Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Forums: Politics, Iran, Foreign Policy, John Bolton
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://static.jpost.com/images/2004/site/jplogo.230.gif

Quote:

Updated Jan. 24, 2006

By HERB KEINON

US President George W. Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday.

Bolton, speaking from New York via video hook-up to the Interdisciplinary Center's Herzliya Conference, said that Bush was determined to pursue the issue through peaceful and diplomatic means, "but has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable."

According to Bolton, Bush worries that a nuclear-equipped Iran under its current leadership could well engage in a nuclear holocaust, "and that is just not something he is going to accept."

Bolton said that if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council in early February, it would still be unlikely for the UN to immediately slap sanctions on Teheran.

"In the first instance I suspect that if it comes to the Security Council in a few weeks we would look for a statement that essentially calls on Iran to comply with the existing IAEA resolutions," Bolton said. "I think that would be a gut check for the Iranians, and if they don't heed that warning we would have to consider what to do next."

Bolton said that referring the issue to the Security Council was a form of pressure on Iran to convince them to make the same strategic decision Libya made in 2004 - that their national interests would be better served, and they would be safer in giving up the purist of nuclear weapons, than in continuing that pursuit.

Bolton, who was very critical during his comments of the UN's treatment of Israel, said - in an answer to a question - that the time had come to re-evaluate UNRWA, the UN body devoted to Palestinian refuges.

When looking toward a two state solution, Bolton said, "you have to ask why one state, Palestine, has an entire UN agency devoted entirely to it."

Bolton asked why the UN Development Program, and other UN programs present in other countries around the world, would not be applicable to a Palestinian state as well.

"Looking at the future of UNRWA is definitely something we should all be doing, thinking about how to transition to a new UN involvement in the region," Bolton said.

jpost

As was the case with Iraq, Bush has yet to produce any evidence that Iran is building anything other than a power station. and, like Iraq, Bush cannot explain why even with nuclear arms, Iran is any kind of threat to the United States, which possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and remains historically the only nation to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 13,315 • Replies: 292

No top replies

Rice: Iran must stop making nuclear bombs!

Iran: We're not making nuclear bombs. We're building a power station.

Rice: Iran's denial of nuclear weapons manufacture is proof of their uncooperative attitude!

Iran: We're not being uncooperative. Come in, look around all you want. It's a power station. Look here, see this switch? Switch goes up, light goes on. Switch goes down, light goes off!

Rice: Don't patronize me! We know you are building nuclear bombs with reactor fuel.

Iran: Look, I don't know who taught you nuclear physics but in fact the step from fuel-grade to weapons-grade is not as simple as you seem to think. It's not like you push a button on a microwave for an extra minute and instead of tuna noodle casserole you get a neutron bomb.

Rice: We are done talking!

Iran: Then shut the **** up, already. Nobody believes you anyway. You were screaming that Iraq had nuclear weapons. You invaded, murdered thousands of innocent people, made a total mess of the country, and didn't find a single WMD. Now you are saying the same things about Iran, and without a single shred of proof, I might add!

Rice: Your refusal to be honest and open is proof enough!

Iran: Look, Ms. Rice, thank you for coming, but I think we are done for the day. You want to buy electricity or oil, you are welcome back. You want nuclear bombs, better you should go see the Israelis; they have lots of them!

0 Replies

It interests me, from a sociologic perspective, when people try to demonize the west by defending the "innocent" mullahs and madmen running the regimes in countries like Iraq and Iran.

I always have to wonder why they do that.

0 Replies

Nuclear arms in the hands of the mad Mullahs of Iran are a threat to the entire world. I must agree with Bush {that is a first}
Whether, the US, is in a position, on it's own, to do anything is the question.

0 Replies

Re: Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Quote:

US President George W. Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday.

It's "nuculer," John, not "nuclear." Didn't he get the memo?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It interests me, from a sociologic perspective, when people try to demonize the west by defending the "innocent" mullahs and madmen running the regimes in countries like Iraq and Iran.

I always have to wonder why they do that.

I am dismayed to learn that mullahs and madmen are running Iraq--i had thought the Shrub and Big Dick Cheney were in the cat-bird seat . . . i guess i need to keep more up-to-date . . .

0 Replies

Satanta
I agree with MgC when he says madmen are running Iraq. And I also agree with you that the Scrub and Cheney are running Iraq. Embarrassed

0 Replies

I get it....

0 Replies

By George, I'll not tolerate a nukular Iran either!

0 Replies

Quote:

US President George W. Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran

Thats an admirable sentiment, but really, whats he gonna do about it?

Err ... I'm gonna wish I hadnt asked that, aint I.

0 Replies

U.S. and Israel To Attack Iran "Before April"
There is no declaration of war. There is no Congressional Authorization to use force aginst Iran and there is no UN Security Council Resolution

Folks, somthing must be done to rein-in this madness. In my opinion, a quick and effective solution would be a few well-placed bullets fired at certain "select" people here in the United States. Believe me, it would be a far less severe price to pay for shooting some people here, than the nation as a whole would pay if we engage in another war.

0 Replies

I wonder what is better for the peace process; U.S. taking out the power plant or Israel taking out the power plant. Unlike NK, Iran isn't set up to wipe out millions of people conventionally. Do we want them to get there? Considering what Iran's leadership has suggested should happen to Israel (wiped off the face); doesn't Israel have a right to defend itself against such a horrific threat? Considering the slave-state 1/2 of Iran's population is born into; should the world stand by and let them achieve the kind of deterrent-security that's allowed Kim Jong Il to murder millions, while the world stands by and wishes it had done something sooner?

I think not.

Does anyone think the world would be better off with a Nuclear Iran?

0 Replies

Ehh not to necessarily undermine the rest of your argument (I havent actually got much of an opinion on this yet, ambiguous about it), but this here <points down> is a tad overstated. Its not Afghanistan..

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Considering the slave-state 1/2 of Iran's population is born into

0 Replies

Perhaps a tad, Nimh. But I think we've all read the horror stories of State ordered, let alone condoned, atrocities against women for some pretty mundane reasons. Rulers who think public stoning is justified for inferred insults (applying to only to half the population) should in no way be allowed to strengthen their death grip on their own citizens, let alone develop the technology to destroy others. It would be nice if the world body would address the problem so as not to upset the peace process (hated Americans and/or Israelis are at it again) any more than is absolutely necessary but I just don't see the U.N. doing much more than offering lip service. I regret to report that I could easily see this being dragged out until it's too late, much like the failed attempt at reeling in Kim Jong Il. Yeah, I know; he's "isolated" but that's certainly of little comfort to the suffering majority of North Korea.

On the other hand; I've long thought that a sustained policy of hammering rogue nations who refuse to comply with civil demands would eventually make the threat of a bite so compelling that rogue leaders would start to realize we're not just crying wolf anymore and begin to comply when they hear us barking. Consistency could (should) reach deep down into said leaders souls and touch their instincts for self-preservation, eventually.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Perhaps a tad, Nimh. But I think we've all read the horror stories of State ordered, let alone condoned, atrocities against women for some pretty mundane reasons. Rulers who think public stoning is justified for inferred insults (applying to only to half the population) should in no way be allowed to strengthen their death grip on their own citizens

How many women in Iran have been stoned in the last eight years? (Ehm, I mean, as in ... well, you know what I mean.)

Like I said, its not North-Pakistan...

0 Replies

How many state ordered stonings are acceptable? (This is only one prong in my reasoning, mind you, but I do find it very significant.)

0 Replies

(Sorry for the thread hi-jack..)

In 2002, BBC News wrote:

27 December, 2002

Iran stops stoning of women adulterers

Iran has halted stoning as a form of capital punishment for women, a senior judiciary official in Iran has been quoted as saying.
The head of the judiciary is reported to have instructed judges not to implement the sentence [..]

In practice, although the stoning of adulteresses remains on the statute books, it has become extremely rare.

There were two cases in the first half of 2001, but they were the first for many years and there have not been any reported since.

I have few kind words for the hardliners who, since the last elections, have regained full political control over the country, and even less (if possible) for their views on women. But I also think that many Westerners (or Americans) have an image of Teheran as a kind of Taliban-type stronghold, where women have to walk around in burqas and cant leave the house except in the company of a man. Perhaps thats because - as that BBC report noted in December 2002, at least:

Quote:

Last year's stonings were practically the only news about Iran carried by some Western newspapers.

Now, that will have changed since, but still, when discussion is of Iran, I'm always torn into two directions: lashing at the Iranian conservatives for their hateful views and politics, or countering the sometimes somewhat cartoonesque perceptions of Iran as The Taliban Empire Returns..

0 Replies

Wow, we're already on the "demonizing sled". Can another life wasting coffer emptying war by the idiot in chief be far behind?
Is he gonna totally drive our country to ruin in the fullfilment of his "end time" beliefs? Are we all that trusting and gullible?

Iraq is just one spitball away from an all out civil war, thanks to the little bonehead in command. This all is ultimately gonna result in economic sanctions that we cant afford and will draw us closer to a war with China, the real 900 pound gorilla in the room.

0 Replies

On the Beeb just now, Condasleeza just said that the United States has always respected and continues to respect the sovereignty of other nations . . . stop it, yer killin' me . . . my sides are splittin' . . .

0 Replies

shaddup and keep trying to cook that turkey sausage

0 Replies

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know