NEWS: Schroeder warns Bush over Iran

!!! Need I say more? How many times does it need be said that just because we disagree does not, nor has it ever meant we hate America...such my country right or wrong jingoism was obsolete when Kipling came up with the phrase and is even more so now.

Bush may be the leader of the free world

but he isnt my leader, in fact i think hes a warmongering fool eyeing up Irans massive Natural Gas resourses.

Hes got Iraq's oil why not go the whole hog and have Irans Gas too like the natural gas in Afganistan.

I don't see why this is so hard. If the Iranians want to use their reactors for peaceful purposes then they should allow the cameras and the inspection crews.

maybe that's why he's in his Ranch.....planning something BIG.....so no one will find out.......even the white house etc. are leaky

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by Ray Davies
I don't see why this is so hard. If the Iranians want to use their reactors for peaceful purposes then they should allow the cameras and the inspection crews.

Ok that is done already. What else?

Leader of the Free World?

No...I didn't vote Bush, I mean Blair this election.
And what is freedom? I don't see myself as free. I have to pay for the right to own a house. Two doctors can over-ride my decision to not have an operation and die, etc.

Oh so free?

Simple fact is;
Bush said; "We'll go to war as a last resort." which should be taken to mean; "As soon as we think they begin to build weapons or we decide to say they have." (Please don't look at the man behind the curtain.)

German guy said; "Don't invade them. Really, it'll make things even worse. Please listen."

---

Now just a quick note; just because Germany was a "Nasty" place in WW2 does not mean you can bring it up today. Otherwise, people can easily point out the American Eugenics Policy into the 1970's, segregation into the 1970's, etc. The 1970's was after the 1940's and after World War Two.

Reminder children, history - it won't hurt you. Unless you fear the truth.

Could some remind me WHY Iran can't have nuclear weapons...
Every nation has the right to defend itself, by the means it's leaders/people think is needed... and USA Has absolutely no right to dictate what a country can or cannot have...
I don't like the idea of Iran as a nuclear power, but it's not my decision to make. And most certainly is not a decision that an american can do...

By waging offecive war and owning nuclear weapons, USA negates any moral highground needed to judge other peoples actions... (don't drag history around, i'm talking present day situation)

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

Leader of what world? FREE?!?!?

LOL!

Thats the "free" world where Shroeder has (and i quote you here) "He has no right to say anything to anyone, let alone the leader of the free world".


Yeah thats the kind of "Freedom and Democracy" [TM] thats is being wielded by the US. The freedom to do exactly as we say and drink Coca-cola.

The average US citizen wouldn't know what freedom was if it stood up and kicked him between the legs!

There is nothing stoping the Iranians from withdrawing from the NPT. Article 10 clearly states that any signatory can withdraw from the NPT if they choose so long as they give notice to the UN. Thats why the emphasis is on persuasion in situations like this and not coercion. Coercion will not prevent the Iranians from garnering nuclear weapons, North Korea is testament to this.

If you want the Iranians to forgoe a sovereign right then you better have a damn big juicy carrot. Otherwise they will do what they are fully allowed to do which is withdraw from the NPT and build nuclear weapons.

Just because Germany was whipped into a nationalistic fervor seventy years ago doesn't mean they can't comment on nationalism today. In fact, it makes the German people more qualified to comment, since their entire country was decimated and occupied as a result of their own warlike progression. I'd include the Japanese in this class as well. Their warlike hysteria produced a very peaceful aftermath and a genuine change of worldview for their citizens.

Who better to know the effects of war than the formerly warlike nations? Who better to caution against it than those who have lost entire families to the war pigs?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Just because Germany was whipped into a nationalistic fervor seventy years ago doesn't mean they can't comment on nationalism today. In fact, it makes the German people more qualified to comment, since their entire country was decimated and occupied as a result of their own warlike progression. I'd include the Japanese in this class as well. Their warlike hysteria produced a very peaceful aftermath and a genuine change of worldview for their citizens.

Who better to know the effects of war than the formerly warlike nations? Who better to caution against it than those who have lost entire families to the war pigs?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Just because Germany was whipped into a nationalistic fervor seventy years ago doesn't mean they can't comment on nationalism today. In fact, it makes the German people more qualified to comment, since their entire country was decimated and occupied as a result of their own warlike progression. I'd include the Japanese in this class as well. Their warlike hysteria produced a very peaceful aftermath and a genuine change of worldview for their citizens.

Who better to know the effects of war than the formerly warlike nations? Who better to caution against it than those who have lost entire families to the war pigs?

Glad you said all that lovely stuff, smallpeeps.
Given what you have said above, would this below linked article carry validity and weight also, being it is one section of the German people speaking [again, bear in mind what you have said above]?
Germany's conservatives attack Schroeder on Iran

Germany's conservative opposition said on Sunday Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's warnings against using military force to make Iran give up its nuclear program risked undermining international solidarity for electoral gain.

"The Chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the world community is not united anymore," Wolfgang Schaeuble, senior foreign policy specialist of the opposition Christian Democrats told the daily Die Welt.
.........
"Schroeder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as though the problem were in Washington, rather than Tehran even though he knows that isn't so."

Schroeder's opposition to military action against Iraq in the run up to the 2003 war was seen as one of the main factors behind his unexpected victory in the 2002 election, when he accused the conservatives of toeing Washington's line.

seekerof

Seeker, I'm not saying Schröder has a clue, I'm just commenting on the previous poster's suggestion that since their parents tried to grab the whole world in WW2, Germans have no right to comment on war. I have friends in Germany who are very peacefully minded and who feel genuine remorse at the nation's history. They understand that war doesn't work, and they have learned this through their own nation's pain.

Actually, one of my German friends has been behind Bush from the start. To quote a recent email from him:

And it's not as if the U.S. had attacked an innocent regime: Deposing criminals like Saddam Hussein should be the duty of all civilized nations. The reasons given turned out to be wrong? So what. The guy deserved what he got. I believe that the current state of terrorism in Iraq is a direct result of Anti-American propaganda in the European press. Why isn't this happening in Afghanistan? Simple: The world press is not depicting the U.S. as an evil occupying power in that country, so the terrorists don't feel as righteous when they blow up stuff there. But in Iraq: Why, It's your duty as a freedom-loving rebel to kill as many evil occupation forces as you can. The Europeans are secretly sympathizing with the terrorists there. It's disgusting. I wouldn't blame Bush for bombing the nuclear site in Iran. I think not caring about public opinion is a big strength of his, so it might actually happen.

...So there you go. He's German and he's very hawkish in this regard. Do his views reflect yours?

As for Germany's position, does it cause Tehran to have more confidence? Do you think Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are encouraged by Germany's position? That because the west is divided, Iranian leaders feel more emboldened to push ahead? I'm not sure if I agree. I think Iran would be heading down this nuclear road regardless. They see nukes as a deterrent (from Israeli nukes) and every nation will do their best to get themselves a nuclear "deterrent" under the rules of MAD.

Anyway, Isn't it liberal versus conservative with you and me? Those conversations usually don't go anywhere. We see the war from different perspectives.

as posted by smallpeeps
Anyway, Isn't it liberal versus conservative with you and me? Those conversations usually don't go anywhere. We see the war from different perspectives.

Normally, yes, you are quite right, but in this case, I am not advocating war with Iran.

What I am saying here is that if the EU does not resolve the situation with Iran, then they will undoubtedly move this to the UN. Once at the UN, sanctions will probably be sought as a viable option. If the sanctions do nothing, which we are talking a few years plus [assuming here], what would be the next logical progressive step? My thinking is that the military action option will be on the suggested table [which I feel the EU and UN will shy from].

Again, I have said this a number of times, the US needs to take a backseat to the EU and UN on this for various reasons. Let the EU and UN take and make the first actions, whichever way this situation goes.





seekerof

What I am saying here is that if the EU does not resolve the situation with Iran, then they will undoubtedly move this to the UN. Once at the UN, sanctions will probably be sought as a viable option. If the sanctions do nothing, which we are talking a few years plus [assuming here], what would be the next logical progressive step? My thinking is that the military action option will be on the suggested table [which I feel the EU and UN will shy from].

I'm in agreement for the most part, but do you really see the hawks waiting two years for the UN to handle this diplomatically/sanctionally? I guess the US would have to abide by whatever timeline the UN establishes. Either that or defy the UN and just attack. I wonder what consequences that'd have?

Again, I have said this a number of times, the US needs to take a backseat to the EU and UN on this for various reasons. Let the EU and UN take and make the first actions, whichever way this situation goes.

I agree, if only because there is better rapport on that side than with the US. We (the US) cannot expect any kind of meaningful dialogue with the Iranians, considering our history with them. They simply do not trust us, IMO.

It's simple really.

Nation says "Bad Iran, you signed the NPT so you can't build them."
Iran says "O.K. put your cameras in and we'll go about making our power station."
E.U. + U.S. go; "Errr...no you're not allowed power either."
E.U. + U.S. take it to the U.N. U.N. sides with those Nations due to the fact 3 of them don't want Iran to have Nuclear Power stations or weapons.
Iran removes itself from the NPT and goes about building Nuclear Weapons and isn't breaking the law.

Two options now arise; allow it or attack.

Attack = distance more Muslims from the "West" and cause more terrorism.
Allow it = Israel can't throw their weight/nuke around. No body can invade Iran and we have another stalemate Nation.

Originally posted by Seekerof
What I am saying here is that if the EU does not resolve the situation with Iran, then they will undoubtedly move this to the UN. Once at the UN, sanctions will probably be sought as a viable option. If the sanctions do nothing, which we are talking a few years plus [assuming here], what would be the next logical progressive step? My thinking is that the military action option will be on the suggested table [which I feel the EU and UN will shy from].

I doubt the UN sanctions will do anything, because this time they won't repeat the error of being manipulated into approving practically genocidal sanctions like they did with Iraq. The result will be either more stalling or immediate action on the part of US or Israel, this time outside (and against) the UN.

A note also about some posts I have seen here: this is not a "carrot and stick" issue. There are no rules. You can't compel a sovereign country, just like you (Americans) are finding now that you can't expect an invaded people to love you, no matter how good your intentions might be.

Originally posted by Odium
It's simple really.

Nation says "Bad Iran, you signed the NPT so you can't build them."
Iran says "O.K. put your cameras in and we'll go about making our power station."
E.U. + U.S. go; "Errr...no you're not allowed power either."
E.U. + U.S. take it to the U.N. U.N. sides with those Nations due to the fact 3 of them don't want Iran to have Nuclear Power stations or weapons.
Iran removes itself from the NPT and goes about building Nuclear Weapons and isn't breaking the law.

One of the rights of signitories of the NPT is to be able to have nuclear power, so anyone telling them they can't would be in breach of the NPT themselves. The 3 treaty pillars are 1. non-proliferation 2. disarmament 3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Sabre262]

Nothing personal. The Germany Helm has too many times played the big wheel. And I decided to let ATS members know how I feel about the man. I'm not American, just a friend.

Dallas