NEWS: Schroeder warns Bush over Iran

Iran has recently started it's nuclear plans for civilian research and has caused concern among the world of whether it is gearing towards building nuclear weapons. Still in peaceful discussion, Schroeder has warned the US to stay away from any plan for a military invasion of Iran. He says it clearly didn't work for Iraq.



No one really knows what Iran's purpose of nuclear is for. Weapons or an alternative power resource? Hopefully peaceful talks to them is the way and not a US "does an Iraq" situation. People like the German chancellor already see the US sticking it's nose where it shouldn't. The US seems to want a foreign policy of controling what a country can have or cannot have because of their super power status. Iraq...where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Schroeder however is running his campaign during Germany's elections and he did say similar things last time round to gain support. Whether support of not, I haven't heard of any other country telling Bush to stop and I'm glad there are people who will speak out before something stupid happens.

Shroeder - sit down and shut up. Look at your country and it's two attempts at being World dominant? Not trying to defend yourselves just trying to take over the world!

Dallas

oh boy, i don't think bush will invade iran, iraq is hard enough, iran will be 5 times as hard and we would need a draft. even if bush is stupied he is not stupied enough to take iran knowing it will happen the same thing like in iraq.

Oh and I suppose Iran has attacked the United States has it Dallas? Defending yourselves against what exactly? Defending against the chance the Iranians might make nuclear weapons? Something they are perfectly allowed to do if they decide to withdraw from the NPT.

Sanctity of treaties? Tell that to the Russians who were left holding the baby over the ABM treaty.

Shroeder might be making the right noises but he is all show. He knows he's in for a hard election and that Angela Merkel has the upper hand.

Schroeder is clearly a failed leader whose party appears likely to be booted out of party in a landslide election. He has no right to say anything to anyone, let alone the leader of the free world.

Leader of the free world? That moniker has always rankled me. Did I miss the election date for that nomination? The POTUS doesnt lead me, or my nation and he doesnt speak for me either.

Its a rather arrogant turn of phrase, no offense to you djohnsto. I just dont like it.

"oh boy, i don't think bush will invade iran, iraq is hard enough, iran will be 5 times as hard and we would need a draft. even if bush is stupied he is not stupied enough to take iran knowing it will happen the same thing like in iraq."

Don't think he is dumb enough? Ever watch a kid do something stupid and think there was no way they'd do it again? Only to have them amaze you and do it again. He'd do it. For no other reason than the fact that he is stubborn.

Much like Iraq, I have a feeling some of these Euros don't want us over there for what we may find. Are they hiding something?

He's got a point. But we are dealing with a war mongerer. And I really can't see how you can compare WW2 to what is going on now. That is just plain stupid and anyone with sense can see that.

Shroder is in trouble and he's doing this to get support where it is quite clear he has no chance of getting in power. He like Chirac have made the mistakes of not listening to the people of thier countries and now they know time is up. It will be Chirac's turn next and when he goes then so does the stupid EU constituion as well and good riddance to it.

IS

Regardless of who it is coming from, let's atleast be open to the message being sent by Shroeder. We should not be so quick to pull the trigger. It only shows arrogance and surrender to ego to make passive aggressive threats as Bush does.
The way the media headlines gov't officials' speeches is pathetic. The only place in the speech where it feels like Schroeder is "warning the US" is in the headline that the newssource uses.

Schroeder's words regarding the situation in Iran and Bush's stance are:
"My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let's develop a strong negotiating position towards Iran, but take the military option off the table'."
Yes, the Germans have a past of wicked deeds, as does each "advanced civilization" that has ever existed on earth.
All I am saying is trust goes a long way in this world. You cannot surrender the thought that people generally want peace.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Schroeder is clearly a failed leader whose party appears likely to be booted out of party in a landslide election. He has no right to say anything to anyone, let alone the leader of the free world.

Really? I think the US lost that title recently considering the majority of people in the free world think Bush is a complete fool, according to numerous polls. America has less and less allies in an increasing hostile world, invading Iran would be the last staw for even the closest of allies.

Schroeder needs to explain just how he plans to obtain any degree of compliance from Iran if he has already conceded the West's strongest bargaining chip.

Bear in mind: he's in an election campaign and is pandering to the crowd. Trouble is, rash statements made in the heat of electioneering are not forgotten... but its not a responsible position to take.

Originally posted by Dallas

Shroeder - sit down and shut up. Look at your country and it's two attempts at being World dominant? Not trying to defend yourselves just trying to take over the world!

Dallas

As a German Australian I find it extremely difficult to hold my tongue when people like this are tolerated.

Do I cry how poor America's attempt to control the flow of oil has turned out in a humanitarian sense? NO.

Keep speaking like that Dallas and one day you'll find yourself without a friend in the world. For one day the shoe will be on the other foot.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
He has no right to say anything to anyone, let alone the leader of the free world.

What?

Am I missin' something? or are you another disillusioned Roman?

If he doesn't have the right to say anything to the so called leader of the free world, the world isn't really that free is it??

Why would we the US, invade Iran? We can simply bomb any nuclear testing site.

Whatever happened to "an armed society is a more polite society'? Isn't the whole purpose of self-defense is to be able to defend yourself, without waiting for the UN to come when it is too late? If you have the means to defend yourself, people would be less likely to attack you.

It's a global 2nd amendment!

Originally posted by ulshadow
oh boy, i don't think bush will invade iran, iraq is hard enough, iran will be 5 times as hard and we would need a draft. even if bush is stupied he is not stupied enough to take iran knowing it will happen the same thing like in iraq.

Now that wasn't a very fair thing to say. This is our President you're talking about. We may not always agree with him, but please, give a little credit where credit's due. Of course he's that stupid! This is George Dubya we're talking about here; not Albert Einstein.

Now, get outta here!!!

Originally posted by Dallas

Shroeder - sit down and shut up. Look at your country and it's two attempts at being World dominant? Not trying to defend yourselves just trying to take over the world!

Dallas

No matter what your views on Shroeder, I think these comments are uncalled for. Even if he is about to be voted out, he still has a right to say what he wants, just I could tell you to 'sit down and shut up' for what you just said.. but I wont.

I do agree with him though. Lets face it, I cant see an invasion of Iran happening without the use of nuclear weapons, even if they are 'only' tactical nukes; that is, if an invasion occurs at all.

My logic is that, if the Iranian's are using their nuclear research for peaceful purposes, they sure wont be using it for peaceful purposes after being nuked by the US, while not loosing control of their country, they will be sure to attempt to make some nukes and if they are sucsessful; well, bye bye American military bases in the Middle East, oh and bye bye Amercian Military bases in Germany. Maybe Schroder shouldent be disgarded so quickly?

Here is a reality check for all you jingoists out there.
(1) No where in our constitution does it give any president the right to attack any country just because HE does not like their policies...there are supposed to be checks and balances to prevent that sort of thing....however, with this president, this congress, this media........!
(2) If we invade or attack Iran every country in the world will pobably assume (and probably rightly) that this is belated revenge for the Iranian hostage situation in 79/80, and as such be dead set against us....even bushes lapdog Blair won't go along with it.
(3) Why is there such antipathy in Iran against America...simple...in 1953 the people of Iran rose up and overthrew the Shah and estabilished a republic of their own liking. We did not like that so the CIA overthrew that govenrment and reinstalled the Shah leading to another 35 years of repressive rule. Of course this type of behviour (against our much touted ideals) repeated all over the mid-east goes a long way to explaining the hatred for America in that part of the world.
(4) Iran is not Iraq...Iraq was never a country, it was a collection of provinces (3 I believe) in the Ottoman empire, and before that the Caipith, that was hobbled together after world war one. Iran on the other hand has been a unified country or region for 3,000 years, it is much larger, with a far more difficult terrian, and while many of its people dispise their government, many also still support it, but be that as it may, if we attacked or invaded, these proud people would fight and would fight hard, and in the long run we would lose...and not just in Iran but all the way across the board in regards to our military, or prestige and ou diplmoatic clout.
(5) If we invade Iran or even North Korea, do you really think we would have a snowballs chance in hell in talking the other to disarm after that?
(6) Beisdes all that, at an appoval rating of 38% Bush is rapidly losing any political clout he might have garnered after the "election" and I seriously doubt even the majority of republicans in congress would go along with this...not out of any sense of fair play or justice or moral outrage, but because they as a party want to hold onto power and if we invade another country unprovoked, there will be a cleaning of house that will make the 94 "gingrich revloution" look like a dusting.

You guys are so blinded by your hatred for Bush and your hatred for America, that you completely jump the gun. Bush was asked a question and he gave an answer. And it was the right answer. Military action is the LAST resort. Isn't that something we all agree on? Bush didn't say "screw diplomacy, we're invading Iran next week!" Unfortunately, that's what most of you got out of the article and the quotes.

I think the military option should always be on the table, as a last resort, when dealing with Islamo-fascist dictatorships hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons. How quick you people are to give this evil, repressive regime the benefit of the doubt. They are proud sponsors of TERRORISM. Hezbollah has been directly and indirectly responsible for the bombing and killing of American citizens in places like Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As far as I'm concerned, we have more than enough justification to invade Iran and topple its women-repressing regime tomorrow if we wanted to. But we haven't and we won't, at least not for some time. We're going along with your "diplomacy". We're doing it your way! And this is the thanks we get? The fact remains that you are so consumed by your unfounded and unwarranted HATRED for President Bush and the United States that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. We negotiate and you flame us. We use military action, and you flame us.

The problem isn't President Bush... its Iran and its seeking of nuclear weapons. And its all of you guys who criticize us regardless of what we do.