| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Bush to Iran: We will respond |
| 2007-01-30 |
| US President George Bush further deepened the tension between Washington and Iran as he warned Tehran: "We will respond firmly". I'm wondering what actions on Iran's part, if any, would ever serve to "deepen the tension." Bush warned Iran that it will respond to any actions if Iran continues to escalate its military actions in Iraq in a bid to make life difficult for American forces. Bush's clear warning was the latest move in a public standoff between the United States and Iran as the situation in Iraq further complicates itself. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's policies to greatly expand its economic and military ties with its neighbour Iraq. The White House has repeatedly accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American military, AP reported. "If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and - or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. Earlier in the day, White House statements mirrored Bush's comments. "If Iran wants to quit playing a destructive role in the affairs of Iraq and wants to play a constructive role, we would certainly welcome that," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "We've seen little evidence to date (of constructive activities) and frankly all we have seen is evidence to the contrary." The tension between the two countries cultivated in Iran's controversial nuclear program which Tehran said was exclusively for energy, a view which the White House seriously doubts. Last week, newly Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned: "If you're in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 I am getting soooo tired of the WH singing this same tired song that it make me want to puke. How many years have we had and now with the Donks knocking of the door to the WH ( if Rudy doesn't run, IMHO there will be a Donk in there) George is toast. Please, George, just once, get off the pot and start slinging some real industrial grade sh!t into Iran. Please. /Channelling the Discovery Channel Maybe we should get Mike Rowe involved /Channelling D.C. off |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-01-30 20:11 |
| #10 It's the 21st century, and warfare has undergone a paradigm shift. The days of charging across hill and dale with 40 divisions are a figment of the past, as are the the laws of war those days spawned. The US is unlikely to face any serious conventional foe in the foreseeable future, but rather undeterrable zealots with nuclear weapons, nail-packed bomb belts, and enthusiasm to spread death and destruction for its own sake. The last few years in Iraq have been painful because our 20th century military has been adapting to 21st century realities. But adapting we are, and one adaptation may well have to be leveling an entire country moments before it levels ours. Iran is forcing us all to weigh whether we'd trade our lives for theirs, and I, for one, have decided: regretfully, f*ck no. Iran's aggression bears little resemblance to the German invasion of Poland, and our response had better be just as different. Just my $0.02. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-01-30 11:46 |
| #9 medecine isnt war. Germany attacked Poland with conventional troops. Whether we would have eventually attacked Germany anyway is an unanswerable what if. At this point the wisest thing to do with this info is to crack down on Iranian IN Iraq, to add to the propaganda against the regime ("prices of everything are going up in Teheran, theres joblessness, and Imanutjob is spending money blowing stuff up in Iraq and alienating the West") use it to gradually strengthen ties with anyone and everyone, from Europe to the Sunni states in the ME who has reason to be nervous about Iran, AND begin to strengthen your covert position inside Iran. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-30 10:11 |
| #8 With that type of reasoning, Germany would still be Nazi. And doctors would only treat symptoms, never their causes. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-01-30 10:06 |
| #7 Again, I X sends someone covert and gives money, weapons, etc to folks killing the troops of Y, you cant cross the border to get someone from X. We knew in afghanistan in the 80s that if one of our guys (or the Pakis guys) was caught in Afghanistan by the Soviets there wasnt much we could do for them. But if the Soviets hit us in Peshawar, they did so at their own risk. It would be a major escalation. They never reached the point where they though it was worth the risk. Ditto for Nicaragua and the contra campaign. We can only openly declare war on the Iranian ops inside Iraq. Not on the folks in Iran running them. Note I said openly. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-30 09:52 |
| #6 All of the conditionals used by the White House are predicated on categorical, explicit statements that Iran is ALREADY waging war against US troops in Iraq. I have my own interpretation of that, and of whether the "warnings" ought to be taken seriously by Iran. Hint: very large numbers of American journalists, intellectuals, and politicians are not seriously attracted to the best interests of the free world. It looks like a majority of them aren't. How many more Americans will die due to Iranian actions UNTIL America focuses its attention on our central enemy? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-01-30 09:30 |
| #5 CrazyFool, I watched Katie KuriK last night for the first time since her maiden broadcast and it's obvious that you're right. During their spot about Iranian weapons in Iraq, Kayde made it a point to question the credibility of the intel. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-30 08:49 |
| #4 Unfortunately the MSM and Democrats have demonized our Intel by repeating the 'Bush Lied' and 'The pre-war intel was flawed' that it would take a mushroom cloud over NYC or San Fran before any intel about Iran is beleaved. And that, BTW, is as designed (by the MSM / Democrats). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-01-30 08:40 |
| #3 But not in a meaningful way. Bush has had 3 years to respond. Now he's spent and the Democrats would rather see their urban power bases destroyed than take military action. Maybe. OTOH, I would be willing to bet our intel on Iran has gotten a lot better over the last couple years. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-30 08:25 |
| #2 Bush to Iran: We will respond But not in a meaningful way. Bush has had 3 years to respond. Now he's spent and the Democrats would rather see their urban power bases destroyed than take military action. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-01-30 02:00 |
| #1 "If you're There, Mr. Secretary, fixed that for 'ya. All joking aside, every time I read about one of our best being killed or wounded, I almost can't believe the above is NOT our policy. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-01-30 01:52 |