2005/02/20

What did he say?



George W Bush has refused to rule out military action against Iran.

Bush said: "First of all I hear all these rumours about military attacks and it's just not the truth. We want diplomacy to work. And I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don't divide Europe and the United States. And the common goal is for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

Translation anyone?

13 Comments:

"And I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don't divide Europe and the United States ",

LOL, good ole dumbfuck Bush speaking Texan again. Now, lemme guess... he must mean.... geee... nope, I give up! This is too funny though... it's now Iran  who is the divider between the EU and the US!

I guess the next contender for guilty party of the Axis of Evil will be the penguins of Antartica...

"And the common goal is for them not to have a nuclear weapon",

Ok, chimp Bush, I know it's cheap, but hey, you serve it to us on a silver platter, so: who of the 2 of us EU and US is going to be the first NOT to have mukelear weapons?

ROFLOL, this made my day, thanks Dianne. It's still hard to believe this cretin is actually for real. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/20/2005 09:43:00 am  
I believe an accurate translation into plainspeak would be:

"The U.S. is not going to allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. We are willing to give Russia and Europe an opportunity to accomplish that goal diplomatically, but in the event that they fail to persuade Iran to abandon it's ambitions to join the nuclear, we are going to give Israel the green light to take out their capabilities, and failing that, we will."

Seems reasonable to me...I don't think there is a person on the right, left, or in the middle in the U.S. that believes Iran should be allowed to acquire or build one. 

Posted by Buckwheat
2/20/2005 09:54:00 pm  
"And I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don't divide Europe and the United States. "

You didn't see the incongruity in this statement, Buckwheat? Iran and Europe are doing fine. There is a division between Europe and the US and it was caused by Bush himself. I don't look for this to change in any real sense anytime soon.

We don't want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone. But, you speak typical 'American'. America has the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any country on this planet. Why is this and why is it allowed? If America can possess nuclear weapons why not other sovereign countries? I'm sure I know your answer but I would like to hear it from you.
 

Posted by Dianne
2/20/2005 11:38:00 pm  
Buckwheat might respond that the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons because they would never use them on another country, so they are allowed to possess them for the safety and defense of their own country.

But if a country that isn't an ally of the US possess nuclear weapons, then that gives the US the right to 'take out their capabilities'. What sort of logic is this? It doesn't make any sense to me. If that logic stood for all countries in the world, then that essentially gives other countries that don't see the US as an ally the right to take out the United States' nuclear capabilities. Who has given the United States the exclusive rights of making up their own international rules? 

Posted by Jim
2/21/2005 04:36:00 am  
"Who has given the United States the exclusive rights of making up their own international rules? ",

I think emperor Bush has. That should be good enough for everyone else on this planet.

But seriously, it is pretty obvious that countries have always frantically raced for armement buildind whenever they feel threatend. The ultimate deterrent are nukes, so it's only too natural ppl try get hold of them. The example of Pakistan is just one of many.

Since it is clear the US, the EU and Russia have no intention to dismantle their own nukes, i.e. nukes are here to stay, then the chance for some kind of equilibrium would perhaps be for every country to have their own.

We Europeans have at long last stopped invading the rest of the world. Even Russia seems to have lost the taste for this shit. But the US is now repeating the same ole fuckin' story all over again. The mind truly boggles. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/21/2005 05:14:00 am  
""The U.S. is not going to allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. We are willing to give Russia and Europe an opportunity to accomplish that goal diplomatically, but in the event that they fail to persuade Iran to abandon it's ambitions to join the nuclear, we are going to give Israel the green light to take out their capabilities, and failing that, we will." "

But why isn't the US involved in accomplishing that goal diplomatically, Buckwheat? If we truly want diplomacy to work, then we should be more involved in actually acting diplomatically.

I feel like a better interpretation of Bush's statement would be "Diplomacy can work, so long as Iran and Europe agree with whatever the US thinks is best..." 

Posted by Jenni
2/21/2005 06:39:00 am  
Here's the translation:

"If our alleged Allies will stop selling weapons, programs, expertise, and nuclear components to Iran, diplomacy will be enough to do the job. Who knows? We could even shut down their nuclear program without another freakin' war. Whaddaya say, France? Are you onboard with this, Russia?"

It's not that difficult to translate, gang. If you would spend less time bashing President Bush and more time thinking the scenarios through, I'm sure you'd find some comfort in a nuclear-free Iran. 

Posted by Dawn
2/22/2005 05:10:00 am  
There is a division between Europe and the US and it was caused by Bush himself. I don't look for this to change in any real sense anytime soon.Dianne, if you'll take a look at the outrageous UN scam called "Oil for Food Program," you may find that what divided the US and some of the European community was MONEY not President Bush. Do you think that Chirac wanted his part in that scam exposed?... The Germans as well. When will the Left finally start thinking and speaking honestly about the root of the issues rather than accepting the media's window dressing on issues?

It seems that Chirac and President Bush are getting along quite well during Bush's visit. Maybe our countries will become friends again despite the underhanded dealings that led to the disagreement between us a few years ago. I hope so. I really don't understand the hatred the French seem to have for President Bush. America is what it is. France is what it is. Why can't we value our differences without spewing hate?

I may even start buying French wines again if that happens.
2/22/2005 05:18:00 am  
""If our alleged Allies will stop selling weapons, programs, expertise, and nuclear components to Iran, diplomacy will be enough to do the job. Who knows? We could even shut down their nuclear program without another freakin' war. Whaddaya say, France? Are you onboard with this, Russia?" "

Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers. U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict.

Woman with more mouth than brain will always put foot in it.

 

Posted by Dianne
2/22/2005 05:30:00 am  
"I really don't understand the hatred the French seem to have for President Bush. America is what it is. France is what it is. Why can't we value our differences without spewing hate?  "

I get it now. hahahaha It's a joke.

Why don't we value our differences????

I'll tell you what missy. You direct me to all the French pages you can find or news articles showing French hatred for America and I'll direct you to all the US pages and news articles showing US hatred for the French. In fact, I can point you quickly to our 'facist asshole' links on the left for starters. I can get you many many more very quickly. Go on, I'll give you time to search. I'll be waiting. Hmm I wonder if I can find any french bashing on your site?

I don't hate you honey so don't be fooled by my sarcasm. I won't allow you to mess with my mind though and I won't allow you to plead ignorance of the truth. 

Posted by Dianne
2/22/2005 05:40:00 am  
To Dawn:

"I really don't understand the hatred the French seem to have for President Bush ",

First, it's not the French who hate Bush, it's everyone on this planet except for 140 million Americans.

Second, while most French ppl rightly think Bush is an asshole, they don't lumber the entire American nation in the process. Your perception of ppl hating obviously comes from looking at yourself in the mirror - as you point out yourself, you *might * one day buy French wine again. Wow, how primitive a brain you have. For your information, American products sell in France just like before, in spite of generalized American hatred not just for Chirac (which I could undertand) for anything French including its entire population.

Do a googoe search if it's not too hard for you to manage: you'll find some 37,000 US websites calling themselves "fuckfrance" and variations of it. There isn't ONE French one returning you the favor.

Hatred? LOL, buy a wal-mart mirror and take a look. Just a good ole plain "made in the USA" mirror will do. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/22/2005 07:44:00 am  
Why not let every sovereign nation have nuclear weapons?

Not because I think that any of the present holders of said weapons deserve to have them or have any more rights than any other nation...but because I think that if you add more nations to the mix, you obviously increase the odds that they will be used.

From a human rights standpoint, imagine Saddam with nukes. Maybe he wouldn't have used them on anyone else...but he would have been free to do whatever he wanted to stay in power...genocide, torture, etc. Yes, the U.S. is culpable in that area, as is Russia and China, but at least in the U.S., France and Britain's case it is mitigated somewhat by law and the general populace's unease with such abuses. The same doesn't hold true for Russia, China, North Korea, or Israel. I leave out Pakistan and India because that seems to be a private feud.

Does anyone realistically want 50 more nations to have no restraints on what they can do to their own populations, leaving out religious fervor or expansionist tendencies? 

Posted by Buckwheat
2/23/2005 01:03:00 am  
"The same doesn't hold true for Russia, China, North Korea, or Israel. ".

I tend to disagree here. Russia and China have had nukes for decades. To my knowledge, it has made no difference to their internal political systems. In fact, the only difference it's made is that nobody has had the guts to go bash them on the head, i.e. it was their own deterrent.

In fact, apart from the US, nobody has ever dropped atomic bombs on anyone's heads. Ppl are much more interested in living, having food, water, shelter and a bit more if possible. Look at China:

I think in view of the unbelievably deadly arsenal that's around in our millenium, even lunatics would think twice before starting to press red buttons. I watched a program about 3 months ago here on nuclear submarines. Kind of a culture/science thing. Very rare to ever see anything on military stuff here in France, so this was rather interesting. Anyway, in each warhead of each of the 16 missiles of each of the can't remember now how many thingie-bobbies has 100,000 times the firing power of a Hiroshima bomb and can be launched to hit any location on this planet. I was horrified. And we got thousands of them fuckers swimming around. And that's only just what they are telling us - I hate to imagine what else is brewing around.

But anyway.... what do we do about it? Who is morally entitled to go tell anyone else to have nukes or not? And who has the right to physically go bash ppl in the head saying "no you can't have any"?

You often mention we only criticize but have no solution. That may be true - we look for the problems and issues and yell out. We don't profess to necessarily have the answers, but one thing is sure, if you don't point the problems out in the first place, then there will be no need for a solution.

Do YOU have a solution regarding nuclear armement in the world? I don't. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/23/2005 03:15:00 am  

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home