a good explanation for my argument... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1463534/posts

The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved

President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.

Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.

It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.

Makes more sense than your argument...

800902[/snapback]

Thats not an article man, thats just another forum were a guy named ''F14 Pilot'' left a message behind. You cant take that as a source

Edited August 20, 2005 by Baku

[Richdog]

If it had been written by a real journalist would that of made it make any more sense?

Maybe I used the wrong term then, but whichever way you look at it... it is a good and well thought out argument, and constitutes good logic.

It still makes more sense than your argument.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Not if Hilary decides to run, not that Im a very big fan of her or her husband, but I have a hard time seeing any republican that could really win against her. But this is a totally diffirent question to what this thread is about really.

800785[/snapback]

The sad thing is that I don't know that Hillary would really be up to handling any situation that comes up with Iran. I'm not particularly fond of Bill and Hillary either but I will grant that she might be the most politically viable candidate the Democrats could put forward. I just don't know that I want Hillary to be guiding our nuclear weapons policy.

Then again she might not do any worse than some of our previous presidents and we survived them.

[Pannkakskungen]

The pressure on Britain to support America would be very high... I can't see Blair doing nothing.  And no similarities to iraq?  The aim is fight against WMD... how is that not similar to Iraq?

Read this article, it provides a good explanation for my argument... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1463534/posts

The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved

President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.

Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.

It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.

Makes more sense than your argument...

800902[/snapback]

Again somebody accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a a form of WMD, but are there any solid evidence of that, no, but hey, maybe we will see Condi offer a smoking gun to the UN like Powell did with Iraq, of course that gun had more smoke than anything else.

If all it takes to be considered to be developing nuclear weapons is to have a nuclear programme then all countries that have a nuclear reactor of any kind is bound to be developing nuclear weapons, now aren't they. If Iran was out to harm the west why do they sell so much oil to us, not a very good thing to do to your enemy now is it.

Yes, there are loads of british forces in the area, so what, is Iran an enemy of the new regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, not as far as I know, they were on the other hand enemies of the old regimes and worked against them in various ways.

There is a big difference between the UK being actively involved in any attack/war on Iran and standing by and letting the US do their thing.

Okey, have you got any arguments of your own, or are you going to continue letting other talk for you.

[Pannkakskungen]

The sad thing is that I don't know that Hillary would really be up to handling any situation that comes up with Iran. I'm not particularly fond of Bill and Hillary either but I will grant that she might be the most politically viable candidate the Democrats could put forward. I just don't know that I want Hillary to be guiding our nuclear weapons policy.

Then again she might not do any worse than some of our previous presidents and we survived them.

801009[/snapback]

She might not have the "grab yer guns and yer balls" attitude of certain presidents, but that isn't necessarily something bad, it is not wise to run into things without being properly prepared. And we still don't know if there will be any "situation" with Iran as we don't know if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Yup, the world have survived presidents like Carter and Ford, I don't think another Clinton will be any worse than what we have experienced so far.