Bush Says Iran Will Not Get Nuclear Weapon

Well here we go again.

I see us invading Iran in the next 4 years and possibly destroying North Korean military capability.

"Asked whether the United States would let Iran develop that capability, Bush replied: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."

Bush Says no Nukes for Iran!

What do you all really think he will do when he wins the election. I mean seriously? Lets not debate weather we should attack lets instead debate weather "W" will start at least 2 more wars over the next 4 years.

What do you all think the next Bush admin will do with Iran and Korea?

There is no doubt about it. With no re-election to worry about, the real "W" will come out, and it will be even more frightening than the current version of the Terrorist-in-Thief.

Originally posted by Xeven
What do you all think the next Bush admin will do with Iran and Korea?

Iran, there will be a stepped up sanction process, and if iran isn't persuaded by sanctions to allow IAEA inspectors in, then an ultimatum followed by war ala iraq.

N.Korean, absolutely nothing, except negotiations to get inspectors back in, in exchange for not cutting off the supplies the US gives to the Government over there. There will also be a withdrawl from the dmaz, further into south korea. With troops in the penninsula, tibet, and japan, there is no geostrategic need to risk nuclear exchange with the North Koreans. Eventually, the population there will be reduced to less and less, and a coup ala the SU might overthrow jong il.

IMO both Iran & N Korea cant be trusted. the Koreans have been dying to nuke someone for a while now. every chance they get they threaten someone. I think the latest was the U.S. & Japan. Iran on the other hand promises that a comprimise can be reached on the nuclear issue. the same Iran that has been talking pretty the whole time about the war on terror while at the same time aiding the terror groups along the way. now the Russians swear that western countries are harboring Chechnyan terrorists. sounds to me like someone is playing nation against nation in several cases here. very scary times indeed. seems like China has been relatively quiet lately...

just curious who do you think that the Iranian Government would be after to nuke first? And also do you think that North Korea would ever use its nuclear powers and weapons and such to try to regain South Korea or are they too afraid of the Americans comin in there? Anyways tell me what you guys would think would be or is on the two countries priorties?

Hahahah, unfortunately North Korea and Iran are doing great these days. Yes the US is strong but what good is being strong when you are being lead by dumbass who almost put an Iranian spy in charge of Iraq?

Why do you think North Korea has survived so long? It's not because they are a great military power with the technology, industry, and economy to stand up to the United States. It's because they serve as a buffer zone between China and a western-backed nation directly on their border, namely South Korea. So, they have been allowed to exist, as annoying as this seems, because they are a convenient arrangement for both China and the West. No one's conducted a reunion of the Koreas because while we have 30,000 US troops on the DMZ, we'd need about 10 times that number to adequately secure the south side of the Yalu River.

The entire Korean situation is dealt with diplomatically between China, South Korea, and the US, along with international pressure developed in the UN. Keeping North Korea a backward, starving nation with no ability to project economic, political, or strategic power has benefited the West and China, and the fate of Kim Jong Il, a delusional madman with fantasies of superhuman powers would be decided in a nanosecond if China ever gave the green light for the West to unify the penninsula.

As far as Iraq, President Stupid has put US troops in the middle of the Middle East for the delusional purpose of spreading Democracy all around those countries. He had no plan for the post-war era, which was essentially a drive from Kuwait to Baghdad with a dust storm in the middle. Thanks to Chalabi's influence, looting nearly flattened the state's ability to perform it's function before it was administratively disassembled in an attempt to turn the place into a corporate paradise with 100% foreign ownership of ventures and no state industry, which has been the source of employment and social understanding of the term 'job' for the past 30 years. Iraqis were about as happy to see Saddam go as Americans would be if GW Bush's cult of personality was a little stronger and in affect for 20 years. The bog in which American troops find themselves in Operation Iraqi #up has serious ramifications on the US strategic abilities, strong enough to convince Iran that they are now free to enrich nuclear material.

Chalabi, a convicted bank fraud, was the one who convinced the administration to go with a 'year zero' policy of completely wiping the Iraqi slate clean. Now it's revealed he was working for the Iranians the whole time and convinced the Bush administration that Iraqis would be dancing in the streets and throwing flowers at American troops while Americans completely deconstructed the whole Iraqi government, state industry, and a large portion of their way of life. The newfound freedom they have discovered has allowed the rise of fundamental religious groups, the entry of tens of thousands of jihadis from all over the Muslim world, and possibly the very situation Iran hoped the American intervention in the Arab world would bring.

Meanwhile, President Pretzel is jumping around like a monkey screaming about how Iran is not going to get nukes. Given the four-year track record of abysmal failures provided by Bush, my money is that they'll get them.

I think if Iran were to nuke someone it would be Israel and in retaliation. I also think that N Korea is more likely to offensively use a nuke than anyone. could be S Korea or anyone really. Iran seems to more deterred by U.S. force than the completely insane Korean dictator.

Theres no doubt that NK cannot be trusted, but the Iran situation on the other hand does not have to end in war, i dont see Iran launching a nuclear attack on the west out of spite anytime in the near future (they are after a deterrent, just like the US, its next door neighbour has just been invaded illegaly and they are probably feeling a tad insecure), the disastrous outcome is all going to depend on how lazy the Bush administration is when dealing with the options, expect all hell to break loose, then apathy, then lazy recklessness leading to an all out sh*tstorm destroying any type of trust each country on planet earth had before it all begain and so on and so on....

By: Cstyle226
There is no doubt about it. With no re-election to worry about, the real "W" will come out, and it will be even more frightening than the current version of the Terrorist-in-Thief.

The real "W" is a decisive leader and protector of democracy. Bush isn't frightening, how could you say that? Saddam Hussein was frightening. Adolf Hitler was frightening. Stalin was frightening. Bush is not. I'm honored to have him as my commander in cheif, and i doubt anyone, given the situation, could've done better. I don't want rogue nations posessing nuclear weapons. Iran is a rogue nation. So we must do whatever we can to make sure they don't get nukes. Hopefully it can be done diplomatically, but if war is necessary i'm fine with it. I don't want to see lots of american casualities, obviously, but w/ war comes casualties. When you sign up for the armed forces, it's a risk you take.

Originally posted by Kwintz

By: Cstyle226
There is no doubt about it. With no re-election to worry about, the real "W" will come out, and it will be even more frightening than the current version of the Terrorist-in-Thief.

The real "W" is a decisive leader and protector of democracy. Bush isn't frightening, how could you say that? Saddam Hussein was frightening. Adolf Hitler was frightening. Stalin was frightening. Bush is not. I'm honored to have him as my commander in cheif, and i doubt anyone, given the situation, could've done better. I don't want rogue nations posessing nuclear weapons. Iran is a rogue nation. So we must do whatever we can to make sure they don't get nukes. Hopefully it can be done diplomatically, but if war is necessary i'm fine with it. I don't want to see lots of american casualities, obviously, but w/ war comes casualties. When you sign up for the armed forces, it's a risk you take.

In wartime Germany, mothers giving birth in state maternity hospitals would often request a portrait of Der Fuhrer to gaze upon to ease the pain of labor.

They didn't think Hitler was scary either.

Why is Iran a rogue nation? Ever met an Iranian and talked to them about their country?

Originally posted by Xeven
What do you all really think he will do when he wins the election. I mean seriously? Lets not debate weather we should attack lets instead debate weather "W" will start at least 2 more wars over the next 4 years.

Two? Why stop at two? Iran and North Korea just happens to be at the top of the list! Number of troops a problem? Number of nukes are no problem. They either conform to our demands or face destruction.

The United States can't keep playing these 'silly' games that the world expects us to play. When the day comes, our troops, from all the nations around the globe are called home, what's next is going to be what has been coming to them for a long time.



[edit on 27/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Kwintz

By: Cstyle226
There is no doubt about it. With no re-election to worry about, the real "W" will come out, and it will be even more frightening than the current version of the Terrorist-in-Thief.

The real "W" is a decisive leader and protector of democracy. Bush isn't frightening, how could you say that? Saddam Hussein was frightening. Adolf Hitler was frightening. Stalin was frightening. Bush is not. I'm honored to have him as my commander in cheif, and i doubt anyone, given the situation, could've done better. I don't want rogue nations posessing nuclear weapons. Iran is a rogue nation. So we must do whatever we can to make sure they don't get nukes. Hopefully it can be done diplomatically, but if war is necessary i'm fine with it. I don't want to see lots of american casualities, obviously, but w/ war comes casualties. When you sign up for the armed forces, it's a risk you take.

In wartime Germany, mothers giving birth in state maternity hospitals would often request a portrait of Der Fuhrer to gaze upon to ease the pain of labor.

They didn't think Hitler was scary either.

Why is Iran a rogue nation? Ever met an Iranian and talked to them about their country?

Comparing Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush is ridiculous. Hitler killed 6 million innocent jews. Bush has killed a few Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. I don't care what all of you 9/11 conspiracy theorists say, BUSH DID NOT CARRY OUT THE ATTACKS. My god. Have you any logic? Seriously.

And no, i've never talked to an iranian. Have you?

I'm honored to have him as my commander in cheif, and i doubt anyone, given the situation, could've done better. I don't want rogue nations posessing nuclear weapons. Iran is a rogue nation. So we must do whatever we can to make sure they don't get nukes.

Then I hope I�ll see you in front line fighting.

Kwintz, i think you are in the wrong thread, he didnt compare GWB to hitler, read the post before his;

Saddam Hussein was frightening. Adolf Hitler was frightening. Stalin was frightening. Bush is not.

and then;

In wartime Germany, mothers giving birth in state maternity hospitals would often request a portrait of Der Fuhrer to gaze upon to ease the pain of labor.

see, he was commenting on how they were not frightning to their own people, just like GWB does not scare most Americans, but scares people living in other countires.

I don't care what all of you 9/11 conspiracy theorists say, BUSH DID NOT CARRY OUT THE ATTACKS. My god. Have you any logic? Seriously.

who says we think bush carried out the attacks?

[edit on 27-9-2004 by electric squid carpet]

Yeah that's correct, I'm showing how you mentioned a bunch of dictators that are defined by their roles through history compared to how the people under their influence during their times looked at them.

Originally posted by electric squid carpet


who says we think bush carried out the attacks?

[edit on 27-9-2004 by electric squid carpet]

No one says you think bush carried out the attacks. I'm not necessarily talking about posters in this thread, but just making a generalization that lots of members here think Bush was responsible for the attacks. Just do a search on it, and you'll find numerous topics on it.

Don't forget the 6 million Poles!

Originally posted by IntelRetard
Don't forget the 6 million Poles!

And BOG knows how many Ukrainians and Russians.

SORRY PEOPLE BUT IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH $ YOU CAN GET ANYTHING YOU WANT.
JUST ASK THE FRENCH!!!!