Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
New war in 2005?; Iran conflict rhetoric has begun
Topic Started: Jan 21 2005, 11:48 AM (399 Views)
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4027583


Press Association
Fri 21 Jan 2005
printer friendly printer friendly
1:37am (UK)
War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush

"PA"

US President George Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami says his country is ready to defend itself against a possible US attack.

The United States is pushing for a peaceful solution to its nuclear impasse with Iran but, with mistrust on both sides running high, encouraging signs are hard to find.

“You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list,” Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday, hours before being sworn in to a second term.

Perhaps the most pessimistic comment of all this week came from Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware.

“There may be nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop weapons of mass destruction,” Biden said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice.

Both Rice and Cheney made clear that that the nuclear diplomacy that the United States has been pursuing in the UN nuclear watchdog agency will continue.

They said the administration could raise the stakes with Iran by referring the nuclear question to the UN Security Council if Iran does not abide by its non-proliferation commitments.

The administration has been hopeful that a non-proliferation initiative being carried out by Germany, France and Britain with Iran will produce results.

But the administration is sceptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.

Rice made clear that US differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.

“It’s really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished,” she told senators.

Khatami, travelling in Africa yesterday, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible US attack.

“We have prepared ourselves,” he said. He added that he did not anticipate any “lunatic” military move by the US because Washington has too many problems in Iraq.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

Most of the reading I've done speculates that the focus on the US's "intentions" is a smokescreen. Iran may be attacked, but it will be surgical (not an all out invasion) and it won't come from the US is the general thought.

Interesting to note is that Iran is under siege internally. The young people in the country are not happy with the hardliners in charge and have turned to the Internet to communicate. Bloggers are even being arrested and imprisoned.

The rhetoric from the leadership in Iran may simply be an attempt to turn their citizens' attention outward to distract them from internal issues.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
US President George Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran.


Good!

(I'm not saying this as, "Golly gee, I hope we go to war with Iran... wouldn't that be cool!" I'm saying this because he is smart not to turn a blind eye to the goings on in that country. Their nuclear program (why do they need one in a country rich in oil and gas) could easily pass the simple "energy production" idea, and would you trust a hardline theocracy that calls your country "THE GREAT SATAN"?? I wouldn't.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I felt that the some of inauguration speech was a direct dialog to the Iranian reformists.

Quote:
 
Interesting to note is that Iran is under siege internally. The young people in the country are not happy with the hardliners in charge and have turned to the Internet to communicate. Bloggers are even being arrested and imprisoned.


Quote:
 
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I saw that, too. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Iran's assets are secretly unfrozen for use by those who resist Iran's theocratic dictatorship.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 21 2005, 12:43 PM
I saw that, too. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Iran's assets are secretly unfrozen for use by those who resist Iran's theocratic dictatorship.


The president hinted that now was the time for them to stand and take their liberty and that when they do, we would stand with them. Just hope it doesn’t turn into another "bay of pigs" or "first gulf war'
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
As do I. I think they would probably remember that same promise GHWB made to Iraqi insurgents in 91.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 21 2005, 12:51 PM
As do I.  I think they would probably remember that same promise GHWB made to Iraqi insurgents in 91.

The difference is, (whether you agree with the decisions or not) the president has made good on all of his military promises. They will remember that to.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I'm sure that's a great comfort to those who rose up against Hussein and were abandoned.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Who said it was suppose to be?


And these people want it, often times people in that situation will accept hope over pessimism, even if it isn't the wisest or logical choice. Which is why it is easy to take advantage of them like during the “bay of pigs” and first “golf war”.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 21 2005, 11:56 AM
I'm sure that's a great comfort to those who rose up against Hussein and were abandoned.

Different time, different administration.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 21 2005, 05:56 PM
I'm sure that's a great comfort to those who rose up against Hussein and were abandoned.

Personal Response

I think anytime you end slavery it would be a comfort to those who died in slavery to know their children and/or their children's children won't.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Perhaps if they were still alive. My point is, daddy Bush made the same promise to the Iraqi opposition as GWB is the Iranians. I just hope he means it more than his dad did.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 21 2005, 06:19 PM
Perhaps if they were still alive. My point is, daddy Bush made the same promise to the Iraqi opposition as GWB is the Iranians. I just hope he means it more than his dad did.

Personal Response

:no: :rolleyes: :no:

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Dandandat
Jan 21 2005, 11:50 AM
Just hope it doesn’t turn into another "bay of pigs" or "first gulf war'

or Vietnam

When we signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam, ending the war, there was a provision that said if the North invaded the South, the United States would intervene. The problem was, Nixon was forced to resign, Ford wanted to go in, but the Democratic controled congress would go along with it. The result: Millions of South Vietnamese sent to 're-eductation' camps. also, 3 million, (I think, someone check that out) Cambodians killed - correct that - massacured. We just sat around and did nothing. Ameirca looks bad because a bunch of liberal weiners in Congress would honor the Paris Peace Accords.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus