Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Genghis Pwn · 06-19-2003, 12:54 AM

Say what you will about Bush, but when he makes a decision, he always backs it up. He has now told Iran clearly: You militant muslim nutcases will not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons that could threaten the United States.
If they fail to listen, Bush will lay the smack down.

Quote:

Bush: World Must Not Let Iran Have Nuclear Weapons Wed Jun 18

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday the international community must make clear to Iran that "we will not tolerate" construction of a nuclear weapon by Tehran.

Speaking to reporters as he met members of Congress at the White House, Bush directed some of his strongest language at Iran since lumping that country with Iraq and North Korea as three "axis of evil" states in early 2002.

"The international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon."

With the situation in Iraq still unsettled after the U.S.-led war there, Bush offered strong support for Iranians protesting their government's lack of progress on promised reforms and the hardline clerics who have blocked reform in the Islamic republic.

Bush said the protestors need to know the United States "stands squarely by their side."

He spoke in the wake of a report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, that Tehran had "failed to report certain nuclear material and activities," but was making amends.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian generation of electric power but the United States believes Tehran wants to build a nuclear weapon. Washington has been pressuring Russia to halt assistance to the Iranian nuclear program to little avail.

U.S. officials question why Iran would need nuclear-generated power given its oil wealth.

Bush said he had brought up the issue at the Group of Eight summit earlier this month in France and found "universal agreement that we all must work together to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

TEHRAN BLASTS 'BLATANT INTERFERENCE'

The United States went to war against Iraq with the stated goal of disarming Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) of weapons of mass destruction. So far no conclusive evidence of such weapons have been found.

Washington is seeking a regional diplomatic front to address North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons peacefully.

The Iranian government has accused the United States of "blatant interference" after Bush hailed six nights of pro-democracy student protests which he said showed Iranians wanted freedom. Bush ignored the charge.

"I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran. They need to know that America stands squarely by their side, and I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect," Bush said.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected Iran's contention that the IAEA tailored its report on Iran to suit Washington's view that Iran is using a civilian power program to try to obtain nuclear arms.

He said the United Nations and the IAEA "are proudly independent organizations that call it as they see it and make their own judgments. Sometimes we agree with them, sometimes we don't."

Irran, do not test W!

conkermaniac · 06-19-2003, 05:17 AM

Geez...Bush needs to take care of his OWN country first. We elected him (well, I didn't, but the general public did) to take care of the US economy, not the Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, or North Korean economy (not to mention pissing the people there off in the process). I think that isolation, not containment and definitely not pre-emption, should remain the policy of the United States.

Ruy Lopez · 06-19-2003, 06:19 AM

Irran, do not test W!

I actually prefer that the US invades and occupies Iran too. It will probably hasten the departure of US forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran itself. Don't think the US has the stomach for an average of 5 dead and 25 injured soldiers everyday for 7 years and an occasional disaster of 50 to 100 dead per incident time and again.

That would be around 80,000 dead and 400,000 injured in 7 years. Expect though that US would kill 400,000 to 800,000 Arabs and Afghans, and Persians.

Jat · 06-19-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by conkermaniac
Geez...Bush needs to take care of his OWN country first. We elected him (well, I didn't, but the general public did) to take care of the US economy, not the Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, or North Korean economy (not to mention pissing the people there off in the process). I think that isolation, not containment and definitely not pre-emption, should remain the policy of the United States.

Well, actually a majority of the voters didn't really elect Dubya into office. Gore got 540k more real votes. Dubya was appointed by the Supreme Court.

Ron Garrett · 06-19-2003, 06:54 AM

I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld view dead U.S. troops much as they view empty toner cartridges from their photocopiers: corporate office supplies expended as a cost of doing business. They couldn't care less. They'll just put more flags behind the podium and add a few more references to God in their speeches and introduce more flag-burning legislation.

I cannot imagine with the ability to open a front from Iraq that is only a few hours from Iran's major western oil fields, and the ability to open a front from Afghanistan that is only a few hours drive to Tehran, that the Shrub and the rest of his cabal will be able to resist the temptation of invading Iran, especially since I think Putin will back him even if Blair's been forced out by then. I think the 2004 election is too far away to stop Bush before he get's to Iran.

MortalWombat · 06-19-2003, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
Well, actually a majority of the voters didn't really elect Dubya into office. Gore got 540k more real votes. Dubya was appointed by the Supreme Court.

And lest anyone jump in with "well, the popular vote doesn't count, the electoral votes do," if you tack on the additional several thousand voters in Florida whose ballots were nullified by Jeb and Katherine even though the vast majority of those were eligible to vote and were mostly minorities or poor whites (who tend to vote Democrat), Gore would have won the electoral votes, too.

Jacey · 06-19-2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Garrett
I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld view dead U.S. troops much as they view empty toner cartridges from their photocopiers: corporate office supplies expended as a cost of doing business. They couldn't care less. They'll just put more flags behind the podium and add a few more references to God in their speeches and introduce more flag-burning legislation.

Unfortunately, I agree with you 100%.

Just look at what happened in this country a few months ago. The rabid pro-war crowd calling anyone who didn't goosestep with them "anti-American." Yet it was the anti-war crowd who wanted US forces to come home before the ground war started, and didn't want people to die..........

So, here we have:
Pro-war = Pro-America = 160+ (I don't know the current count, just that it keeps rising) dead

Anti-War = Anti-America/Commie/Hitler Lover = 0 dead

Just wave the flag and sing God Bless America though and everything will be ok.

HaysooChreesto! · 06-19-2003, 09:00 AM

I think that Bush can bluff the Iranians into compliance. He's demonstrated the willingness to use overwhelming military force against nations viewed as terrorist states. That goes a long way towards making his words worth taking seriously by those he's directing them at.
Couple that with the recent protests in Iran against the Iranian regime and maybe the government there will think twice about building a nuke they don't need.

We shouldn't want the Iranians to have nukes for the same reason Americans shouldn't want a man like Pat Robertson with his finger on the button.

conkermaniac · 06-19-2003, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
And lest anyone jump in with "well, the popular vote doesn't count, the electoral votes do," if you tack on the additional several thousand voters in Florida whose ballots were nullified by Jeb and Katherine even though the vast majority of those were eligible to vote and were mostly minorities or poor whites (who tend to vote Democrat), Gore would have won the electoral votes, too.

I can't believe that I forgot such an important issue. You're right, Gore would have won the popular and electoral vote, if it weren't for the meddling of Jeb. But in any case, Americans need to learn to prevent fools like Bush from coming even close to the presidency. I don't see that happening in the next election, though, as too many people seem to think that the Iraq war was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anyway, I don't want to go too far off topic.

ex-idaho · 06-19-2003, 10:26 AM

First off Iran does not desire nukes to threaten the US but to keep us from threatening them not to mention the situation with its neighbors Pakistan and India as well as the former Soviet states to the north.

I don't think Bush could possibly muster action against Iran for many reasons. He does not have credibility after Iraq in the international world and would not have a "coalition of the willing" no matter how much money he throws at them. Putin will not support this as Russia has strong ties economically with Iran and I doubt China will support it. The UN will pull out all the stops to keep the US from moving against Iran. But the biggest reason is we don't have the manpower. We already stretched so thin that we can't handle Afganastan, Iraq and N Korea and Iran is much larger than any of those 3 and is second in population only to N Korea.

We also have to keep in mind that both Afganastan and Iraq were decimated 3rd world countries that could not defend themselves in any form or fashion. Iran and N Korea have large standing armies that are very well trained and supplied. An attack on either of these countries would be very messy and politically costly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2003, 05:17 AM	#2
conkermaniac Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: American in China Posts: 620	Geez...Bush needs to take care of his OWN country first. We elected him (well, I didn't, but the general public did) to take care of the US economy, not the Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, or North Korean economy (not to mention pissing the people there off in the process). I think that isolation, not containment and definitely not pre-emption, should remain the policy of the United States.

06-19-2003, 06:19 AM	#3
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	Irran, do not test W! I actually prefer that the US invades and occupies Iran too. It will probably hasten the departure of US forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran itself. Don't think the US has the stomach for an average of 5 dead and 25 injured soldiers everyday for 7 years and an occasional disaster of 50 to 100 dead per incident time and again. That would be around 80,000 dead and 400,000 injured in 7 years. Expect though that US would kill 400,000 to 800,000 Arabs and Afghans, and Persians.

06-19-2003, 06:54 AM	#5
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld view dead U.S. troops much as they view empty toner cartridges from their photocopiers: corporate office supplies expended as a cost of doing business. They couldn't care less. They'll just put more flags behind the podium and add a few more references to God in their speeches and introduce more flag-burning legislation. I cannot imagine with the ability to open a front from Iraq that is only a few hours from Iran's major western oil fields, and the ability to open a front from Afghanistan that is only a few hours drive to Tehran, that the Shrub and the rest of his cabal will be able to resist the temptation of invading Iran, especially since I think Putin will back him even if Blair's been forced out by then. I think the 2004 election is too far away to stop Bush before he get's to Iran.

06-19-2003, 09:00 AM	#8
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	I think that Bush can bluff the Iranians into compliance. He's demonstrated the willingness to use overwhelming military force against nations viewed as terrorist states. That goes a long way towards making his words worth taking seriously by those he's directing them at. Couple that with the recent protests in Iran against the Iranian regime and maybe the government there will think twice about building a nuke they don't need. We shouldn't want the Iranians to have nukes for the same reason Americans shouldn't want a man like Pat Robertson with his finger on the button.

06-19-2003, 10:26 AM	#10
ex-idaho Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Spudtopia, ID Posts: 5,315	First off Iran does not desire nukes to threaten the US but to keep us from threatening them not to mention the situation with its neighbors Pakistan and India as well as the former Soviet states to the north. I don't think Bush could possibly muster action against Iran for many reasons. He does not have credibility after Iraq in the international world and would not have a "coalition of the willing" no matter how much money he throws at them. Putin will not support this as Russia has strong ties economically with Iran and I doubt China will support it. The UN will pull out all the stops to keep the US from moving against Iran. But the biggest reason is we don't have the manpower. We already stretched so thin that we can't handle Afganastan, Iraq and N Korea and Iran is much larger than any of those 3 and is second in population only to N Korea. We also have to keep in mind that both Afganastan and Iraq were decimated 3rd world countries that could not defend themselves in any form or fashion. Iran and N Korea have large standing armies that are very well trained and supplied. An attack on either of these countries would be very messy and politically costly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.