Posted on 09/01/2006 11:31:16 PM PDT by familyop
The United States has warned Iran that military option "is not off the table" as it mulls a multi-pronged strategy to prevent Tehran from going nuclear.
"I think any president charged with responsibility for protecting the American people is not going to take the military option off the table when you confront a threat as grave as an Iran armed with nuclear weapons," US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said.
"... He's (Bush) made it plain for some time that our preferred way of dealing with this problem is through peaceful and diplomatic means, and that's what we've been doing for the past several years," he said.
Noting that discussing the strategy in public would not be productive, Bolton said, "The Iranians have made it clear they have no intention of suspending their uranium-enrichment activity."
"I think moving for sanctions in the Security Council, considering other economic steps, ramping up the Proliferation Security Initiative, are all things we should and will be doing."
The top American envoy at the UN also reminded Russia and China that they had promised to go the sanctions route when passing the UN Security Council resolution this June.
"It's not at all clear that Russia or China would actually veto a resolution in the Security Council. They may not support it, but if they acquiesce in it by abstaining, that still leaves open the possibility that the council could act," Bolton said on MSNBC's 'Hardball' programme.
"The possibility of sanctions in the council has always been one part of the effort," he said adding, "Lots of countries can impose sanctions on Iran without action by the Security Council - the European Union, Japan, others."
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Kick em harder, Bolton!
Bolton for President 2008
The United States has warned Iran that military option "is not off the table".....S.O.S to Iran.
I expect Russia and China to object, but the European Union might as well have become a soviet satellite as far as I am concerned. What a bunch of dumbsh-ts.
We sacrificed a lot of good men last century so those pricks could pull this donkey routine.
I didn't know there was any difference between those groups other than adding China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Syria.
All leftists, socialist, anti-American, "kindred spirits" and fellow travelers!!!
From another vet, GOOD JOB.
I hope this is more a case of Bolton reading them the riot act then anything else. Maybe the point will get thru to them. I have been troubled in recent months by reaction to the war on terror. Not by Dems, libs, and DUmmies.....they have been consistant one trick ponies. It has been by good frineds I have known for years. People who are either staunch conservatives or Independants. Many....no ...make that most of them are now expressing daily how fed up they are becoming with administration policy on the war and in the arena of foriegn policy. Most are veterans like me, some are Nam Vets. One man, whose son has now been to Iraq multiple times has really become pissed off. If they are indicative of a growing trend then it does not bode well for the fall elections at all in my view. Me? I like Bolton and feel he is what we have needed at the UN for some time. But I dislike hearing of a military option for Irans nuclear ambitions. While indeed we are one of the few countries in the world who have proven they can be trusted for decades with WMD's, that is my view and I suppose the view of many other Americans. But the rest of the world does not see it that way. And thier one valid point is that who are we to tell another country they cannot have the same type of weapons that we do. About the only way I can see for Irans program to be taken out is for it to be done by someone else, say Isreal for the most likely candidate. They are much more threatened by the prospect and definatly have more dogs in the hunt. Yes, I know the treat is real. Yes, I know that sanctions do not work for the most part 'cause we cannot count on our European friends to commit to or honor any agreement of sanctions. They will continue to do business with unstable rogue nations with a nod and a wink as they always have. It is very simple, people are beginning to get tired of seeing ourselves as the cops of the world. Come November many of them are going to choose any alternative that offers even a half-assed differant option. I may not, but I have already talked to people who will. Flame away if you like, but it will not change the reality of the current situation.
Or, Are they upset because we are not prosecuting the war in Iraq fully?
Mega Dittoes for the plain-spoken, clear-speaking, make-no-mistake from what I'm saying Mr. Bolton! I'm sure George Voinovich is crying a river of tears at this heartless speaker's pronouncing the truth!
I'm getting fed up with Bush fighting the war on terror, because he doesn't seem to be taking it seriously. Iran and Syria are attacking our troops in Iraq, slaughtering innocent Iraqis, subverting the Iraqi government and trying to start an Iraqi civil war. Bush's response to Iran and Syria. [sound of crickets]
"Like the appeasement democrats --some option"
Correct uncbob. And I am not saying it is a good idea, just that people will often vote a certain way out of frustration. Sort of a anti-vote. Like to think that is how Carter made it to the White House
The vets with kids in the military are more vocal in criticism, for obvious reasons. My son just got out of the AF last month. I was always real glad he chose that branch and that his particular job kept him (for the most part) out of harms way. Among friends the split is mostly between "not being aggresive enough" and "not worth the cont. cost in lives and money". Though the latter are probably putting WAY to much faith in the idea of a fortress America.
If you can't see the difference, you haven't been paying attention. Your moral equivalence won't wash, here. They have no "valid point". None. The islamo nazis have stated what they would do with one. Drag the world into nuclear war. We want to avoid it.
They can't be trusted with those type of weapons. Weapons that would put them in my neighborhood, eventually.
Believe me I see the differance. The view they hold is valid as a philosophical argument. And recall, I did say we are one of the few that can be trusted with the weaponry, as the years have shown. And does the the policy apply to other countries as well? It kind of made me nervous when Pakistan joined the club as well. Still does considering the tenuous stability of that government
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.