Bush: Nuclear-Armed Iran Would Be 'Intolerable'

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an intolerable threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and a mortal danger to the state of Israel.

In a speech to newspaper editors and publishers, the Republican president said it was unclear whether international concern about nuclear development in Iran has been getting through to the uppermost echelons of the country's leaders.

"I think the message is getting delivered to them that it is intolerable if they develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "It would be intolerable to peace and stability in the Middle East if they get a nuclear weapon, particularly since their stated objective is the destruction of Israel."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4897801§ion=news

Could the chimp stir the pot any more this week?

another quagmire.

Just laying the groundwork.

Look for it in Oct 2006

Maybe. But if they get nukes, they're probably safe from invasion.

the power plants in Iraq would not have been left unguarded and Ms. Plame's network would still be operational.

Not worried about spread of weapons cuz his cronies stand to make $$ in a more unstable, war ravaged world. He is doing his best to make the world safe for profiteers.

destroyed NK's capabilities once they started re-processing their plutonium. Just like WJC told NK we would. Keep running your mouth George. Maybe someone out their will bow to your imperial grandeur. Oh wait Libya already did that. I guess you'll have to infuse your bluster toward Iran with a little cold, hard cash too.

Jay

And I had money on Syria as the next country on the PNAC hitlist. Oh well, I'm sure it'll be lucky number three.

And here I was all concerned that he'd find a nuclear-armed Iran "deeply troubling". Whew, there's a load off MY mind!

as it applies to the new Caspian Sea resources and pipeline.

We could take it, but I don't think we could hold it.

Suppose...just suppose that Iran already HAS a few nuclear weapons. Now let's suppose Chimpy McSpoon gets a hankerin to stick a sock in his shorts, swagger about, talk Texas tough and invade. Would it be out of line for Iran to shoot a nuc toward New York, Boston or DC?

I find it rather odd that no one considers this very real possibility. It is likely that everyone on the planet who possesses nucs doesn't scream and yell about it. I wouldn't if I had them....Nope, you'd find out if you had an asshole AWOL chickenshit bully like George Bush invading my country. You'd find out as soon as the first fucking soldier stepped across my border.

This is the sort of thing AWOL will eventually bring down on us. It is unavoidable. It's sad that American arrogance prevents the thought of this very real possibility from even being considered. It's this very arrogance which ensures it will happen. It's one of the reasons I want to get the hell out of this place. It's bound to happen sooner or later and I want to be as far away as possible when it does. Bush and the rest of the "end days", Gods on our side crowd, shall eventually get their wish and burn for all eternity. Unfortunately they'll take everyone else in the country with them.

RC

...they'd attack that massive concentration of US troops in the middle of Iraq.

The terrifying scenario that's been playing in my head since before the invasion involves suitcase nukes or biological weapons delivered to Iraq across its highly insecure borders.

Even the most casual Risk player would point out the untenable situation of the US being surrounded on all sides by hostile forces percolating through a swiss cheese border.

That being said, I do not believe Iran to be as unreasonable as the US when it comes to unilateral action.

It's not out of the question at all. All it would take is ONE and it wouldn't really matter where it landed when you consider the population density on the eastern seaboard.

As far as being unreasonable....what's unreasonable about a nation too small to protect itself from the US, playing any hand it has? Nothing...they'll be obliterated either way....and if they're smart they'll take out as many US citizens as they can before it happens.

It is for this simple reason that I KNEW that Hussein had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....If he'd had them he would have used them...the minute the first US soldier walked across his boarders. If Bush and his pals really believed he had them he'd have been treated with the same deference North Korea is treated with.

RC

n/t

I'd hazard to guess the US could take the entire country out in less than 60 minutes....and not one infantry or calvery soldier would need to leave home to do it.

RC

I should have appended my title with: ...at least I hope not.

Your point is absolutely true, if Saddam had any deployable biologicals or other usable WMDs, he could have used them at a dozen diferent points during the first three days.

I was just thinking, why bother attacking the US mainland when one could just as easily decimate our military capability on the ground with a few strikes next door. Unfortunately, that doesn't preclude the tragic possibility of a domestic attack.

This is an amazingly morbid train of thought I hope to get off of now...but there's just a horrible feeling in my gut that something truly terrible (>9/11) is going happen before November.

Regardless of what form it takes, it's coming...and will likely be the direct result of this administration's policies.

That being said, I'm also a big coward prone to chicken littling things a bit...after all, things looked pretty goddamn bleak in 1972 as well.

Ultimately, I do not believe Iran is in nearly the same place they were 15-20 years ago. I do not believe the government of Iran would sanction violence against United States interests. I believe the United States would do so to Iran, for a variety of trumped up reasons, but I think Iran has been steadily and slowly reforming itself. With many hiccups along the way, of course. It's hard to go from a theocracy to a democracy...it's going to take time, encouragement, and support...things our current Government seems incapable of understading.

Oh well...now I'm just rambling...

That is the point. They don't like any form of government which does not afford American business interests free reign. That goes for Democracies as well. They shall seek to destroy or render unstable any government that refuses to allow them to profiteer at will....they will seek to replace said governments with ANY sort of regime which will. As has been amply demonstrated over the past 100 years.

It was not Hussein's viciousness which inspired Bush to attack...it was the fact that Hussein wouldn't play nice with the folks who are now carpet bagging in his absence. Think about it...they loved him to death as long as he was shaking Rumsfelds hand. The day he stepped on the interests of the carpet baggers was the day he could kiss his future good bye.

RC

North Korea getting Nukes was intolerable also until they got them and then, well we need to discuss it with them, and hope they see the light. If it was really "intolerable" then we wouldn't tolerate it would we? We know if they had nukes and we attacked they would use them and we don't want that. We knew the same thing about Iraq and that is why we attacked them. We knew they really had nothing with which to defend themselves. That is what is so hard for Bush* to understand. He was told they were defenseless and it would be a cake-walk. They are fighting back with rocks and pea shooters and Bush* is stymied. They are going to kick Bush*'s ass and he will never understand what went wrong.

looks like you are next on bush*'s list

watch for the booga-booga WMD in Iran, wouldn't be surprised if the spin will be that Saddam moved his WMDs or intended program-related WMDs into Iran

fascinating, he mentions iran. not rattling his sabre against syria right now, that got a lot of flak, and he's not rattling it against n. korea, because they could actually fight back. just iran, who could fight back, but has the next largest source of oil...

no, couldn't possibly be, could this all have involved oil? /sarcasm

watch the world stand by while we try to consolidate the next largest source of oil? hell no. the coalition will turn 180 on us in an instant and the others would give a warning of direct war if we even try.

let's see how stupid these warmongers really are! :)

The only country ever to use nuclear weapons in combat calling it intolerable that another country should try to attain them is hypocritical. Considering that the Bush administration has done nothing about North Korea, it's obvious that the best way to insure the U.S. leaves you alone is to build a nuclear arsenal before we can attack.

After all, most of the Taliban were schooled in the madrassas in Pakistan. They are clearly involved in the spread of terrorism as well as it's funding. And they already have nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, their chief nuke scientist sold nuclear secrets to North Korea and Libya.

Here is the Bush doctrine: We have nukes, China, Russia, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have nukes, but nobody else in the world can have them. If anyone else in the world even attempts to get them, we will invade your country, kill hundreds of thousands of your citizens, and install our own leaders. If you already have nukes, you are safe.

I know President Clinton had a program going to buy as many Nukes as possible as quickly as possible from those satellite countries but as soon as Bush* took office he ended that program. There are still many countries that still have some left over nuclear arms.

imagine how many of those, say $700 million, or $80 billion, could have taken off the market?

That's the range of prices I've heard mentioned for Busboy's Iraq adventure.

I'd rather be bribing countries to give up their nuclear arms than bribing Chalabi to forge some kind of fiefdom in Iraq.

Nukes were either destroyed or moved back to Russia. The program worked well and quick. Take a look at the FAS site.

and that includes Iran.

I'd add Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, the US, France, the UK,
N Korea....

The biggest "terrorist" threats to the world come from those that hold nuclear weapons and sell nuclear weapons...once the world accepts the growth of the nuke bomb "family", it accepts the possibility of their use.

The Cold War policies of mutual deterrence, between two nuclear super powers,is obviously no longer viable.

Cut off the sources. Make the case across the board. In the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, the WHO for crying out loud, could make a case for the danger nuclear weapons hold for the world's health...

As for the argument that clandestine, "rogue" states or organizations may get nukes and ignore international agreements...

cut off the sources.

in the middle east are in Israel. The person who proved that to the world was released today after spending 18 years in prison.

Or should I say 'a nukular-armed Dubya'?

Glad to see your getting your priorities right George. Shame you did not show the same concern for the safety of US citizens prior to 9/11. You are a disgrace to your high office.

...for proliferation to Pakistan and N. Korea. It's good for bidness.

,...without equality, freedom is meaningless,...yes?

INTOLERABLE.

I'm assuming the idiot-in-chief said this, although I haven't read the entire thread.

Lining up battles for us as a nation to fight is one of the reasons we'll have to re-instate the draft.

Iran should never, ever get a nuclear weapon.