Bush warns Iran: dont touch our ally Israel

#1
The rhetoric is stepping up a gear!

President George W Bush yesterday issued a stark warning to Iran when he said that America's military would be ordered into action if Teheran carried out its threat to attack Israel.

No beating around the Bush: "I've made it clear that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel"

Using the most uncompromising language he has employed to date in dealing with Iran's nuclear threat, Mr Bush said: "I see a threat in Iran. The threat is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel.

"I've made it clear and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," Mr Bush said to applause.


In his response to a question that followed a speech in Cleveland, Mr Bush made clear that diplomacy was America's preferred approach to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

But the pledge to defend Israel with force marked a vigorous response to a statement by Iran's radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map".

Mr Bush's promise of force came as diplomats met to finalise the United Nation's first major diplomatic intervention against Iran.

Mr Bush was sending an unmistakable signal to Iran's leaders in Teheran that any military or nuclear adventure will draw a swift response.
telegraph.co.uk
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#2
Shame that it's got to this stage but what else can he say? The Iranians want nuclear weapons and I believe that some of them are mad enough to use them. Sad day for the world when they do, but I believe that it's coming. When it does, better that America wipes Iran off the map than allow them to hold the world to ransom. I hope something is done about Iran before it all gets out of hand. It would be a more justifiable war than Iraq.

It'll be interesting to see the reactions of China and Russia when it all goes off.
 
#3
Biscuits_AB said:
It'll be interesting to see the reactions of China and Russia when it all goes off.
That being the crux of the problem. Without tacit support from China and Russia I'm not sure Iran would be so beligerent.
 
#4
Dubya calling for another 'Regime Change' with a surgical strike, well at least it isn't too much of a cabby to get to Tehran from Baghdad. Anyone want to hire a low-loader (reasonable rates).
 
#5
As Biscuits say's it will be interesting to see what China and Russia would do about it.But having said that i think China would just make a bit of noise with no substance as they would not risk there export trading with the west.As for Russia they might prove to be a bit more stubborn as they have gone from joint world police to a country that has inploded but wants some of its old recognision back.
 
#6
space_cadet said:
As Biscuits say's it will be interesting to see what China and Russia would do about it.But having said that i think China would just make a bit of noise with no substance as they would not risk there export trading with the west.As for Russia they might prove to be a bit more stubborn as they have gone from joint world police to a country that has inploded but wants some of its old recognision back.
Also Russia probably sees Iran as in its spere of influence. They have always seen it as partly their responsibility as far back as the Nineteenth Century.
 
#7
I can't really see how the Septics are going to manage this. They haven't got the manpower or equipment for an invasion, let alone to hold Iran once it's been invaded. Just lobbing a few bombs at them could provoke some sort of nasty retaliation, which I'm sure the Iranians already have in place.
Any attack would definitely make the situation in Iraq untenable both for the Septics and the Brits.

I can't help thinking that Iran getting nukes would help to dampen things in the ME, since at the moment only the Israelis have them, so there'd be a bit more balance in the region. Whatever they say in Tehran, there's little chance of them actually nuking Israel. They know they'd be signing their death-warrant.

The ideal thing, of course, would be for the Israelis to pull back to the bit of Palestine they were originally given by the UN, since that's the basic cause of all the trouble in the first place.

MsG
 
#8
"The ideal thing, of course, would be for the Israelis to pull back to the bit of Palestine they were originally given by the UN, since that's the basic cause of all the trouble in the first place."

Although I agree with you there, I don't think that lone would do it. You can only make so many children orphans (on both sides) before the hatred runs so deep that the hostility is self perpetuating.....
 
#9
The ideal thing, of course, would be for the Israelis to pull back to the bit of Palestine they were originally given by the UN, since that's the basic cause of all the trouble in the first place.
I think you'll find that is the result of the arabs attempt to wipe Israel off the map not the reason in the first place.

At least know what you're on about if you're going to join the debate. :oops:

As for the yanks not having enough troops to attack Iran, you might do well to google US troop numbers including NG and you'll see they have more than enough to do the job if neccessary.
 
#10
can't really see how the Septics are going to manage this. They haven't got the manpower or equipment for an invasion, let alone to hold Iran once it's been invaded. Just lobbing a few bombs at them could provoke some sort of nasty retaliation, which I'm sure the Iranians already have in place.
Any attack would definitely make the situation in Iraq untenable both for the Septics and the Brits.

I can't help thinking that Iran getting nukes would help to dampen things in the ME, since at the moment only the Israelis have them, so there'd be a bit more balance in the region. Whatever they say in Tehran, there's little chance of them actually nuking Israel. They know they'd be signing their death-warrant.

The ideal thing, of course, would be for the Israelis to pull back to the bit of Palestine they were originally given by the UN, since that's the basic cause of all the trouble in the first place.

MsG
I not trying to accuse anybody but the basic cause of the current dynamic in the middle east is, Hitler's killing 6 million Jews, 65 years ago.
History moves slowly.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/holocaust.html#howman
 
#11
As for Iran not using them as it would be signing their own death warrants.As a country that supports suicide bombings is not being wiped out by blowing up Israel the biggest suicide bomb?.
 
#13
Vimeiro said:
NEO_CON said:
I not trying to accuse anybody but the basic cause of the current dynamic in the middle east is, Hitler's killing 6 million Jews, 65 years ago.
History moves slowly.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/holocaust.html#howman
So how come the British Army were keeping the two sides appart just after the 1914-18 War?
The basic cause (foundation of Israel) was not the Holocaust, that just speeded up the process. Jews (politically) wanted to form a State in effect from the advent of Zionism at the turn of the 19th century.

Britain took over Palestine under their Mandate having defeated the Ottomans during WW I and the consequent split of Middle East real estate between GB & France with the Sykes Picot treaty. The army was not sent there just to keep the Jews and arabs apart, but was there as part of the British mandate government and also the aftermath of WW I.
 
#14
As has been said the occupation of the so called Palestinian areas of western Jordan (The West Bank) and eastern Egypt (Gaza) is not the cause of the Middle East’s problems but it is one of the results.

Israel occupied those areas in the course of the 1967 Six-Day-War which saw Israel kick 7 bells out of the Arab forces hell bent on its destruction. Israel has more than once offered to withdraw for security guarantees which have not been forthcoming, so they remain occupied as a security buffer.

The Jewish settlements are another issue but are no different than some Germans moving to Amsterdam and building houses there. The issue of land ownership needs to be addressed but the Palestinian instance that all Jews must be forced off the land is no different to the principal of ethnic cleansing we witnessed in the Balkans. But for some reason when it’s done to Jews by Arabs it’s OK.

I have no vested interest in Israel i.e. I’m not Jewish but the double standards displayed by the anti Semitic tw@ts both here and in the ME who try to blame it all on Israel’s behaviour really gets my goat. Admittedly Israel can be heavy handed but they are reacting to the Arabs attacks against them not simply going out to attack Arabs as is implied all the time.
 
#15
Hi all!

Sunday I heard interview with mr.Olmert on radio Echo of Moscow. One listener asked: if Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons then why Iran can't.

Answer: Israel doesn't say that it has nuclear weapon and Israel unlike Iran is a democracy.

A journalist recalled words by Golda Meir: Israel hasn't nuclear weapons but if it will be needed Israel would use it.
 
#16
Ord_Sgt said:
I have no vested interest in Israel i.e. I’m not Jewish but the double standards displayed by the anti Semitic tw@ts both here and in the ME who try to blame it all on Israel’s behaviour really gets my goat. Admittedly Israel can be heavy handed but they are reacting to the Arabs attacks against them not simply going out to attack Arabs as is implied all the time.
I couldn't agree more. Too many people forget that the Israelis have been fighting a war of survival since the 40s. I'm sure our population would not be so condeming of Israel if we were having bus loads of school kids blown up every day.
 
#18
i feel that the issue is sincerely complex and either side can argue to the origins of territory right back to the biblical times. the arabs are correct in the sense that israel is a jewish state right in the middle of arab territory- but there is evidence to prove that there have always been jewish people there; an ever revolving circle.
if the iranians are developing necular weapons there is nothing to say that they will not use them like suiucide bombers use themselves- if they have the desire to knock out israel- which they have already said- then they will do it knowing that many other countries are itching to have an excuse to cause trouble.
if bush decides that war with iran is nesecary then he must use INTELLIGENT diplomacy, (i dont think he knows what that is yet) and carefull planning in order to avoid a nuclear WWIII
 
#19
I also get angry when just the Jews are blamed.






The basic question Is whether This Iranian government should get Nuclear weapons now.
Different people answer this question in different fashions. If I was a Israeli , I might answer in a different fashion than a Russian. The thought among some seems to be that a nuclear armed Iran might constrain the US . I see it as a dangerous introduction of weapons that in the long run will spread and eventually be used in some unforeseen fashion. The more people that have nuclear weapons the more likely the some leader will miscalculate and use them.
It may be impossible to stop their spread. I am not sure how far governments will go to stop the spread of these types of weapons.


I don't really trust diplomacy to solve issues where people or governments have completely divergent interest or views. Diplomacy at times is just spin. In Europe and the US we may settle for spin. I don't know if Isreal will.
 
#20
by no means am i blaming jewish peolpe- i just feel that the arabs have a point, BUT they should not be being violent and Nuclear weapons are out of the question.
if nuclear weapons are being developed we need to stop it.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts