Bush to Iran: 'All Options' Are Open Over Nukes

Bush to Iran: 'All Options' Are Open Over Nukes

www.foxnews.com

MESEBERG, Germany — U.S. President George W. Bush said Wednesday that his first choice is to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran by using diplomacy, but "all options are on the table."

The president reinforced the possibility of a military strike against Iran, even as a last resort, during a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger to world peace, and he is rallying European allies to back sanctions.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This kind of goes hand in hand with what Israel said, what was it, last week? I realize these same words have come out of Bush's mouth many times over the past year or so, but at some point, something has got to happen. You can only threaten somebody, or in this case, a country, so many times before the SHTF.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

How can the U.S. possibly go to war with any other country at this point of time. As it is, our military has already been put through the wringer. Unless Bush magically pulls these troops out of his hat, I suspect a draft looming in the very near future.

Actually I'm fairly certain our military is not over stretched, it's just they are using such a small portion of it over and over again. We have 100,000's of troops all over the world, and a good chunk of our fighting force is still here at home. Maybe I'm wrong though...

If Bush is so self-righteous he should get rid of his nukes before demanding it of others. There should be no nukes in the world at all, period. It's gotta start with someone. The existence of nukes in our world is a sign of our insecurity as a species. If the WMDs keep building up, they'll eventually be used by one loon or another with access to the 'big red button'.

You gotta love the irony of it all. "Get rid of your nukes or we may nuke you!!!1" lol, puleez... you want others to not have nukes, get rid of your own. The trust has to begin somewhere. We're all one after all. What a big waste of energy and emotion this war mongering has been for all of us.

I mean no offense to the OP..... it's a real news story and has to be reported.

That said, I think that if President Bush should happen to pass gas and it sounded like "IIIIIIiiiiiiran" that it'd be reported to the press.

My opinion:

Iran has (according to the Russians) a lifetime supply of nuclear material for their reactor.
Iran continues (according to them) to refine nuclear material with newer, faster and more centrifuges than in the past.
Iran has a spiffy, accountable supply of nuclear material.
Iran is (according to me) playing a cat-and-mouse game with the world to see if they can delay military action until the point where they have nuclear bombs.
Iranian populace (according to cnn reports) don't care to die being blown up.

Okay, so I guess the U.S. and world should just wait and see where they use them. Okeydokeyfine. Little point in making more threats, it's all already been said.

What is the solution? Wait for the strike? Stop Iran in progress? More sanctions? ooooooooo, that really hurts.

I don't know. I wish I did.

No offense taken. Sanctions against Iran are pointless seeing as how the longer we stay at war the more we drive up oil prices(to a certain degree), and the more money Iran makes off it's oil. Diplomacy won't work either. Iran is not going to stop their nuclear program, the US and Israel won't allow it to continue. There is no middle ground for our two countries. I'm not going to get into the discussion of if Iran can be trusted, because honestly it doesn't really matter at this point. The real question is how long before a strike on Iran happens, and just how badly the worlds economy will suffer. All Iran truly has to do is sink a few oil tankers in the gulf to bring the our economy to it's knees. Now, given the content of this site, the other thing that has me worried is this. The general public will not go for a strike on Iran, let alone another war. Israel attacking Iran won't drag us into war unless our troops start getting attacked by the Iranian guard. If we are going to attack Iran, something will have to happen to get the ball rolling, thats what worries me.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by StephenF]

if a military intervention would happen in Iran, you would not see what you seen in Irak. It would be a fast targetet action with the purpose of destroyng the atomic developements . If the Irak people would take advantage of that they could get rid of their beloved president.. (Romania shot their own in 1989 , and it was the best thing we ever did ! )

reply to post by sty


Iran is no IraQ, it hasnt been under sanctions for over a decade
it has had free movement to arm its self from Russia and china,

in no way would it be a walk in the park for the US unlike attacking a country far worse then a 3rd world country IraQ

also Iran hasnt put all its nuclear tec in one place,

no doubt the US can beat Iran
but Iran can also bite back taking US service men and women with them which would be a victory in its self.

edit: to add i am not saying the death of US service men and women is a good thing, it would just be a good thing for the defending side

[edit on 11-6-2008 by bodrul]

Originally posted by StephenF
Actually I'm fairly certain our military is not over stretched, it's just they are using such a small portion of it over and over again.

Any why on Earth would they be doing that if they had much of a choice in the matter? Do you know what it does to the troops ( and thus retention rates) if you use and abuse people like this? When are they being retrained and when is the equipment being repaired?

In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.

Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.

www.washingtonpost.com...

They are not just using a small portion over and over again ( which would have even worse results) but cycling troops as best they can but given the unavailability of troops in general the strain shows.

We have 100,000's of troops all over the world, and a good chunk of our fighting force is still here at home. Maybe I'm wrong though...

They have hundreds of thousands of people on the payroll but the percentage that actually carry rifle's and shoots back is as low as it's always been. The regular army has but a little half a million men with the rest of the 'million man army' being ARNG/USAR who are, and would like to continue, doing something more constructive in the US economy. A ten division army is simply by no means sufficient to fight and win wars that actually involves casualties and the fast deployment cycles that such small force levels results in are normally sufficient to get you in trouble just staging a contested occupation.

Stellar

Got an image in my mind of bush and the iran pm, in a palace. discussing this, when bush pulls a gun out of his jacket and places it on the table.