'America would back Israel attack on Iran'

#1
President George W Bush added a new twist to the international tension over Iran's nuclear programme last night by pledging to support Israel if it tries to destroy the Islamic regime's capacity to make an atomic bomb.


Asked whether he would back Israel if it raided Teheran's nuclear facilities, Mr Bush first expressed cautious solidarity with European efforts, led by Britain, France and Germany, to negotiate with Iran.

But he quickly qualified himself, adding that all nations should be concerned about whether Iran could make nuclear weapons.

"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington.

Moments later, Mr Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time emphasising the need for a diplomatic effort.

Speaking days before he arrives in Europe on a tour designed to mend fences with estranged allies, he underscored the differences still hobbling western policy towards the Middle East.

Many figures close to the United States administration believe that the European diplomatic initiative is calculated more to dilute America's hardline approach to weapons of mass destruction than to stop Iran's mullahs building a bomb.

Israel, meanwhile, has given warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that an Iranian bomb might be only six months away and that such a weapon would pose a grave risk to its security. Mr Bush repeated the reasons for America's anxiety: "Remember, this all started when we found [Iran] enriching uranium in an undeclared fashion, and it happened because somebody told on them."

Iran's long march towards becoming a nuclear power appeared to make a significant step forward yesterday with the opening of a £450 million reactor at Bushehr.

A senior Russian nuclear official said he would go to Iran next week to sign a protocol agreeing the return of spent nuclear fuel, the last remaining obstacle to Bushehr's functioning. This will allow deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel.

The protocol's signing has been repeatedly delayed. It aims to ease concerns that Iran could reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Bushehr to extract plutonium, which could be used in nuclear weapons.

Iran's influential former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking yesterday after meeting the Syrian prime minister, Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said his country needed to create a powerful alliance with Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries.

Mr Rafsanjani, widely expected to run in Iran's June presidential elections, said the region must "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots".

America has this week stepped up its rhetoric against Syria following Monday's murder of the former Lebanese premier, Rafik al-Hariri. Pro-Syrian elements have been widely accused of involvement.

Mr Bush called on Syria yesterday to obey a UN resolution demanding that it remove its troops from Lebanon and restore the country's independence.

He said: "We've recalled our ambassador [from Damascus], which indicates the relationship is not moving forward; that Syria is out of step with the progress being made in the greater Middle East."
Could this explain why they were willing to sell bunker busters to the Isreali Air force???

Would it be morally corupt to run a book on when the first attack goes in? (or should i take it to the naafi? :twisted: )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/18/ixnewstop.html
 
#2
Agent_Smith said:
Would it be morally corupt to run a book on when the first attack goes in?
I wouldn't - PTP will delete it, citing concern that it may well influence the Ayatollahs into a precipitate course of action, resulting in WW3 - and it'll all be your fault!

:D
 
#3
My money is on Haliburton conveniently sending some of their guys over the border by mistake

Sorry mods, i wont say anymore if you think it is out of order

A_S
 
#6
So GWB has now made sure that an Israeli attack will draw the US - and thanks to TTB (that tw@t Blair) the UK - into any ensuing unpleasantness. He has given the barking mad mullahs that run Iran a huge boost in popular support - for you see, they're not paranoid, they really are out to get us. He has also demonstrated again that if you don't have a credible WMD capability the US will treat you as their bitch. If you do then you get respect - just ask North Korea.
 
#7
One_of_the_strange said:
So GWB has now made sure that an Israeli attack will draw the US - and thanks to TTB (that tw@t Blair) the UK - into any ensuing unpleasantness. He has given the barking mad mullahs that run Iran a huge boost in popular support - for you see, they're not paranoid, they really are out to get us. He has also demonstrated again that if you don't have a credible WMD capability the US will treat you as their bitch. If you do then you get respect - just ask North Korea.
I would agree with OTS on this one. GWB and his cronies seem set on Iran ... and all this talk on obeying UN resolutions from GWB when have we heard that one before?

Agent_Smith said:
President George W Bush added a new twist to the international tension over Iran's nuclear programme last night by pledging to support Israel if it tries to destroy the Islamic regime's capacity to make an atomic bomb.


Asked whether he would back Israel if it raided Teheran's nuclear facilities, Mr Bush first expressed cautious solidarity with European efforts, led by Britain, France and Germany, to negotiate with Iran.

But he quickly qualified himself, adding that all nations should be concerned about whether Iran could make nuclear weapons.

"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington.

Moments later, Mr Bush was asked another question on Iran and appeared to return to his script - this time emphasising the need for a diplomatic effort.

Speaking days before he arrives in Europe on a tour designed to mend fences with estranged allies, he underscored the differences still hobbling western policy towards the Middle East.

Many figures close to the United States administration believe that the European diplomatic initiative is calculated more to dilute America's hardline approach to weapons of mass destruction than to stop Iran's mullahs building a bomb.

Israel, meanwhile, has given warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that an Iranian bomb might be only six months away and that such a weapon would pose a grave risk to its security. Mr Bush repeated the reasons for America's anxiety: "Remember, this all started when we found [Iran] enriching uranium in an undeclared fashion, and it happened because somebody told on them."

Iran's long march towards becoming a nuclear power appeared to make a significant step forward yesterday with the opening of a £450 million reactor at Bushehr.

A senior Russian nuclear official said he would go to Iran next week to sign a protocol agreeing the return of spent nuclear fuel, the last remaining obstacle to Bushehr's functioning. This will allow deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel.

The protocol's signing has been repeatedly delayed. It aims to ease concerns that Iran could reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Bushehr to extract plutonium, which could be used in nuclear weapons.

Iran's influential former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking yesterday after meeting the Syrian prime minister, Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said his country needed to create a powerful alliance with Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries.

Mr Rafsanjani, widely expected to run in Iran's June presidential elections, said the region must "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots".

America has this week stepped up its rhetoric against Syria following Monday's murder of the former Lebanese premier, Rafik al-Hariri. Pro-Syrian elements have been widely accused of involvement.

Mr Bush called on Syria yesterday to obey a UN resolution demanding that it remove its troops from Lebanon and restore the country's independence.

He said: "We've recalled our ambassador [from Damascus], which indicates the relationship is not moving forward; that Syria is out of step with the progress being made in the greater Middle East."
Could this explain why they were willing to sell bunker busters to the Isreali Air force???

Would it be morally corupt to run a book on when the first attack goes in? (or should i take it to the naafi? :twisted: )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/18/ixnewstop.html
What about Israel obeying UN resolutions? can anyone remember ANY resolution that they have obeyed? or are they exempted from UN resolutions cos they are 'protected' by the US? Not to mention the WMD's that Israel has ... how the f**k did they get those? and why hasent GWB stomped them too? (stupid question that really :lol: )

Ok rant over ...

My money? its on Israel starting the whole shooting match off... :( GWB :twisted: and the poodle will aim a bit of 'face saving' verbal at Israel 'sort of tut tut, naughty boys you can't do that' stuff just to keep the UN quiet, then when the locals all gang up on Israel GWB will kick off with another Air War..... 8O
 
#8
Aargh! Did you have to mention North Korea in the same paragraph? What's to say that Dubya may not do something there as well? More to the point, in what way could we get involved in that one?
 
#9
The UN is anti-Israel. Israel is fighting for its very existance. The PLO hasnt wanted peace, at least til now. The key sticking point is the recognition of Israel and its right to exist. The current policy by Israel to setup a fence along the border is a response to a lack of progress on the peace front. They are withdrawing from Gaza [its almost indefensible]. The fence so far has cut off cross border attacks. When its completed Israel will be alot more secure.
 
#10
tomahawk6 said:
The UN is anti-Israel. Israel is fighting for its very existance. The PLO hasnt wanted peace, at least til now. The key sticking point is the recognition of Israel and its right to exist. The current policy by Israel to setup a fence along the border is a response to a lack of progress on the peace front. They are withdrawing from Gaza [its almost indefensible]. The fence so far has cut off cross border attacks. When its completed Israel will be alot more secure.
OK, so how does flattening large amounts of Iran sort out the PLO ? And how does Israel waving nukes at Iran while their sponsor seeks to deny them the ability to respond in kind encourage Iran to think favourably about them ? And have you ever thought that the Iranians may be just a tad concerned about their survival as a nation ?
 
#11
Im afraid i have to agree with tomahawk on this one. Isreal is the only democracy in the ME (well iraq is almost there), and are despised by everyone of their neighbours who want to destory them. Seen as how their neigbours have a habit of attacking them in large groups, (1/2billion vs 10-15million) i dont see why isreal should be prevented from having WMD. They act as a deterent to the raging arabs next door and in fact help keep the peace (because the arabs know that if thye push the irealis to far, they will be visited by a few F15's issuing instant sunshine 8O .

As for Iran, i think if they are not willing to negotiate into allowing inspection to show they are NOT develpong nukes, then GWB will be forced to take some action, be it cruise missiles or the 101st airbonre dbeing depolyed to tehran.

A_S
 

Latest Threads

New Posts