Germany rejects Iran military option

[ECH1969]

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has rejected the threat of military force against Iran, hours after US President George Bush said he would consider it as a last resort to press Tehran to give up its nuclear program.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

Mr Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the US-led war in Iraq, told an election rally in his home city of Hanover that the threat of force was not acceptable.

"This morning I read that military options are now on the table. My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let us work out a strong negotiating position. But let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work'," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437072.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Germany and others should demand that India, Pakistan, Israel

and others give up theirs first. That would be a step in the right direction.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. I knew of these types of rumors from DU before but now I am really

getting concerned because it is becoming a reality now. * will continue to lie us into war after war.

:kick:

[LaurenG]

3. Why can't we ever just get the Truth?

I don't believe anything *bush says. That is particularly bad because one day he's bound to tell the truth and half of us won't believe him. I wish the world community would just tell *bush to shove it. I hope they have enough integrity to keep him from annihilating all of us.:grr:

[Cha]

37. Don't worry...

bush will never tell the truth. That would involve reality and they can't handle it. They will concoct a LIE to cover ANY Truth.

[54anickel]

4. Unacceptable Regimes In Iraq And The United States

Interesting read.

http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20416

snip>

But this small group of men who have taken power in Washington (Bush, Richard Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of their clique), they are alien to me.

I wake up thinking: the US is in the grip of a president who was first elected in November 2000, under questionable circumstances and largely thanks to a Supreme Court decision. He remains, since his re-election last November, a president surrounded by thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water, the air, or what kind of world will be inherited by our children and grandchildren.

More Americans are beginning to feel, like the soldiers in Iraq, that something is terribly wrong, that this is not what we want our country to be. More and more every day the lies are being exposed. And then there is the largest lie, that everything the US does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a "war on terrorism", ignoring the fact that war is itself terrorism, that barging into people’s homes and taking away family members and subjecting them to torture is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more but less security.

snip>

Rumsfeld, explaining the "threats" and why they are invisible and unidentifiable said: "There are things that we know. And then there are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know . . . That is, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . . . Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist."

We are fortunate to have Rumsfeld to clarify such points. That explains why the Bush administration, unable to capture the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks, went ahead and invaded Afghanistan in December 2001, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. Yet it still does not know where the criminals are. It also explains why the government, not knowing what weapons Saddam Hussein was hiding, invaded and bombed Iraq in March 2003, disregarding the United Nations, killing thousands of civilians and soldiers and terrorising the population. That explains why the US government, not knowing who was and was not a terrorist, confined hundreds of people in Guantánamo under such conditions that 18 have tried to commit suicide.

more...

[Barkley]

5. Is Gerhard Schroeder running for re-election?

He's absolutely right. Neither force nor the threat of force will disarm Iran.

[54anickel]

7. Yep, in September. His opposition to Shrub's Iraq "adventure" helped

him win last time.

[Yupster]

10. Why another election

so soon?

Did he call it early?

[54anickel]

13. Yup - German president clears way for early elections

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/germ-j25.shtml

On the evening of July 21, German President Horst Köhler announced in a national television address his highly-awaited decision to dissolve the German Bundestag (federal parliament). He explained that he had granted the motion of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and taken the decision to hold federal elections on September 18.

After Schröder’s government lost a vote of confidence in the Bundestag on July 1, Köhler had 21 days to decide whether to call new elections. He exhausted the entire period before issuing his statement.

The discussions and deliberations which transpired over this period have been treated as a state secret. Even the news that Köhler would make a televised address was kept under wraps until a few hours before he went on air.

Behind these mysterious goings-on is the fact that the German president was under massive pressure from several sides. Although all the major political parties were publicly in favour of new elections, others—above all, constitutional lawyers—raised huge objections. They challenged the method Schröder chose to bring forward the elections—which in Germany are held strictly every four years—by calling a vote of confidence in his government which he intended to lose. They claimed this contravened German constitutional law, which does not authorize parliament to dissolve itself.

more...

[Barkley]

16. Is Bush trying to influence the outcome of Germany's election?

His remarks seem directed at just Iran

[kiraboo]

18. I just returned from there. He's going to lose this time.

Why? "It's the economy, stupid!" What's new under the sun?

[LibertyorDeath]

19. Yes they have seen what bush does to countries that have no WMD

[meganmonkey]

6. One step closer

:scared:

[Judi Lynn]

8. God bless these single voices who dare to speak out against Bush

It's a damned shame the lunatic fringe in our country has a death grip on the entire world. It takes courage and strength to walk against their wind.

They've wormed their way into control of the most powerful weapons the world has seen that we know of. Can't imagine a good outcome without eventual acts of self-sacrifice like that required when people speak out, knowing how the right-wing lives to destroy dissent. There's nothing but proof around.



Freedom Shepherd

[0007]

11. Look at the size of those paws on this this little cutie!

[Judi Lynn]

15. Never have seen one in person. Wonderful creatures, if not trained

to be vicious! That one is unbearably cute. A google "image" grab.

[54anickel]

9. We need indictments NOW! We need DSM front and center NOW!

Cindy Sheehan has a lot of attention, we need to stop another war based on lies and innuendos.

The EU is buying us time to stop this murdering administration from the inside. Cheney's plan to attack Iran as a response to ANY attack to the US opens the possibility of them pulling a MIHOP outta their ass. Taking to the streets before martial law might be the only way to pre-empt them if there is such a plan.

[leesa]

12. Good for him. A rational response is almost startling these days

[Jamison]

14. It seems Germany learned something 60 years ago.

They learned that you can't just go invading other countries without consequence. It seems like Bushco might have to learn the hard way like Hitler did. I just hope it doesn't come to that point where we have to take a serious ass kicking to learn.

[Nancy Waterman]

17. If Germany, France and other nations want to stop an attack on Iran

They should collectively accuse Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, etc of war crimes and threaten to prosecute them if they appear on their soil. This would throw Bush enormously on the defensive and might wake up the American people. The foreign nations could also threaten to lay heavy sanctions on us. They need to fight hard and strong. The Dems aren't in a position of enough power to do much.

[xxqqqzme]

21. but that IS the ultimate goal

is it not? All 'traditional' military, state department, intelligence upper levels have been forced from their positions, replaced by neo-kon friendly personnel; departmental policy has been turned on its head to force others out. Even lowly forest rangers and EPA people have been forced out. Any move against this country, whether real or staged, means US military in our streets, for our 'safety'; operational staging set up in sport stadiums - plenty of parking; enclosed area; freeway accessible - play it out - your, my worse nightmare right there, under martial law; our monvements tracked by our REAL ID. I think it is much worse than we imagine. :tinfoilhat:

[MaineDem]

20. Germany attacks US on Iran threat - BBC Headline

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme.

His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force remained an option but only as a last resort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm

[Gyre]

22. Germany attacks US on Iran threat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4149090.stm

"German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme. "

We really are the country the rest of the world loves to hate. But the bright side of this is we make it so easy for them. :)

Gyre

[TahitiNut]

23. "attacks"??? Why not 'criticizes' or 'challenges'??

That's an egregiously inflammatory choice of words in the headline, imho.

Even further, the choice of the noun-modifier term "Iran threat" is egregiously ambiguous ... evoking the notion of Iran being a threat as opposed to Iran being threatened!

Appalling.

[neweurope]

25. True. But nazis always use pathetic and inflammatory language.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[ClusterFreak]

26. "attacks" is a good word too.

[TahitiNut]

28. Really? Where did Germany bomb us?

:eyes: There's a historical context that can't be ignored here.

[ClusterFreak]

32. So, you're just opposed to the use of the word "attacks", unless you're

specifically using it in it's purely literal sense....one country attacks another....or a predator attacked his victim. I see. Allow me to roll my eyes now :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

33. No (as should be crystal clear), I'm in favor of objective reporting!

The news media is not the place for poetic license, hyperbole, ambiguity, or loaded language! I've clearly offered alternative language that more clearly and less ambiguously conveys the events reported.

After all, a headline that said "Cindy Sheehan Attacks President!" would be the height of propagandistic creation of public perceptions, particularly to be expected in the Washington Times and equivalent Imperial media.

Sheesh! Talk about no KSOTO! Whew! Rolling your eyes is a commendable exercise. It has theraputic benefits.

[ClusterFreak]

36. Thanks for the journalism ethics lesson professor.....

.....anyway....I guess I responded to you sarcastically cuz you threw the rolling eyes guy my way, as to suggest how it pains you to have to suffer fools such as myself....otherwise I would have let it slide, and even granted you a point on the use of less inflammatory headline language. In retrospect, there ARE better words than "attacks"....feel better now?

:shrug:

[hiley]

27. i agree with you

Iran is the country being threatened.

[City Lights]

29. I thought the same thing.

I frequently see this in the US media too, when a Democrat disagrees with, or criticizes **. The media reports it at an "attack" on him. It gets really tiresome.

[TahitiNut]

35. The media is complicit in creating a personality cult.

It merely needs to be noticed that "anti-Bush" and "Bush-bashing" has become the coin of the realm in political speech, now. No other argument, reasoning, or discussion seems needed to be quoted anymore. The clear and inescapable inference is that the Cult of the Leader needs no other basis to reject and condemn anyone so-described. And the media gives its imprimatur to such speech as though it deserves some kind of credence.

[hiley]

24. neo-cons of course will not listen

I think the world is waiting for an overthrown of this idiot bush and co.
btw, it is not an attack to warn bush to stop it.

[yorkiemommie1]

30. Doesn't look like they'll be joining the next ' Coalition'

from the article...

" This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper."


Any reaction from Dem. Party to *'s pronouncement?

[Trillo]

31. Schroeder's right

"Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work,"

[TahitiNut]

34. Yep. It's plain-speakingly obvious.

Refreshing.

[Cha]

38. But, that doesn't fit in with

bushco's plans to take over the world. No wonder Chavez is saying what he says about the US goverment.

[MH1]

39. Related on BBC: Germany attacks US on Iran threat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4149090.stm

Mr Schroeder directly challenged Mr Bush's comment that "all options are on the table" over the Iran crisis.

"Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.

Mr Schroeder said it remained important that Iran did not gain atomic weapons, and a strong negotiating position was important.

"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal," he said. "Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this."

Mr Schroeder reiterates his views in an interview to be published Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, labelling military action "extremely dangerous".

"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper.

[dkofos]

40. Wars cost $$

Let the american taxpayer pay for it.

The germans are shrwed