Posted on 10/17/2007 2:00:08 PM PDT by 300magnum
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.
Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran's nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.
At a White House news conference, Bush expressed hope Putin would brief him on his talks in Tehran and said he would ask him to clarify recent remarks on Iran's nuclear activities.
Putin said last week that Russia, which is building Iran's first atomic power plant, would "proceed from the position" that Tehran had no plans to develop nuclear weapons but he shared international concerns that its nuclear programs "should be as transparent as possible."
"The thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do," Bush said. "When we were in Australia (in September), he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon."
Bush, who has insisted he wants a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue, is pushing for a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran.
Russia, a veto-holding member of the Security Council, backed two sets of limited U.N. sanctions against Iran but has resisted any tough new measures.
Stepping up his rhetoric, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a "dangerous threat to world peace."
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
PUTIN'S "SPECIAL MESSAGE"
Iran rejects accusations it is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, saying it wants nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes such as power generation, and has refused to heed U.N. Security Council demands to halt sensitive uranium enrichment.
Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted by Iran's official IRNA news agency on Wednesday as saying that Putin had delivered a "special message" on its atomic program and other issues. No other details were given.
Putin's visit on Tuesday was watched closely because of Moscow's possible leverage in the Islamic Republic's nuclear standoff with the West. It was the first time a Kremlin chief went to Iran since Josef Stalin in 1943.
Asked about Putin's "special message," U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he was not aware of any deal or offer put forward by Moscow to Tehran over the nuclear program.
On Russian opposition to Caspian Sea states being used to launch attacks against Iran, Casey reiterated that Bush kept all his options on the table but that the United States was committed to the diplomatic path with Tehran.
(Additional reporting by Frederick Dahl in Tehran and Sue Pleming in Washington)
I think you are taking things far too literally.
There are dozens of locations cited in the Bible which have been discovered and verified in recent years.
Why “interpret” a Bible whose prophesiers have been fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or the Bible.
Well, I don’t see too many ‘Armies of Kings’ floating around in this day and age. So that tells me that you are indeed interpreting the Bible to mean something. So tell me who what you ‘interpret’ to be the ‘Armies of Kings’. Last I looked, America did not have a king, neither did Iran, Israel, Russia....etc. That would mean you are interpreting the Bible’s meaning a little bit.
Putty-put talks out of both sides of his mouth. Mr. Bush should never trust the Russians. He SHOULD know, if he reads his Bible as I believe he does, that Russia and Arab Nations will come against Israel to try and destroy her. But God will intervene. We need to be sure the US protects our sister nation.
Michelle I so glad to hear you think that way; when can I swear you, and your kids in? Or are you only pro-war if someone else does the fighting?
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein
Actually, just a quick battle in WW IV.
Ammunition, vitamins, burn cream, canned food, water purification, bandages, antibiotics, windup radios (store in a wire mesh cage), shovels and picks...
Revelation. This has to pass, so we should not fear for rejoice! God’s plan is unraveling right before our eyes. Our Savior Jesus Christ will come. Iniquity is at its end. Satan seeks to destroy God’s creation by any means possible, only the devil would come up with something like scorched earth policy. When the world finally goes on nuclear war mode God will stop the destruction, and Judgment Day will take place. We should be happy to see the end of this system, an imperfect one that as time passes it turns more evil in the name of enlightenment. I pray I get to see Jesus our Lord come down from the Heavens.
Fair enough. But just so you know, Jesus does not actually want us to cut out our eyes.
BTTT!
Armageddon is where "decisive" battles were fought. So, when all the kings of the earth meet for the last decisive battle it refers to Armageddon figuratively. That is my understanding.
A lot of times when we are trying to describe an event to others we use something that paints a vivid picture. A good example of that would be your screen name.
Are you sure. His Father had people do some painful things in the OT. Are they leaps of faith?
Last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t a nit.
The cold war included:
vietnam war
korean war
soviet-afghan war
iran-iraq war
bay of pigs
various central american civil wars and military actions
berlin air lift
and probably a few others I’m forgetting.
proxy armies fighting here and there and other low level conflicts don’t add up to a real world war. Otherwise you’d attribute world wars to Alexander, Napoleon and a lot of other people throughout history.
A real world war would be NATO vs Soviet Union directly. The best of the best vs the best of the best. That war would’ve been very costly and would’ve certainly involved the use of nukes.
I don’t even think this whole “war against islam” could be considered a world war. Iraq had the strongest army of all the arab/muslim countries and it didn’t take that long to fall.
What I am really concerned about is if North Korea and China somehow joined forces and declared war. They are the ones with the most developed military compared to any of the other bad guys (Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc)
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.