BUSH RAISES OPTION OF USING FORCE AGAINST IRAN
President says force would be 'last option' to get Tehran to give up nukes
Updated: 5:12 a.m. ET Aug. 13, 2005
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.
“All options are on the table,” Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.
Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”
Snave's note: The rest of this article can be seen at www.msn.com.
I find it reassuring that this president will only use "force" as a "last resort" (which in this case means, when you've been given a couple of chances to comply with his demands and you have failed to do so). But... oh! This article was about IRAN, not Iraq! Sorry! Hehehehehe! Sure, I don't want the Iranians to have nucular, er, nuclear weapons either.
I think a simple air strike would probably do the job of ending the Iranian program, and it would boost Bush in the polls. Of course there would be collateral damage in the loss of Iranian lives, and it would fan some already-fairly-large flames in Iraq... but, oh well. As long as the PNAC People can stay in power here in the US, I don't suppose it matters much to them how they achieve it.
Updated: 5:12 a.m. ET Aug. 13, 2005
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.
“All options are on the table,” Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.
Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”
Snave's note: The rest of this article can be seen at www.msn.com.
I find it reassuring that this president will only use "force" as a "last resort" (which in this case means, when you've been given a couple of chances to comply with his demands and you have failed to do so). But... oh! This article was about IRAN, not Iraq! Sorry! Hehehehehe! Sure, I don't want the Iranians to have nucular, er, nuclear weapons either.
I think a simple air strike would probably do the job of ending the Iranian program, and it would boost Bush in the polls. Of course there would be collateral damage in the loss of Iranian lives, and it would fan some already-fairly-large flames in Iraq... but, oh well. As long as the PNAC People can stay in power here in the US, I don't suppose it matters much to them how they achieve it.
15 Comments:
Does he no longer have to consult Congress on this sort of issue? Or have we given up the idea of a three tiered balance of powers. Now it's just back to King George.
First, "a couple of chances"? Were you asleep from the time the First Gulf War ended until the commencement of the current Gulf War? Saddam wasn't merely given a couple of chances. He was given over a decade of chances, over a dozen U.N. Resolutions against him including a French-supported one promising "serious consequences" if he were to continue to fail to comply. But don't let inconvenient facts get in your way.
Sheryl, the precedent that President Bush is following is one that President Clinton and a number of previous Presidents used, if not regularly, then certainly not uncommonly.
Sure there were more than a couple of chances. You may be right MC, but you don't need to be insulting...
MC, I took a look at your blog and for the most part I agree with you in principle re. your recent post. However, I don't tend to go to right wing blogs and try to convince those folks to see things my way. Encouraging others to do as you do, to visit blogs where you disagree with opinions presented, and to not always be polite about your disagreeing, seems like it would really do little more than reinforce the opinions (of those of us who like to come here to agree) about those with whom we disagree.
In other words, it seems like such impolite disagreement would tend to feed into the political divisiveness and polarization you have complained about in past comments.
Saying "Don't let inconvenient facts get in your way" is something I encountered from right-wingers on a couple of left-wing blogs I used to frequent. I don't go to those places anymore, because most opinions I gave, or most questions I asked, all politely, mind you, were answered with scorn and/or ridicule. Who needs that?
You might be able to cause me to think about certain issues or points if you do it in a polite manner. Otherwise, I will be more inclined to develop an opinion of you, rather than the issue or point of discussion.
Feel free to come visit, but please mind your manners!
OKL, I agree with you about Iran. I think Iran may be becoming a threat if it is indeed developing nuclear weapons.
I also think that people who voted for Bush should rush down to the recruiter's office and enlist for military service right away!
Also, MC posted a very good article for August 5 on his weblog. I enjoy knowing that MC has a good sense of humor! His site is linked below, so go check it out!
Sorry, Snave. At times, I forget that the Crossfire and Limbaugh/Carville schools of debate aren't always, or even often, the most effective form of expressing one's opinions.
vbda07arpr, go home.
MC, come by whenever you like! While it may be easy to get my hackles up, I value your opinions!
Mandelbrot,
I don't recall Clinton perpetually spitting in the face of world opinion. If the United Nations supports a war in Iran, then I will listen to their logic for it, but I somehow doubt that is what has happened here.
The IAEA will release their report within at least 24 hours of this comment. Essentually it will state that the Iranian facility is exclusively for power generation. Unlike North Korean sub 5MW reators which seem to be exclusively for creating weapons grade material (also the reactors don't have corresponding 'power out' generators anywhere along the grid.
Even if Iran were a potential regional risk I'm pretty sure the US would avoid a direct confrontation. The question is would Isreal allow Iran to retain the reactor program (re the attack on the Osarack reactor in Iraq).
The difference, Sheryl, at least I believe, is one of finesse and public speaking ability. Clinton oozed those traits, and therefore, was able to gain the support of much of the rest of the world, though he did squander numerous opportunities during his presidency. In short, he looked good, did some good things, but fell far short.
Bush 43, on the other hand, has shown a public speaking ability roughly equivalent to my ability to translate Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics into Manx, or in other words, not at all. He has the finesse of a stampeding Texas longhorn, but he's no less intelligent than Clinton. Ivy League schools don't just give MBA's to whomever asks, regardless of how rich they are.
The question should not be whether or not Bush 43 spit in the eye of world opinion. The question should be whether or not he improved the situation of Iraq and the stability of the entire region. With Libya giving up their WMD program, Syria backing out of Lebanon, improvements in Afghanistan, and North Korea... Well, we all know that Kim Jong-Il is clinically insane. There have been plenty of mistakes in the Bush presidency. I think his handling of Social Security reform is of particular concern, and the way he went about the war in Iraq should have been handled far better. However, that should not detract from the good he has done. Now if only he could get over his tendency to look and sound smug much of the time...
And Snave, you weren't being overly sensitive. I was being an asshole.
I'm sure George W Bush must have been told that, given the Iranian people are largely Shi'ite, the Iranian leadership would likely be able to incite a general Shi'ite uprising in Iraq against the US presence there.
Therefore it is very unlikely the US will attack Iran. Also, a bombing attack against Iran would knock out only a small portion of Iran's widely distributed nuclear facilities. So an air attack would be futile.
Shame on!
War isn't good. Prevent wars are even worse. I think political mentalities must be changed. War isn't good...only for warfare. There are alternative to nuclear power. If some politicians make others to swallow their pride then they must the same and find out that the sun is a good energy. Shame on the negotiations to trade nuclear with money. And menaces of war instead of aid or diplomacy, from countries with light-years more power. Shame all this...
I think one of the really strange things about the Shite populations in Iraq and in Iran is that for all of the continued support from Iran, the Iraqi Shite have always acted for their own benefit. The chances of an Iranian backed uprising are valid.
I guess the disconnect is that militant Islamic groups see the Shite as apostates, and veiw their rise as an affront to Islam.
GTX, as you read this, know that I'm repressing my tendencies towards sarcasm. I'll leave the measure of my success to you. On second thought, screw it. Game on.
I agree that war isn’t “good”. In fact, I would go so far as to say that war is a truly awful thing, and should be avoided except as a tool of last resort. Something else that is truly awful is the amputation of a limb, and that too should be avoided except as a tool of last resort. That being said, sometimes, both are necessary to stop or prevent something even worse from happening. In the case of amputations, those are occasionally necessary to prevent the death of a patient. In the case of wars, they are occasionally necessary to put an end to the aggressions of another nation-state (such as Gulf I), or to stop the genocidal tendencies of a leader who served as a major destabilizing figure in the region. For either, Germany and Japan in WWII would’ve served as prime examples. The reason I didn’t mention Italy is because they folded far sooner than the other two as a result of Mussolini’s rather fortunate failure to consolidate his power as well as the other two.
The sun is an excellent source of energy, but the question is how to harness it. Even if a massive influx of research into solar energy were to begin this second, it would still take years, if not decades including the creation of new materials, to improve the technology to a point that it could become a viable replacement for applications that currently rely on petrochemicals. Furthermore, for larger-scale uses, this is limited by the amount of desert the environmental lobby is willing to lose to solar power plants, and that’s a question that never has a clear or, on occasion, rational answer. For an example, look at the major outcry against wind farms that recently occurred and picked up steam in Europe.
“Shame on the negotiations to trade nuclear for money?” I assume you’re referring to Europe’s failed plan to offer trade and financial aid to Iran, though frankly, your sentence wasn’t coherent enough to definitively say. When you’re going to say something, actually express your thoughts instead of relying on the psychic abilities of your readers. Psychic phenomena, if they exist, certainly don’t work on that wide a scale or that frequently. It’s called “clarity of expression”. Look into it. Furthermore, isn’t that contradicted by your later statement (or to be more accurate, non sequitur), “And menaces of war instead of aid or diplomacy, from countries with light-years more power. Shame all this…” But I thought you didn’t like encouraging a rogue nation to drop its nuclear program with aid. Isn’t that the heart of diplomacy, which you decried with your very next sentence? There are some for whom diplomacy doesn’t work; merely displays of force. Look long and hard at Saddam or the hardliners in Iran. Tell me if this isn’t true of these “men”. It is true that with great power comes great responsibility, but sometimes, that responsibility is to protect innocents at the cost of the lives and freedom of tyrants. I don’t like the fact that it is occasionally necessary any more than you rather inarticulately expressed, but that is a fact. The only question left from your post is if you suffer from an extreme lack of verbal skills but are otherwise intelligent; or if your lack of verbal skills is merely a symptom of something far deeper.
Post a Comment
<< Home