Iran 'Will Be Dealt With,' Bush Says

Search

Another Day, Another Dollar
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
42,730
Tokens
President Bush told newspaper editors in Washington yesterday that Iran "will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations" if it does not stop developing nuclear weapons and begin total cooperation with international inspectors.

Bush said he will encourage allies to insist to the Iranians that they live up to commitments to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and end any enriching and reprocessing of uranium.

"The Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned -- it's essential that they hear that message," he said. "The development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable, and a program is intolerable. . . . Otherwise, they will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations."

Earlier this month, Iran pledged to speed up cooperation with the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, but called for an end of inspections by June.

The language was reminiscent of comments Bush made about Iraq long before the war, and to admonitions he has issued to Syria. Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, was part of the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address in 2002.

Bush said last July that Iran and Syria "will be held accountable" if they failed to cooperate more fully with the administration's campaign against terrorism.

Administration officials said they have no plans to attack Iran, and that Bush's policy on Tehran had not changed. But the remarks offered a window into Bush's long-range view of relations with Tehran. He usually speaks from a text but aides said he wanted to speak yesterday without a script, using just a list of topics he wanted to cover.

The administration said in October it was not pursuing a policy of government change in Tehran. But the White House has alternated between a confrontational and conciliatory stance, and Bush's comment could inflame relations with Iran.

Bush, speaking at an Associated Press luncheon during a Newspaper Association of America convention, said he believes that the war with Iraq will eventually result in a safer Middle East. He said he has no intention of backing away, despite rising casualties among U.S. troops. He said the people of Iraq are "looking at America and saying, 'Are we going to cut and run again?'

"That's what they're thinking, as well -- and we're not going to cut and run if I'm in the Oval Office. We will do our job. I believe that people yearn to be free," he said. "I believe freedom in the heart of the Middle East is an historic opportunity to change the world."

Bush warned the editors that the United States "is a battlefield in the war on terror" and said he can understand public fears of a terrorist attack before the November election. "This is a hard country to defend," he said. "Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem. We are disrupting some cells here in America. We're chasing people down. But it is a -- we've got a big country."

On Tuesday evening, Bush told Republican congressional leaders during a meeting at the White House that it was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the election, according to a congressional aide. The leaders were struck by Bush's definitiveness and gravity, the aide said.

Still, Bush told the editors, the administration is "making good progress in the defense of America."

"If al Qaeda were a board of directors, the chairman and vice chairman might still be out there, but the middle management is gone," he said.

Bush was asked about an AP poll released yesterday showing that two-thirds of the 1,001 adults surveyed thought it was likely that a terrorist attack would be carried out in the country before the election. In answering, he referred to last month's train bombings just days before Spain's national election. The blasts killed 191 people and injured more than 2,000, and were blamed for the ruling party's loss of power.

"I can understand why they think they're going to get hit again," he said. "They saw what happened in Madrid. This is a hard country to defend."

The president's sober assessment stood in contrast to his usual practice of stressing progress in the war on terrorism, and reflected the rising chaos that viewers see on their television screens from Iraq and elsewhere.

Bush reminded the editors in his opening remarks that the nation is fighting "a war that is different because it's hard to really see the enemy."

"The thing that's interesting and different about this -- well, it's not interesting, it's frightening -- about this war, is America is a battlefield in the war on terror," he said. "That's what's changed. We're now a target."

Bush was asked during the 44-minute appearance about yesterday's suicide bombing at Saudi Arabia's national police headquarters, and called the attack "a reminder that there are people that would like -- I don't want to guess their intentions. I think they'd like to overthrow the ruling government."

"There's no negotiations with these terrorists," he said. "You know, you don't sign a treaty with people who are -- who don't believe in rules, people who don't have a conscience."

Before turning to serious topics during the question period, Bush began by telling the editors that the nation was enjoying growing prosperity, and jokingly opened by addressing them as "members of the Politburo." He cut off a question about Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), saying, "I'm not going to talk about my opponent here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32542-2004Apr21_2.html
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
If I was Iranian or Syrian, I would start building bunkers and tunnels, as well as weapons caches asap.

Bush is like Saddam, invading sovereign countries makes him feel historical.
Bush is no longer an invasion virgin, he's tasted glory and hes ready for more.
The UN is just a rubber stamper organisation for US policy now.
The UN stage is phase one boys, get those bulk orders for RPGs in now, you're next guys.

N.Korea is OK tho, even Bush isn't dumb enough to fuk with China, and there's no oil there anyway.

Roll on the "Greater middle east"(Ottoman empire mark II) program.

Its all for democracy and freedom...vorwarts to victory! Panzers roll!


You're going to need conscription to keep a permanent garrison running the entire middle east region.
I hope you guys don't mind sand and flies in your apple pie.(and 18 to 24 month tours, a product of increased corporate efficiency from those 12 month 'nam days)
Us eurodudes wouldn't touch this crap with a ten foot pole.

Personally, I'd prefer another buck or two a gallon and leave those middle east muppets to kill each other.

Never mind, you'll be making history, and you'll make GWB famous.

[This message was edited by eek on April 22, 2004 at 01:29 PM.]
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/02/18/japan.iran.oil.ap/

Japan, Iran 'sign key oil deal'

Thursday, February 19, 2004 Posted: 0100 GMT ( 9:00 AM HKT)

Investment in Iran's oil industry is opposed by the United States.

TOKYO (AP) -- Japan and Iran have signed a basic agreement for a Japanese consortium to develop a major oil field in southwestern Iran, Japanese media reports say. The reports Thursday said the deal grants the consortium full development rights to the Azadegan oil field, which has estimated reserves of about 26 billion barrels and is believed to be one of the largest in the Middle East. It could offer a key source of energy for resource-poor Japan, which is also pursuing similar arrangements in Russia and other countries.

The negotiations have drawn concern from the United States that the estimated $2 billion investment in Iran could pay for nuclear weapons development and terrorist activities.

Officials penned the agreement late Wednesday in Tehran and were soon to follow with a formal announcement, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Japan's major business daily, reported in its Thursday morning edition, citing unnamed sources.

[snip]

The talks appeared to stall after Washington publicly criticized Tokyo last July for courting Tehran, expressing concern that the planned $2 billion investment could pay for nuclear weapons development and terrorist activities.

The talks resumed after Iran signed an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty late last year, allowing unfettered inspections of its nuclear sites, reports said.

Iran and Japan had reportedly notified the United States of their agreement, which was greeted with disappointment.

"Our policy has been, with respect to Iran, to oppose petroleum investment there," Kyodo quoted U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher as saying. "We remain deeply concerned about deals such as this."

Tehran had reportedly begun courting European and Chinese oil companies to bid on the project, after Japanese and Iranian negotiators missed a deadline set for last June.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Its funny how history pans out...

WW 1 was started by one young radical shooting a King, hundreds of millions got affected.

Twenty fundamentalists knock down two buildings and again, history changes for hundreds of millions.


Then you get a leader that wasn't properly elected.
He turns the United Nations and international diplomacy into a joke.
Then he invades the middle east...

Ah well, at least God is getting a chuckle out of it.

-------------------------------------

Xpanda. Japan has always had quite a close relationship with Iran, mainly via the oil supply that Japan needs.(Oil for tech goods)
When the revolution ended the Shahs reign there was a huge amount of Japanese kit in the Iranian infrastructure, much of which was wrecked by japanese technicians as they unassed the country.

[This message was edited by eek on April 22, 2004 at 02:05 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
I am curious to know....I guess I am not too well versed about this process...my question is basically: What is the process for determining who should own nuke weapons or power plants and who is behind the final decisions made?

Is this something the UN sits down and haggles about.....kinda like whether or not this country is a felon and therefore cannot have a gun? And if this country is a bit shady, through time and change of regimes can they get off this banned list?

Like I said, I am not well versed about this process, and frankly there are some countries out there that I feel the world would be a safer place to live in had they not developed the capacity of nuclear power and weaponry...

....yet at the same time these are sovereign nations with thier own govt and laws and who is to say they can't develop technologies that other countries may or may not fear.....take for example, the case of Israel sending fighter planes to bomb Saddam's nuke plant.....yes, from one standpoint I would say the world would be a bit safer for Iraq not having such capability, another standpoint being the Iraqi side of "Israel just attacked our country, therefore we must defend ourselves and issue a counterstrike".......What right did Israel have to just send planes over and play judge, jury, and executioner in matters of business between two sovereign nations?

It seems rather apparent to me that the only countries on the planet that can develop nuclear capabilities, whether they be weapons or power, are the countries who are able to defend themselves from any other nation on the planet......namely the superpowers.

The United States, China, and Russia. Russia has faded a bit since thier breakup, but it would appear that if you have a military force large enough and strong enough to fight off another superpower then you can pretty much build whatever you want to....
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Nobody, really. It's a matter of diplomacy, threat (real or perceived) and submission.

In today's terms, political scientists would refer to this phenomenon as the Balance of Power. Not much of a Balance going on, but the peace is in theory leveraged by one nation (or a couple) having the power to obliterate another nation that threatens the peace. This is all well and good, until the Superpower itself becomes the big threat.

Enter George W. Bush.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Nobody, really. It's a matter of diplomacy, threat (real or perceived) and submission.

In today's terms, political scientists would refer to this phenomenon as the Balance of Power. Not much of a Balance going on, but the peace is in theory leveraged by one nation (or a couple) having the power to obliterate another nation that threatens the peace. This is all well and good, until the Superpower itself becomes the big threat.

Enter George W. Bush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess fear of Bush is why Canada has so drastically increased its military spending right?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by Marco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Like I said, I am not well versed about this process, and frankly there are some countries out there that I feel the world would be a safer place to live in had they not developed the capacity of nuclear power and weaponry...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would that include the only country in history to ever actually use these devastating weapons?


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Nobody, really. It's a matter of diplomacy, threat (real or perceived) and submission.

In today's terms, political scientists would refer to this phenomenon as the Balance of Power. Not much of a Balance going on, but the peace is in theory leveraged by one nation (or a couple) having the power to obliterate another nation that threatens the peace. This is all well and good, until the Superpower itself becomes the big threat.

Enter George W. Bush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess fear of Bush is why Canada has so drastically increased its military spending right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it has, thank you for noticing. Although it has nothing to do with fighting off Americans ... American enemies, perhaps, but not Americans themselves.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
Phaedrus.....yes, though we were the only country to actually use these weapons....

....if you were to ask the rest of the planet, say for example, the US and Libya both had the bomb....which country would you fear be more likely to use the bomb.....

the relatively stable democracy who has fought wars conventionally since the end of WWII...

or the less stable, privately/dictatorship led country who backed into a corner or in league with some terrorist group decides the bomb is a pretty good thing to have.....

I think the majority of the planet would feel safer keeping nukes contained within the superpowers and not readily available for less than stable countries who might use them or thier shady leaders cut a deal and sell them to groups unknown for some quick cash......

I think the general opinion or feeling on the globe is that the US is past the point of needing to use nuke weapons, that the US is just sitting on the nukes......that the US resorts to air strikes and mass military force to engage enemies......
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
I understand that given the range of two choices, most people would pick the U.S. Further to my point above, I did not mean that as an America-bashing thing; it's just strange to see the hysteria that attends any idea of nuclear proliferation, when the only country to have ever used them is the U.S. and the "mutually assured destruction" principle kept the Cold War cold for decades -- something that is not possible in the current global political/social environment when it comes to nuclear weapons.


Phaedrus
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,901
Messages
13,574,972
Members
100,882
Latest member
topbettor24
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com