US warns Iran of consequences of nuclear ambitions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aquajet, Mar 5, 2006.

  1. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #1
    Link

    (emphasis mine)

    I suppose this could also be true...

    "The Bush regime must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences..."
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    ...in regards to which direction the troops in iraq pull out, i reckon.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    As if it wasn't a tool of the US anyway.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Bolton is most definitely a tool. And he's from the US, so I'd say that qualifies. :p
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Well, exactly...

    :p
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    Oh, there will be consequences all right...like a lot more public statements of outrage, because that is all that can be done.

    There is just no stopping Iran on this issue - and the Iranians themselves intuit this - otherwise they probably wouldn't have been so brazen.

    The US just does not have the resources to stop Iran - they wouldn't have had them w/o Iraq, they certainly do not now.

    I suppose we might hear of some tactical strikes on Iranian facilities, but the Iranians have probably seen that coming...

    International pressure or sanctions on material for Nuclear uses will be increasingly irrelevant - as there is always some source willing to provide the materials - and Iran has already aquired the technology and knowhow from Pakistan and China (among others).
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Yeah, hopefully the Democrats will have the stones to point out that one of the costs of war in Iraq is an inability to deal with either North Korea or Iran in any serious way.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    If the Security Council was merely a "tool" of the United States, then the administration would have gotten that second resolution on Iraq they wanted. The Bush people have simply chosen to selectively interpret the resolutions the Security Council does pass. Not that other nations don't do the same.

    I assume the tough words on Iran are timed to counter the free pass Bush just gave to India, but they only serve to spotlight the basic hypocrisy at work.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    I'm beginning to think we're doing this on purpose. We're just making things worse. Either that, or the government is run by a bunch of idiots who have no idea what they're doing.

    Or both.
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    I am not sure I understand you - doing what on purpose?

    While a well-orchestrated strategy might have slowed down nuclear proliferation with regards to Iran, it is inevitable progression. At least it will continue to be w/o some major changes in the stance of the Nuclear Powers from their current hypocritical and elitist positions. All of the "key allies" in the article (except perhaps the UK) have either allowed companies based in their countries to sell equipment to countries such that it undermines their "official" objectives, or continued to pursue more advanced Nuclear technology themselves.

    As for the comments, as I posted above, it amounts to:

    "speak loudly and hope no-one notices you aren't carrying a stick"


    BTW, what's with Bolton's comments about "beefing up defensive measures"?

    Am I to take that as the best defense is a good offense? I have no idea what he means...
     
  11. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    Bolton is warning of "defensive" strikes at Iranian facilities. I've no doubt they are coming. Either in the form of Israeli strikes or our own. That combined with the neo-con fantasies that they can overthrow the current regime with isolation and well funded locals and you get the underlying meaning of Bolton's threats. Of course it will only enflame the situation and make things much worse, but that is the nature of Bush's foreign policy. Just show the "evil doers" that we will do anything to stop their "evil" and the world will surely become a copy of what dear old George thinks passes as American democracy and capitalism in action.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    OK, "tool" was wrong: how about "used and abused at will"?
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Pissing people off. We sure like to talk a good game and puff up our chests, but it's like we've gone beyond simply taunting the pit bull to spitting right in it's face. Maybe not a great analogy, and we do have to appear tough (I guess), but right now we're just making threats everyone knows we can't back up. And we just keep making things even worse.

    Are the threats and posturing, let alone this catastrophe that is the Iraq war, really helping the situation... or making it even worse?
     
  14. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #14
    Why us? I mean, Europe is the one so concerned about it... Why don't they thow down the gauntlet? Step up. Quit letting America fight your battles with these "regimes" and do something yourself.

    *sigh* I don't think any good will come out of this whole situation.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    What are you talking about? It's all about US strategic interests, US support for Israel - and possibly the Teheran oil bourse that's due to open this month, pricing oil in Euros.
     
  16. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #16
    I suppose so, but Europe was the one talking the last few months. Now the US is actively persuing this. I think this is a great idea, you know, spread our troops out so thin that a parade of elephants could make it through without being noticed.

    *shudders* The alst thing we need to do is piss these people off. Sure, they might only get one nuke off the ground, but that's still ONE NUKE. I say, leave these people alone, or strike a deal with them that's worth their while. Force will get us nowhere in this debacle.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    I believe it's a crude version of "Good Cop, Bad Cop". I guess the US seemed a natural fit for the Bad Cop rôle...
    If the quality of ideas figured in WH thinking, you wouldn't be in Iraq, would you?

    I say, let the Israelis rely on diplomatic resources for a change, instead of always threatening everyone with their big brother.
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    I agree- time to eat crow on Iraq. We should never have gone there. Now we don't have the resources to deal with this, and Iran knows it.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    Right: you've wasted your energies where no threat existed, now you're stuffed for the real threat. Wasn't the US military supposed to be able to fight a major war against two enemies simultaneously, anywhere in the world? Looks like you're overloaded by a "little local difficulty". What can you buy for $400 billion these days? Not much, it seems.
     
  20. aquajet thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #20
    Yeah, I believe this is likely the principal reason.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    According to what I've read, most of the Iranian nuclear program is safely out of the reach of air attacks. I also can't imagine that Russia and China would be on-board for such an action, the minimum level of assent required, even for the boldest neocons, I should think. As for Israel, they could pull an Iraq (disavowed by the U.S.), but it's not the 1980s out there anymore and I suspect the repercussions of a strike against Iran would be more severe and dangerous -- not to mention, potentially ineffective.
     
  22. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #22
    Man, what I wouldn't do with 400 billion dollars.

    You're absolutely right Skunk. Dubbaya did a fine job of spreading our military forces throughout IRAQ at 150,000 or so, and, well, about 5 guys are in Afghanistan. So that leaves about 20 guys to take care of this Iran situation.

    Although I've heard reports recently that both Britain and US may pull the troops out by 2007. So that gives us nine months to get these guys back, let them have a day or two with family and friends and send them out again to Iran by Christmas time. :p
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    A Nuclear Iran isnt in the worlds best interests, fact is they want to build weapons. We had to spell it out for Saddam, im sure we will spell it out for Iran.
     
  24. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #24
    But George can't spell.
    And how exactly do you spell it out to them? Threaten them? With what? Sanctions? The Russians and Chinese are unlikely to agree to that.
    Or just ask them nicely?
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    link

     

Share This Page