The implication in “we’ve made it clear, our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon” is clear: If diplomacy won’t work, President Bush intends to use military force.
The next question should have been “If Iran continues its nuclear program, will you order an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?” I wonder if Bush would have said “yes.”
I doubt it. O’Reilly asked him in the first question whether he’d use military force, and the President ran around that question.
This whole sorry episode is merely another diversion from the real threat, the Islamic totalitarian movement, which we are too cowardly or blind to face head-on. We are now more concerned about weaponry and tactics than we are about winning the war. This should be no surprise, however. I mean, what else are we going to focus on while we wait a generation (or longer) for the Middle East to embrace “democracy”?
If you listen to Bush for too long you are liable to think that it is okay for the Islamic Republic of Iran to exist as long as they don’t develop nukes.
The implication in “we’ve made it clear, our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon” is clear: If diplomacy won’t work, President Bush intends to use military force.
I’ll believe it when I see it. After the Iraq charade, I doubt he’ll get much support for action against Iran.
The implication in “we’ve made it clear, our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon” is clear: If diplomacy won’t work, President Bush intends to use military force.
The implication is only clear if the speaker is honest and principled. Politicians are experts at making you think they’ve said something firm, while leaving themselves an escape hatch to claim they really meant something different.
I don’t disagree that wiping out Iran’s army would be a good thing to do, but I’m convinced that doing so will not have the result that “there will be nothing stoping us from overthrowing the Government”
Then who is to defend the Government? Untrained undisciplined peasants?
Today was the 25th anniversary of the hostage-taking in Tehran, and 3,000 Iranian students celebrated the occasion in style, chanting “Death to America” and burning U.S. flags. And to top it all off, a top Iranian security official, Hossein Mousavian, blamed the U.S. for continued diplomatic problems between the two countries.
Iran Marks Anniversary of Embassy Seizure
And a few days ago, Iranian lawmakers chanted “Death to America” before voting “to approve the outline of a bill requiring the government to resume uranium enrichment.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRA…EMPLATE=DEFAULT
I’m going out on a limb here. But I predict that Bush’s “diplomacy” and “international pressure” won’t work on this country.
LA Times ran a story yesterday about Iran’s influence on the upcoming Iraqi election. I thought it might be of interest to some.
Iran Plays a Role in Iraq Vote
Of special note is the Iraqi attitude toward Iran:
At the same time, leaders insist that Iraq’s next government, regardless of who forms it, will need to forge better ties with Iran in the interests of regional peace and stability.
“America is not going to be here forever,” Mowaffak Rubaie, Iraq’s national security advisor and an alliance candidate. “Iran is here to stay.”