Bush: "Iran will not have nuclear weapons"

[Stravo]

Bush: Iran 'won't have a nuclear weapon'
Like Kerry, president is preparing for Thursday's debate
Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Posted: 8:48 AM EDT (1248 GMT)


WACO, Texas (AP) -- President Bush, preparing for this week's much-anticipated campaign debate on foreign policy, is insisting Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon on his watch.

"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon." (Special report: America Votes 2004)

Bush's comments on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" did not mark new policy.

In June 2003, Bush said that "the international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon."

But Bush has not spoken out so forcefully on the matter since signs emerged recently that Iran could be on the path toward developing a bomb. (Iran rejects U.N. call on nukes)

Iran defied rules set by 35 nations and announced it had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. While insisting its intentions are peaceful, Iran pledged to continue even if it means a rupture with U.N. monitors and an end to inspections of its nuclear facilities. (Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful)

Thursday's presidential debate centers on foreign policy, and Iran is likely to come up.

Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, have modest differences on how to confront the issue. (Stakes high heading into debates)

Kerry charges that Bush's Iraq policies "took our attention and our resources away" from dealing with Iran.

Kerry holds out some hope that a negotiated solution with Iran is possible. He said the United States and other nations should "call their bluff" by offering nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, then taking back the spent fuel so it can't be used for weapons.

If that process fails, the United States could try to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face sanctions.

In 2001, Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. Yet, he too favors diplomacy, though his administration has been divided on how to deal with it. Some, mostly in the Pentagon, favor a tougher approach. Others, mostly in the State Department, believe some accommodation is possible with Iranian moderates.

Bush is putting the finishing touches on his debate preparation this week.

He is done sparring with mock-debate partner Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, said White House communications director Dan Bartlett.

Bush planned a low-profile day at his Crawford, Texas, ranch Tuesday, "crystallizing" his thoughts on policy and sharpening zingers, Bartlett said.

The ranch has an important mind-clearing effect, he said.

"I'm sure some of the best zingers he's given have been (written) out there with a fishing pole in his hands," Bartlett said.

So let me get this straight. Iran is all but going to build a bomb, have a working reactor and began to enrich uranium recently. Bush's answer: we need to put on the diplomatic pressure and get the nations of the world to join in.

Iraq MIGHT have some weapons, MIGHT have stockpiles, they're under UN scruntiny and inspection so we BOMB AND INVADE THEM. Hmmmm...what's the disconnect here?

This shit makes me fucking sick. A real threat is raising its head and we're off nation building in Iraq. And all the president can say about the fuck up in Iraq is "Whoops."

C'mon Bush, make me feel safer.

[dragon]

Maybe because Iran has more oil than Iraq we taking it easy on them.
Didn't Iran have a nuclear weapons plant a while back that got bombed. Maybe they should bomb them again.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Maybe because Iran has more oil than Iraq we taking it easy on them.
Didn't Iran have a nuclear weapons plant a while back that got bombed. Maybe they should bomb them again.

We'll let Israel handle that part. They did recently purchase a lot of bunker buster bombs. Thus we can keep it diplomatic! See it's the perfect plan

[Ace Pace]

Well, for Israel to bomb Iran, it would need to fly over Iraq, requiring air space approvel from the U.S, you can bet Iran will jump on that if Israel does anything.

[tharkûn]

Well, for Israel to bomb Iran, it would need to fly over Iraq, requiring air space approvel from the U.S, you can bet Iran will jump on that if Israel does anything.

Or Israel can go through Saudi Arabia or through Turkey. Even if they overflew Iraq they might be able to get a wink, wink "protest" about violating Iraqi airspace ... but nobody shooting them down.

Frankly I think no matter who wins the election, there is every chance that the B-2's will have a special delivery for the Iranians come November.

[Axis Kast]

Stravo, your denunciation of Bush policy is a strawman.

"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon." (Special report: America Votes 2004)

Bush has said that he hopes to marshal an international coalition to drive Iran away from its nuclear programs, but the forceful and definitive statement that they will not be permitted to weaponize suggests that Bush will take action if a diplomatic solution is impossible.

[Ace Pace]

Or Israel can go through Saudi Arabia or through Turkey. Even if they overflew Iraq they might be able to get a wink, wink "protest" about violating Iraqi airspace ... but nobody shooting them down.

Frankly I think no matter who wins the election, there is every chance that the B-2's will have a special delivery for the Iranians come November.

Or F-15I's or F-16's(not sure which one has the range).

Saudi Arabia, I think they fixed the flaw that allowed Israel to bomb Iraq's reactor.

[Stravo]

Stravo, your denunciation of Bush policy is a strawman.

Bush has said that he hopes to marshal an international coalition to drive Iran away from its nuclear programs, but the forceful and definitive statement that they will not be permitted to weaponize suggests that Bush will take action if a diplomatic solution is impossible.

Really Kast? The guy is saying they're working their hearts out on putting international pressure on Iran. I don't recall anywhere near that kind of language from Bush during the Iraq war. The rhetoric was more "You're with us or you're with the terrorists." And the altogether unforgetabble 48 hour dead line Bush gave Sadaam in that TV address. There's no where near the level of bombastic language going on here.

Bush was chomping at the bit to get in there, Colin Powell was muzzled and made his performance at the UN and Rummy was in full crazy wild man mode. Do we see even a HINT of this now?

No, we see a kindler gentler Bush in regards to his openess to a diplomatic solution. We have a very real and credible threat here that even has Europe worried yet we're reacting with 1/10 of the urgency we felt with Iraq.

[tharkûn]

Or F-15I's or F-16's(not sure which one has the range).

Saudi Arabia, I think they fixed the flaw that allowed Israel to bomb Iraq's reactor.

The F-15I, aka Thunder, has about 4,400 km of range without refueling, the F-16I, aka Storm, has a fraction of that.

Saudi Arabia might know that Israel is overflying the northern desert, and then they will also be able to deduce the target. As with the interim Iraqi government, I highly suspect that the House of Saud would rather issue harsh words than engage. None of Iran's neighbors would be particularly thrilled if Iran got the bomb, I imagine just about everyone would be privately thrilled if the Israelis derailed the Iranian nuclear threat before it emerged.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If Iran does make a bomb from distributed centrifugal enrichment plants, then I'd love to know what Bush is going to do then. Invade? Hah, that'll be the day. It's okay to pick on a random resource rich nation when they can't fight back. I doubt Iran has any intentions of backing down and they have bigger fish to fry, say, Israel and their newly acquired bunker-busters.

[Aaron]

Saudi Arabia might know that Israel is overflying the northern desert, and then they will also be able to deduce the target. As with the interim Iraqi government, I highly suspect that the House of Saud would rather issue harsh words than engage. None of Iran's neighbors would be particularly thrilled if Iran got the bomb, I imagine just about everyone would be privately thrilled if the Israelis derailed the Iranian nuclear threat before it emerged.

Do the Saudi's have the capabilty to prevent Israeli overflights? Either by using SAM's or interceptors? I seem to recall that they have F-15's as well.

[Axis Kast]

Really Kast?

Really, Stravo.

The guy is saying they're working their hearts out on putting international pressure on Iran. I don't recall anywhere near that kind of language from Bush during the Iraq war. The rhetoric was more "You're with us or you're with the terrorists." And the altogether unforgetabble 48 hour dead line Bush gave Sadaam in that TV address. There's no where near the level of bombastic language going on here.

So what’s your point? You’d like to remind everyone that Bush has got egg on his face because he was so eager to go after Iraq, but must now take a less aggressive approach with Iran because he has fewer resources to work with this time around? That much is obvious. We certainly don’t need your powers of deduction to lead us to that conclusion, thank you very much.

Bush was chomping at the bit to get in there, Colin Powell was muzzled and made his performance at the UN and Rummy was in full crazy wild man mode. Do we see even a HINT of this now?

No, we see a kindler gentler Bush in regards to his openess to a diplomatic solution. We have a very real and credible threat here that even has Europe worried yet we're reacting with 1/10 of the urgency we felt with Iraq.

Europe and Russia don’t give two shits about what’s going on in Iran. They knew that whatever happens, it’s an American mess to tend. Moscow has begun to tow the line diplomatically because they don’t want to face a harangue from the Washington side of the fence, but they’ve known of Iran’s intentions for quite some time. Europe is still dicking about the possibility of “political alternatives.” So Bush gave them some lip service, but he’s also made clear – as his clear statement that Iran will not be permitted to weaponized proves – that the United States will take action if a diplomatic solution isn’t forthcoming.

You only want Bush to raise a stink because you know he won’t. And that lets you refight old battles about Iraq.

[Joe]

Stravo, so can we count on your unwavering support for the action when we (or the Israelis) finally do get around to introducing Iran's nuclear facilities to one of our (their) bombs?

[Stravo]

So what’s your point? You’d like to remind everyone that Bush has got egg on his face because he was so eager to go after Iraq, but must now take a less aggressive approach with Iran because he has fewer resources to work with this time around? That much is obvious. We certainly don’t need your powers of deduction to lead us to that conclusion, thank you very much.

Would he admit that? Would he say that he screwed up and now when we have a true and real threat we have to play good cop? No, this man will never admit an error like that and so he can be bashed over the head for his repeated attempts at telling us Iraq is going well and we're safer than we've ever been. Guess not when you have to tip toe around the atomic bomb hankering mullahs in Iran.

Europe and Russia don’t give two shits about what’s going on in Iran. They knew that whatever happens, it’s an American mess to tend. Moscow has begun to tow the line diplomatically because they don’t want to face a harangue from the Washington side of the fence, but they’ve known of Iran’s intentions for quite some time.

And it also would not have anything at all to do with hundreds of dead school children? America does not have the diplomatic clout to make anyone toe the line on another Bush led war.

Europe is still dicking about the possibility of “political alternatives.” So Bush gave them some lip service, but he’s also made clear – as his clear statement that Iran will not be permitted to weaponized proves – that the United States will take action if a diplomatic solution isn’t forthcoming.

Hardly the language we saw against Iraq - a far FAR vaguer threat at the time even with all the so called intellgence reports. This man has screwed the US in its International position with his unilateralism and you think we should just shrug our shoulders and say "It's our mess to clean up."

Did it ever occur to you that it would have been a simpler job without that cluster fuck in Iraq to convince Europe and Russa, and in the end the UN to get tougher on Iran because here is a credible threat that CAN provide WMD's to terrorists?

You only want Bush to raise a stink because you know he won’t. And that lets you refight old battles about Iraq.

Last time I checked Iraq is still going on, people are dying, elections are hinted to only be brought to a smaller portion of a 'liberated' Iraq, entire cities are considered to be in the hands of militas or unsafe for our forces to enter, billions have been wasted and unaccounted for and Tigers are stressed. You can't extricate Bush from the mess he's made of a secular power that may now become another Iran if the vote goes a certain way. These aren't old battles, this is an ongoing one that many would like to go away or be put in the corner because its too 'messy' to deal with.

[Axis Kast]

quote]Would he admit that? Would he say that he screwed up and now when we have a true and real threat we have to play good cop? No, this man will never admit an error like that and so he can be bashed over the head for his repeated attempts at telling us Iraq is going well and we're safer than we've ever been. Guess not when you have to tip toe around the atomic bomb hankering mullahs in Iran.[/quote]

Who’s tiptoeing? Not the United States. Bush’s pronouncement is the strongest promise yet that Iran will face consequences for the continuation of its nuclear program – a stronger promise, mind you, than has yet come out of the European nations you claim Bush could rally to our side right now, if only he hadn’t burned so many bridges getting to Iraq.

But of course, that’s a falsehood. We knew from the beginning that Europe wasn’t interested in Iraq. From a beginning that included, mind you, acknowledgement from multiple European intelligence sources that Saddam “probably” possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Europe wasn’t interested in the containment of Iraq, and they are hardly any more interested in the containment of Iran. As far as they’re concerned, both are problems for the United States and Israel alone.

Our going into Iraq has changed nothing. There was never a possibility that we were going to invade Iran anyway. When push comes to shove, we’ll probably take our chances with some kind of air attack. And we’ll have to do it alone, too. Not because Europe is upset with Bush – but because they just don’t want to devote the resources to doing something they don’t think has anything to do with their security interests in the first place.

And it also would not have anything at all to do with hundreds of dead school children? America does not have the diplomatic clout to make anyone toe the line on another Bush led war.

Russia was making nice diplomatically before the hostage crisis, moron. Putin began getting uncomfortable about the possibility of American criticism when we were lining up the U.N. for a sanctions vote. But then the question of renewed inspections rose again. You know, that convenient little stalling method the U.N. always turns to when it doesn’t give a shit about the problem in question.

Hardly the language we saw against Iraq - a far FAR vaguer threat at the time even with all the so called intellgence reports. This man has screwed the US in its International position with his unilateralism and you think we should just shrug our shoulders and say "It's our mess to clean up."

Did it ever occur to you that it would have been a simpler job without that cluster fuck in Iraq to convince Europe and Russa, and in the end the UN to get tougher on Iran because here is a credible threat that CAN provide WMD's to terrorists?

No. Unlike you, I don’t think a coalition was ever very likely. That was clear the moment Europe tried to hang its hat on inspectors and claim the whole Iraq issue had been taken care of. They were never interested in containment. Their rampant violations of the sanctions regime and their concurring intelligence assessments on the eve of Hans Blix’ departure for Baghdad prove it. The Europeans never once gave serious thought to an invasion or a shooting war. If anything, Blix was only going to get a wider mandate to stay in Iraq longer. A few hundred more inspectors, a few dozen more news conferences. In the European mind, the problem would have been solved.

In the end, the U.N. is never going to get tougher. You seem to think that if only we get rid of Bush, Kerry will be able to shame Europe into action. Well, that’s not going to happen. In fact, one reason so many in the international community find Kerry so appealing is that they think he’s not even half the proverbial “go-getter” that Bush has shown himself to be. A lackluster, heel-digging President like Kerry appeals to them greatly. Someone who won’t press them to put themselves in situations they find no merit in.

Last time I checked Iraq is still going on, people are dying, elections are hinted to only be brought to a smaller portion of a 'liberated' Iraq, entire cities are considered to be in the hands of militas or unsafe for our forces to enter, billions have been wasted and unaccounted for and Tigers are stressed. You can't extricate Bush from the mess he's made of a secular power that may now become another Iran if the vote goes a certain way. These aren't old battles, this is an ongoing one that many would like to go away or be put in the corner because its too 'messy' to deal with.

Don’t even try it. You weren’t levying criticism of Bush’s post-invasion strategies in Iraq; you were levying criticism of the reasoning for war. Of course, those of us who think the war was a good idea and can see past the idealized, pie-in-the-sky fantasy of Europeans joining us despite the changed strategic landscape, Bush’s mistakes are an understandable result of the demands of his office. Every assessment – even those coming out of anti-war Europe – originally agreed: Iraq was a threat. Sanctions were failing. Interest in keeping Saddam contained was waning. And we knew as a matter of fact that all he needed was ten years to rebuild. Ten years of ignorance and apathy. And don’t tell me that the answer was Blix – the answer was never sending in a relative handful of inspectors to scout the country in nothing approaching a meaningful way for months and years on end, until we just gave up and let the whole thing go to shit.

[Elfdart]

Iraq was defenseless. Iran is not. As much as Numbnuts, the oil jackals and Israeli spies at the Pentagon might want a war with Iran, they don't have the means to actually carry out one, and aside from bombing the facilities, there's not whole hell of a lot they can do about Iran getting the Bomb -assuming they don't already have one.

Face it the reason Dubya knocked over Iraq and won't do much (if anything) about Iran and North Korea is the same reason common criminals prefer to rob liquor stores rather than the U.S. Mint: There's not as much to steal, but you're less likely to get shot.

[Axis Kast]

My, my, my Elfdart. Not a fan of the truth, I see.

First of all, North Korea has been inviolate since the Clinton presidency, if not before. If Kerry were elected, he'd have no more room to maneuver than Bush does now. Trying to blame Bush for the North Korean situation is just stupid.

[theski]

"North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms" -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002.
President Bill Clinton will be remembered by history for only one thing, which is a bit of a shame since his record is so thoroughly shabby and dishonorable that it deserves closer study.

Clinton's contribution to our vulnerability to terror has been well documented, and now comes news that another of his foreign policies has come to fruition. The North Koreans have admitted what close observers have suspected all along -- that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have already produced a number of bombs. (Oh, and by the way, worshippers of arms control treaties kindly note: North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

The only mystery is why Pyongyang has now chosen to admit it.

In the early 1990s, North Korea, even more than other communist states, was drowning in the consequences of its system. People were starving. A congressional study estimated that as many as 1 million died of starvation by 1998. But the regime was no less belligerent for that. Pyongyang continued to build up its military and was aggressively pursuing nuclear capability. Though its facilities were supposed to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea persistently delayed inspections. Meanwhile, its aggressive posture and rhetoric toward South Korea continued, as did its development of long-range missiles.

President Clinton, observing this situation, saw what needed to be done: Pyongyang would have to be appeased. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, the administration thought it "necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea." In exchange for a temporary freeze on its nuclear program and a mere promise to refrain from developing such weapons in the future, the Clinton administration extended nearly $1 billion in foreign aid for food and fuel oil, as well as promising to build two light water reactors for the North Koreans.

Certainly the administration must have attached conditions? Surely it insisted that the regime provide proof that the aid was not being used for military purposes, and it must have insisted on some form of political and economic liberalization? The Clinton administration must have tied this aid package to guarantees that the North Koreans would cease exporting ballistic missiles to nations like Iran and Pakistan? Actually, no. As Perry explained, "The policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform ..."

The North Koreans, rewarded for their belligerence, naturally continued down the same path. (And the lesson was probably not lost on other dangerous regimes that seeking nuclear weapons can bring goodies from Washington.) In 1998, they tested a new, three-stage ballistic missile. Did the Clinton administration at last learn the lesson that appeasement does not work? Not quite. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and William Perry held a press conference to announce that the United States was continuing to pursue good relations with North Korea: "We must deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we wish it would be."

Accordingly, the Clinton administration proposed to lift economic sanctions on North Korea if it promised -- but this time really, sincerely promised -- to stop development of long-range missiles. The North Korean government didn't even deign to respond for a full week -- but the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions anyway.

The Clinton administration officials believed their policies toward North Korea were a success. By "engaging" Pyongyang, they believed, they had avoided war. Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Instead, the appeasement merely emboldened the North Koreans. A Republican study group concluded in 1999 that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability" than it had been five years before, "primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East." Is it conceivable that the Clinton foreign policy team really believed North Korea could be bribed into decency?

Edmund Burke warned, "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." That includes assuming that they will lie, cheat and betray. The liberal attachment to treaties is thus laid bare for the chimera it is. When strength and resolve were required, Bill Clinton supplied weakness and legerdemain. And in this, as in the war on terror, he has bequeathed a more dangerous world to his successor.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mona ... 1018.shtml

[Rogue 9]

Iraq was defenseless. Iran is not. As much as Numbnuts, the oil jackals and Israeli spies at the Pentagon might want a war with Iran, they don't have the means to actually carry out one, and aside from bombing the facilities, there's not whole hell of a lot they can do about Iran getting the Bomb -assuming they don't already have one.

Face it the reason Dubya knocked over Iraq and won't do much (if anything) about Iran and North Korea is the same reason common criminals prefer to rob liquor stores rather than the U.S. Mint: There's not as much to steal, but you're less likely to get shot.

Bombing the plants off the map would be plenty to do for the moment. They're not making bombs without those reactors.

[Stravo]

Who’s tiptoeing? Not the United States. Bush’s pronouncement is the strongest promise yet that Iran will face consequences for the continuation of its nuclear program – a stronger promise, mind you, than has yet come out of the European nations you claim Bush could rally to our side right now, if only he hadn’t burned so many bridges getting to Iraq..

And do we have any of the language, congressional addresses, the Old West style ultimatums coming from Bush? Iraq was all the news month during the buildup with the Bush cronies harping on it mercilessly, morphing Ossama into Sadaam. Constant appearances on Meet the Press, Fox News shows, etc beating those mighty war drums. And what are we getting now?

We're going to try as hard as we can to get that dipolmatic solution, building international pressure against Iran. Only when he was pressed and asked again what he would do then, did he say they would not be allowed to have the weapons. There is a world of difference in building a coalition of the coerced and bribed and kicking off a war through sheer force of will than this very real threat that we now face.

Paint it anyway you want, we are not in a position to do as we want to since the clusterfuck in Iraq. The administration's claims get very little credibility whereas before people were willing to listen.

But of course, that’s a falsehood. We knew from the beginning that Europe wasn’t interested in Iraq. From a beginning that included, mind you, acknowledgement from multiple European intelligence sources that Saddam “probably” possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Europe wasn’t interested in the containment of Iraq, and they are hardly any more interested in the containment of Iran. As far as they’re concerned, both are problems for the United States and Israel alone.

Containement was working Jackass. Even Powell said this clearly only a year before the war drums began beating in an interview when he stated that Sadaam was isolated and could harm no one as it should be. Did you perhaps miss the behind the scenes gagging of Powell's protests against the war and his presentation in the UN being based on incorrect intel that was pointed out to him the next day (convenient no?)

Our going into Iraq has changed nothing. There was never a possibility that we were going to invade Iran anyway. When push comes to shove, we’ll probably take our chances with some kind of air attack. And we’ll have to do it alone, too. Not because Europe is upset with Bush – but because they just don’t want to devote the resources to doing something they don’t think has anything to do with their security interests in the first place.

Our going into Iraq has changed nothing? You seriously mean to tell me that the growing anti-American sentiment, escalating terrorists attacks and chilly relations with some of our oldest allies has nothing to do with Iraq.

Russia was making nice diplomatically before the hostage crisis, moron. Putin began getting uncomfortable about the possibility of American criticism when we were lining up the U.N. for a sanctions vote. But then the question of renewed inspections rose again. You know, that convenient little stalling method the U.N. always turns to when it doesn’t give a shit about the problem in question.

Oh yes, the inspection program that kept Iraq free of WMD's right? That didn't allow him to recreate his program? Or are you going to tell me the reason there are no WMD's is because Sadaam didn't feel like starting up his programs??
And because the UN wasn't pushing Bush's agenda means that they didn't care? They spent ten years in there inspecting and helping to carry out the sanctions and you think they didn't care?

No. Unlike you, I don’t think a coalition was ever very likely. That was clear the moment Europe tried to hang its hat on inspectors and claim the whole Iraq issue had been taken care of. They were never interested in containment. Their rampant violations of the sanctions regime and their concurring intelligence assessments on the eve of Hans Blix’ departure for Baghdad prove it. The Europeans never once gave serious thought to an invasion or a shooting war. If anything, Blix was only going to get a wider mandate to stay in Iraq longer. A few hundred more inspectors, a few dozen more news conferences. In the European mind, the problem would have been solved.

Sorry, once again containment WAS working. We have absolute proof of it in the fact that the man's militray was a ghost of its former self, he had NO WMD'S...a fact that the Bush administration FINALLY admits but add the annoying goal post shifting of having the potential to make WMD's....well so does the majority of the western world. There was NO THREAT. The man was ruling over a nation that had been isolated and marginalized just as Colin Powell and Condolesca Rice were stating before the war drums started beating.

As to the possibility of a colation, it was kind of hard to get people to want to invade when you couldn't prove that a policy set in place for ten years was failing. In fact Europe and the UN were indeed correct. Sadaam had no WMD's and was no threat.

In the end, the U.N. is never going to get tougher. You seem to think that if only we get rid of Bush, Kerry will be able to shame Europe into action. Well, that’s not going to happen. In fact, one reason so many in the international community find Kerry so appealing is that they think he’s not even half the proverbial “go-getter” that Bush has shown himself to be. A lackluster, heel-digging President like Kerry appeals to them greatly. Someone who won’t press them to put themselves in situations they find no merit in.

By tougher if you mean willing to go to war at will then yes I guess you're right, if by tougher you mean not taking everythign at face value from the US then yeah, I guess you're right, if by tougher you mean willing to subject a country to 20,000 civilian deaths in an ongoing occupation then I guess you're right.

And yes you're right, Kerry will just fucking wilt and be a pansy in office, you need to use that crystal ball of yours to play the stock market.

Don’t even try it. You weren’t levying criticism of Bush’s post-invasion strategies in Iraq; you were levying criticism of the reasoning for war. Of course, those of us who think the war was a good idea and can see past the idealized, pie-in-the-sky fantasy of Europeans joining us despite the changed strategic landscape, Bush’s mistakes are an understandable result of the demands of his office. Every assessment – even those coming out of anti-war Europe – originally agreed: Iraq was a threat. Sanctions were failing. Interest in keeping Saddam contained was waning. And we knew as a matter of fact that all he needed was ten years to rebuild. Ten years of ignorance and apathy. And don’t tell me that the answer was Blix – the answer was never sending in a relative handful of inspectors to scout the country in nothing approaching a meaningful way for months and years on end, until we just gave up and let the whole thing go to shit.

That crystal ball is really working overtime in this last paragraph. You have strung together conjecture, fantasy and delusion into a neat little package of what if. There's bloody pictures on the TV of reality and thousands of dead civlians and 1,000 of our soldiers killed because of what essentially comes down to "Whoops" on the president's part and is now affecting our ability to confont a very real threat and not one concocted of yellow cake and swarthy boogiemen.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Iraq was defenseless. Iran is not. As much as Numbnuts, the oil jackals and Israeli spies at the Pentagon might want a war with Iran, they don't have the means to actually carry out one, and aside from bombing the facilities, there's not whole hell of a lot they can do about Iran getting the Bomb -assuming they don't already have one.

Face it the reason Dubya knocked over Iraq and won't do much (if anything) about Iran and North Korea is the same reason common criminals prefer to rob liquor stores rather than the U.S. Mint: There's not as much to steal, but you're less likely to get shot.

Sure, we couldn't carry out total war against Iran but the USAF could still bomb their facilities back into the stone age.

[Axis Kast]

]
And do we have any of the language, congressional addresses, the Old West style ultimatums coming from Bush? Iraq was all the news month during the buildup with the Bush cronies harping on it mercilessly, morphing Ossama into Sadaam. Constant appearances on Meet the Press, Fox News shows, etc beating those mighty war drums. And what are we getting now?

We're going to try as hard as we can to get that dipolmatic solution, building international pressure against Iran. Only when he was pressed and asked again what he would do then, did he say they would not be allowed to have the weapons. There is a world of difference in building a coalition of the coerced and bribed and kicking off a war through sheer force of will than this very real threat that we now face.

Paint it anyway you want, we are not in a position to do as we want to since the clusterfuck in Iraq. The administration's claims get very little credibility whereas before people were willing to listen.[/quote]

No, nobody was willing to listen. They were willing to humor us. And that’s all. You keep assuming that there was some way for Bush to build this “Coalition of the Willing” when all the facts say otherwise. The sad fact of the matter is, he was never going to get France. Or Germany. Or Russia. Even when they all agreed that Saddam was probably armed with prohibited weaponry and contributed to the American perception that this was the case. It just didn’t fit Europeans’ perceptions of what was necessary to ensure their own security. And neither will any argument we make about the advent of Iranian nuclear weapons, either. Europe will continue to press for Iran to let the IAEA into the country, and that’s it. Period. There’s no going further, because in Europe’s mind, it’s not worth the cost. Hence Iraq has no bearing on the issue of building this new coalition for Iran.

Containement was working Jackass. Even Powell said this clearly only a year before the war drums began beating in an interview when he stated that Sadaam was isolated and could harm no one as it should be. Did you perhaps miss the behind the scenes gagging of Powell's protests against the war and his presentation in the UN being based on incorrect intel that was pointed out to him the next day (convenient no?)

No, containment wasn’t working. In fact, it was falling apart. With each passing month, the rest of the international community showed less and less concern for what was going on in Baghdad, less and less interest in maintaining strict sanctions regimes, and less and less interest in considering Saddam a danger. That was Bush’s great fear – that within ten years’ time, the rest of the world would forget about Iraq entirely, and that Saddam, by taking advantage of this disinterest, would rearm himself and again stir up trouble.

Our going into Iraq has changed nothing? You seriously mean to tell me that the growing anti-American sentiment, escalating terrorists attacks and chilly relations with some of our oldest allies has nothing to do with Iraq.

You’re attempting to diverge. My argument was that the invasion of Iraq did not render us incapable of bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which is what you were getting at previously.

As for the terrorist attacks, the only way to end them altogether is to incur a period of intense anti-Americanism while forcing new government on the Middle East. Negotiation with fundamentalist regimes and bankrupt dictatorships is impossible. And drop the “chilly relations” bullshit. The international community will help us when it suits them, and rail at us when we do something they don’t like. If we remained beholden to their opinions, we’d be in a seriously bad place.

Oh yes, the inspection program that kept Iraq free of WMD's right? That didn't allow him to recreate his program? Or are you going to tell me the reason there are no WMD's is because Sadaam didn't feel like starting up his programs??
And because the UN wasn't pushing Bush's agenda means that they didn't care? They spent ten years in there inspecting and helping to carry out the sanctions and you think they didn't care?

Inspections that were revitalized only after Bush announced his plans to go to war. Inspections that most every European intelligence agency assumed were failures. Inspections that were full of holes.

The U.N. did what was expected of it vis-à-vis Iraq – and no more. The U.S., U.K., and Israel were always the ones who had a direct interest.

Sorry, once again containment WAS working. We have absolute proof of it in the fact that the man's militray was a ghost of its former self, he had NO WMD'S...a fact that the Bush administration FINALLY admits but add the annoying goal post shifting of having the potential to make WMD's....well so does the majority of the western world. There was NO THREAT. The man was ruling over a nation that had been isolated and marginalized just as Colin Powell and Condolesca Rice were stating before the war drums started beating.

As to the possibility of a colation, it was kind of hard to get people to want to invade when you couldn't prove that a policy set in place for ten years was failing. In fact Europe and the UN were indeed correct. Sadaam had no WMD's and was no threat.

Your argument might be valid, if only Europe hadn’t declared BEFORE they couldn’t find anything in Iraq that they wouldn’t go to war EVEN IF THEY DID.

And we obviously disagree on sanctions. You keep telling everyone they were a great method of containment and ignoring the fact that they were getting weaker all the time.

By tougher if you mean willing to go to war at will then yes I guess you're right, if by tougher you mean not taking everythign at face value from the US then yeah, I guess you're right, if by tougher you mean willing to subject a country to 20,000 civilian deaths in an ongoing occupation then I guess you're right.

And yes you're right, Kerry will just fucking wilt and be a pansy in office, you need to use that crystal ball of yours to play the stock market.

Red herring. I didn’t say Kerry was a “pansy.” I said that Kerry wouldn’t be able to appease the Europeans like you so desperately think is necessary of an American President.

That crystal ball is really working overtime in this last paragraph. You have strung together conjecture, fantasy and delusion into a neat little package of what if. There's bloody pictures on the TV of reality and thousands of dead civlians and 1,000 of our soldiers killed because of what essentially comes down to "Whoops" on the president's part and is now affecting our ability to confont a very real threat and not one concocted of yellow cake and swarthy boogiemen.

Except Charles Duelfer’s search ended with a declaration that there were still unanswered questions. Except that the Niger Yellowcake accusations were upheld by a British Court of Inquiry, and the CIA agent who “outed” them as fake was recently proved a liar here in the United States. Except that I see Iraq as a text-book case of early preemption and believe that an occupation was necessary to secure the future of functional government in the Middle East.

[Master of Ossus]

Iran vows to defend its nuclear facilities.

[TrailerParkJawa]

It seems clear to me that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with WMD's or terrorism. They used 9/11 as an excuse to rally support for a war Americans otherwise would not not have supported. I think for Bush and his advisors this was partially a personal vendetta to get back at Sadam and they actually did believe they could remake the face of the Middle East.

What irks me, is nobody seems to ask the releveant question. "Mr. Bush, if Iran produces a bomb tomorrow and says it is theirs to keep, what would the US do?"

[Axis Kast]

It seems clear to me that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with WMD's or terrorism. They used 9/11 as an excuse to rally support for a war Americans otherwise would not not have supported. I think for Bush and his advisors this was partially a personal vendetta to get back at Sadam and they actually did believe they could remake the face of the Middle East.

Prove that the war was a result of a personal vandetta.

I readily concur that Bush views the occupation of Iraq as a critical step in reducing terrorism and changing the face of the Middle East.

What irks me, is nobody seems to ask the releveant question. "Mr. Bush, if Iran produces a bomb tomorrow and says it is theirs to keep, what would the US do?"

Why "Mr. Bush"? Why not "Mr. Kerry"? If Iran builds a nuclear weapon, nobody will be able to do anything.