THE LATEST
« »

Search Archives:

Custom Search

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

As Far as Bush is Concerned, We're Going to War with Iran

Agence France-Presse has this today:

Presidents George W. Bush of the United States and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are expected to take their nuclear dispute to the world stage, when both were to give speeches to the United Nations General Assembly.

Bush and Ahmadinejad were to be among keynote speakers on the first day of debate by global leaders at the General Assembly -- the last for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who stands down at the end of the year.

The dispute over whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons has become one of the main sources of international tension in recent months, along with the wars in Lebanon and Iraq and the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.


AFP titled their piece, 'Bush and Ahmadinejad to make rival cases in nuclear dispute at UN.' In the interest of honesty, it should've been titled, 'Two Lunatics Address UN General Assembly.' The leader of an oil rich nation will argue that his country needs to develop nuclear energy. The leader of a nuclear weapon rich nation will argue that 'nukes is bad.'

"The US president was scheduled to be one of the first speakers," AFP reports, "He was expected to use his speech to defend the US push for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions."

Yeah, good luck with that. Associated Press is reporting that Bush will call on nations to 'stand up for peace' -- apparently, the administration has no sense of irony.

Like Bush's address to the UN General Assembly before invading Iraq, his appearance today is pure PR. Decisions regarding war with Iran have been made and anything the UN has to say about it will be ignored -- unless they say, "We agree."

But that's not likely. In a separate article, AP tells us, "France's President Jacques Chirac proposed a compromise to kick-start talks between Iran and the international community, suggesting the threat of U.N. sanctions be suspended in exchange for Tehran halting its uranium enrichment program." France's proposal is gaining more ground than the Bush plan -- which is understandable, since the Bush plan is idiotic.

"If Iran is prepared to suspend that [uranium enrichment], we will be prepared for the first time in decades to sit down across the table from the Iranians and talk," Condoleezza Rice told ABC's 'Good Morning America', "I would meet anywhere with my counterpart, at any time, once they have suspended enrichment and reprocessing."

See what I mean? If Iran stops enrichment, then we'll be willing to talk about halting enrichment. Does that make any sense to you?

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to anyone else either -- that's why it's not gonna fly.

But that's OK, as I said, the decision has already been made. Yesterday on CNN, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner told Wolf Blitzer, "We are conducting military operations in Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming," and that, "We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step."

Seymour Hersh reported back in April, "Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups," and, "There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change"

Hey, it worked out so well the last time, we might as well try this regime change thing again.

--Wisco


Technorati tags: ; ; ; will address the about , but the speech will be for US consumption

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is an inundation of criticism for the Bush govt. and its policies. But as a student of international relations, I understand that though these policies (and wars) have high military and civilian casualties, there are American interests, both political and economic, that do make sense. Personally I do not support the War in Iraq or any war with Iran, but these are justified by the American school of politics. The U.S. has the economic and military capability to wage wars. If other states had this capability, they would do the same. No European country even comes close to matching the military capabilities of the U.S. It's a game of power politics that America is playing and it is the only country (perhaps China, in the near future) that can.

Richard Kulisz said...

Don't be too hard on Iran. It may have a lot of oil but unlike Americans, it fully acknowledges the reality of Peak Oil. Nuclear power is its way out from under the peak. And don't you dare say wind turbines before looking at the price of electricity in Denmark versus France.