| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bolton calls for bombing of Iran |
| 2007-09-30 |
| John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Mr Bolton, who was addressing a fringe meeting organised by Lord (Michael) Ancram, said that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the west. Whoever promises to make him Secretary of State gets my vote regardless of all other positions. "I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is. Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities." He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. "If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back." The fact that intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted. "Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction." He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?' ... Responding after they're used is unacceptable." Defending the decision to invade Iraq, he mocked the Foreign Office's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors accused of straying into Iranian waters in April this year. They were released after Mr Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?" Raising the spectre of George Bush's "axis of evil", Mr Bolton said that Kim Jong-il's regime in North Korea was akin to a "prison camp" and that he would "sell anything to anyone". Those who thought North Korea would give up its nuclear capability voluntarily were wrong, he said.The regime had made similar promises during the past decade. Only reunification between North and South Korea could resolve the problem. That could be achieved "if China were to get serious" and cut off fuel supplies to Mr Kim, but the country feared a reunited Korea. Mr Bolton told an inquiring delegate that he was not and had never been a neoconservative: "I'm not even a Reagan conservative. I'm a [Barry] Goldwater conservative. They [neocons] have somewhat - I would say excessively - Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy." |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #5 "Targetted killings..." > unless Amer Hiroshima or new 9-11's, etc is imminent, ITS STILL TRUE THAT MOST MAINSTREAM AMERS ARE NOT READY OR WILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH ACTIONS BY USA REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, OURS OR AS PER AMERICA'S ENEMIES. In any case, any covert attempt to remove/eliminate Moud must also remove Radical Mullahs aligned wid him. *ISRAEL > KHAMEINI IS THE POWER = BIG CAMEL BEHIND MOUD. IRAN > any attack by ISrael or the USA invites Iranian "eyef-r an eye" retaliation, either by National military response andor by Terror agz US-Allied interests anywhere in the world, including inside the USA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-30 20:46 |
| #4 Actually, if some have jacobin views, it is neo-coms (Her Thighness Hitlary would be a good example), not neo-cons. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-30 18:37 |
| #3 "They [neocons] have somewhat - I would say excessively - Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy." Not true. Wilson tried to prevent the Germans from attacking us via letters and diplomacy. The German U-Boats hit our fleets any way. Wilson then had to set up a war machine, implemented the income tax, the war industries board, etc., and sent our troops to war. Conservatives today know that the same approach is too cumbersom. That we must stop war before it begins with pre-emptive strikes on those who are gearing up to strike us. If we go the route of Wilson and today's Democrats, in ten years we will be in another major war, with tens of thousands of our children dieing on battle fields again. |
| Posted by: Lampedusa Glagum1736 2007-09-30 15:52 |
| #2 He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. "If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ..." That odd squeaking sound you hear in the background is Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs all puckering up at once. The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back. If the West has any intention of overcoming global terrorism, this will necessarily change. Targeted killings of Islam's clerical, academic and financial elite are the first step in this process. Any and every nation that incorporates shari'a law in their legal system must undergo regime change. Theocratic Islam cannot be allowed to exist on earth. Responding after they're used is unacceptable. This is the bottom line. The consequences of inaction are not just unacceptable, they are intolerable. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-30 15:44 |
| #1 Jerry Pournelle has been saying the neo-cons have Jacobin views about the benefits of democracy. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-09-30 15:17 |