The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.
He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."
If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
... don't think I believe him! I hope I'm wrong!
9 comments:
The Bush Administration also said a North Korean nuclear weapon was unacceptable, until 2006 when North Korea lit one off, and the Bush Administration promptly accepted it. They took the hold off the $25 million dollars North Korea wanted, and resumed the "six party talks". This gives Ahmedinejad all the incentive in the world to go nuclear himself.
Yeah! I remember arguing at the time with some of the fellas at EB during the N. Korea "diplomatic" efforts. They thought we did good!
I thought we gave away the safety of the Japanense, S. Koreans, and eventually ourselves!
I said about a year ago, on this blog, that Bush will make the mistake of not "doing what's neccessary" with Iran. We'll see if I'm correct.
Israel may do it first anyway - but with Olmert? - don't know?!?
Oh! And you're absolutely correct! Ahmedinejad has all the reason in the world to thing we'll sit by and do nothing!
After all, we're arming the Terrorists!
... to think , I mean!
Tiger: Oh! And you're absolutely correct! Ahmedinejad has all the reason in the world to thing we'll sit by and do nothing!
Now if we just stayed in Afghanistan after 9-11, and didn't do the side show in Iraq where we send troops in for three or four deployments and drive around as targets, we'd still have a meaningful deterrence against Iran. Air power never settled anything, it's always been boots on the ground.
... boots on the ground: ABSOLUTELY!
The Air Force has always been overrated! They're there for support of the ground troops and "before entry softening"
The INFANTRY is the most important element on the battlefield.
However! If Rummy and Bush had gone after "Iraq" (and Afghan) as hard as they did our own troops we would be sitting on the border of Iran threatening Ahmed and making him crap his pants.
Israel could OWN Syria right now if Bush had supported Olmert more - but, ... he asked Israel to withdraw ... : (
What ID10Ts! G. WIMP Bush!
Tiger: The Air Force has always been overrated! They're there for support of the ground troops and "before entry softening" The INFANTRY is the most important element on the battlefield.
Some people point to Clinton's air campaign against Serbia as a fulfillment of that old dream of letting air power do everything. But Milosovich didn't actually budge until the threat of an invasion materialized. Even the Japanese were prepared to ride out Bombs Away LeMay, until we started taking out one whole city with one plane and one bomb.
Lest I sell the AF short, let me remind us of the attack on the Nuke Reactor in Iraq years ago. (by the Israelis)
Some SPECIFIC targets are good for the AF!
Aerial attacks on Iran can work - BUT! THEY MUST CONTINUE UNTIL THE IRANIAN GOV STARTS BEGGING! BOMB SOME MORE – THEN STOP!
You're correct about Bosnia, 'T'!
The AF should always be (except for specifics, as mentioned) the support force for ground troops.
Of course, I'm and old Ranger, so I have a prejudice.
Post a Comment