Quote:

---

Bush: Force last resort on Iran

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by batmarlowe:
This presumes I ever believed him in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't know whether it's the insecurity triggered by the terrorist attacks, or if Bush has just found some latent megalomaniacal streak in our nation, but it's depressing as hell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe the war noises about Iraq are just a conspiracy to cover up Bush's secret peace negotiation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
My only hope is that there are enough fence sitters in the Bush supporter camp who will fall away if they try this crap again. But its a slim hope.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Over the next couple of years ( if not sooner ), here's what needs to be done , IMO.
a) Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
b) Same for Iraq
c) In the event Iran DOES act up, let the rest of the world deal w/ it first.

---

Quote:

---

Citizen wrote:

Most of the objections to America's millitary strategies are not with the fact they did, but the fact they did it without the support of the international community. The attitude was, do as we tell you or get lost. Thats what the international community has a problem with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Lets see, which Int'l community members did NOT back the U.S. going into Iraq.

England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:


But seriously, and sadly, the response also indicates that yes, they'll buy it again. The true believers have lost touch with what it means to be American, in my opinion, and embraced a vision of America as an imperialistic, 'ruler of the world'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And btw, wasn't Japan post WW2 another example of military led regime change leading to the making of a vibrant, strong and independent country?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, it was Russia, France and Germany. I get it now. So, if those 3 main players have a change of heart if Iran goes bad, the U.S. is supppose to let bye gones be bye gones and happily all join hands in ..doing what, exactly? Folks think going into Iraq was poorly defined mission, wait 'till they get a load of Iran!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not for any leaving Iraq or Afghanistan early. The job MUST be seen through. But it also must be undestood by the citizens of Iraq that THEY are suppose to help do in the terrorist, if there is any peace to be had there.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah I remember the Carter era we lost respect

---

Quote:

---

The reality is that Iran has missles in devolpment and those mssiles can strike Israel.

---

Quote:

---

Israel is...one of the few representive governments

---

Quote:

---

and is surrounded by nations that would murder women and children or at least support the organizations that do so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Since we're talking about Iraq, I have an anomaly I'd like you to help me solve. Rumsfeld originated an oddball report that IRAN was the source of sophisticated bombs found in Iraq.

Here's the oddball part. Iran is primarily a Shiite nation, and while the Iraqi government is mainly Shiite the Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni. I don't care how much some Iranians hate the USA, I just can't see them sending sophisticated explosives to the Sunnis. So- who was the intended recipient?

Also, the insurgents do seem to have gotten their hands on military-style explosives, because they are attacking USA convoys again. The convoys, I have been told, were recently armored, but the new explosives seem to be punching through the armor. I know that arms depots were looted right after the invasion- is this an emerging problem? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/iraq/main651082.shtml

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

---

Quote:

---

There have been many reports of Iran assisting in the overthrow of the Iraqi Gov't and there's no love for the US in Iran.

---

Quote:

---

They just 'elected' one of the terrorist who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, back in '80-81.

---

Quote:

---

What else are the terrorist in Iraq going to do w/ the explosives than to attack the coalition forces? It makes perfect sense, from their stand point.

---

Quote:

---

I find it funny that you are so critical of President Bush when he is doing the exact things you previously critized him for NOT doing in the run up for the 2003 war in Iraq, ie not working with our "allies" and not going through the UN.

---

Quote:

---

The United States has stood aside while European governments negotiated with Iran. After prolonged talks with Britain, France and Germany during which Tehran put uranium conversion on hold, Iran this month rejected a package of aid measures, including offers of nuclear fuel in exchange for a promise to abandon plans for uranium enrichment.

Iran then restarted its Isfahan plant that converts uranium to gas, which is the last step in processing the radioactive ore before it can undergo enrichment to become reactor fuel or the material for nuclear weapons.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency responded with a resolution Thursday urging the Iranians to again put the process on hold. Diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency's proceedings said Iran was given a Sept. 3 deadline to halt or face possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of sanctions against its struggling economy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Like the phony "draft" canard and the "Bush Lied" memes, this is just another example of a bogus issue raised to push the leftist agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

---

So by this logic, if the US flouts its international agreements ( as you say treaties it willingly signed ) it too should be subject to sanction...

Would that be correct ?


What no answer ?


When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

---

Would you please be a little more specific? Exactly what agreement(s) is/are the US flouting?

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I would say that they are being very careful not to provide the US any excuse to go off on Iran and try to point at any argeement they had anything to do with as a justification, even if they don't feel it is. You know, like you did with the Iraq WMD inspection crap...

---

In other words, the Germans are negotiating to limit the UN responses in future to preclude military action, not to get Iran to stop enriching uranium. Great strategy.

They are worse than useless. They are enablers to terrorists. Hope the Europeans like living next door to a Iranian whackos with nukes. They deserve it.

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
They are worse than useless. They are enablers to terrorists. Hope the Europeans like living next door to a Iranian whackos with nukes. They deserve it.

---

Quote:

---

Seriously, what did they expect from a regime like the Iranians? Remember the ones who held US hostages for 444 days? They are psychotic!

---

Quote:

---

It makes perfect sense for the Iranians to directly support the terrorists jihadists insurgents in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Here is the scenario from Iran's perspective: cause trouble in Iraq to keep the US preoccupied while Iran fires up its nuclear weapon industry.

---

Quote:

---

Simultaneously, destablize Iraq so that the US loses interest quicker and hopefully leaves Iraq so that the Iranians can join their Shia brethern and massacre the Sunnis in a civil war/pogrom.

---

Quote:

---

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

---

Quote:

---

assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that "The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Yep, good old "Bush Basher" Senator Levin and MP George Galloway, those are some *really* credible sources of information. A quick google search shows the leftist blogosphere is full of these nonsense charges. Plain old divert and distract tactics, smear the US and President Bush while covering up the source of the problem in the first place!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Yes, the US bought lots of oil, AFTER it was illegally smuggled and laundered. That does not make it the US's fault.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Signym:

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fivver:

Quote:

---

Posted by Signym:

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

---

Let's see. This is supposed to be some sort of argument for how corrupt GWB and his administration are.

---

Quote:

---

"A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them." Another hack job by the biased democrat Senate staffers. Not credible.

---

Quote:

---

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that "The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales." etc...

---

Quote:

---

Why would anyone answer such a silly, self loathing, defeatist question? Talk about an loaded premise. Try "when did you stop beating your wife?" next time. If you want to toss dirt on the US and besmirch her good name then do it yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the US bought lots of oil, AFTER it was illegally smuggled and laundered. That does not make it the US's fault. By your reasoning everyone who has ever bought oil during that time is also guilty because oil, like most commodities, is fungible.

---

Quote:

---

Clearly, the most culpable parties in undermining the UN are the French, followed closely by the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Their double dealing with the Iraqis and the outright corruption with the Oil-For-Food scandal irrepairably discredited the UN. Their treachery in that institution has done more to damage it than anyone else ever could.

---

Quote:

---

You are right about the first part, I'll doubt you'll get much of an answer either.

Why would anyone answer such a silly, self loathing, defeatist question? Talk about an loaded premise. Try "when did you stop beating your wife?" next time.

If you want to toss dirt on the US and besmirch her good name then do it yourself.

Andrew Lynch

---