Bush Warns of WWIII

[Holsety]

October Surprise: Iran Has WMD!

No, no. October Surprise: Martial Law.

Or Martian Law, for SeaLab 2021 fans.

I'm forming a cadre of martian knights. Wanna join?

Anyways, I'm almost completely sure there's some evidence that Iran bought some nukes in 1992 from Kazakhstan of all places, but I can't find any sources about that right now.

[iQuestor]

The problem i have with Bush's statement, in addition to what Lm has pointed out...is the sheer, unfettered lack of diplomacy that the stement indicates. To envoke WWIII when we have already demonstrated to the world a willingness to go TO war on a voluntary. pre-emptive basis is downright frightening to the world.

Teddy Roosevelt said 'talk softly and carry a big stick', Bush says 'stick your head up your *ss, start shouting, and blindly swing the largest stick you have available'. Jerk.

Its very sad Guns, but I am starting to agree with you. I think Iran with Nukes is a bad idea, but I agree his comments were a real lack of diplomacy and in poor taste.

I hope, as you say, AM doenst have as much authority in Iran as I thought he did, because he is a madman. I wish their ruling body would clear it up.

[Zarathustra]

The problem i have with Bush's statement, in addition to what Lm has pointed out...is the sheer, unfettered lack of diplomacy that the stement indicates. To envoke WWIII when we have already demonstrated to the world a willingness to go TO war on a voluntary. pre-emptive basis is downright frightening to the world.

I think that's exactly his point. I think that if Iran got nukes, we'd HAVE to attack. Which would probably start WWIII. Now what's confusing me is that people seem more irritated by Bush's frankness on this issue, rather than the possibility of a WWIII itself. Diplomacy is simply NOT working. His statement should be viewed as an indication of the impending disaster, not a personal gaffe. There are plenty of people willing to allow Iran to have nukes. Why isn't the outrage aimed at them, instead of the one person in all the world who is honest about what will happen if that occurs?

[A Gunslinger]

Bullcrap Mal. I'll say it again, the bellicose and ill-conceived sabre-rattling by Doofus over a weak, and soon to be irrelevant no-goodnick does nothing except:

1) Further prop up a tinfoil-hat wearing thug. We have done more to prop up MA than anyone with our endless hand-wringing over him, personally. He is a goner on the very next election Iran has...if we'd just stop propping him up!

2) Convince the world that we yearn for war, at the EDXPENSE of REAL diplomatic efforts. We refuse to talk to the legitimate protions of the government of Iraq, but doofus shoots off his mouth (unfortunately only in the figutrative sense...were his jaw wired shut, maybe the US, to say nothing of the GOP could recover a bit of respect) when placed in front of a live camera.

I LONG for the days when I criticized GWB for NOT talking to the press live... now I just wish he'd stick to scripts and teleprompters. Please George, do not THINK, do not go it alone...just read. I beg of you.

[Mistress Cathy]

I hope you are right, Guns, that MA is a powerless thug. I really do.

Perhaps he has blathered so much about the destruction of Israel that we are beginning to believe it.

[finn]

The problem i have with Bush's statement, in addition to what Lm has pointed out...is the sheer, unfettered lack of diplomacy that the stement indicates. To envoke WWIII when we have already demonstrated to the world a willingness to go TO war on a voluntary. pre-emptive basis is downright frightening to the world.

Teddy Roosevelt said 'talk softly and carry a big stick', Bush says 'stick your head up your *ss, start shouting, and blindly swing the largest stick you have available'. Jerk.

This is the sort of behaviour you'd expect from an ape with a machine gun.

War-mongering talk from Bush and those that support his position seems like so much hype for other messages, like be afraid, be very afraid. Same old undercurrent of fear; "it's scary we can protect you, let us make you feel safe".

Iran is developing a civil nuclear program that would take a good few years to be able to develop into a nuclear weapons program with any serious chance of making a bomb. Far more likely that they'd buy one.

If they did get/make one, the ranting about bombing Israel is just that. Iran is not a nation that would willingly spend a million or two lives in retaliatory attacks to get rid of Israel. Any such attack would also make Palestine, Lebanon and Syria all but unliveable.

The Bush foreign policy was best summed up by Mel Brooks.....

"..............of course I want peace, I want a piece of Poland, a piece of France, a piece of Russia, a piece of England...."

............and while all this is going on, who is making money?

[The Laughing Man]

I've said it once, I'll say it again, in 1987 90% of terrorist activities were in Pakistan, and in 1987 they got nukes (dare I go into Isreal's terrorist history and nuclear program?). We were supposed to see WWIII then, and now we have Iran with our Congress declaring that the military of that country is a de facto terrorist organization, so the country itself is a de facto terrorist nation, and the threat of WWIII is upon us once again. I think with Pakistan's problem with the Taliban, AQ and other Islamic extremists is a pressing nuclear issue if there is any at all right now, yet somehow that "potential" problem isn't even being addressed at the moment by those who keep shouting "Iranageddon!" and claiming to have our nuclear safety as their main concern.

as a final point, it is up to the world community to confer and coalesce any declaration of intentions or actions to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, not the US, and George Bush, alone.

[exnihilo]

What's black, and dangerous, and lives in a tree?

Spoiler

an ape with a machine gun

[exnihilo]

Obviously the US is a far greater threat to world peace than Iran. Obviously Ahmadinejad was being facetious when he publicly stated a desire to arrange armageddon so the madhi can return. Obviously raising concerns about a nuclear armed Iran is nothing more than crude scare tactics, since Iran has obviously stated that they have no interest in nuclear weapons. Obviously they can be taken at their word. Obviously if they were to make a nuclear weapon by accident it would be only in self defense against possible Israeli aggression.

Obviously.

[finn]

..........it would be only in self defense..........

Well Ex, that is the position of the US and Israel and they have been doing a lot more aggressive, invading that Iran has.

Obviously the US is a far greater threat to world peace than Iran

Agreed check the stats!

[Avatar]

They'll have nuclear power long before they have nuclear weapons. Even the most conservative estimates put their ability to make nukes if they carry on as at present several years into the future.

I gotta agree with Esmer...it sounds too much like "the next big threat" coming from the US. Sorry guys, your credibility is shot to shit.

--A

[finn]

As if the Iranian warning were not enough, we also have the snub at China with Bush parading the Dalai Lama around.....he's really working overtime at pissing foreign governments off!

[Avatar]

Actually, I'm impressed that Bush is willing to go against China's wishes.

And if Bush is gonna be antagonistic toward governments, I'd prefer he pick one that doesn't have to have much fear of him/the US.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

hell, Russia is puffing their chest lately, let's go back to them. We've got the old infrastructure for a cold war on a shelf somewhere I'm sure.

[exnihilo]

Even the most conservative estimates put their ability to make nukes if they carry on as at present several years into the future.

Obviously the time to act is after Iran actually has nuclear weapons.

[Avatar]

Yes, because otherwise you won't know whether they actually want them or not.

What you're advocating right now is to ignore their claims, and act to prevent them from achieving nuclear (clean) energy, because of your (not personally) fear that they may want to go from nuclear power to nuclear weapons, and then use them.

A lot of assuming huh? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

--A

[exnihilo]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I didn't realize this was a court proceeding, not an exercise in international relations:

Iranian leaders have said their country will never give up plans to assemble an industrial-scale program, possibly including more than 50,000 centrifuges. That scale would be enough to produce the fissile core of dozens of weapons a year — if Iran goes that route. Tehran insists its enrichment program is geared purely toward producing power, but international mistrust triggered by nearly two decades of secret nuclear activities — including experiments that could be linked to a weapons program — have prompted the U.N. Security Council to impose two sets of sanctions over the country's refusal to scrap the program.

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-03-iran_N.htm

[Avatar]

It's a matter of principle for me.

And they have every right to refuse to halt their nuclear research. If you were developing cold fusion, would you halt on the UN's say-so? I doubt it like hell.

--A

[exnihilo]

And they have every right to refuse to halt their nuclear research. If you were developing cold fusion, would you halt on the UN's say-so?

Av, not only is this analogy not apt, it also begs the question.

Hmmm. I don't think the concept "rights" applies to states in the way it applies to individuals.

[Avatar]

Well, lets say if it was also a potential weapon.

As for whether rights as applied to individuals can be applied to states...well, I'm not sure. But I know what my reaction would be if somebody came up to me and said that they would stop me from doing something that would be to my benefit.

--A