Posted on 08/14/2005 7:13:44 PM PDT by freedom44
Top News Story
Reuters
In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.
Bush's statement in an interview on Israeli TV late Friday was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if that failed then the U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions.
The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.
In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion or face possible referral to the Security Council, which has the power to impose crippling sanctions. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity.
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful, responded with indignation to the warning.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Saturday he would not support U.S. military action against Iran. "Let's by all means develop a strong negotiating position, but take the military option off the table," Schroeder said.
A Daily Briefing of Major News Stories on Iran:
I've stopped paying attention to talk.
Nations act, or they don't. It is thoroughly uninteresting to analyze statements.
Sort of a "learn to love the bomb" situation...
"Let's by all means develop a strong negotiating position, but take the military option off the table."
What an unbelievable statement.
What an unbelievable statement.
Yeah it sort of makes the search for a "strong negotiating position" impossible. What's happened to the Europeans lately? (other than them putting their heads up ther a** all the time?)
Do you prefer analyzing the sound of gunfire? Kind of tough to do on a blog... LOL
Let's all hope that it doesn't come to war with Iran. I don't want to think about our soldiers having to deal with human waves of children with explosives.... the Iranian government, if possible, has even less respect for individual lives than Saddam and they do it in a way that would likely force us to kill large quantities of young boys.
Welcome to FR.
Just consider the source.
Our wonderful comrades-in-arms, Germany...who have been caught red-handed along with our many other 'friends' making huge profits supplying nuclear materiale to Iran.
It's all an act anyway. Military is least desirable option.
We get them "in the tent" and it's all downhill for the other Arab countries on our list.
Total annhilation is not on the favorites list any more.
where do you think all the insurgents over there are from? where do you think all the weapons and explosives are coming from? we are already in an unannounced war with Iranian Islamic Fundamentalists. Prediction...Israel as per their stated policy will not allow Iran to continue their enrichment. They are walling off the Gaza strip right now in preparation for a full air strike on Nuclear facilities in Iran. Bush has stated that force is still one option because he knows it is inevitable. Meanwhile everyone else is still touting negotiations and sanctions which have never worked with any middle eastern country. Also, China has already announced that it will not support santions. Iraq was under sanctions for years. Did they have any trouble getting oil? USA will claim no advance knowledge of the Israeli air strike. Israel will claim that it acted alone. US will have no choice but to provide material support for our ally. Shit...fan...
I sincerely doubt it. If they do they are incredibly misguided. An Iranian bomb could significantly extend the life of this regime as terrorism and the threat of it has done. Besides, every time an Iran expert says, it can't get worse than this (IE if Iran gets the bomb the West can fix it)... it always does get worse. I've heard domestic reports of enthusiasm for Iran's nuclear program and to me they look coerced if not completely fabricated. Some Iranian expats (automatically qualifying them as experts) assume that the West will face up to tough talking Iranians today; by first assuming the West was fooled by the likes of reformers of yesterday. Those so called reformers were just as active in the nuclear program as the so called hardliners are today. What's changed is that the new guys are more likely to push the situation over the edge....
I disagree. Either the U.S. or Isreal will takeout Iran is some way before they have a complete bomb.
Iran is a dicey issue. I probably won't be against a war if it becomes absolutely necessary and all other options are exhausted, but I hope and pray that doesn't happen.
You have Freepmail
Good morning neighbor. Wont you be my neighbor?
In the world of nuclear proliferation, history demonstrates that there is a lag time between the time a country has a bomb, and the time the world knows they have a bomb. It runs about 18 years... The reasons for this are complex but have much to do with diplomatic, risk benefit analysis. But history has never been and never will be a "definitive" guide to the future. However it has useful lessons:
BBC - 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
Tells us that:
1. Iran would be much more difficult to hit than Tuwaitah 2. Targeting facilities that represent a threat to freedom in the West, does not particularly translate into more freedom for the people who reside in the threatening state. 3. We can't gurantee we've hit all of the threatening facilities.
But let me step back for a moment... you did say "in some way" not having qualified the way you are talking about, I hope you're right. I hope we are in possession of the non-proliferation wand because Elbaradei definitely doesn't have one...
BTW, did the NSA recruit Harry Potter yet?... JK
Not sure you're understanding the outcome of a nuclear reactor. Yes it produces power and power is not a threat. The threat comes from the enriched uranium that the reactor produces (while generated power) that is needed to make a nuclear bomb.
When a tyrannical Iranian mullah say he doesn't want to make a nuclear bomb he's lying.
Trusting them to tell the truth is not an option. After all Iran has an unlimited oil supply! Why do they need nuclear power?
So we'll definitely take out the nuclear reactor (or Israel will) before it comes on line, to save the entire free world from being held hostage by these mullahs and their kind.
The fallout from our air strike will be tolerable, more so than the fallout from their bomb.
Did you see what Dean said today on natl TV? That the US is to weak to fight Iran.
Bastard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
