Scott Mclellan at today’s (7/19/04) press conference:
You’re not alone Ale.
Palau, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing are all the world we need, silly! 
Too bad there are only two choices at the Voting Atari.
The chances of American incursion into Iran are slim with either candidate, but don’t count out Mr Kerry. Jack Kerry’s not only talking tough about the September 11 attacks, he’s also got a hard-on for Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Without equivocation, Mr Kerry has frequently intoned that “a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable”. Besides, let the record speaks for itself: his support for the War in Iraq shows he’s not big on heavy reading.
Clearly, it is unlikely that an American incursion into Iran will occur. There is, however, growing concern that Israel will attack Iran, both with airstrikes and commandos. See, Russia wants to supply Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium, uranium that would be used in power plants at several different locations in the country. The only snag is that this process creates plutonium, which could be used to make The Bomb. Right now it’s up to the diplomats, but Israel’s first-strike plan is rehearsed and ready should negotiations fail.
I wouldn’t be worried about broader repercussions of an Israeli strike on Iran, though. After all, 23 years ago, Israel destroyed the France-backed Osirak nuclear plant in Baghdad.* The immediate backlash was minor.
*** Interesting fact: the man who led the assault on Osirak was Ilan Ramon, who in 2003 would become the first Israeli to enter space. He, along with six other astronauts, died when the Shuttle Columbia burned up on re-entry in February of 2003.**
Nice post Cid
Maybe it is a GD topic. But it seems like you’re pitting the administration for saying that, if Iran wants to improve its relationship with us, it should
.
Further, you’re implying that Bush wants to invade Iran. Myself, I don’t find those demands that unreasonable, and while I don’t think invading Iran is a good idea, especially right now, if Iran is:
- Harboring al Qaeda members
- Developing nuclear weapons
- Funding groups like Hezbollah
and - Involved in the 9/11 plot
then an invasion, whether or not it would be practical, wouldn’t in my opinion, be completely unreasonable. So, I’m wondering, if you’re condemning a (hypothetical) invasion for those reasons, under what circumstances would an invasion be justified?
How about another case of:
- Trumped up harboring al Qaeda members
- Trumped up developing nuclear weapons
- Trumped up funding groups like Hezbollah
and - Trumped up involved in the 9/11 plot
Would you again favor an invasion under those circumstances?
In my defense, the first three words out of my mou… err, fingertips, were “I don’t know…” (The sad thing is, I know quite a few Iranian folks, and know that they speak Persian, not Arabic, and still I tripped over the “Middle East = Arab” thing. :smack: )
As for whether or not anyone’s going to rain down Daisycutters on Iran, I’ll not take that wager, because I think there’s a less than 50% chance of it happening. That being said, I think that if it doesn’t happen, it’s more likely to be because the American electorate (and congresscritters, etc) take that “Won’t get fooled again” homily to heart, rather than because the Bush administration’s intentions are benign.
Ah, here! In all its glory:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.” —- George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Goddess bless George Bush for doing that on film. Goddess bless Michael Moore for putting it in his movie.
Anyone who follows the news, knows the clerics are not popular with the young in Iran. I think the plan means to foment and supply insurrection inside Iran. And cause the regiemes downfall from within.
But it does include a one page intelligence summary telling him exactly what he’s told people he wants to know:
Because revolutions tend to go so well. :rolleyes:
This would be a good time to fade into the background, fund democratic moderates through third parties and make every effort not to be linked to any moderate political group in Iran for the next 10-20 years. You guys seemingly aren’t popular in western democracies; you seem even less well liked in the ME.
I can bet you there isn’t a chance in hell of a UN approval, or a gathering of a “coalition”, to invade Iran under the leadership of Bush II - unless there are videotapes of nuclear missiles with Isral written on them in big, capital letters. Any such action would be completely unilateral on the part of the US.
Every possible arguments has already been used on Iraq, the WMD, the harboring al-Aaeda members, the “road to peace in the ME” argument. Foreign administrations who supported the war has had their hands burned badly. There will be no “coming onboard” here.
As for the Presidents remarks, they are definitely of the same nature as the speeches and comments against Iraq early on.
Iran has detained several mid- and high-level al Qaeda members, and may simply choose to send them to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. The hardliners in Iran are pretty pragmatic, even though they try hard to appear the opposite. But if the White House pushes for the end of nuclear activity in Iran, we may be headed for a showdown. What’s interesting about all this is that the ball is finally rolling. By elevating Iran back to the top of the agenda, Bush is both putting pressure on Iran and painting himself into a corner. Too many such remarks, and he can’t get away doing nothing.
I’m not sure we’ll see anyone banging the drum yet, if ever. At least not on this side of Christmas. (But watch Cheney’s speeches in the next few weeks.)
You don’t understand. Failure leaves the door open for the support.
I don’t know, folks. I just heard Bush on the morning news, and the noises he was making sounded a lot like the ones he was making before we invaded Iraq to me. I’m not into politics any more. A decade or so ago, they just got entirely too vicious and nasty for me and I realized I was looking at presidential elections where I didn’t like either of the only two candidates who stood a chance of getting elected. Nevertheless, I’m afraid I wouldn’t put anything past Bush.
Look, we know which country was most heavily linked with Al Qaeda and gave them support and funding. Saudi Arabia, however, is off-limits for now. I didn’t think we had the manpower or the justification to invade Iraq, and I certainly don’t think we have it to invade Iran. If that makes me an America-hating liberal, so be it. I’ve been called worse.
Before the last presidential election, I realized the top two candidates looked to me like spoiled rich kids who’d never completely failed at anything in their lives and who would stop at nothing to make sure they didn’t then. The aftermath of the election confirmed that belief. As far as I’m concerned, Bush ran two companies into the ground and is now trying to do the same with a country. Then again, I’m looking at dropping my health insurance because I can’t afford the latest increase, so I’m biased.
Despite my disgust with both parties, I do still vote. Bring on November!
CJ
“Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka
If the information isn’t true, then it shouldn’t be used as a reason to invade. But I will notice that nobody is saying we’re going to invade at this point, anyway.
No Shit, that’s why we’re a tad pissed about this Iraq dealie. :rolleyes: Now they’re using Identical rhetoric towards Iran, and it’s no big deal?
At this point anyone who believes these assholes should go commit Seppuku.
Even in a post 9/11 world? Have we learned nothing?
No one is saying that we’re going to invade at this point, but several people have noted the frightening similarity between Bush’s remarks regarding Iran, and those he made two years ago when we “weren’t” going to invade" Iraq.
Uh… Has anyone actually looked at weather it would be possible to invade Iran, assuming we wanted to? He’s a hint: It wouldn’t. All other considerations aside, the US simply does not have the military muscle necessary to invade Iran right now, units on the ground in Iraq notwithstanding.
I take that back, we could invade, and probobly destroy the Iranian army, but nothing further than that. We don’t have the troops necessary to properly secure Iraq right now, much less Iran too.
Yes, but you assume the people in charge have common sense or would let piffling little details like this get in the way of things.