Time is running out for Iran

M

Mr.Spock

Back from the dead
Valued Senior Member
After Syria, Iran is on sights?

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton drew cheers from British Conservatives on Sunday, saying that diplomacy had failed to halt Iran's nuclear program and urging Washington to consider military action.

Bolton, who has long advocated a tougher line on dealing with Tehran, told a fringe meeting at Britain's main opposition Conservative Party's annual conference that time was running out to halt Iran's alleged weapons ambitions.

"Life is about choices, and we are very close to the point where we have to make that choice on military force," Bolton told delegates in the northern coastal holiday town of Blackpool.

"This is not an attractive option, but after four-plus frustrating years watching European diplomacy fail time and time again and watching our options more and more constrained, I do not know what the alternative is."

The often outspoken ex-ambassador has criticized Britain and European allies over their approach to dealing with Tehran. Iran has refused to halt a uranium enrichment program and denied claims by the US and others that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"If the choice is between an Iran with nuclear weapons and the use of military force to prevent that... then I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities," Bolton told the meeting.

Bolton told delegates, "The US once had the capability to engage in the clandestine overthrow of governments, I wish we could get it back," winning applause and cheers.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change as well, because I think that really sends the signal that we are not attacking the people, we are attacking the nuclear weapons program," he said.

According to The Guardian, Bolton also praised the French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his forthright criticism of Iran in recent weeks.

Sarkozy recently called for tougher international sanctions against Iran's nuclear program and warned French oil giant Total and gas firm Gaz de France to refrain from investing in Iran.
Click to expand...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455025,00.html
 
as soon as i read the words "regime change" i realized how cooky it all sounds.

at this stage no one will support another adventure involving "regime change". if Bolton thinks that he will get sympathy or support for what he's saying, he's delusional.

not to say that a regime change in Iran would be bad. i'm just saying that it ain't happening.
 
otheadp said:
as soon as i read the words "regime change" i realized how cooky it all sounds.

at this stage no one will support another adventure involving "regime change". if Bolton thinks that he will get sympathy or support for what he's saying, he's delusional.

not to say that a regime change in Iran would be bad. i'm just saying that it ain't happening.
Click to expand...

It may eventually happen from within. The general population is getting pretty fed up with "Ah-me jerkoff" and his empty promises of prosperity. He only talks and NEVER delivers.
 
It certainly wouldn't dry America up of money anyhow... But i doubt it will happen.

''Bolton told delegates, "The US once had the capability to engage in the clandestine overthrow of governments, I wish we could get it back," winning applause and cheers.''

Pure dictators baby... When did the American gouvernment have the right to tell another country how to behave?
 
They just want more MONEY to support this "invasion" that's all. The troops that will go will be few and far between IF there's an actual invasion at all.
 
yeah, they probably shoot some missiles or drop some bombs that are manufactured by friends of the regime, or for which some in the US regime have stocks/interests.
 
The US needs a draft. 50 years bogged down in war should do it. (whatever it is).

A republican president looks likely.
 
S.A.M. said:
The US needs a draft.
Click to expand...

Do you say that because you want the smart people to concentrate themselves into universities so that they can combine their intellectual powers and create a new generation of politicians who not only fill their own pockets, they also try to fill the pockets of the world?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Do you say that because you want the smart people to concentrate themselves into universities so that they can combine their intellectual powers and create a new generation of politicians who not only fill their own pockets, they also try to fill the pockets of the world?
Click to expand...

Hmm, actually I just want the Americans to see sense. That looks like a lost cause, so I'm resorting to hyperbole.:shrug:
 
Reiku said:
Pure dictators baby... When did the American gouvernment have the right to tell another country how to behave?
Click to expand...

ever since those governments started to kill US soldiers and undermining US interests all over the world (for almost 3 decades)
 
Undermine US interests all over the world? Well if you fuck about with other countries what do you expect. How can the US complain that their efforts to intervene and screw around inside other countries are being undermined by the countries that are being intervened and screwed about with?
 
superstring99 said:
With exactly WHAT troops are we going to carry out these invasions? You've got to be kidding.

~String
Click to expand...

good point.

though i doubt any invasion of Iran would involve any ground troops. it would probably involve a long sustained bombing campaign from air and sea, and let the Iranians do the rest.

u know what, this doesn't sound that crazy... from an operational capability standpoint.

but the political support for something like that is not nearly enough. Bush has run out of political capital to attack Iran. on the other hand, in 4 years when Iran does have the bomb, Bush will be blamed for allowing Iran to acquire nukes in the first place. i can already see the pundits screeching "why didn't you DO something when you had the chance?"
 
otheadp said:
ever since those governments started to kill US soldiers and undermining US interests all over the world (for almost 3 decades)
Click to expand...

And since when do US interests prevail over interests of those said countries?
Maybe we should support a coup in the US just so Vista doesn't cost so damn much...


but the political support for something like that is not nearly enough. Bush has run out of political capital to attack Iran. on the other hand, in 4 years when Iran does have the bomb, Bush will be blamed for allowing Iran to acquire nukes in the first place. i can already see the pundits screeching "why didn't you DO something when you had the chance?"
Click to expand...

I think Iran will stop trying to get the bomb when Bush stops being the president and when Israel stops building its nukes..
 
Maybe we should drop BoltOn on Iran from a B-2, with fins on his feet and a pointy and suggestive deep-penetrator hat.

Or we can keep him, as a revealing caricature of the USA's newfound gunboat diplomacy; Our new Wizard of Id. He draws the loudest applause from zionists- Maybe there is a lesson in that for bemused Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top