Bush warns Iran on Israel

[BigBadBrian]

Bush warns Iran on Israel
Mar 20 3:05 PM US/Eastern


US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.

"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.

On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped "to solve this issue diplomatically" with a "united message" to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia "hopefully" and China.

The message would be that "your desire to having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," he said.

Bush also touched on Iran's agreement to discuss Iraq with the United States, saying that "it's very important, however, for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq.

"We're using this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of interference within a democratic process that is evolving," he said, saying that the talks will not decide Iran's relations with a sovereign Iraq.

"Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government," he said.

Linki (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html)

:gun:

[Cathedral]

Bush needs to shut the fuck up with this war drum beating.
Why the fuck does Israel need us to defend them?
They don't, they can deal with Iran all by themselves.

I'd love to bust a cap in Iran's ass, but we are not in any shape militarily for him to be talkin shit right now.

he kills me with his talk of diplomacy wrapped in subtle threats...he's fuking gone mad, man.

[Warham]

We could bomb them into oblivion, and that's the only way I think we should if it came to military action. No ground troops, period.

[Cathedral]

Grounds troops would be sent to a slaughter, their own, if they set foot in Iran.
Everything we need to take out is placed in areas that are very risky to hit by air.

The only possible way is if we have our strongest allies with us, and i honestly don't think we would.
Not if Bush is using words like "hopeful" when referring to support from them.

[Warham]

The UN is all talk. Iran knows they won't do ANYTHING to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[jhale667]

I have to agree with Warham...air strikes are the only option. And as Cat said, as thin as our military is spread now, we start sending in ground troops they will get their asses handed to them....

[FORD]

Chimp shouldn't say anything about Israel until after their election.

If Likud manages to win (or steal) that election, it will be a clear sign that Israel doesn't give a fuck about moving forward, in which case they should be left to defend their fucking arrogant assed selves.

Which they are more than capable of doing with all of their illegally acquired, US financed weapons.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
We could bomb them into oblivion, and that's the only way I think we should if it came to military action. No ground troops, period.

And then they could send IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS Special Ops troops into Iraq to kill Americans and increase the effectiveness of the insurgents, supply them with even more powerful bombs to hit troops with, and destabilize things in Iraq that they'd drive us out. Not to mention shutting off the oil spigot thereby driving up prices...

BTW, when will anyone admit that the very soonest IRAN will have a bomb is 2009, and that's a very optimistic from the Iranian point of view.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And then they could send IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS Special Ops troops into Iraq to kill Americans and increase the effectiveness of the insurgents, supply them with even more powerful bombs to hit troops with, and destabilize things in Iraq that they'd drive us out. Not to mention shutting off the oil spigot thereby driving up prices...

BTW, when will anyone admit that the very soonest IRAN will have a bomb is 2009, and that's a very optimistic from the Iranian point of view.

They are already sending guys over into Iraq to try and kill our troops. What's the difference? They aren't going to drive us out of Iraq anyway. The only way we are leaving Iraq is when Bush or the next Republican president is ready to pull out. It's not going to be dictated by a nut over in Iran.

We'll get Israel to help us bomb them anyway. They wouldn't have enough resources to go into Israel and into Iraq to attack both countries.:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
They are already sending guys over into Iraq to try and kill our troops.

Says who? Obergeneral RUMSFELD? Very little proof of this, in fact IRAN has helped stabilize the situation to some extent. There certainly are weapons getting through the Iranian and Syrian frontiers, but then again, there are illegal immigrants and drugs getting through ours. An we're the ones letting the Iranian-backed SHIA Militias operate, and summarily execute SUNNI men...

And I'd bet we've done much the same, and we have flown drones into their airspace and were actually intentionally provoking them a few months back...


What's the difference? They aren't going to drive us out of Iraq anyway. The only way we are leaving Iraq is when Bush or the next Republican president is ready to pull out.

Buhuhuhuhuhuhuh! You man change the plan from staying indefinitely and building huge bases to leaving after "mission accomplished."

[vheddyrmv8]

Draft here we come...

[Warham]

There's no draft coming.

The Democrats used that trick two years ago. It was one of their many failed attempts to try and get votes for Kerry.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
There's no draft coming.

The Democrats used that failed trick two years ago.

Provided we keep drawing down US forces in IRAQ and don't start anything with IRAN in the near future...

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, can we try to keep the IRAN articles in one thread, at least for the day???

[Warham]

Who are you referring to? Brian?

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


BTW, when will anyone admit that the very soonest IRAN will have a bomb is 2009, and that's a very optimistic from the Iranian point of view.


Hmmmm...I thought I had read something recently by a couple of authors who, through their research, believ that Iran could be "days" away from that bomb.

Gonna see if I can find the source.

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, can we try to keep the IRAN articles in one thread, at least for the day???


Oh, fuck...here we go again!

[Warham]

Pat Buchanan told O'Reilly the other day that Iran is having problems with their centrifuges. I'm not sure if his info is reliable, but it's his assessment.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Warham
Pat Buchanan told O'Reilly the other day that Iran is having problems with their centrifuges. I'm not sure if his info is reliable, but it's his assessment.


It's that damn infidel technology....:rolleyes:

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by jhale667
It's that damn infidel technology....:rolleyes:


LOL!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
Oh, fuck...here we go again!

Go to any forum on the web and start a redundant thread, and see what happens...

Better yet, start another article on the Michael Anthony interview in the main and see what people say...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Pat Buchanan told O'Reilly the other day that Iran is having problems with their centrifuges. I'm not sure if his info is reliable, but it's his assessment.

The DIA says that IRAN will not have a bomb before 2009, and again, that's on the safe side and extremely optimistic from the Iranian point of view, probably not before 2011.

Why are people panicking over this?

[Warham]

I'm certainly not panicking.

Israel can really hold their own against Iran, if need be. That have in excess of 200 nukes, I've heard.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The DIA says that IRAN will not have a bomb before 2009, and again, that's on the safe side and extremely optimistic from the Iranian point of view, probably not before 2011.

Why are people panicking over this?

Couldn't have anything to do with Chimpy fear-mongering, could it? :D

[Warham]

Try UN fear-mongering.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm certainly not panicking.

Israel can really hold their own against Iran, if need be. That have in excess of 200 nukes, I've heard.

So why is BUSH warning people on their behalf?

[Warham]

I dunno. It might appear more threatening if we get involved?

[Nickdfresh]

Seems to be having the opposite effect that we want it too...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm certainly not panicking.

Israel can really hold their own against Iran, if need be. That have in excess of 200 nukes, I've heard.

And considering they aren't supposed to have ANY, that's quite an achievement. But nobody gives a shit how many UN resolutions they violate.

These fucking hypocritical polices have to end if there is ever to be a hope of peace in this world.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So why is BUSH warning people on their behalf?

Because Bush is a puppet of PNAC, which is the "American" client of the Likud party.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by FORD
And considering they aren't supposed to have ANY, that's quite an achievement. But nobody gives a shit how many UN resolutions they violate.

These fucking hypocritical polices have to end if there is ever to be a hope of peace in this world.

Amen.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
he kills me with his talk of diplomacy wrapped in subtle threats...he's fuking gone mad, man.

He's not nuts, he's just really stupid. gw is very poor at formulating strategy. See how we used proxy troops in Afghanistan and FAILED in our objective to destroy Al Qaeda and capture Bin Laden?

How about how we failed to have the common sense to secure ammunitions dumps in Iraq following the invasion after seeing propoganda videos showcasing the Fedayeen and having watched Israel's blunder into Lebanon OVER 20 YEARS AGO?

I really question how the fucker could be SO incompetent. Is it really just negligence and incompetence?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
We could bomb them into oblivion, and that's the only way I think we should if it came to military action. No ground troops, period.

Please cite where and when that has EVER worked.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Please cite where and when that has EVER worked.

Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.

But that's beside the point, it isn't plausible here and further war action beside what is on the plate now is NOT AN OPTION!

In my opinion we need to keep reserves ready in the event we are attacked on our soil again.
And the only, and i mean ONLY thing that would change our ability there is if we have ALL our major allies with us in a unified effort to keep Iran from having these bombs.

Nick likes to speak as though 3 years is an eternity, but he forgets that time passes quickly and the fact that they can have a nuke as early as 2009-2010 means that serious attention and efforts to derail their determination to acquire them must be paid and the time is NOW.

I'm all about Diplomacy with this one. Iran isn't Iraq and they won't just roll over. but in the same token they won't do anything stupid like Saddam was known to do because Ahmadinejad may be a Dictator, but he isn't a nut case and will buckle under severe pressure in time.

As far as Israel is concerned, They can take care of themselves and we should NOT be leading the charge here.
Our war drums should remain silent until the need to beat them actually arises.
We should only be a supportive allie to to Israel, not their protector as though we carry a Global Badge.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.


I think your example lacks relevance.

The atomic bombs were much different than an air campaign like Warham suggested. Also, Japan doesn't compare because we had fought a long land war against them. Yes, it wasn't on their soil.

I fail to see how bombing alone could achieve our objectives. In fact I'm certain it won't be enough.

[Cathedral]

You asked for an example of where and when, I provided one. now you want to add details that change the context? whatever...

I then went on to agree wth you that it isn't viable in this instance.

You asked, I delivered, i'd say it's relevent.

[Warham]

Liberals always move the goalposts, Cat.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.

But that's beside the point, it isn't plausible here and further war action beside what is on the plate now is NOT AN OPTION!

In my opinion we need to keep reserves ready in the event we are attacked on our soil again.
And the only, and i mean ONLY thing that would change our ability there is if we have ALL our major allies with us in a unified effort to keep Iran from having these bombs.

Nick likes to speak as though 3 years is an eternity, but he forgets that time passes quickly and the fact that they can have a nuke as early as 2009-2010 means that serious attention and efforts to derail their determination to acquire them must be paid and the time is NOW.

I'm all about Diplomacy with this one. Iran isn't Iraq and they won't just roll over. but in the same token they won't do anything stupid like Saddam was known to do because Ahmadinejad may be a Dictator, but he isn't a nut case and will buckle under severe pressure in time.

As far as Israel is concerned, They can take care of themselves and we should NOT be leading the charge here.
Our war drums should remain silent until the need to beat them actually arises.
We should only be a supportive allie to to Israel, not their protector as though we carry a Global Badge.


I didn't say it was an eternity, it's probably more like four of five years before the Iranian bomb can be fashioned. I was just asking why no columnists ever present this fact when they try to whip the Conservative base into a war frenzy?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals always move the goalposts, Cat.

And dopey conservatives always misuse bad football analogies...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And dopey conservatives always misuse bad football analogies...

LMMFAO, there's no reason for name calling, Nick.

I don't think Iran has a nuke right now. I don't think they'll have one tomorrow either. in fact, I don't know anyone personally that thinks differently.

What i do think, and what people i know, knows, is that it is not in our best interests to turn our backs to the issue and wait until they have these weapons pointing into the sky to react to them.

I've seen plenty of reports that state Iran is 3-5 years away from having the bomb. they could even be 10 years away from it and it doesn't change what they have publicly claimed, and what their ambitions are.

I know you hate Bush and all that stuff, but your combining issues here that should be kept seperate.
Maybe you should try and think about the future of your family, of other families, and realize that doing nothing is a grave error, no matter who is President, no matter which party is in control of the Senate or Congress.......And it is important to think outside our own borders as well.
Nuclear fallout isn't just an isolated threat. that shit will effect the entire global community once it starts getting released into the atmosphere.

An entire race of people would love to see us dead, Nick. and it isn't all about our foreign policy that they want to do this. it doesn't matter to them who is running the country either. if they see an opportunity, they take it.

Let me be a "dopey" conservative here and use another analogy to describe the sitting on the hands scenario you propse, and all in the name of what you claim the media isn't covering, because i know they have, and are.

You step out into the street, you expose your Colt, your enemy does the same. (Cue The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Theme).
You stare each other down and you say, "Wait, you go ahead and pull out your gun and take aim...I'll say "DRAW" and i'll see if i can beat you to the trigger, k?"

We'd be burying Nickdfresh that afternoon, and it would be a terrible loss to the Nickdfresh family all because he underestimated the enemy, and even helped him gun you down.

Sorry man, I'm not that gullible, and i know what the facts are. And i also know what the risks are.
We cannot sit around and wait until after an election in November of '08 to see if you guys can put a Democrat in office. the time to diffuse the situation is now.
I don't like the way Bush is going about it necessarily, but doing nothing is an even bigger mistake.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, can we try to keep the IRAN articles in one thread, at least for the day???

Perhaps you should only have ONE "Chimpeachment" thread then.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Geezus, this from a guy that throws around the term "Commie Lib" like it was a rubber ball...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Perhaps you should only have ONE "Chimpeachment" thread then.

:gulp:

Well, I agree, if there are two "Chimpeachment threads" on the same day...

I'm not saying one thread for every topic, I'm merely saying we don't need four different threads on the same day, on the front page, covering the same basic topic (i.e. IRAN nuke program)...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Geezus, this from a guy that throws around the term "Commie Lib" like it was a rubber ball...

I'm holding back on that, i'm trying to be a bit more reserved.
I'm only aloud 1 "You fucking liberal commie bastard" thread per week now.
But i'm sure disgust will get the better of me in short order and that rubber ball will be a flyin' high once again...

Patience my friend, patience... ;)

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I fail to see how bombing alone could achieve our objectives. In fact I'm certain it won't be enough.

From what I've read elsewhere, a well planned airstrike would set back Iran anywhere from 5-10 years on the development of a functional warhead. Who says that anyone needs to do anything other than set them back from time to time? I'd be okay with a set back rather than overthrowing their gov't.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Jerry Falwell
From what I've read elsewhere, a well planned airstrike would set back Iran anywhere from 5-10 years on the development of a functional warhead. Who says that anyone needs to do anything other than set them back from time to time? I'd be okay with a set back rather than overthrowing their gov't.

This is true, though i am against the US doing it to Iran at the moment. our plate is full and we have far too many troops in theater in that region.

It's just smarter if we take a supportive role on this issue at the moment.

[FORD]

Iran has something in common with the United States, and that is the fact that most of the people don't agree with the psychotics running their government.

Iranians watch MTV and wear Levis. They don't want to live in the 12th Century. Eventually, they might become a "democracy" by default, because the next generation ain't gonna have a whole lot of Khomeni types.

Unless they get the shit bombed out of them by the BCE or Israel, which just might drive them over the edge faster than you can say "The shah is dead".

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
They are already sending guys over into Iraq to try and kill our troops. What's the difference? They aren't going to drive us out of Iraq anyway. The only way we are leaving Iraq is when Bush or the next Republican president is ready to pull out. It's not going to be dictated by a nut over in Iran.

We'll get Israel to help us bomb them anyway. They wouldn't have enough resources to go into Israel and into Iraq to attack both countries.:elvis:
Warham,

You are one of the sickest trolls here. I can see when I'm not here the loons run wild.

"...bomb t2o oblivion". Are there any children left when your "oblivion" bombing is over? Is there any world left over after your "oblivion" bombing starts WWIII in the nuclear age, Commander Warham? I don't want t2o know your answers, troll-Warham. You're a sick twat, baybee. You're not thinking. You're watching television.

I've said enough for this little group of trolls. Have a nice day, Warbutt. And watch your own butt. Oblivion has room f4or YOU t2oo, sister.


:spank:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Nuclear fallout isn't just an isolated threat. that shit will effect the entire global community once it starts getting released into the atmosphere.


So then you do agree that nuclear warfare would not achieve our objectives.

I stand by my statement that bombing Iran will only fuck things up. It will strengthen their nationalist spirit. And all their bunkers are hardened against air raids anyway. Seems the only way to achieve success is going to be a land war and regime change.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
So then you do agree that nuclear warfare would not achieve our objectives.

I stand by my statement that bombing Iran will only fuck things up. It will strengthen their nationalist spirit. And all their bunkers are hardened against air raids anyway. Seems the only way to achieve success is going to be a land war and regime change.


I've never been a supporter of Nuclear Arms, not in any way shape or form.
We don't need them, nobody does, and the fears i thought about but didn't worry about in the 80's are something everyone should worry about today.

When everybody fears death, that is the best and most effective deterrent you can have.
But in a culture where people will strap themselves to a bomb and detonate it in a populated area?
You bet your ass someone would definately set one off given the chance.
Hell, if they're willing to die by using a bomb vest nothing will stop them from setting off a nuke.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
When everybody fears death, that is the best and most effective deterrent you can have.
But in a culture where people will strap themselves to a bomb and detonate it in a populated area?

Hell, if they're willing to die by using a bomb vest nothing will stop them from setting off a nuke.

That's the whole thing. How has America protected itself for the last 60 years? Nuclear Deterrent. Fuck with us and YOU ALL DIE!

But with a culture that is mired in such poverty and brainwashed to believe in paradise after death, why not die? Fuck it.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
That's the whole thing. How has America protected itself for the last 60 years? Nuclear Deterrent. Fuck with us and YOU ALL DIE!

But with a culture that is mired in such poverty and brainwashed to believe in paradise after death, why not die? Fuck it.

Exactly, people are conditioned not to give a shit anymore.
Half the time I don't even give a shit, and then i immediately remember my family.

If not for them i wouldn't care either because i'm fed up with the world and where it's heading.