[IPAndrews]

Hate to say it, but the comment made perfect sense to me. 

[NGTM-1R]

Its just the usual sensationalist stuff...nothing really concrete at this point. Lets hope there isn't a WWIII.  Lets hope that whoever gets in office in 2008 can make some international stuff work without resorting to starting multiple wars.

Short of a war this isn't going to work. Nobody wants Iran having nukes as a far as I can tell, though Russia claims to. (Yeah ****ing right, they have Islamic terrorist problems too.)

France and Germany have already threatened dire consequences against Iran for continuing. If Russia puts its money where its mouth is, and France and Germany do as well...

...irony is a funny thing. NATO may end up serving the purpose everyone used to think it did.

[Black Wolf]

The way I read it, he's deliberately using big language to try and drum up international support for his position on Iraq. There's no threat there, at least, not from him.

I'm intrigued by what method he expects "World War Three" to begin. I'm assuming the idea is
Iran Nukes Israel
America invades Iran
Nuclear fallout and massive refugee crisis ****s up the middle east and world oil supplies are affected.
Oil prices surge.
Resource war commences.

But, to be honest, I don't see it happening. Global oil prices would rise, yes, but net result would be people using less oil - so far we've swallowed price rises, but there has to come a point where it simply becomes too expensive to use oil for most of the things we do now. Net result wouyld probably be a 20 year recession while alternative energies come on line (with R+D hastened by desperate need) followed by... business as usual I suppose. Bad, but not world war three. Moreover, I suspect if the Iranians do nuke Israel, it'd be with a bomb designed to minimize fallout (otherwise it'd land on Iran as well), so the level of overall regional radioactive damage would probably be minimal (reducing the refugee crisis and oil supply problems).

The only other way I can see it happening is via the China-Russia-Iran love triangle, plus emerging US-russian tensions and China's Taiwan lust. However, a military response to a nuking of Israel would probably be a UN backed operation, and, in all likelihood, would have Russian and Chinese support anyway. So I think we're fairly safe on the nuking of Israel bit. We don't have to worry about WWIII until oil supplies get low enough to convince either China or Taiwan to make a serious play for the Spratley Islands. Then we're all going down.

[Mefustae]

Then of course that's only if Iran has the cojones to even push the button. Calling for the extermination of another nation is one thing, but signing the death-warrant for your own with the push of a button is entirely another.

That is, if they even get nuclear capability, which is still years off. IMO, this'll turn out just like the whole rigmarole with China getting nukes: A whole lot of worrying culminating in a spontaneous outbreak of nothing.

[TrashMan]

I recall the Iranian president saying "Israel should be removed from the world maps" but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to nuke it to accomplish that.
There are several ways to remove something from the map, but literary and figurativly.

[perihelion]

In such a scenario, I'd be more worried about the consequences from Israel's inevitably disproportionate counter-attack; i.e. lobbing enough nukes in response to completely glass Iran and anyone who had the audacity to cheer for them.  Take the most likely outcome of that to its final stupidity...

[TrashMan]

Pft...Like I ran realyl need to do anything to provoke Isreal into attacking.
The very possibiltiy of a future attack is enough to get em riled up.
didn't they bomb Syria a fe days ago?

[Scuddie]

When haven't they bombed Syria / Palestine / Every other arab state around them a few days ago?

[TrashMan]

good point.

[Nuke]

as much as i would like to see the earth burn, i have no problem with iran having a nuclear deterant. how many countries out there live under the constant threat of nuclear attack. i think we have our nukes pointing at everybody theese days. and i have no problem having a few pointing back our way. the end result is always the same, nuclear stalemate. it would take a madman of hitleresque nature to even think of pushing the death button. iran may be bad, but i think worse people have had access to nukes in the past. namely stalin.

frankly i miss the good old days of constant threat of attack where little 5 year olds had totally useless duck and cover drills. and a good ol fashond world war would be good for the economy.

[colecampbell666]

You could make the earth burn yourself, Nuke.

     I think that some of the terrorists and extremists are much worse than Soviets.

[Mika]

The thing I was wondering how the hell this got to WWIII-talk? IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program, and the Western Countries are ready to stall a construction of a nuclear power plant, which other countries can usually construct without any hinderances.
Besides, it seems Iran has also suggested that there can be foreign monitors and additional safe guards (not Iranian designed) within the enrichment facilities during the processes. The need of electric power is rising in the Middle East also and they do have a right to use nuclear power. If they use up the oil themselves they are losing a single very important export article and the oil prices would go up also because of that.

Sometimes I feel this is simply to keep some Middle East nations permanently as developing countries. But the problem is that it cannot be done forever. By blocking the development in other places the Western Countries are mostly stalling their own development as there is no need to aim further. It is not any kind of solution. Overthrow the regime in Iran and in a couple of ten years you'll face the same problem all over again. Well, I'd appreciate the Israeli viewpoint here, as I can hear it on this forum also. I would mostly like to hear what are the crimes for capital offences in Iran, as there has been over 100 executions this year. The other question is the actual power structure in that country.

With current reasons and information, I cannot and will not support Bush's view.

Regarding government agencies and positions in them, I can confirm that there are far too many idiots inside government systems who think they are doing useful stuff while in reality they are making it harder to do your job. It is not a question of intelligence, those people might score well in Mensa tests, unfortunately they have no clue of doing practical work or leading which is the thing that makes the difference. Why do I say this? I work for the government myself, but not in the area of politics and need to face the regulations caused by these bureaucrats day to day. But I leave it to that.

Mika

[colecampbell666]

IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program

Actually, they have. I read it in Readers Digest a few months back.

[Bob-san]

Let's all vote for Steven Colbert. And I'm being dead serious--he'd make a better president then any and all of the candidates in both parties.

[colecampbell666]

Let's all vote for Steven Colbert. And I'm being dead serious--he'd make a better president then any and all of the candidates in both parties.

Wrong topic.

[Hades]

Bush warns of World War III if Iran goes nuclear

Here is what I have to say,

[attachment deleted by ninja]

[Nuke]

the world would be a better place if everyone had nukes.

[achtung]

The world would be a better place if Nuke had all the nukes.

[TrashMan]

IAEA has not found any clue of a nuclear weapon program

Actually, they have. I read it in Readers Digest a few months back.

How come I never heard of it, or read it in any serious news paper?
Media these days are so unreliable.

If there was any solied proof Bush would have yelled it to the world on a massive conference.

[colecampbell666]

Bush is too stupid to read a "serious" magazine. He spends his days watching Bugs Bunny, shouting "You Wascawwy Wabbit!" and playing "Let's Bomb Iraq" on his PC.