Bush won't rule out nuclear stike on Iran...

Poohgirl

New DVC member, SSR<br><font color=deeppink>Learne
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,414
I normally stay FAR AWAY from any political threads but...WOW... :crazy:


TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely peaceful, told world powers it would pursue atomic technology, whatever they decide at a meeting in Moscow later in the day.

Bush said in Washington he would discuss Iran's nuclear activities with China's President Hu Jintao this week and avoided ruling out nuclear retaliation if diplomatic efforts fail.

Asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so."

Speculation about a U.S. attack has mounted since a report in New Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was mulling the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear sites.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atom bombs, was expected to push for targeted sanctions against Tehran when it meets the U.N. Security Council's other permanent members -- Britain, France, China and Russia -- plus Germany in Moscow.

Russia and China oppose sanctions and the use of force.

Deputy foreign ministers from the six nations are meeting ahead of an end-April deadline for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on whether Iran is complying with U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment.

"I recommend that they do not make hasty decisions, be prudent and study their path in the past. Any time they have pressured Iran they have got adverse results," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

"Whatever the result of this meeting might be, Iran will not abandon its rights (to nuclear technology)," he added later.

Iran defied U.N. demands by declaring last week it had enriched uranium to a level used in power stations and was aiming for industrial-scale production, ratcheting up tensions and sending oil prices to record highs above $72 a barrel.

The United States, which already enforces its own sweeping sanctions on Iran, wants the Security Council to be ready to take strong diplomatic action, including so-called targeted measures such as a freeze on assets and visa curbs.

Washington says it does not want to embargo Iran's oil and gas industries to avoid creating hardship for the Iranian people. Iran is the world's fourth-biggest oil exporter.

CHINA, RUSSIA OPPOSE SANCTIONS

China, which sent an envoy to Iran on Friday to try to defuse the standoff, repeated a call for a negotiated solution.

"We hope all sides will maintain restraint and flexibility," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in Beijing.

Russia restated its opposition to punitive action. "We are convinced that neither the sanctions route nor the use of force route will lead to a solution of this problem," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Israel's Jerusalem Post the United States probably could not destroy Iran's nuclear program but could attempt to set it back by strikes as a last resort.

"I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it," he said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at an annual military parade, said the army was ready to defend the nation.

"It will cut off the hands of any aggressors and will make any aggressor regret it," Ahmadinejad declared.

In Kuwait, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said he doubted the Americans would use force. "It is unlikely that they would enter into such a perilous situation from which they cannot come out."

Iran says it will not drop its right to enrich uranium for peaceful use but that it will work with the IAEA.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog says it has been unable to verify that Iran's nuclear program is purely civilian, but has found no hard proof of efforts to build atomic weapons.

IAEA inspectors are due in Iran on Friday to visit nuclear sites, including one at Natanz where Iran says it has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent, the level used in nuclear power plants.

IRNA news agency said Olli Heinonen, ElBaradei's deputy for safeguards issues, would lead the team. One diplomat said his presence suggested Iran might provide some missing information.

Experts say it would take Iran years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb from its current 164 centrifuges. But Iran says it will to install 3,000 centrifuges, which could make enough material for a warhead in one year.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Alireza Ronaghi in Tehran, Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow, Mark Heinrich in Vienna

ETA: Kind of like spanking a child because he is hitting.... :rolleyes:
 
Why would you want or expect any president to rule out any military option towards a rogue state that is determined to pursue a nuclear weapon and state openly and provocatively that they want Israel to disappear? :confused3 What country would tie their own hands that way?
 
DawnCt1 said:
Why would you want or expect any president to rule out any military option towards a rogue state that is determined to pursue a nuclear weapon and state openly and provocatively that they want Israel to disappear? :confused3 What country would tie their own hands that way?
So far I can remember one country only, which used nuclear weapons so far. :confused3

And it will surely be a 'smart move' to contaminate the world's second largest oil fields with radiation :rolleyes2
 

Because a first nuclear strike would make the striker a "rogue state." By the way, a "rogue state" seems these days to be any state the U.S. doesn't like. Israel fits the literal definition of a rogue state as much as, if not more than, Iran.
 
Viking said:
So far I can remember one country only, which used nuclear weapons so far. :confused3

And it will surely be a 'smart move' to contaminate the world's second largest oil fields with radiation :rolleyes2

Perhaps you would like to rehash all of the very good reasons we used our nuclear weapons. It makes no sense to negotiate from a position of weakness, which is what would happen if we took the nuclear option off of the table. All military and diplomatic options are on the table.
 
The stated reason we used our atomic weapons was that we wanted an unconditional surrender--in other words, we wanted to reserve the right to hang the Japanese Emperor, since that was the only condition that was holding up a peace agreement in July, 1945.

Sounds like a pi$$poor reason to me.
 
I'm thankful every day we have adults making these decisions. When I see "lunatic fringe" type comments like those above, I'm so grateful President Bush sees the world as it is, not how you would like it to be.

Don't be naive. We have been dangerously close to WWIII for awhile, far closer than we ever were during the Cold War. Any and every option needs to remain on the table in ored to protect our country and our interests.
 
Of course he would say he wouldn't rule it out. Anyone in his position would say the same thing. It doesn't mean he has any intention of approving a nuclear attack on Iran. You don't want the leader of the free world to announce to the world that he has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Iran - that would be akin to giving them permission to do whatever the heck they pleased because there wouldn't be any consequences.
 
Ruling out a nuclear first strike seems like a civilized minimum basis to go on.
 
lw49033 said:
Ruling out a nuclear first strike seems like a civilized minimum basis to go on.

That makes sense. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan haven't ruled out a first strike, but the U.S. should? Again, idealism vs the real world.
 
This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:

In the next war the living will envy the dead. :sad2:
 
lw49033 said:
The stated reason we used our atomic weapons was that we wanted an unconditional surrender--in other words, we wanted to reserve the right to hang the Japanese Emperor, since that was the only condition that was holding up a peace agreement in July, 1945.

Sounds like a pi$$poor reason to me.

The reason was to put a quicker end to the war and the fear of massive casualities (on our side) if the conventional fighting continued.
 
If you're worried about being attacked by Pakistan, you really need to pick up a paper once in awhile.

Pakistan is a U.S. ally. Iran has a loudmouth, belligerent president but the mullahs who actually hold power there aren't going to approve a nuclear war. North Korea--who knows what they'll do, but they are no threat to us in any event. They have no ICBMs.
 
bimshire said:
The bully of the world has his finger on the button.

If you like or agree with President Bush or not, don't you find this staement rather immature? Bully of the world? So President Bush is the bully of the world, not Palestinians strapping bombs to themselves and taking out any man, woman, or child within blast distance? Not terrorists who look for every opportunity to kill innocent people anywhere at any time in the world? Not Hussein who invaded Iran, then Kuwait (on his way to Saudi Arabia) not to mention killing mass numbers of those pesky Kurds living in his own country? Iran who has vowed to build and use nuclear weapons? Ditto for North Korea?

No..no..no President Bush is the big bully. Disagree with policy all you want, but that statement is downright sophmoric.
 
Charade said:
The reason was to put a quicker end to the war and the fear of massive casualities (on our side) if the conventional fighting continued.

Japan offered peace terms through their ambassador to the USSR in July, 1945. Their sole condition was that we would spare the Emperor (which of course we did anyway). We followed that be reiterating, at Potsdam, the demand for unconditional surrender. Look it up.
 
Crankyshank said:
Of course he would say he wouldn't rule it out. Anyone in his position would say the same thing. It doesn't mean he has any intention of approving a nuclear attack on Iran. You don't want the leader of the free world to announce to the world that he has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Iran - that would be akin to giving them permission to do whatever the heck they pleased because there wouldn't be any consequences.
My thoughts exactly. Well said.
 
bimshire said:
The bully of the world has his finger on the button.


The flower that occupied the WH before Bush II should have delt with the problem before it got this far.
 
Yes, compared to Iran, Bush is the world's big bully. Iran hasn't invaded anyone for generations.

As for Iraq, don't even get me started. The U.S. helped instigate the war with Iran, sold Hussein raw materials for sarin and anthrax and the VX gas he used on the Kurds (who, by the way, had rebelled in favor of Iran in the middle of a war, which doesn't get mentioned very often. Considering the treatment war opponents get in the U.S. even for criticizing Bush, I can only imagine what would happen to us if, like the sainted Kurds, we started an insurrection!)
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter
Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom