1938 Alert from Iran Focus, with thanks to JE:
London, Apr. 18 – United States President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that “all options are on the table” for dealing with the threat of Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.Bush told reporters that he preferred to have the standoff resolved diplomatically.
“We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognise the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain”, Bush said.
Still, the U.S. President did not rule out military action or United Nations sanctions.
Oh, yeah... France and Germany. They're going to be an enormous help, I'm sure!
There are not "options" -- there is only one sane option, given the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of the rallying-round-the-regime even of those Iranians who should know better.
That option requires the use of military force. Bush cannot leave office without dealing with Iran. Whether he does it after removing American troops from Iraq -- it has now been more than four months since that famous election, by the way, and still there is no agreeed-upon Iraqi government -- which should begin soon (every conceivable plausible excuse has already been offered by the atrocious behavior of assorted Iraqis, both in and out of power). In no case should Bush leave office without having dealt with Iran.
Indded, if the entirely unintended (by the Bush Administration) consequence of the Iraq War is a Sunni-Shi'a low-level war that starts in Iraq and has consequences in Pakistan, Yemen, Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Lebanon, Kuwait, and even among Muslims living in Infidel lands, that would provide the attendant circumstances most favorable to removing Iran's weapons threat.
Oh, one more thing. According to some reports (see the Corriere della Sera for April 18) A. Q. Khan has been dealing with Iran through contacts continuing in Dubai, right up until 2005 according to some reports. Any public mention of this, any taking note of this, by opponents of that foolish -- foolish symbolically as well as practically -- Dubai Ports deal.
That option requires the use of military force. Bush cannot leave office without dealing with Iran.
Another day; another nation-building, social re-engineering experiment.
Let's wave the flags; tie the little yellow ribbions; get out the red, white, and blue bunting; and strike up a little John Phillip Sussa.
Then we'll all listen to the fat little men in grey suits mutter garbage about freedom and patriotism that they themselves, don't believe in.
We may even shed a ceremonial tear or two as they lavish us with the usual platitudes about how freedom isn't free -- wondering all along if they know anything about what war is really all about.
"Military force" means very different things to different leaders -- but especially to those who actually do the deed of war.
Just once for American national sovereignty and with a declaration of war from Congress, ehhh?
The only option left is HOW. If Iran's nukes aren't taken care of now, there will be hell to pay in the future.
I think we all know that if they get nukes they will bomb anywhere and anytime over any little thing. If they are mad at their banker in Switzerland, they'll nuke Switzerland.
These people are insane and absolutely don't care what the effects of a nuclear bomb would be.
They want to be top dog on the block no matter how they go about it.
Perhaps they ought to consider the option of keeping that "Iranian government official who slipped into the United States under mysterious circumstances" as a hostage.
Imho if the USA does indeed bomb Iran into the stone-age we in the west will only suffer multiple suicide attacks from the Islamic backlash.
Indeed it will be difficult to sustain our hard won freedoms if all we do is manage to unite all the Islamic factions against us.
Unfortunately we have already allowed far too many rotten apples from Islam into our backyard and continue to allow them the privelege of abusing our laws to their own end.
Maybe we do need to seriously look at deporting all of them back to their countries of origin and KEEP them there !!....how else are we to stop the never ending swarm of radicals that appear to move with impunity and of course are hidden within these immigrant communities who have failed to integrate and actually seem to want segregation and sharia laws imposed in our backyards.
We have been tolerant long enough ...they have a totally alien culture to our own and boy do they know how to abuse our systems of fairness and tolerance..Unless we all stand up and say enough
they will in the end harass and intimidate us from within for decades....slowly and surely they will grind our western cultures down.
What I suppose I am really saying is that if we are going to rid ourselves of their parasitism we have to in the end remove them all !! Ghastly though the thought is ??
The decision to confront Iran militarily should not be made by Bush alone. Bush should proceed as the constitution proscribes, with a declaration of war that is submitted to Congress and voted on.
Make these members take a stand and go on record for it. That's the way FDR did it. If the resolution passes, then he has the authority and support to carry out what is necessary. If it does not pass, then we can conclude that the country does not want this action and will not support it. Bush cannot be held responsible for any tragic events that may occur should Iran take action. He cannot be expected to shoulder this burden entirely on his own. We must fight a war as it was meant to be fought. We cannot be required to conduct a war with Iran and with 1/3 of our own population simultaneously.
A war with Iran would be a long, drawn out and costly process. Over 40% of the world's oil goes through the Straights of Hormuz. These shipments would be virtually shut down. Our way of life as we know it would be drastically altered, with gasoline at $5 per gallon if we could get it.
We have been tolerant long enough ...
Posted by: Knighttemplar
We've moved past tolerant to permissive, heading toward submissive...
"If the Iranian people were quietly empowered to eliminate the mullahs and then did it, who would it benefit?"
-- from a posting above
"The mullahs"? Which "mullahs"? There are some, even many, who are corrupt and would be dealt with, but Islam would remain.
A change of regime would not mean, unfortunately, a necessary halt, as it should, to the nuclear weapons project. Some in the new government might be afraid to appear to do something that would offend the sense of nationalism that they might hope to encourage. They might even attempt to persuade the Americans that "it is more important to play on Iranian nationalism" as a "counterweight" to Islam. This is the kind of argument that some will find plausible.
That temptation should be resisted. For if Iran -- under any regime -- acquires nuclear weapons, there will always be a danger, and a likelihood, that Islam will come back. Imagine if the Shah had been helped, as he might well have been, to acquire nuclear weapons. And then along would have come Khomeini, with all that that implies.
No regime, in a predominately Muslim country, can be allowed to acquire such weaponry, for the obvious reason that if the Shah can be replaced by Khomein, and Ahmadinejad by the Shah's son, the Shah's son can be replaced by....someone in the Khomeini-Ahmadinejad line. And in Turkey, 80 years of Kemalist suppression of Islam have failed to uproot it, and instead we have -- Erdogan, and the insistence that "those mosques that are our barracks, those minarets our missiles, those cupolas our helmets."
you either wait to be bombed by Iran, or you bomb the hell out of them sooner than later!
l heard some where that Iranians said they feared Bush as he did not act like the previous presidents, ie clinton,carter peanut farmer. they will wait it out till he leaves office, and then do their dirty work.. iranians know full well that the democrats are whinners,and will keep formenting and try to make the US appear weak, tweak their noses so to speak.. knowing full well the old media and democrats will rachet it up for bush to back down.. the ultimate dhimitude! l just know Israelis cannot afford to take their time. their country is on the line..
America needs remain steadfast to Iranian Terror Mullahs after Bush!!!
Americans have to stand up to decades of Iranian provocations from 1979
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008231&ojrss=wsj
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html
will the American people ever ask Bush to prove that he's for real about fighting terrorism?
Rosh,
it might not be a bad idea. I'm sure he's committed some crimes enabling prosecution under American law. So holding him would wholly legal.