Is the UN blowing smoke?

It's blowing smoke as it's the people who will end up suffering from any such move.

If the UN really wants to make a difference, they could threaten to pass a resolution!!!!!

Ooooooh! That ought to scare 'em...."

The UN...

bermbits
And Bush is clamering the loudest. Does he, I wonder, think that would be his excuse to invade. It would be WMD's all over again.

Take everything with a grain of salt, but from the August 1 issue of The American Conservative by Phillip Giraldi. "In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

BBB
bm

I can't believe that even the crew that "owns" the US at the present time would do something as rash and ill conceived.

The UN will threaten them with France's stinky cheese.

Bush: Force last resort on Iran



Saturday, August 13, 2005; Posted: 5:44 a.m. EDT (09:44 GMT)

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

"All options are on the table," Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.

Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/13/bush.iran.reut/index.html

Bush's words have a familiar ring to them. What, I wonder does last option mean in Bushese?

What it may mean to you is immaterial; operative is what it means to Iran, and by extension to North Korea and to Syria. As was the case with Sadaam's Iraq, the option to avoid military sanction remains entirely with the leadership of those rogue nations. It is madness to sit complacently by while an enemy is allowed to fully develop and deploy a clearly indicated and openly avowed threat. The message the tyrants and terrorists need to gather is that Bush says what he means and does what he says. The Left, of course, does not like that, but fortunately for the world, and for the US, The American Left is dedicated to rendering itself ever more irrelevant and powerless, just as has been The American Left's favorite international institution, the UN. If the world body refuses to rise to its obligation to preserve and protect the security of the world, The US stands ready, able, and committed to protecting itself. The world cannot afford, and must never again position itself to permit, action of the sort which brought about Neville Chamberlain's "I have in my hand the paper which guarantees peace for our time". WWII was the wake-up call, 9/11 was the re-ring. The snooze alarm is off.

timber
With what and with whom will Bush fight his war? And will we be as successful as we are in Iraq? Will the have the same, "support" from the nations of the world and the UN as we have had in Iraq? Words and bravado are fine when you can back it up with action. Do you think we can? Standing alone with our finger in the dike?

I'm confident what must be done can and will be done. And frankly, I don't give a damn for international or UN support - we've gotten along fine without either for over 200 years, there's no reason to change a winning strategy.