Bush Threatens To Complete World-Record Quagmire Hat Trick With Invasion Of Iran

[Pontiuth Pilate]

World replies: "Oh yeah? You and what army?"

Bush: Force last resort on Iran

Saturday, August 13, 2005; Posted: 5:44 a.m. EDT (09:44 GMT)

Bush: "We want diplomacy to work ... and we'll see if we're successful."

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

"All options are on the table," Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.

Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution, noting that EU powers Britain, Germany and France had taken the lead in dealing with Iran.

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we're working feverishly on the diplomatic route and we'll see if we're successful or not," Bush told state-owned Israel Channel One television.

Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes. But U.S. officials have played down media speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Friday that negotiations were still possible with Iran on condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear activities.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

Douste-Blazy said the next step would be on September 3 when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Iran's activities.

If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will likely be held, where both Europe and Washington will push for a referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

 

[Truronian]

Being a non-American, I can confirm that should Bush invade Iran on his own, global opinion of America would suffer greatly. If Iran develops nukes, I imagine they would just enter the nuclear stalemate that the rest of the nuclear world currently resides in.

If Bush wants to invade Iran he needs UN backing

 

[Bugfatty300]

Where does it say invasion?

The poll is seriosuly flawed. If there is military action it will be prescision air strikes. There won't be invasion simply because:

we have no troops to invade with!

There needs to be more options in this poll.

 

[GenMarshall]

Bush launching his crusade in Iran.

 

[classical_hero]

Hopefully this will get full UN support.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Bush launching his crusade in Iran.

You know how much man power would be needed to even defeat and occupy Iran?

Iraq is one thing, but Iran?

Even with U.N. support, the U.S.A. simply can't do it and congress will chew such a proposal up.

 

[Bizon77]

What a dumb thread. If it was titled differently, with out the dumb poll it would be ok for open discussion.

People see something that isn't there. Its just like anti -American thread . I've read the article again and again and can't find a sentence that says the U.S. is planning an invasion of Iran . is it even possible?

 

[Drewcifer]

He's bluffing, we don't have enough troops without the draft and the draft is never going to happen. Iran knows it too. Bombing is possible though ill advised unless done by a third party that isn't Israel. It is unlikely.

They would never use nukes against us or any of our allies because they know we would retaliate. They would never give nukes to a terrorist organization because of the risk it would be traced back to them and we would retaliate. I suspect the main reason Iran wants nukes is so we can't invade them. I can't begrudge them that as it is a logical connection to make. The most likely people they could possibly want to drop the bomb on who couldn't retaliate are the Iraqi Ba'athist Sunnis we are currently shooting at, and then only if they regained control over the whole country and wanted war with Iran; another Iraqi government is perhaps a potential target though if it had any hint of democratic legitimacy it would be mostly Shiite and therefore couldn't be a target for domestic Iranian political reasons. Also, any Iraqi government that came out of a democratic or pseudo-democratic process would most likely be fairly Shiite and also have a nuclear guarentee from the US if it faced an Iranian bomb and needed it though the necessity of that is very unlikely. I guess an Iranian bomb would be useful in an Iraqi civil war if theocratic Shiites were one side of it and the US were a disinterested party but I don't think it is going to come to that as the US would not be a disinterested party in such a war, we fought a war in Vietnam without going to the brink with their ally China, it would be the same with a nuclear Iran.


Edit: because neither us nor our allies are logical targets of an Iranian bomb if we don't invade Iran there is still lattitude to make a deal, we just have to convince them that we will respect their sovereignty no matter what. It may be a hard sell given current events.

Though Pakistan is on paper our ally right now I fear the Pakistani bomb more than an Iranian one given the political disfunction in Pakistan.

 

[10Seven]

You know how much man power would be needed to even defeat and occupy Iran?

Iraq is one thing, but Iran?

Even with U.N. support, the U.S.A. simply can't do it and congress will chew such a proposal up.

One million + simply for an invasion...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Maybe Bush is a dummy, but the hand that pulls his strings is not

 

[HAND]

I really hope the US doesn't invade Iran... Theres needs to be a new consensus on the Middle East.
I can see why Iran maybe pursing nukes... US-backed Democracy in Afghanistan to the north, US-backed Democracy in Iraq to the south west, US nukes on carriers in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan with nukes to the East and Turkey with Nato to the West. Iran is surrounded and not by friends.

I don't want Iran to have nukes, but their must be a better way than bombing or invading. The death toll on Iranian population from any invasion would be horrendous..

If the US goes into Iran, the situation in the Far East may get become extremely dangerous as China seeing the US over-stretched decides to regain Tawian and North Korea may go official with its membership of the Nuclear Club.

 

[Drewcifer]

I really hope the US doesn't invade Iran... Theres needs to be a new consensus on the Middle East.
I can see why Iran maybe pursing nukes... US-backed Democracy in Afghanistan to the north, US-backed Democracy in Iraq to the south west, US nukes on carriers in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan with nukes to the East and Turkey with Nato to the West. Iran is surrounded and not by friends.

I don't want Iran to have nukes, but their must be a better way than bombing or invading. The death toll on Iranian population from any invasion would be horrendous..

If the US goes into Iran, the situation in the Far East may get become extremely dangerous as China seeing the US over-stretched decides to regain Tawian and North Korea may go official with its membership of the Nuclear Club.

The US is not going to invade Iran, period.

It would be impossible for domestic reasons (the appetite for more foreign intervention in the US in the Middle East is close to zero; there would probably be riots a la Vietnam). It would be impossible for international reasons. And it is nearly impossible for military tactical reasons.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The US is not going to invade Iran, period.

It would be impossible for domestic reasons. It would be impossible for international reasons. And it is nearly impossible for military tactical reasons.

Unless of course the US feels the need to "strike" outside Iraq border at "terrorist" targets. in a type of "limited" operation.

 

[Drewcifer]

Unless of course the US feels the need to "strike" outside Iraq border at "terrorist" targets. in a type of "limited" operation.

That would have no influence on Iran's nuclear program and probably draw it into the Iraq war. There is unease over Iraq now in the US, strikes in Iran would turn that into outright opposition on the streets and still wouldn't stop Iran's nuclear program.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Where does it say invasion?

The poll is seriosuly flawed. If there is military action it will be prescision air strikes.

Ah yes, and then Iran will just play fair and ignore the 130,000 American troops desperately trying to pacify a neighboring country (actually, two neighboring countries...) Yeah, that'll happen.

To others: yes, the whole point of the article is that Bush is totally powerless to back up his threats. Iran will probably develop nukes with impunity... just like India and Pakistan.

Yet another wonderful foreign-policy consequence of the Iraq War.

They would never use nukes against us or any of our allies because they know we would retaliate. They would never give nukes to a terrorist organization because of the risk it would be traced back to them and we would retaliate. I suspect the main reason Iran wants nukes is so we can't invade them.

Right on the money. And the same arguments applied back in 2002-2003 when Bush kept on BSing about a nuclear Iraq.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Where does it say invasion?

The poll is seriosuly flawed. If there is military action it will be prescision air strikes. There won't be invasion simply because:

we have no troops to invade with!

Draft.

Bush needs you!

 

[Drewcifer]

Draft.

Bush needs you!

Draft for Iran = Republicans losing every election for the next 20 years.

They would never be so foolish, though I would like to see them lose every election for the 20 years, not for that reason. The Republicans would like to win some elections in the future, there will be no draft.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Draft for Iran = Republicans losing every election for the next 20 years.

They would never be so foolish, though I would like to see them lose every election for the 20 years. The Republicans would like to win some elections in the future, there will be no draft.

You'll see. There is already a draft in effect, the way the US army has been calling up reserves, and the Republicans have been doing fine with that.

 

[Drewcifer]

Stop loss is already unpopular and hurts then in their political base though it hasn't turned an election yet. An actual draft of unenlisted 18 or 19 year olds for war in the ME would ruin them for a generation.

Edit: It would also create draft riots in every city and most towns in the country, ones that would have popular support.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Stop loss is already unpopular and hurts then in their political base though it hasn't turned an election yet. An actual draft of unenlisted 18 or 19 year olds for war in the ME would ruin them for a generation.

Unless there happens to be another terrorist attack and the whole nation goes into nationalist frenzy. Which could very well happen. And then a draft could be brought in to 'protect the democracy and freedom of the US' and people would vote Republican anyway because they 'need a strong leader!'