President Bush Hints at Use of Military Force With Iran

Breaking News In a recent Israeli interview, President Bush hinted that force might be used to dissuade Iran from continuing its radioactive enrichment program. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if that failed then the U.N. Security Council needs to impose sanctions. However, Iran has little or no support for the U.N.; Iranian officials ripped U.N. inspection tags off their equipment on the 10th, signaling the start of uranium enrichment. Bush stated that the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon." However, if politics fails, "all options are on the table."
"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."
Many see this as a not-so-subtle hint that Iran faces the U.S. military if they choose not to cooperate. In Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion or face possible referral to the U.N. Security Council. The Council could impose forceful sanctions that, if violated, would be grounds for military action. To read the full story, click here.
Personally, I wouldn't trust the Iranians, or any other Islamic government, with the tools to create atomic weapons. Europe offered to supply the completed nuclear fuel along with other ecomonic incentives if Iran stopped their program, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new president, called the offer "an insult." There is no reason that Iran needs their own uranium/plutonium enrichment program when they are being offered fuel for their reactors. The Iranians are calling it a "matter of pride", but I call it a matter of prejudice. The Muslims have enough power already; they don't need The Bomb. What do you think? In Him, D3


Travis said...

I completly agree. The Iranians need no atomic weapons. And if they don't quit attenpting to aquire them, we have every right and reason to "dismantle" their nuclear facilitys with B-52's.

Anonymous said...

I think China will take over before the Iranians pose an immediate threat. I say let our new Chinese overlords deal with Iran.

David S. MacMillan III said...

I agree that China is a very powerful threat to the United States. However, I don't wish to peacefully submit to any Chinese world takeover. Besides, let's deal with the Iranian problem before it becomes too dangerous. Why wait until they get an atomic weapon to stop them?

After the events of September 11th and the London mass transit bombings, I see no reason to trust any conservative Muslim, especially those from the hotbeds of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the rest of the Islamic-controlled Middle East.

MVB said...

Yeah, President Bush is right; he has to keep Nuclear weapons away from Iran.

I don't know about China taking over... As David pointed out, we really should do something, not wait for China. Even if they (China) are a threat to America, what makes you so sure they will take out Iran... The UN can't be trusted for anything, so I guess it's up to us....

SecDef said...

Hoo-ah! Iran is right between Iraq and Afghanistan, with water on either side, so....we could techically attack them from either direction.

BTW, David, I just returned from the Clan MacMillan gathering. Of interest: If you can trace your family back to somewhere between PA and SC, then they were probably Covenantors!

Eric (the dented one) said...

Hey SecDef,
Just out of curiosity, who were the "Covenantors"?

SecDef said...

Covenanters were a group of Scots who defied a law which made the king of Britian head of the church. They made a covenant which stated that only Jesus could claim that position; they were hunted down and many were killed by criminals hired by the King of Britian. Many of the Covenanters fled to America, and had a big impact on the Revolution (it was called in Britian "the Presbyterian Rebellion").

Here is some info:


gabriel said...

but you should ask yourself, why would any one trust a christian nation with nukes? after all, wasn't it christians who started the crusades? weren't they avid supporters of the kkk?

gabriel said...

also, with trusting fundamental muslims, suppose we don't trust them, but why don't we give them a real trial, a public trial. yes this is war, but grand jury trials aren't about war and peace, they are about rights that humans have because their creator has them to them. so why should we refuse just public trials to a terrorist, just because we are at war, he is still a human created in the image of God.

SecDef said...

"after all, wasn't it christians who started the crusades?"

Nope. The Muslims attacked us and invaded our territory loooooong before the crusades! :)

"weren't they avid supporters of the kkk?"

Nope. A few racist Southerners. True Christians certainly didn't!

secdef said...

Regarding your other comment....who says that military tribunals aren't just? Come on, we're even giving terrorists lawyers!

David Ketter said...


I'm related by blood to a Scotsman named William Oliphant, called "the Covenanter" throughout that clan.

Ironically, I can also claim Jacobite ancestors (who were rigorous Catholics) - go figure, both Reformed and Traditional in that clan!

Polka Dotted Pickles said...

Hi! Just happened to find your blog. Interesting stuff!

gabriel said...

i believe the Right to be a little hasty with its military. how many people do you know in the military? how much are you effected by the war in iraq? do you honestly believe that iraq had the capability to take us out? they couldn't even fight a descent war with iran. what of the wmd's? isn't that a pretty broad term? we haven't heard anything about them since the war began, which leaves me wondering if the war was even about the wmd's. so since we haven't heard anything about them, either the war wasn't about them, the government just hasn't told us that they found them, or we haven't found them, which means that if we were to follow the same logic which we used for going in there in the first place, we would be playing leap frog across the middle east. except for israel of course, but who cares if they use wmd's because they are our ally. so we don't care if israel has nukes, because they are God' children, we just attack the man who bush happens to not like at the moment. what about a republic in iraq? what about it? if that was the reason, then why didn't we go into myanmar? have you ever heard anything about the state of myanmar? or what about vietnam or laos or china or north korea? they could all use a regime change too.

i believe that we ought to think before we throw all our support at a man just because people call him a conservative and he is pro-life.

SecDef said...


Since you bring that up, I will let you know that I will be doing Army ROTC, and I have met 3 men who served in Iraq, and NONE of them were critical of it!

Threat: No, Iraq couldn't take us out; but we know that they had ties with al-Qaeda, and we believed they had WMDs. AQ + WMDs = not good.

WMDs: Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't something we just made up.

And there was another reason: Look at a map, and you will see that Iraq is right smack in the center of the Middle-East. Getting Iraq on our side effectively cuts off Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria from each other. (Of course, Iraq's borders can't be entirely sealed off, but it at least makes it more difficult for the terrorists!

Why we don't attack Israel: Do they have ties to al-Qaeda? Are they sworn enemies of the US?

Myanmar: Why should we? Do they have WMDs, and do they support terrorists?

China: President Bush is not stupid. The only way we'd take on China is if they attacked us first. Unlike Saddam, the Chinese government would have a lot to lose if we cut trade with them. They might even be overthrown. So...they aren't attacking us anytime soon (baring exreme circumstances). :)

North Korea: They're next. :D

Supporting Bush: Of course we have to think! We did! That's why we support the war! :)

gabriel said...

point taken.

however, i am not doubting that there were wmd's. i think you would have to be an idiot to not see that, he used them in the past, and still had them when the UN inspectors were there.

no country goes to war, or does anything for that matter, unless it is in its best interest. and i have a hard time believing that it was in our best interest to go into iraq simply for the wmd's. and considering the links to aq, well, that is questionable.

i hate to cry oil, but i will. i think that bush, being an oil man, saw the oil shortage (more like end) coming on, so he invaded iraq to make the transition out of oil as easy as possible. it wasn't as if he was invading saudi arabia, a country with a fairly upstanding name, he was invading IRAQ, the bad guys from the early 90's. he gave a good reason, they have wmd's, we get in, take out saddam, begin the long process of setting up an american friendly government, (at this point the american public has pretty much forgotten about the wmd's, because no one talks about them anymore). in the end we have a country which has a republican government (woohoo), lots of oil, and is a good friend of america.

(granted at this point i'm not really trying to persuade you, i don't really see the facts differently from you, even though you probably think i do. but who can argue with facts, it's like arguing with me about when i was born.)

so then, now we have an asset. we have another country which we can muscle into going with us to north korea. lots of our jobs go over to iraq because in iraq you can pay someone 15 cents an hour. so a move which was labeled as war on terror has turned into an economic pounce. now the soldiers we sent over come home to a country that sent them to war, so that their jobs (a lot of soldiers in iraq are in the guard and reserve, but you knew that) can be sent to the country they just left. his job in the factory is now handed over to some former terrorist who is making 1/100 of what he was making in the states. so while we will have our oil to ease the economic stress of transition, our national economy just lost jobs by the 'win the hearts and minds' strategem employed by american generals.

MVB said...

What oil did we take? President Bush's job is to make America safe, to protect and defend.. Al- Quaeda is a terrorist organization, sworn to launch a jihad against all Christians. This was taken as a threat. Then there were intellegence reports saying Iraq had WMDs. Then the UN went in and did a really lame job "inspecting". Sadaam was a huge threat and had to be taken out. We were the only ones with enough guts to take charge. Pres. Bush defends his country. I think that if Pres. Bush went in with a partial "oil motive", I don't mind. That's fine. (This war hasn't really helped the oil situation though...)

Why haven't we attacked Isreal? Because they're God's chosen nation and we are a Christian nation. Pres. Bush is a Christian. Does Isreal spread threats of destroying America. Does it swear Jihads against us?

Yes, the War on Terror has economic value to America. What do you think, Bush is stupid? What's wrong with helping our country economically? Is Bush supposed to run the country to the ground? Come on.

SecDef said...


"and considering the links to aq, well, that is questionable."

Not really. Al-Zarqowi (sp?) was there before we invaded. :)

"i hate to cry oil, but i will."

Then why did gas prices rise? :D ALaska has more oil that Saudi Arabia - which is why President Bush wants to drill there. :)

As far as NG and Reserves....IIRC, their companies have to give them their jobs back when they return. And it will be a very, very, very long time before we start losing a noticable number of jobs to Iraq. A very long time. :)

Tash said...

The Revolutionary Guard is now a weak army made up of old guys with old weapons. We either take them on now, or be forced to cope with a new North Korea. Which is a very possible end to this problem. Some time’s the best thing we can do is wait and let things play out on their own. Nobody lasts forever.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Incidentally, it's the Republican Guard, not the Revolutionary Guard. And they aren't weak old guys with lousy weapons. My next-door neighbor fought in Iraq. When he was winged by an AK-47 round in an ambush, soldiers in the RG tackled him, pinned him to the ground, and pushed their AKs under his bulletproof vest, wounding him repeatedly in the chest.

Not old. Not weak. Not lousy.

SecDef said...

David, I think Iran has a "Revolutionary Guard" (which is what that person is referring to). :)

gabriel said...

since when is america a 'christian' nation? since we have so much trouble with say evolution, liberalism, atheism, modernism, post-modernism. i think it is obvious that we aren't a christian nation.

and israel? unless you can convince me with scripture, i believe that 'israel' as referenced in the bible is now the invisible church. i believe that the nation israel is no more a chosen nation than say, iran.

SecDef said...

As far as America being a Christian nation...we certainly aren't. But we were at least founded on Christian principles, and are more Christian than a whole lot of other nations. :)

Ah....replacement theology! My favorite!

Gabriel, we must distinguish between natural Israel and Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel (the Church) is all those who accept Jesus as Savior. But Natural Israel (the Jews) still have a part in God's plan. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the Jews can be saved apart from Christ - indeed Romans 11 shows that the unbelieving Jews were broken off from the branch. But note that they are still the 'natural branches.'

Rom 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Rom 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
Rom 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
Rom 11:14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
Rom 11:16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

It is obvious that the Israel in those verses is not the church, but the Jews. And so we see that God still has a plan for them! Paul continues,

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

"UNTIL THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES HAS COME IN." (v 25) Thus we see that God still has a plan for natural Israel, a plan which will only be realized when they turn to their Messiah, Jesus (Yeshua).

Make sense? :)

gabriel said...

ahh... restoration theology, my favorite.

here's a question, which has nothing to do with

what ever happened to national sovereignty?

back in the day, if another country bossed us around we went to war with them. now suddenly we are the ones bossing people around with total disregard for national sovereignty. since when are we allowed to tell a sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.
this is after all why so many christian conservatives are against the UN.

gabriel said...

whilst running the risk of beating a dead equidae, i thought it good and proper to follow up with my own scriptural references for my beliefs.

in john 18:36 jesus says "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my servents would fight to prevent my arrest by the jews. but now my kingdom is from another place."

in acts 1:6-8 jesus tells his desciples

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

it is interesting to note that the words 'witness' and 'martyr' were used interchangeably.

if we are going to talk of israel, let us look in hebrews. hebrews 11:13-16

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

hebrews 12: 18-29 (i won't paste all of this here, you can go read it, but i will paste v. 18, 22-23, 28)

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect
Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe

now you can look in the old testament.

lets start with hosea.

hosea 1:2 (although i would suggest reading all of hosea)

When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.”

hosea 2:2-3 & 14-15

Plead with your mother, plead—
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband—
that she put away her whoring from her face,
and her adultery from between her breasts;
lest I strip her naked
and make her as in the day she was born,
and make her like a wilderness,
and make her like a parched land,
and kill her with thirst.
Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness,
and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.

so it is interesting to note that when the god of israel redeemed israel, he takes them to the wilderness. it is in captivity that the church resides. we aren't in the promised land (obviously) so we must still be in babylon. here is what the god of israel says to israel when they are in captivity, as we are today.

jeremiah 29:4-7

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

i find no scriptural basis for israel being a part of god's plan anymore. i believe israel to be the church, after all, this is not the first covenant, a covenant of works, but rather a covenant of grace.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey Gabriel,

Just read Romans 11 from beginning to end.

In Him,