Bush warns for wwIII if Iran goes nuclear.

[Fontaine]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071017154505.rci3xjja&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071017154505.rci3xjja&show_article=1

US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III."
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's supect atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

I'ts such a peacemaker, ain't he? He will defend us all from great dangers!

Now they only need some good evidence (as he had with iraq) and Bush can shoot some nuclair bombs on Iran and declare wwIII ! In the name  of freedom etc...

===========================================

Oh well now that I think of it, he just a peacemaker and should get the nobel peace price, because it helps to fight global warming (wwIII/nuclair winter)

[Balthaser]

WWIII, yeah right, Aliens gonna support Iran and the rest of the world will fight the Aliens. Hooray!!!

[Fontaine]

Well already this Iraq war is taking as long or even longer then WWII.

So lets say Bush attacks Iran with perhaps a nuclair bomb after finding this great evidence.
After that you get probaly more wars which grows and grows bigger which last for tens of years..

And why trust bush? (he got the most weapons and the greatest budget and already started a few wars).

Its just a fire which starts somewhere and grows bigger and bigger. So its not that you have wwIII in a flash..
perhaps we already in WWIII.
Right now Turkey agreed to invade iraq and attack terrorists. What's next?


He got a great tactic, scare the people and the people follow you whereever you go.
He's not bringing the message of peace, he says: watch out people! these people ar dangerous (terrorists, axis of evil, Iran, weapons of destruction) and he does the same thing himself!

Wow, pretty brilliant I think.

[Intuit]

Junior will never attack Iran.  They're basically trying to set them up for the long-haul though.  They may also be trying to pressure Iran into dropping some of it's alledged logistical support for various Resistance factions operating in their neighboring country, Iraq.  We won't attempt an attack without first laying down a weakening blockade and I'm not sure the next Administration will fully support the policies of Junior & Friends.  Iraq had an active military blockade for over ten years before we attempted an actual take-over.  If they succeed with their nuclear defense plans, we'll never attack them period.  (barring extraordinary circumstances of course)

On the flipside I have absolutely no reason to believe that Iran (or any other nation) is dumb enough to attack the US directly.

The only legitemate fear (because I don't know what their political climate is from an internal standpoint) is being drawn in with the event of an Israeli attack.

[Fontaine]

The US can't do a real good job with sanctions since they already traded at a minimium so they need europe and others to hurt Iran.

''Junior will never attack iran'', Junior wants victory! i don't think he wants to leave his term like it is today.
With attacking iran all the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.

[Balthaser]

chill ppl, check the econ status all over the world before WWI and WWII broke out. Without wide spread econ crisis and conflicts I don't see a chance of another total war.

[Rocky]

460 days or something like that until Bush is no longer a figure on the national or world stage.  At least not with respect to wars and foreign affairs.  I think with that short time window, we have to look to what the future holds other than Bush.

[Fontaine]

So let him attack Iran, we got another US president in 460 days anyways
So all cocentrate on the next presidents... get all busy with that and so...

And yes we can't stop him anyways... I mean g'luck with trying.

Sure I will be suprised when he does takes action but not that much.

[hydran]

don't you mean he warns if Iran goes NUKULAR?

Bush is such a dumb-ass.

[Fontaine]

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.



Brian Berman

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive -- what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone."

This would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from the wobbly states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance to the Great Satan. "As disastrous as Iraq has been," says Mann, "an attack on Iran could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."

Mann and Leverett believe that none of this had to be.

Flynt Lawrence Leverett grew up in Fort Worth and went to Texas Christian University. He spent the first nine years of his government career as a CIA analyst specializing in the Middle East. He voted for George Bush in 2000. On the day the assassins of Al Qaeda flew two hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center, Colin Powell summoned him to help plan the response. Five months later, Leverett landed a plum post on the National Security Council. When Condoleezza Rice discussed the Middle East with President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Leverett was the man standing behind her taking notes and whispering in her ear.

Today, he sits on the back deck of a house tucked into the curve of a leafy suburban street in McLean, Virginia, a forty-nine-year-old white American man wearing khakis and a white dress shirt and wire-rimmed glasses. Mann sits next to him, also wearing khakis. She's thirty-nine but looks much younger, with straight brown hair and a tomboy's open face. The polish on her toenails is pink. If you saw her around McLean, you wouldn't hesitate:

Soccer mom. Classic soccer mom.

But with degrees from Brandeis and Harvard Law and stints at Tel Aviv University and the powerful Israeli lobby known as AIPAC, she has even better right-wing credentials than her husband.

As they talk, eating grapes out of a bowl, lawn mowers hum and birds chirp. The floor is littered with toy trucks and rubber animals left behind by the youngest of their four children. But the tranquillity is misleading. When Mann and Leverett went public with the inside story behind the impending disaster with Iran, the White House dismissed them. Then it imposed prior restraint on them, an extraordinary episode of government censorship. Finally, it threatened them.

Now they are afraid of the White House, and watching what they say. But still, they feel they have to speak out.

Like so many things these days, this story began on the morning of September 11, 2001. On Forty-fifth Street in Manhattan, Mann had just been evacuated from the offices of the U.S. mission to the United Nations and was walking home to her apartment on Thirty-eighth Street -- walking south, toward the giant plume of smoke. When her cell phone rang, she picked it up immediately because her sister worked at the World Trade Center and she was frantic for word. But it wasn't her sister, it was a senior Iranian diplomat. To protect him from reprisals from the Iranian government, she doesn't want to name him, but she describes him as a cultured man in his fifties with salt-and-pepper hair. Since early spring, they had been meeting secretly in a small conference room at the UN.

"Are you all right?" he asked.

Yes, she said, she was fine.

The attack was a terrible tragedy, he said, doubtless the work of Al Qaeda.

"I hope that we can still work together," he said.

5 pages long!
Second page: http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107-2

[Intuit]

Junior made his intent to conquer multiple nations clear.  I don't think it's a secret.  

But the political climate has changed drastically since his open declarations of intent.

Junior will never attack Iran and the Iranian Government is taking all the prudent steps necessary to actively discourage it.

[Reflex]

Time is running out, Iran only has to wait GWB out.  Considering the time investment required to build a reactor(about 16 years) there is little Bush can do about any of this.  Israel may be another story however...

[Mefistofeles]

Time is running out, Iran only has to wait GWB out.  Considering the time investment required to build a reactor(about 16 years) there is little Bush can do about any of this.

Has it occured to you Reflex that with Bush's term winding down that if he really is set on attacking Iran that this may be his last chance to do so?   If this truly is Bush's state of mind then the implications are absolutely horrific.

[ScutMonkey]

Has it occured to you Reflex that with Bush's term winding down that if he really is set on attacking Iran that this may be his last chance to do so?   If this truly is Bush's state of mind then the implications are absolutely horrific.

This may be the case (but I doubt it).  However, there is simply no way he would be able to get enough support in Congress to invade.  Not only would the Dems put up a huge fight, but so would the Republicans who want to get reelected in 2008.  Bush's hands are tied.  Period.

[Reflex]

Has it occured to you Reflex that with Bush's term winding down that if he really is set on attacking Iran that this may be his last chance to do so?   If this truly is Bush's state of mind then the implications are absolutely horrific.

This may be the case (but I doubt it).  However, there is simply no way he would be able to get enough support in Congress to invade.  Not only would the Dems put up a huge fight, but so would the Republicans who want to get reelected in 2008.  Bush's hands are tied.  Period.

Exactly.  He cannot go to war in Iran without some form of congressional support, even if he exercised his right to invade for up to 90 days he has to get funding from somewhere and Congress will not give it.

[ScutMonkey]

And here's the thing.  I'm not completely convinced we shouldn't invade Iran.  However, I do not want this administration to be part of that action.  I want another administration in office to independently evaluate the facts and come to their own conclusion.  I still support our invasion of Iraq but I feel the occupation was done poorly and against the wishes and advice of experienced military leaders.  Only now when we have implemented this "surge" to just begin to approach the number of troops military leaders recommended in the first place have we seen the situation begin to stabilize to some extent.

IF we're going to attack Iran - IF - then I want someone else to do the evaluation and figure out how it should be done and if we should even try to occupy the country.  It may be that we need only another Iraq '91 type of operation where we neutralize the immediate threat and then leave.  It may be that a strike of any kind of Iran is pointless.  Dunno.  I just know I'd rather have a different administration doing the evaluation.  Heck, I'd prefer to have someone other than the CIA sifting through the Intel too.  I have far less confidence in the CIA than I do in the Bush administration.  But that isn't going to happen.

[Reflex]

What grounds would we have to invade Iran?  I am not aware of any at all...

[Fontaine]

What grounds would we have to invade Iraq?
From link below:

The Bush administration's policy is that Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and is refusing to allow international inspectors to find and destroy them, as Iraq agreed to do after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Sounds a bit the same as reason to take action against Iran today.

And congress is not really needed..

http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0826-02.htm

''Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.

"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion from Gonzales on the matter.

"The president will consider a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if a vote were to become a relevant matter. He intends to consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play."

Despite the go-ahead from his legal advisers, administration officials said the president has not ruled out seeking lawmakers' approval if he decides to attack Iraq.

The officials noted that Bush's father was told in advance of the 1991 war that he did not need congressional authority to act, but nonetheless sought Congress' blessing for his action.
''

[Fontaine]

And if Bush attacks which most will not even take  serious the change of wwIII could happen indead.
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html

Now that would be reason enough though to not attack Iran but bush just ain't realistic with anything.

[ScutMonkey]

What grounds would we have to invade Iraq?
From link below:

The Bush administration's policy is that Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and is refusing to allow international inspectors to find and destroy them, as Iraq agreed to do after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Sounds a bit the same as reason to take action against Iran today.

And congress is not really needed..

http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0826-02.htm

''Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.

"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion from Gonzales on the matter.

"The president will consider a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if a vote were to become a relevant matter. He intends to consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play."

Despite the go-ahead from his legal advisers, administration officials said the president has not ruled out seeking lawmakers' approval if he decides to attack Iraq.

The officials noted that Bush's father was told in advance of the 1991 war that he did not need congressional authority to act, but nonetheless sought Congress' blessing for his action.
''

That was Reflex's point.  He doesn't have to ask Congress to go to war, but he does have to ask Congress for the MONEY to fund the war.  The military doesn't have any cash lying around for another war.  All Congress has to do is say no and they can't fuel up the planes to take the soldiers there.

[ScutMonkey]

What grounds would we have to invade Iran?  I am not aware of any at all...

I do have to agree with Fontaine on that one point.  If the justification is to deny an enemy of ours access to WMDs, then we've already got the historical precedent of Iraq.  And unlike Iraq, there are well established ties between Iran and terrorist funding.

[Fontaine]

What grounds would we have to invade Iraq?
From link below:

The Bush administration's policy is that Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and is refusing to allow international inspectors to find and destroy them, as Iraq agreed to do after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Sounds a bit the same as reason to take action against Iran today.

And congress is not really needed..

http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0826-02.htm

''Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.

"Any decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion from Gonzales on the matter.

"The president will consider a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if a vote were to become a relevant matter. He intends to consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play."

Despite the go-ahead from his legal advisers, administration officials said the president has not ruled out seeking lawmakers' approval if he decides to attack Iraq.

The officials noted that Bush's father was told in advance of the 1991 war that he did not need congressional authority to act, but nonetheless sought Congress' blessing for his action.
''

That was Reflex's point.  He doesn't have to ask Congress to go to war, but he does have to ask Congress for the MONEY to fund the war.  The military doesn't have any cash lying around for another war.  All Congress has to do is say no and they can't fuel up the planes to take the soldiers there.

Why would he use soldiers?
I don't think he would invade.. just bomb it flat. He just asked for a new bill and for 2008 he got a record funding! And as for today bush got every financial injection he asked for.
Also with attacking iran, iraq just gets out of the picture a bit and its just using your money for other/more important issues.
Ofcourse it would be nuts to attack Iran, I agree but bush wants victory.

[Fontaine]

Now I am in no way pro Iran but if this is the pretext for wwIII I would in no way ''go with the flow''. It would just making your fear reality and even worse with taking action against Iran.

[Reflex]

What grounds would we have to invade Iran?  I am not aware of any at all...

I do have to agree with Fontaine on that one point.  If the justification is to deny an enemy of ours access to WMDs, then we've already got the historical precedent of Iraq.  And unlike Iraq, there are well established ties between Iran and terrorist funding.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.  We started off as simply terrorists here in the colonies when we started disrupting the British economy by dumping tea and other goods.

As for historical precedent, there is no law that prohibits Iran from developing nuclear power.  In fact there is a set of laws specifically governing it, which they have attempted to adhere to.  It is the rest of the world, the US in particular, that have decided that rules that worked well enough for every other nation that has developed nuclear technology do not work well enough for Iran(and I'd make a strong case that Iran is far less a risk factor than Pakistan).

Lets not forget, there is zero evidence that Iran is developing any sort of nuclear weapons program.  So far all evidence points to a power program.

[ScutMonkey]

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.  We started off as simply terrorists here in the colonies when we started disrupting the British economy by dumping tea and other goods.

As for historical precedent, there is no law that prohibits Iran from developing nuclear power.  In fact there is a set of laws specifically governing it, which they have attempted to adhere to.  It is the rest of the world, the US in particular, that have decided that rules that worked well enough for every other nation that has developed nuclear technology do not work well enough for Iran(and I'd make a strong case that Iran is far less a risk factor than Pakistan).

Lets not forget, there is zero evidence that Iran is developing any sort of nuclear weapons program.  So far all evidence points to a power program.

I understand that and intellectually I agree with it.  However, a nuclear program is the genie in the bottle thing.  Once it's out, you can't put it back in.  If/when Iran gets a nuclear weapon, all leverage is gone and all ability to negotiate from a position of strength is gone as well.  We aren't happy about Pakistan and they're an excellent example.  We have to put up with Musharraf's government because they're nuclear and we need them to stay docile.  NK is the same way.  By all accounts Kim Jong Il has killed millions through starvation and we will never lift a finger about it because while he may not be nuclear quite yet, China is.  

Iran is antagonistic towards the west.  They fund death to get their point across and to harass their enemies.  They do not trust the US, they do not trust us because of history.  I feel the same way about them and I do not feel nuclear weapons in their hands is a good idea.  The problem with Nukes is you can't be wrong because if you're wrong, a few people won't die.  Millions or hundreds of millions will and the survivors will deal with the catastrophic fall out (no pun intended) for generation after generation.


***EDIT***

You know how you said you had trouble even considering a vote for a President who denies or doesn't understand Evolution?  I feel the same way about nukes with a man who denies the Holocaust.