Page 1 of 1

Is this a shift in US policy?

Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:36 pm
by Corlyss_D
No. If Iran were smart, they would call our bluff. Instead, they dismissed the offer as a sign of weakness signaling that they should continue their hard line.

Bush briefs Olmert on Iran

Last week, during Olmert's visit to the White House, the two officials broadly discussed the Iranian issue. In the discussions it was agreed that Israel would let the US lead the international move against Iran's armament. President Bush, it turns out, briefed Olmert on his country's future moves on the issue.

Israeli officials said following the American declaration that "Israel and the United States are in full agreement and have a broad understanding over the Iranian threat."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni before facing reporters and declaring the change in US policy.

Rice later said in her statement that "to underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table."

She added that Iran has the right for a civilian nuclear program.

'There must be a united international front'

At the White House, President Bush said: "I believe that it's important that we solve this issue diplomatically, and my decision today says that the United States is going to take a leadership position in solving this issue."

The US president added, however, that Washington will hold fast to its insistence that Iran abandon its alleged efforts to create a nuclear weapon.

"Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon. And two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward," the president said.

"You're seeing robust diplomacy," Bush added.

The US leader added that he has conferred on the issue in recent days with the heads of several key nations, including France, Britain, Russia and Japan.

"I'm on the phone a lot talking to our folks that share the same concern I share, and saying, 'look, let's get this solved diplomatically'," said Bush. "But there must be a united international front."

Yitzhak Benhorin and News Agencies contributed to the report

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:25 am
by mourningstar
Bush Nuked them!!!! :twisted: Oh wait, he can't. :lol:

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:05 pm
by Corlyss_D
mourningstar wrote:Bush Nuked them!!!! :twisted: Oh wait, he can't. :lol:
Don't need to. We can do it with the new 23,000 lb MOAB. I hear the Russians have found a nifty way to clear tunnels, which we are greatfully adopting: first you drop a bunker buster that releases shockwaves at the mouth of the cave; then immediately you drop another right on top of it which drives the deadly shockwaves to every nook and cranny of the tunnel system. Yum.

There's a nasty little rumor running around that Bush and Olmert have worked out the timeline for taking out the regime. Of course everyone involved denies it. :twisted:

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:21 pm
by mourningstar
So what do you propose.. aren't 2 wars to much for the united states :o And what about Iraq

The troops aren't getting any positive exposure. somebody heard about the assisinated pregnant lady. the driver took a wrong turn. and he is the only one who's survived. i am pretty suspicious about the fact that he is alive. the driver always gets hit first. :twisted:

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:33 pm
by Corlyss_D
mourningstar wrote:So what do you propose.. aren't 2 wars to much for the united states :o And what about Iraq
If we have the stomach, spine, balls, and brains for it, we can do it. More depends on how much grief the administration wants to put up with than on the ability of the US armed forces to do the job. My biggest gripe about the war - since you just joined us - is that we aren't fighting it like we're serious or like we want to win it. All this BS about protecting civilians when we are facing an enemy that hides in the civilian population because it knows we won't strike civilians, and that we try soldiers for killing them even under justified situations (called the ROEs - rules of engagement), just spreads the war to more civilians. I say carpet bomb Ramadi and Fallujah. Turn them into howling wilderness and station troops there. We can always rebuild the towns. The important thing is to get rid of the guerillas either by impressing them to stop or killing them. But the current ROEs are insane - they are premised on the foolish idea that we will be respected for our restraint and therefore it is better that Americans should die than Iraqis. These fighters don't respect us for what they see as weakness; and frankly I'd rather save the expensively trained American warrior.
The troops aren't getting any positive exposure.
No kidding! Another example of how screwed up this White House is: they reject making a fuss over hero soldiers because it calls attention to the war! Like it isn't topic #1 everywhere. At least these idiots in the White House could act like they are proud of what the soldiers have accomplished at the behest of the administration. The soldiers are being treated by the administration like the soldiers from Viet Nam were: ignored.