Iran next? Germany and the US disagree

welsh

Junkmaster
Oops. Did we invade the wrong country?

Should we invade another.

Apparently W is figuring since our guys are already in the midst of an ugly guerrilla war in Iraq, we might as well get into another one in Iran.

I guess there is some kind of logic in that.

Apparently the Germans are saying no- that force is not an option.

But then you have to ask, if you take force off the table, what else does the EU and the US have to bargain with? Something that could work?

This is where that old coercive diplomacy means something- "Do it or we blow you away" is said so that things get done but ideally the guns don't come out of the holster.

But what if a member of your gang says, "Hey, what the fuck? You mean you are planning to draw as this asshole? Fuck that. Count me out."

What are the remaining options?

Bush Raises Option of Using Force against Iran
Reuters

Saturday 13 August 2005

Crawford, Texas - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the US-led war on Iraq, told an election rally on Saturday the threat of force was not acceptable.

In what appeared to be a reference to Bush's remarks that "all options are on the table," Schroeder told the crowd in his home city of Hanover:

" ... let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

The EU - represented by Britain, France and Germany - has been trying to find a compromise for two years between arch foes Iran and the United States.

Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, was asked in the interview broadcast on Saturday whether possible options included the use of force.

"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," he told state-owned Israel Channel One television.

Diplomacy

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country, and Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we're working feverishly on the diplomatic route and we'll see if we're successful or not," Bush said in the Israeli interview.

Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes. But US officials have played down media speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Friday that negotiations were still possible with Iran on condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear activities.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will likely be held, where both Europe and Washington will push for a referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Schroeder, whose Social Democrats are lagging the opposition conservatives in opinion polls ahead of September elections, said he was worried about developments in Iran because no one wants it to gain possession of atomic weapons.

"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal. Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this," he said.

Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war was seen as a decisive factor in his unexpected victory in the 2002 general election, which he won narrowly after coming from behind.

But his critical stance caused serious ruptures in Germany's traditionally strong relations with the United States.
 
Gethard is just trying to win another election by pulling out anti-American bullshit like he did in the last one. It won't work.
 
John Uskglass said:
Gethard is just trying to win another election by pulling out anti-American bullshit like he did in the last one. It won't work.

Well, the war was a failure, it is still raging, street-style. I don't see your point? That "anti-American bullshit" is pretty true bullshit. Are you american or something? :P
 
Every option has to be on the table or Iran will never negotiate, which will inevitably end up with Tel Aviv going up like a Roman candle doused in Gasoline and packed with a few tons of C4.
 
As far as I'm concerned Iran should be allowed to continue with their uranium enrichment (or whatever they're doing) program... if Israel can have the bomb, then so can Iran. It's only fair. And yes, the US foreign policy is beginning to get on everybody’s nerves lately. Not to mention their hypocrisy…I sincerely doubt it’ll come to a military confrontation between the confronting parties – and it’s even less likely Israel would pull a stunt like the one with Iraq in the 80s when they performed an air raid, bombing the shit out of their nuclear reactor. ( They’re just too far away, and Iran could have very likely purchased modern anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia that would make the mission completely suicidal). I say, we give those people a break. They deserve it.
 
On the other hand, the state is fucked up.
The state executes gay people and I think the opposition is having it pretty 'hard'.
Islamistic republics means only one thing... teh bathtub.
 
John, the use of force does not have to be threatened for someone to come to the table. Especially in this case. Lets look at it as black and white as possible.

Iran: Wants the bomb or something just as good
UN: Needs to provide something JUST as good

Now this does not necessarily mean military supplies. Aid can be given in a great many more categories that would be equally as valuable to Iran. Unfortunately, that price I guarantee you is going to be very, very high.

With that said good ol' Uncle Sam under the flag of W had all ready planned on launching another campaign against Iran as soon as they entered Iraq. They want change in the Middle East, they want reform... And as far as they were concerned, they were going to bring it in W's reign. I guess that little pesky thing called reality stepped in.

Anti-American bullshit? Heh heh it's just about as much bull shit as the "Dog shit on the train" article Welsh has just posted.
 
Maphusio said:
JWith that said good ol' Uncle Sam under the flag of W had all ready planned on launching another campaign against Iran as soon as they entered Iraq. They want change in the Middle East, they want reform... And as far as they were concerned, they were going to bring it in W's reign. I guess that little pesky thing called reality stepped in.

And he will fail. Miserably.
Only thing it will accomplish is continuation of violence all throughout the world, and it will be worse than it ever was.

Oh, yeah, while we're on the subject of Israel, have you noticed how if America arms some nation in a couple of years they turn on them; Russia, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq...
Maybe in twenty years or so we can expect a war between the US and Israel...[/half irony]
 
my god... if America everwent up against Israel... IT would most probably end up being obliterated. And Israel just might bring the battle to our front. But who knows what great fortunes the future will bring.

It is rather ironic... maybe we will beat the shit out of GB too. Yu know... for... err for Laurance of Arabia *shakes fist*
 
Maphusio said:
It is rather ironic... maybe we will beat the shit out of GB too. Yu know... for... err for Laurance of Arabia *shakes fist*

Well, maybe not GB, but France and Germany... If you're not with us you're against us... Freedom fries, anyone? :mrgreen:

EDIT: Just ask CCR, he'd nuke FR & GE in a heartbeat.
 
Max Demian said:
As far as I'm concerned Iran should be allowed to continue with their uranium enrichment (or whatever they're doing) program... if Israel can have the bomb, then so can Iran. It's only fair. And yes, the US foreign policy is beginning to get on everybody’s nerves lately. Not to mention their hypocrisy…I sincerely doubt it’ll come to a military confrontation between the confronting parties – and it’s even less likely Israel would pull a stunt like the one with Iraq in the 80s when they performed an air raid, bombing the shit out of their nuclear reactor. ( They’re just too far away, and Iran could have very likely purchased modern anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia that would make the mission completely suicidal). I say, we give those people a break. They deserve it.


Give them a break? Fair? You have a very warped sense of international politics, friend. Besides the fac ttha tnations exist to perpetuate their own influence and power, the fact that Iran is a theocratic and authoritarian oligarchy cloaked in the veneer of moral 'justice' is a farce to any notion of being 'fair'. Please, explain to me how exactly nuclear materials should be doled out equitably to the world; sharing in the Big Sandlot makes everyone happy, right?
 
John Uskglass said:
Every option has to be on the table or Iran will never negotiate, which will inevitably end up with Tel Aviv going up like a Roman candle doused in Gasoline and packed with a few tons of C4.

Don't be a fool, John. The threat of violence is not a viable point of negation if you can't back it up. Luxembourg isn't going to get trade concessions from the US by threatening an invasion.

Iran isn't stupid. They have an efficient, well-run army and a population of which everyone but the kids hate the US. They know and they know that the US knows that the US can't afford to invade Iran on top of Aghanistan and Iraq. And everyone knows that if the US does, they'll overstretch and be forced to flee soon enough.

You people don't have the backbone for this kind of stuff anymore. Deal with it.

In fact, the entire negotiation becomes moot and stupid by Russia and China backing Iran, as the EU and US can't do shit without those two, in this case.
 
What if Iran is telling the truth? What if they do just want to produce electric power with nuclear reactors?

I say let them keep their program but make them accept UN inspectors.

Bush is just using this as another excuse for war.
 
calculon000 said:
What if Iran is telling the truth? What if they do just want to produce electric power with nuclear reactors?

I say let them keep their program but make them accept UN inspectors.

Bush is just using this as another excuse for war.

Bush would never do that :roll:
 
Fireblade said:
Max Demian said:
As far as I'm concerned Iran should be allowed to continue with their uranium enrichment (or whatever they're doing) program... if Israel can have the bomb, then so can Iran. It's only fair. And yes, the US foreign policy is beginning to get on everybody’s nerves lately. Not to mention their hypocrisy…I sincerely doubt it’ll come to a military confrontation between the confronting parties – and it’s even less likely Israel would pull a stunt like the one with Iraq in the 80s when they performed an air raid, bombing the shit out of their nuclear reactor. ( They’re just too far away, and Iran could have very likely purchased modern anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia that would make the mission completely suicidal). I say, we give those people a break. They deserve it.


Give them a break? Fair? You have a very warped sense of international politics, friend. Besides the fac ttha tnations exist to perpetuate their own influence and power, the fact that Iran is a theocratic and authoritarian oligarchy cloaked in the veneer of moral 'justice' is a farce to any notion of being 'fair'. Please, explain to me how exactly nuclear materials should be doled out equitably to the world; sharing in the Big Sandlot makes everyone happy, right?

It's their problem, not ours. One they should resolve on their own. Do you honestly believe if Iran had no strategic importance to the US they would be making such a fuss about it? Self defense you say? - Bullshit! Altruism? You can't possibly be that naive... if it's about saving lives then just take a look at all those poor people down there in Africa... just how often do they hit the headlines? Seldom, at best. Coz, why should anybody care about them? Yeah, why? What’s to profit? They’re been bled dry already… just let them be miserable as they are – the weaker, the better. They’ll be dealt with accordingly when the time comes for it – when it becomes more profitable to do so. I in general have no qualms with the stronger ones oppressing the weaker – it’s only natural that they do so. To do anything else would be blasphemy against nature – but of course, one has to contend his right of ascendance with opposing powers engaged – just like the US will have to, at the expense of all unsuspecting players of this grand game… people are like sheep, let’s face it. The truth is too much to bear, we need others to choose are good and bad, to tell us where to go, what to do…and thus pay the price for not having to face the dreadful moment of having our eyes open. So we accept being manipulated and in the same time comfort ourselves with self-complacent lies. Illusions are what holds this world together. To cast them off means to die. Get my point?
 
calculon000 said:
What if Iran is telling the truth? What if they do just want to produce electric power with nuclear reactors?

Pretty Frith-damned highly unlikely, that.
 
What if Iran is telling the truth? What if they do just want to produce electric power with nuclear reactors?
They are'nt. Why would one of the top oil producing nations in the world, with if anything an excess of the stuff, need to have something as incredibly unprofitable as nuclear power?
I say let them keep their program but make them accept UN inspectors.

Because the UN has such a good record of doing such things? The UNSC (not the ENTIRE UN, wooz) is useful for two things: Jack and Shit, and jack's left town.

If Iran gets wepons, it's pretty easy to see what happens.

Don't be a fool, John. The threat of violence is not a viable point of negation if you can't back it up. Luxembourg isn't going to get trade concessions from the US by threatening an invasion.
'Invasion'? Nope. Military options? Hell fucking yes. Hitting Natzan, Arak and Bushehr is a possibility. That is why Gethard is flatly wrong and clearly pandering to his inane constittuency.

They have an efficient, well-run army and a population of which everyone but the kids hate the US.
And the vast majority of the population is kids.

You people don't have the backbone for this kind of stuff anymore. Deal with it.
o rly?

In fact, the entire negotiation becomes moot and stupid by Russia and China backing Iran, as the EU and US can't do shit without those two, in this case.
Yeah, I'm sure China and Russia would go to war to help Iran.
 
calculon000 said:
What if Iran is telling the truth? What if they do just want to produce electric power with nuclear reactors?

emp1.jpg


Those no-good Iranians are funded by russian NOD! :x
 
John Uskglass said:
Gethard is just trying to win another election by pulling out anti-American bullshit like he did in the last one. It won't work.

To be clear: What Gerhard has been doing those past few years was in no way shape or form anything anti-American. It is easy to accuse, I know. But this politician did his job right back then.
 
Back
Top