Bush raises option of using force against Iran

Aug 13, 5:27 AM (ET)
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 programme.

"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."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution, noting that EU powers Britain, Germany and France had taken the lead in dealing with Iran.

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country.


LINK


Why don't these guys just give up the damn Nuclear Weapons program? Israel hasn't used theirs and doesn't need to.




[edit on 13-8-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Why don't these guys just give up the damn Nuclear Weapons program? Israel hasn't used theirs and doesn't need to.

Why don't the Isreal the Dismantle all the Nuclear Weapons, if they "don't need to use them at all"?

Instead they are Modernizing them, most of the time Illegally:

Israel's secret bomb

Because Israel has been ATTACKED many times in the past, Because Israel has to listen to the Arab world constantly say "Drive the Evil Jews to the Sea", Because Israel will never be able to rely on the UN for protection and sorry to say the US either.

Israel must protect herself, she could have taken the entire middle east if not for the superpowers animosity to each other.

When the Muslim world stops screaming for the TOTAL annihilation of the Jewish State, we'll talk.

Until then....forget it.


[edit on 13-8-2005 by edsinger]

Bush needs to simply leave this matter firmly in the hands of the EU and the UN.
The US should take a backseat to this, saying as little as possible, and let the EU and UN handle this.
If or when it falls flat and/or amounts to not being successful and the EU and UN demand more, such as sanctions and/or military action, the US simply should say "OK "to the sanctions, and "You first" on the military actions, along the lines of: Don't call us, we will get in contact with you.

What do you call a boomerang that, when thrown, does not return?


Stick with the topic, Souljah.....come on.:shk:





seekerof

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Hmmmm...

I wonder who was living in Palestine First - Jews or Palestinians?

When the Western World Stops Colonizing the Rest of the World - We'll Talk.

And I belive that Isrealis are driving the Palestinians to the Sea with their "Bulldoze-that-area-and-thrown-the-people-out-of-thier-home Tactics".

Originally posted by Souljah
I wonder who was living in Palestine First - Jews or Palestinians?

Weren't the Jews there before Christ was born?

Well the Jews came into Canaan,

Now Palestinians claim that they are the Canaanites but that is a farce just as if they claimed they were the phonecians.

Actually I remember reading somewhere that the Palestinians as we now them today didn't come to Palestine until long after 70AD...

Hey the military is looking for few good "God fearing men and women" to fight for Bush next war.

I see two of my favorite people in this board in the list.

The US need only sit back and let Iran continue to slip out of international favor. Iran is skipping down the razors edge. Later, when it becomes apparent sanctions may be applied by the UN Security Council and China is approached by Iran for their veto, we may all get to watch multi nationalism take over from the implied ‘ international community’.
Iran is pushing the envelope.

.

Well since its ok for Russia to have them and Israel and Pakistan and Turkey then why not Iran. I mean after all Iran has a right to defend itself. Nukes are a deterrent. It keeps fools from invading your country. Perhaps thats why Bush doesn't want them having nukes. It make it more difficult for us to attack.

There are two, and I mean two very good reasons as to why Bush Co. wants to go into Iran.

#1. Bush wants to go into Iran so that the Living Heartattack, Cheney, can control oil prices in the U.S., if not the world.
#2. This just gives Bush another way to escape the fiasco in Iraq.

I say impeach EVERYONE in the Bush Co. Adminstration and let me run the country!

Originally posted by Indy
Well since its ok for Russia to have them and Israel and Pakistan and Turkey then why not Iran.

Indy, here is Russia's point of view on this matter with Iran:

On Tuesday, Russia joined the mounting calls for Tehran to stop conversion work.

Russia is Iran's main partner in its effort to develop nuclear power and is helping the state to build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

Iran removes UN's nuclear seals

See, for Russia, its a matter of business [ie: money, funds, etc].






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bush needs to simply leave this matter firmly in the hands of the EU and the UN.
The US should take a backseat to this, saying as little as possible, and let the EU and UN handle this.

I'm going to have to go with you on this one, even though it pains me to say it.

It would be disaster for Bush to take Iran on virtually by himself like he did Iraq.

Seekerof, your avatar is having the desired effect...

Thats capitalism for you Seekerof, Russia will do anything for a bit of money. And selling off its Uranium/Missiles/Tanks is actually making quite a bit of revenue for Russia. And well who can blame them? They need the money.

Originally posted by edsinger
Because Israel has been ATTACKED many times in the past, Because Israel has to listen to the Arab world constantly say "Drive the Evil Jews to the Sea", Because Israel will never be able to rely on the UN for protection and sorry to say the US either.

Israel must protect herself, she could have taken the entire middle east if not for the superpowers animosity to each other.

When the Muslim world stops screaming for the TOTAL annihilation of the Jewish State, we'll talk.

Until then....forget it.


[edit on 13-8-2005 by edsinger]

I'm confused - your avatar is all eagles & stars & stripes but you say above " When the Muslim world stops screaming for the TOTAL annihilation of the Jewish State, we'll talk"

Who's 'we' the Americans or Israel?

Are they, now, perhaps the same country?

Whose interests do you expect your Government to represent your own or a failing state half-way across the World?

BTW this news conference was held while he was refusing to meet the parents of US grunts who got killed in Iraq - nice to see your leader has his priorities right!

The US is not going to allow Iran nukes. Nukes became
a major concern for the US in Iraq and was the basis
of why the US went into Iraq. This whole subject of
Nukes brought about a zero tolerance for untrusted
nations to be saber rattling with Nukes. I have covered
this before but most of you probably missed it. Anyway
here it is again if you did miss.

Big surprise, the main reason that Bush went into
Iraq was WMD. To be more precise Nuclear weapons was at
the core of the problem. If you think back real hard
you may remember that Nuclear weapons and terrorists
made the news heavily for a few weeks and was a great
fear at the time. There was much talk in the news (TV,
magazines etc) about Al Qaeda having obtained suit case
bombs from Russia. In November 2001 it was even
reported in the Pakistan press that Al Qaeda had
nuclear weapons. After Tora Bora it was reported that
some Al Qaeda people showed up in Iran. This gave a
fear that Iran might possibly give Al Qaeda nuclear
weapons. Similarly, it was feared that Pakistan might
give Al Qaeda a nuclear bomb, since the Pakistani
military had many Taliban supporters and Al Qaeda
sympathizers. In late October of 2001 the CIA received
reports from a Russian source that Al Qaeda may have
obtained two 10 kiloton suitcase bombs. In this backdrop
the scene at the time was very concerned about nuclear
weapons. This actually was a major point in the war
and shaped the focus of the US to go beyond just Al Qaeda.
Nuclear weapons was becoming a very major concern.
For example, in December of 2001 General Hameed Gul of
the Pakistani ISI (military intelligence) gave in a newspaper
interview the following quote, "No one can tell us how
to run our nuclear facilities and nuclear programs.
The Taliban will always remain in Afghanistan, and
Pakistan will always support them." George Tenet,
director of CIA went to Pakistan in December to
confront Musharraf with evidence that Gul and nuclear
scientists were collaborating with Al Qaeda. Tenet
gave Musharraf a list of scientists that CIA wanted
questioned concerning technology sharing with al
Qaeda. Two of them were out of the country. Tenet
demanded that they return and that Musharraf get control
of his nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis upon interview
convinced the US that they were not cooperating with Al
Qaeda, but they said that Al Qaeda was believed to have
Russian suit case bombs and even provided the serial
numbers of them and the date of manufacture, October
1988. The serial numbers did not check out with
Russian sources, and also no good story was given
as to why the Pakistanis had not confiscated the weapons
if in fact they had access close enough to get the
information. The story was probably born out of an
effort to give cause to the Americans to hesitate or
hold back on its anti Al Qaeda efforts. This intensifying
nightmare was being born at about the same time that
Tora Bora fighting ended. A number of advanced radiation
detectors were deployed around key spots in the US. These
are much more advanced than just Geiger counters. On Dec
20, 2001 Bush made the following comments at a press
conference.

"Today I'm announcing two more strikes against
the financing of terror. We know that Al Qaeda would like
to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and
we know that often times they do no act alone. Al Qaeda
has international supporters,..............Last year
a former official of the Pakistani atomic energy commission
set up an organization known as UTN. UTN claims to serve
the hungry and needy of Afghanistan, but it was UTN that
provided information about nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda."

Bush went directly after Gul and the nuclear scientists
allied with him. Also during this time a crisis had surfaced
between India and Pakistan. Some Pakistanis had made an
attack on Indian Parliament. India was threatening invasion
and nuclear war. Now Musharraf was being squeezed on two
sides. The US was ready to eat his lunch and so was India.
The US told Musharraf that they could call off the Indians
but the price would be the arrest of the terrorists that
bombed Indian parliament and to go after ISI's Islamist faction.
Musharraf being between a rock and a hard place followed the
advice. As time went on documents were obtained in a raid on
Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar and carefully analyzed.
They showed links and hints of nuclear collaboration
between Al Qaeda and ISI. In December in an address to the
Citadel Bush said, "The authors of mass murder must be defeated
and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction"
Still the situation in Pakistan was not locked down.

In January the Bush team decided to deal with the danger of nuclear
weapons, as well as Al Qaeda.

Things were not going well.

You had the Pakistani situation. Reports of Al Qaeda visiting Iran
after Tora Bora, gave concern that Iran may be switching positions.
Iran had sided with the US in Afghanistan, by lending it the
Shiite Army in western Afghanistan which helped along with the
Northern Alliance Army from the north. On top of this, many of
the core of Al Qaeda had slipped away, and this core of
less than 200 is the real danger. They are very secretive and
don't even let many followers in on their strategies. In this
setting the Bush doctrine could be summed up this way. Al Qaeda
is a global, conspiratorial movement found in many countries.
It will be attacked in whatever state it is found. Preferably
the attack will be aided by the concerned state, but if for
any reason the concerned state is hostile or prevents attack
then the US will also attack that state. This doctrine created
a parallel and not talked about strategy.(secret) The US will
not tolerate existence of nuclear weapons unless those weapons
are under verifiable control of a government in which the US has
confidence. There was one group of countries that fell into the
classification of having or getting nuclear weapons that might
possibly give them to Al Qaeda. The nations were Iran, North
Korea, and Iraq. This was the so called axis of evil. Plans
were also developed for locating and attacking any nuclear
locations that were determined to be in the category of being
under a nation that the US has no confidence in. The US was
most concerned about the 3 nations in the axis of evil. Beyond
that they also had concerns about Syria, Libya, and Pakistan.
Russia was different. They weren't likely to give weapons to
anyone, but might have lost control of some when the USSR
broke up and no one was keeping track of the weapons. The US
wanted the following from every nuclear state in the world.
Verifiable evidence that existing weapons were secured or
if this were lacking then specific plan for dealing with the
problem. Some countries like Iraq and Iran denied they had
nuclear facilities while other countries were prepared to
give the guarantees. By the time Bush made his axis of evil
speech the Bush team had made the decision to do everything
necessary to insure that no nuclear weapons would fall into
the hands of Al Qaeda, even if that meant destroying nuclear
facilities in other countries. At this point the Bush team
made public that in an extreme case the US was prepared to
make preemptive nuclear strike on any unsecured nuclear site
if that was the only way to destroy it and if it was determined
to be a threat to the US. Most countries of concern granted
access to US agents and troops to search for and secure
nuclear facilities. Some did not. The US started plans for
destroying sites in these countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and
Pakistan. Pakistan was thought to be a key country because
it was believed to have the most advanced capability and also
close ties to Al Qaeda. It was believed the Iranians would be
too cautious to furnish weapons. Iraqis were thought to be
more likely if they had them. North Korea was thought to be
too concerned with their own survival and they were being
watched closely. One concern that surfaced was what weapon
would be required to take out a hardened nuclear site. Many
nuclear sites are built very strong in order to take accidental
explosions of the high explosives used in conjunction with
the nuclear core. These sites are very tough and it was
believed that nuclear bomb surface attack might not destroy
the weapons within the site. No US nuclear bombs were available
that could drive deep into the earth before detonation, so
it was determined to develop some. The purpose of this new
doctrine was to warn countries like Iran and Pakistan, not
to trigger nuclear war. These countries had to be made aware
of these policies without making it public knowledge within
the countries that their governments were submitting to US
blackmail. The Russians had to be reassured that the US did
not plan nuclear war and the US had to ask Russia to work
with them in convincing former USSR countries the intentions
of the US. The US planning was done by mid December and a
declassified version was released January 10 which contained
no mention of the new first-use doctrine, but it did contain
a request for funding in preparation for "future underground
nuclear bomb tests" if needed. The development of a new
underground detonating nuke was not an especially big deal.
The big deal was that the US was telling countries like
Pakistan as early as December 2001 that it would not tolerate
any existence of a nuclear facility that was not under
clear control. So in late December 2001 when US officials
went to mediate the conflict between Pakistan and India.
Pakistan was looking at the possibility of nuclear
attack from 2 directions, India and the US, unless the US
was given access to Pakistani facilities in order to guarantee
that no nuclear materials were being taken out by nuclear
scientists. What the US was insisting on was placing US
observers on site and in effect taking over the site or to
be able to keep control of the inventory of bombs and nuclear
material in Pakistans storage.
The US wanted control of Pakistan's nuclear capability and it
was not bluffing. The US insisted on sufficient personnel on
the ground in Pakistan to insure the control of access to
the materials. It is not sure how the details were handled
but in March US forces (not in uniform) along with scientists
from NEST (nuclear types) deployed simultaneously to
Pakistan's nuclear reactors.

Musharraf worked with the US on this and it was pretty well kept
under wraps. The ISI probably knew what happened but no
challenges were made. Also Musharraf was carrying out some
careful purges in the ISI of Islamist types that might be
loyal to the jihadists. The Pakistani nukes were locked down
as phase one of the Bush program to take out any rogue state
nuclear capabilities. Phase 2 would be Iraq and when Saddam
refused UN weapons inspector Hans Blix interview of his nuclear
scientists, Saddam found also that Bush was not bluffing.
Phase 3 will probably be Iran. Iran knows the US is not going
to allow it to have nuclear weapons but will do as much
posturing as they can in order to gain Shiite influence in
the Iraqi government. Phase 4 will be North Korea.

For some reason Bush chose not to make that big of deal of
nukes to the public. Maybe he thought it would be too scary.
Maybe he thought he would be embarrassed if inspections
proved Iraq had none. One thing that was accepted by everyone
though, at that time, was that Iraq had gas weapons. So
the Bush team decided to keep low key on the nuclear issue
and just stress generally Weapons of mass destruction. In
retrospect this turned out to be a major public relations
problem for him. As it turned out, no gas worth mentioning
was found, but in final analysis Saddam's nuclear program
turned out to be real. Along about October of 2004 I watched
interview on TV of Saddam's top nuclear scientist. He estimated
that they would have got to build a bomb within 3 years if
they had not been stopped. He now lives in the US and his
book "The Bomb in my garden" came out about that time and
is available from Amazon.com. This was one of the scientists
that Saddam had refused to be interviewed by the UN inspectors.
If you remember it was the refusal of Saddam to let his
nuclear scientists be interviewed that was the breakdown
of UN inspections and this eventually led to the invasion
of Iraq. We also confiscated several tons of uranium and
brought it to the US. This was in the news shortly before
that time, but hardly covered in the mass media.

So in this situation, Bush did tell the truth,
but he just did not go far enough in his WMD justification
when he soft pedaled the nuclear end of it. Now on the
other hand even though he made great steps in insuring that
nuclear weapons are not going to be provided or used
against us by Islamic states or terrorists, he does not
have the ability to brag about it to the public. You see
Bush again faced more Problem And Dilemma. He can't
go public and describe how Pakistan is cooperating with
the US by allowing US inspectors to keep account of
weapons and nuclear material in Pakistani nuclear plants.
To do so would raise great resentment in Pakistan among
their militants and other Islamic populations knowing that their
leaders are giving into US pressure. It could have the effect of
helping to remove leaders (in elections) who are actually
helping us. It would also give further ammunition to Al Qaeda's
claim that these Islamic governments are puppets of the US.


[edit on 13-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 13-8-2005 by MajorCee]

Souljah

When the Western World Stops Colonizing the Rest of the World - We'll Talk.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the rather large Eastern (muslim) colonies in the US, Canada and Western Europe. And I believe its Bin Laden himself who is laying claim to Spain.

Originally posted by IndyWell since its ok for Russia to have them and Israel and Pakistan and Turkey then why not Iran. I mean after all Iran has a right to defend itself. Nukes are a deterrent. It keeps fools from invading your country. Perhaps thats why Bush doesn't want them having nukes. It make it more difficult for us to attack.

Turkey has Nukes? No.


Uh check your facts.



And for the "and we'll talk"

The US still vows to protect Isreal as we should.......

[edit on 13-8-2005 by edsinger]

So you back them no matter what, you'd destroy the world to protect them?

How many other countries is the US committed to defend to such an extent. I believe it's just two and one you've already mentioned - Taiwan, correct?

So there's no commitment to defend UK, Australia or other staunch allies? Why is Israel so special to you guys - wouldn't be the strong Jewish NY lobby by any chance?

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey the military is looking for few good "God fearing men and women" to fight for Bush next war.

I see two of my favorite people in this board in the list.

Ready to go to war, Marge? I am. My bootcamp starts in September! I cant wait!