If i was Irainian i would be very nervious at Mr Bush's latest stance on Iran.Let us be quite clear here,the Americans have two massive army's on Irans two borders.This latest propaghanda is a re-run of the Iraq storys,terrorism,wmds,chemical weapons,i mean come on,we know where this is all leading.

dave, up holland, england

I can't beleive that some people still argue for the legitimity of having nuclear weapons..like Matthew from Canada..for him it is ok to even use them in situation in which a nation existence under attack..for his information Iran never agree or defend the use of nuclear weapons..moreover it is against the principals of the islamic revolution to use weapons of mass destructions.. and seeking nuclear technology for civil use is not a crime it is the the right of Iran so it won't be dependent ton other nations in the future..
In one hand he is admitting that Isreal had for 30 years nuclear capacities in region that are so tense with its conflicts and wars. Isn't that a call for other nations in the region to do the same for fear of Isreal ambitions and threats to the stability of that region. and isn't more obvious that actions speaks louder than words when Isreal is destroying and occupying palestine,lebabon. while Iran according to Matthew "intent" to destroy Isreal.

Saeed, Rabat, Morocco

As for Iran, I have mixed feelings about it. Iran is a terrorist nation that supports terrorism worldwide and it boastfully admits it. With its potential to build nukes is very frightening to all of us since Iran said it would use them against Israel. I was the supporter of the Iraqi war because I was misled that Iraq had WMD. I am totally against it and like many people said, he is trying to expand his wars to other nations because the wars he started are failing! Invading Iran would be the biggest mistake the USA would have made since the Vietnam War! The person who said that every American war was started by the Republicans, that is not totally true. JFK started the Vietnam War and he was a Democrat. :( FDR was also a Democrat when war was forced on USA. Anyone who supports Bush now is very ignorant. My biggest fear was that George Bush (father) would start a nuclear war. I did not like him. It seems that Junior might start one near the end of his term, thus state of emergency!! :(

MPM, Morristown, NJ, USA

I have read some people mention the Vietnam War. I want to say that Bush is an idiot comparing Iraq to Vietnam. There is a huge difference between the two nations. That was Vietnam was fighting for independence. Iraq is not. The Vietnam War could have been avoided if the USA had supported Ho Chi Minh for independence. Of all nations, USA should have understood it. It was not a war between communism vs democracy at all, but the war for independence. Ho Chi Minh did not care about communism since he turned to USA first for help!! It was the USA that turned him down so he turned to the only other superpower left, the USSR. There was a party for a democratic Vietnam that supported Ho Chi Minh. That was proof that it was not about communism with him. Vietnam was the first war in which the Americans chose the wrong side. Vietnam would have been a democratic country, had the USA supported Ho Chi Minh for his war of independence. I consider him to be the "George Washington" of Vietnam.

MPM, Morristown, NJ, USA

I can't believe that some people still argue for the legitimacy of having nuclear weapons..like Matthew from Canada..for him it is OK to even use them in situation in which a nation existence under attack..for his information Iran never agree or defend the use of nuclear weapons..moreover it is against the principals of the Islamic revolution to use weapons of mass destruction.. and seeking nuclear technology for civil use is not a crime it is the right of Iran so it won't be dependent on other nations in the future..
In one hand he is admitting that Israel had for 30 years nuclear capacities in region that are so tense with its conflicts and wars. Isn't that a call for other nations in the region to do the same for fear of Israel ambitions and threats to the stability of that region. and isn't more obvious that actions speaks louder than words when Israel is destroying and occupying Palestine,Lebanon. while Iran according to Matthew "intent" to destroy Israel

Saeed, Rabat, Morocco

oh, yeah! and the bible also says that it is futile to use it to foretell events. (fanatics are such selective readers...)

Get A. Life, Mars,

In response to Foo from Scotland: You contradict the point that every government involved in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Palestine is trying to make. The war is supposed to be being fought again terrorists, not Islam. Please do not generalise all Muslims as being terrorists. Living in a country governed by Sharia Law, i agree, it isn't perfect (but which country's law is; surely not the USA or U.K?) but before you claim that it is full of 'hatred', think about what you yourself have just said and the views that you claim to represent on behalf of the U.K.

Janine, Manama, Bahrain

One interesting thing which seems to escape those who use the Israeli comparison to Iranian nuclear capability. Israel has had nukes for about 30 or so years now (it's been an open secret since the mid seventies), and has not used them, nor even threatened to use them, until Olmert's recent (and fairly ambiguous) statements. This would lead me to believe that Israel is a "safe" nuclear power, similar to Britain, France, the US, and Russia (they have nukes, but are unlikely to use them in any situation in which their existence is not under immediate threat). It has also not attacked over an international border, except in 1967 (when, to be fair, armies had massed on its border and the leaders of those nations had stated their intent to destroy Israel and kill its inhabitants). Iran, on the other hand, has stated on several occasions that it would use nukes if it got them, and has a history of meddling in its neighbours' affairs to their detriment (Lebanon and Iraq are obvious examples).

Matthew, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

"end times"..? why are you people so obsessed with death and destruction?

Paul Clemens, Tampa, UK

The lunatic in chief speaks.

Chris, Tampa, FL, US

I feel the world really should pick up their BIBLES again.The outlook is not good.Please read Zechariah 14:12 and 2Peter 3:10.It's time for harvest.

Ray Simpson, Simpsonville SC, USA

I agree with you Bruce from UK.It's great to know that a few of us know whats going on.Many people are letting their ignorance of the Scriptures keep them from seeing the big picture.Read Zechariah 14:12.Want to know how Russia plays in all this,read Ezekiel ch.38-39.What about the EU?Read the book of daniel.We ARE in the end times.

Ray Simpson, Simpsonville SC, USA

This is more like an ignorant man fanning the flames with the intention of putting it out. Can the US fight 3 wars at the same time? Afganistan is where the effort needs to be concentrated. Iraq was a mistake and now you want to add Iran to the list. How do u propose to save iraq after u n the so called terrorists have killed everylivng thing there? Who are we to tell Iran what to do or attack without significant evidence? I think the US is playin into the hands of the whole of the mideast. Have we forgotten Iran and Syria have an agreement to back eachother in case of external attack? The bigger pic looks like the mideast are tryin to force the hand of Isreal while Bush is only interested in money n rewritting the history books. the worlds being brought to its knees thanks to an over zealous president. Germany under Hitler was democratic. Another war is not the sensible answer. Bush will leave office in 2009 after plungin the World in chaos. ignorance is no escuse. Rembr Vote or die?

Adegbola, London, UK

Oh, i forgot about the vietnam card.

Mohammed, London, UK

Why did the USA and Britain (ie the West) allow the self-proclaimed, rogue state of Israel to acquire nuclear weapons with out a murmer. Britain even sold the technology to these people. It is in the land of Palestine, which has been colonised by political Zionists that the problems of the Middle East lie.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

This is all foretold in the Scriptures! It's pretty obvious to anyone with even half a brain that we're in the "end times". Given the current turmoil in the global markets, uncertainty around the world and other ever-increasing problems, it's only a matter of time before the four horsemen of the apocalypse ride! Poor old Richard Dawkins will be cussing under his breath I'm afraid!

Bruce, Hailsham, UK

Where is all this leading? The world has suddenly become spectacularly dangerous with unstable leaders/dictators having immense power to infict death and economic distruction.

As Richard Doughty says we are all "Ustamos Mucho Grande Freaking Doomed!"

Martin, Dayton, OH

Although I am an unabashed hawk in these affairs with little patience for Islamic fascists and theocrats, my jaw hit the floor when I read G.W. Bush's comments.

Now we fully understand why US forces will not abandon Iraq and Afghanistan any time soon. The availability of friendly bases in these countries bordering the east and west of Iran, together with naval assets in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, and long-range air assets with overflight permission would allow US and coalition forces to quickly launch bomber and cruise missile attacks without much warning to the regime in Tehran.

Why would Iran need PU239 or HE U235 enrichment facilities if they were not trying to obtain nuclear weapon status? They certainly don't need it for power generation.

As keepers and trustees of a nuclear flame, Mullahs with a bomb are an untrustworthy lot. Could you imagine if Ayatollah Khomeini had had a nuke and long-range delivery system!?

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

George from Pennsylvania, of course the US came to Britain's aid in Europe but only for US gain. The Russians already had Germany defeated despite 70% of the German army defending the eastern front. The US entered the war in Europe to grab some easy pickings before the Russian's got the lot. The US has always been about 'what's in it for us'. It's a greed mentality that has angered and engulfed many countries in conflict. Please stay home next time, for everyone's sake.

Tony, London,

To the person making the comment about Iran wiping Israel off the map: please note that Ahmadinejad later clarified his comments to say that Israel would destroy itself, given time. But perhaps Bush will do it for them.

Howard, Johannesburg, South Africa

A worrying story, and an even more worrying response on this blog. Typically from US haters.

Like it or not, Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Like it or not, Iran makes no secret of its ambitions to be the primary power in the middle east. Like it or not, Iran makes no secret of its ambitions to destroy the state of Israel. The predictions of a holocaust aren't idle, they're not even in the realms of possibility, but rather probability. That is, if Iran succeeds in its goals. Predictably, the US haters never offer any solutions, just vitriole.

The only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran are the consequences of not doing so, if Iran continues on its reckless venture.

Anyone who cannot see even this basic proposition, is extremely unlikely to be able to contribute usefully to any solution.

John, Sydney, Australia

Does this mean we are now officially onto phase 2 of the US/UK oil security programme? Sorry - that's "Regime Change" program these days, isn't it?

KR, Stockport,

dear readers i want you to think why people are being surpressed in the world , the fact is that some leaders of the world are power mad and people around them are going along with them for their own means. it is about time to have a real change in the world, where every country leaves another alone. one day will come inshallah the evil will be elliminated from the world hopefully.for the betterment of every human being.

farooq, manchester, uk

George, Glasgow, UK please mate, think about what you put, the US would not intervene in Africa for a number of reasons, the main one being no international threat,

Adam Webb, MK, UK

Evidence shows that it is the US, not Iran which is a threat to international peace and security

George Bush's claim that "Iran’s pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons would put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust", would be laughable if the reality were not so tragic. Whereas Iran is only looking for nuclear technology, the US already has over 32, 000 nuclear warheads, with 480 of them deployed in the Europe. Where as Iran has never attacked any country with nuclear weapons, it was the US which dropped atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, killing hundreds of thousand of innocent men, women and children. And whereas Iran was the victim of chemical attacks by Saddam Hussein, it was the US and other western countries which supplied Saddam with those deadly weapons Let us be clear which country is posing the greatest threat to international peace and security. As Mr Tony Benn said on BBC Newsnight last night, it is the USA, not Iran

Sam Akaki, London, UK

Bush is certainly doing well as a "non-combatant", starting sabre rattling overtures with Iran, he can't sort out Iraq or Afghanistan and now he wants to take on more states. He has months to go until he moves aside and allows another President to take his place, just wind down and keep a low profile for his reamaining time in office. If he starts something with Iran let him and his country do it by themselves.

bugsy, Burley-in-Wharfedale, West Yorkshire

This inane, unconvincing and belligerent Bush speech is best understood against the background of the imminent Petraeus report on the effect of the "surge" policy. Naturally, Bush wants to convince the Americans and the world of the need for American forces to remain in Iraq. If only Bush, whom Mandela rightly described on the eve of the Iraqi invasion as "incapable of reason" had listened to the the voice of reason, and desisted from senselessly invading Iraq, the anarchy that currently, sadly, characterises Iraq, would have been avoided. It is wrong for Bush to describe Iran as the main threat to peace and stability in that part of the Middle East; it's obvious that he, Bush, and his belligerent cohorts, otherwise referred to as the neocons, are the problem.

Ayo Odelusi, Wallington, UK

Call it semantics if you wish, but Tim Reid states first that Ahmedinejad said that there will be a vacuum in Iraq and Iran is ready to fill it. Later in his piece he quotes Ahmedinejad as saying that there will be a vacuum in the region (as distinct from Iraq!) which Tehran is ready to fill. The two propositions are quite different yet Mr Reid (and his editors) seem to be indifferent to this.
The first proposition should not be tolerated by the Security Council, while the second is really just a natural progression should US policy ultimately fail in Iraq

Stephen Baddeley, Sydney, Australia

Jonathan, Idaho. You appear to have swallowed your own nation's propaganda hook, line and sinker. If any one nation was single-handedly responsible for the defeat of the Germans in 45 it was the U.S.S.R, not the U.S. The U.S. forces contribution in Europe simply matched the British and Commonwealth effort, but did involve charging the U.K. a heavy price for the equipment it needed before the U.S was forced to get involved. U.S. prosperity was protected, not that of Britain. And how can the U.S. be said to have maintained peace when most conflict around the globe since 1945 involved American funded forces fighting Soviet-armed enemies. Your ignorance of the world outside the U.S. is matched by Bush's narrow view of reality, and why non-U.S. prosperity will further be hindered by another exercise in American Imperialism against Iran.

Russ W, Sheffield,

Hi Johnathan,I quite agree that without the US, it is my view WW2 with Germany would probably have become a war of attrition and who can tell what would have happened thereafter. But please remember you only entered into it two years and three months later because of Pearl Harbour and yet you were supposed to have been our allies. Apart from making the rest of the world a more unstable planet to live on,what have been your acheivements in battle since?. Zilch.
As a lad living through the blitz in London, I saw battle in the sky. It was called the battle for Britain,a battle incidently we actually won.

S.L.Green, Colchester, UK.

Jonathan Barrette perpetuates the myth that the US won WW2 in Europe. This is a view apparently held by all Americans in stark contrast to the facts. The Russians beat Hitler. They were responsible for 80% casualties and 90% of kills of Hitler's forces - and of course tragically the vast preponderance of allied casualties and loss of materiel. US (and sadly UK) efforts were a sideshow, mostly rather late.
Of course the US and UK both sent kit to Stalin, and one can argue endlessly, but the UK owes it's debt to Russia, and sadly has never acknowledged this. Meantime, the US became very rich during WW2, which presumably was the plan in Iraq if you check out the oil, defence and infrastructure commitments.

Paul E, Bournemouth, UK

When can we expect to see the IAEA inspecting Dimona, Israel? The world must simply trust Israel but not Iran? Even not-so-well read people know that the president of Iran was misquoted regarding 'wiping Israel off the map' but it gets repeated over and over. In whose interest? Thank God NZ is far away from all this.

Chris Curtis, Auckland, NZ

What nonsense we have here in some comments.
Because someone does something right once hardly means he is entitled to do something wrong many times after.
Castro was a hero in the United States right after his revolution, much praised and interviewed. How is he viewed after more than forty years of personal rule?
The comparison with the U.S. now is perfect, a hero to Europe in WW II, but now a consistent threat to peace and rationality in the world, ignoring others and bombing rather than thinking.
Bush is determined to go down in flames, starting still another fight, generating immensely more hatred.
And he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Were Iran to have nuclear weapons we would actually have a better chance of peace in the Middle East. As it is, Israel behaves as a geopolitical miniature of the U.S. in the region, pushing everyone away, telling all its neighbors what they should be doing.
How very right Lord Acton was in his comments on power.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

Rod from Polisher,

You need to go back and get more facts. The intelligence that America received about WMD's was also due to your countries failed and flawed intelligence. You obviously have nothing but anti-American rhetoric to spew out so I consider your comments ignorant. Iran has a dictator that stated if it were up to him Isreal should be wiped off the map. They lied about the situation and coordinates with the British soldiers also. How about the American hostages in the 70's; so maybe you think because they say they are not pursuing nuclear bombs they are honest and trustworthy. It is also funny how Ronnie from Paris states "what do they need to make this planet safe". I didnt realize that it was up to America to keep the world safe, but since very little action is being taken by other nations, I say keep your mouths shut until your country lifts a finger towards the cause. I wonder who you will blame things on once Bush is out of office, Im sure some other American.

Chris, Tampa, USA

To Martin Birch (Sydney, Australia). interesting and quite relevant quote, mate, but the beginning is even more relevant :

"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Jonathan Barrette talks as if the US saved us (UK)from the Germans. They did no such thing - the US did not declare war on Germany, it was Hitler who declared war on the US.
The fate of Nazi Germany was sealed when they invaded Russia, the US only got involved in Europe because they didn't fancy a communist Europe after the war, and they didn't want the Russians to grab all of the Nazi Scientists. The UK has only just finished paying off all the war loans made to it, the US even made money out of us when we were fighting alone for the true freedom of the world.
The US always looks after its own interests first, and the rule applies in the conflict with Iran.

tony, birmingham, uk

Jason, this does appear to be about oil and Israel's security. The reason you bring up the ridiculous cost now is through hindsight. Remember the Neo-cons thought this would be a cakewalk and that the oil would pay for the invasion. You can apply hindsight easily and say they would not have done it for the oil for the cost but they didn't know that it would cost this much at the time. The Taliban ran to the hills and are now fighting. The US at the time thought they had obliterated them and though Iraq would be as easy. Neither has been shown to be easy and the US and UK are now in a terrible position with no moral high ground. Its easy to say they have a UN mandate but they do not have this 'mandate' in any form that holds substance. Of course the UN voted for these countries to sort the mess out that they had caused. Remember the lies? Does anyone hold any trust in these people now? And if so, why?

Chris Curtis, Auckland, NZ

Because Philip Brydon, Iran is threating to use the nuclear weapons, put it this way, Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map, now if my neighbour says to me, "I'm building a gun, and once I have made, I'm going to shoot you and Kill you with it" I'm going to act.

Israel would bombard Iran with nuclear missiles, if they feel any threat from Iran!

Adam Webb, MK, UK

Bush is right to let the Iranians know what will happen if they are foolish enough to continue to develop a nuclear bomb.

d case, newquay,

@Rodpolisher:
"because it wants to be able to export more oil and increase its revenue."
If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. You do understand...no, plainly you don't. Nuclear energy costs far more per kilowatt-hour than Iran's profit on selling the eqivalent amount of oil. The notion that cost-saving is behind this multibillion-dollar program is laughable.
"So far, there has not been one shred of evidence from anyone anywhere to prove that the Iranians are developing weapons"
Tell that to Dr el-Baradei and the IAEA, who *still* are pleading with the Iranians to explain a few little things- like why they have plans for fissile-material machining, and how to explain the HEU previous inspections found, and what exactly a 'peaceful electric power' program needs with the plutonium reactor nearing completion. Of course, doubtless you regard the IAEA as just another part of the American Imperialist Warmonger Conspiracy.

solicitr, Richmond,

Surely no one takes George Bush seriously any more. An idiot looking for a village.

Andrew Milner, Kanagawa, Kanagawa

it's differcult to pay attention after all of this time with still no articles of impeachment on this president....
What's up with that? , ...are our leaders just waiting for impending doom?
good luck

rich, windham, nh

Iranian scientists must be very clever, they are building a nuclear weapon that can differentiate between Jews and Arabs, or am I mistaken and they do intend to kill all the Arabs who live in Israel and the occupied territories as well as dumping fallout over all their neighbours before their country is obliterated by Israel’s already in place nuclear arsenal?

The doctrine of M.A.D. was used by the States to ever expand their nuclear arsenal, was this doctrine false? Was the American taxpayer duped into paying billions upon billions on a lie there as well?

As for our seemingly eternal debt of gratitude to the USA the president then was Roosevelt, there is no comparison with the present holder of that position who has way exceeded Americas credit limit.

Martyn Millard, Calvia, Mallorca

Why dont the USA and Israel Place a Star of David Flag on the Moon.What a brilliant gesture.

D Paterson, Blackpool, Lancs

Even as a unabashed hawk, my jaw hit the floor when I read this.

Afghanistan and Iraq, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman are very useful launching pads for an attack on Iran "before it is too late."

The nuclear clock just moved a minute or two closer to midnight.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

According to you, Jason, New York, NY, the US will have paid $500 Billion to promote (so successfully) democracy and freedom in Iraq...

$500 Billion with which it would have "subsidized the American FOREIGN Oil purchases for about 113 years (without interest). With Interest - 147 Years".

Dear Jason, you deserve, and simultaneously, the Nobel in Economics, a size 13 halo and my best wishes for when you wake up to the real world.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Jonathan Barrette: The Russians did more damage to German forces than any other country in WW2. I suggest you order a copy of The World At War dvd series!

Anyway George Bush played into Iranian hands when he invaded Iraq without properly thinking things too.

Luke Nicolaides, London, UK

I am disgusted that the United States can consciously complain about the results of Iran using nuclear bombs. We have significantly more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined, outside of Russia's enormous stockpile.

I see this as another diversion of the Bush administration's march to colonialize the Middle-East's resources, while diverting billions of dollars towards their well-connected corporate friends and relatives. It's all right there in front of us, we just don't seem to see it.

Steve B, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I admire Rod Polisher's response. It truly reflects the reality of what is happening. Have we forgotten that it was and it always is the Republican Party leadership who instigates the wars worldwide? It is always the Republican leadership who distributes at no cost arms and train elements of a population against their government simply because this government is not in agreement with the U.S. directives? Have we forgotten that the United States have assisted fully Israel to possess a nuclear bomb and continues to supply sophisticated arms worth billions of dollars while the citizens of New Orleans are longing for a piece of bread and medications for their children living in open air and without shelters for nearly two years?
Aren't we sick and tired of seeing the palestinians children, elderly and women without sewage facilities and clean water because of the hardship imposed on them by the Israeli army for over 60 years? This is the true holocaust, not the one they pretend to be.

by Bernie Haddad, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

I think Bush's specific use of the word 'holocaust' was his diplomatic attempt to state that if Iran gets the bomb, Israel will take unilateral action to deal with it, possibly precipitating a nuclear exchange between those two countries.

I believe the United States will take action to confront Iran more agressively diplomatically, economically, and militarily if necessary. I do not think, however, Bush was suggesting the preemptive use of US nuclear weapons in the region unless Israel is overtly threatened or attacked by Iran.

If Iran successfully acquires a nuclear weapon and an effective long-range delivery system, regardless of US and UN attempts to prevent it, the whole region could be set aflame by the self-preservation instincts of the most obviously threatened nation. Retaliatory strikes from Iran would only serve to pull other regional and international actors with security interests and military capability into the fray with disasterous consequences.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The wonderful Onion a couple of years back ran an article: "Bush announces Iraq exit strategy - we'll go through Iran." Did they know, something, or Is he taking policy advice from back issues of the Onion now? Or is he just, as most of the world suspects, a warmongering moron? Another worrying thing is that so many of the contenders for the White House, of both parties, seem to agree on the 'need' to attack Iran - it seems to be a matter of when rather than if.

Rose , Hawalli, Kuwait

It's interesting to read the comments above, which fall into 2 categories: 1) Bush is evil incarnate so any position he takes has to be the incorrect one; or 2) America did so much for Europe over 60 years ago that Europe needs to slavishly accept any position the US takes. Both of these strands of thinking, while entertaining, don't address the real questions which are 1) Is Iran seeking nuclear weapons? 2) if so, what does that mean for regional & global stability; 3) Is a preemptive strike against Iran worth the loss of life and potential destabilising effects, knowing that it could be quite possible that the intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions could be flawed as in Iraq's?

This is a difficult question to answer because it addresses potentialities instead of actual events. Still - it is doubtful any of us will have to answer it since the other regional players will not tolerate Iran's possession of a nuclear arsenal, regardless of the USA's position - so why worry?

David Geiling, London, UK

Imagine how frustrating it is for Americans who do not support President Bush's foreign policy! I find the negative opinions of the USA by people from other nations disturbing. This only reaffirms my belief that our current government has failed miserably when it comes to finding solutions that are not only diplomatic, but involve the nations of the rest of the world as America's partners.

The "cowboy diplomacy" of President Bush and his administration is dangerous to world peace and to America's foreign relations. At the same time, the are world problems that are very real. America and the rest of the world need each other to find realistic solutions to these issues.

James, Florida, USA

Iran can buy all the nuclear technology it wants from France, for example, or invest in already established nuclear suppliers in the west. But since Iran is obviously intent upon developing a nuclear weapons capability this would not be possible. So it is an imperative that Iran is sufficiently subdued to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed rogue-state which would only serve to embolden radical Islamists. President Bush must now proceed as swiftly as possible to prevent this from happening.

Charles Smyth, Belfast, Northern Ireland

I am glad to see that Vernon lord has managed to slip a "all jews want to destroy Iran" conspiracy theory in to an article concerning America's concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.

Other countries have offered to supply all technology as well as fuel that is not weapon grade however this offer has been rejected. The issue is that the technology has dual use, both peaceful and military, however nobody knows what may be going on beyond the scope of their intellience information.

While neither argument has sufficient proof, there surely may be some cause for concern?

Jay, London, UK

Holocaust, i thought there has been a holocaust happening in Iraqi now for a number of years,

jeff, Queensland, Australia

This is a factual tort to Nicks (from St. Ouen, France). letter to the London Times dated: 8/29/07. Nickolaus buddy, you really need to study your history. First of all, everyone involved in the upper echelons of government on both sides of "The Pond", were more than aware of the fact that an attack on Pearl was imminent.The U.S., was supplying The "allies" (very profitable) via north Atlantic shipping routes.Vietnam was a U.S. effort to stave off communism in Southeast Asia remember who the NVA and VCs main sponsors were? Besides, the French were there first.Of course the innocent always pay the highest price in any war.

J.R Barnes, Hockessin , DE U.S.A

They lied about WMD's in Iraq why shoulld we suddenly start believing them now about Iran. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Bush gain financially through his shares in a US arms manufacturer, if wars are created and prolonged?

Magdelane Heart, Oslo, Norway

I'd rather live in a world where America calls the shots and has the biggest guns, than a world run by an Islam under Sharia law.

We might as well admit, there is a war being fought between Islam and the west. I sincerely hope the west (primarily th US and the UK) triumphs. Just take a minute to look at Islamic nations; the bigotry, predujidice and hatred that exists and think whether you could live under such a system.

Foo, Edinburgh, Scotland

you Americans are really beginning to bore me with all these arrogant cliches regarding your role in WWll.
Yes, your military involvent and lend-lease aid greatly sped up the victory of the allies...that is until after the war when all the interest you charged on it bankrupted us and much of Europe whilst your good selves enjoyed a massive economic boom which you then invested in huge quantities of nuclear arms further perpetuating the Cold War.
The fact is that Operation Sealion (Hitler's invasion of Britain) failed long before you got involved thanks to British resolve and determination as well as Hitler's inability to knock out our Navy or Airforce. The war may have ended in some kind of strained stalemate but Britain would NEVER have been successfully invaded. And what did it take for your selfish isolationists to finally get inviolved? A huge Japanese attack on your naval base.
Spare us your arrogant claims of 'saving the world', you've been singing the same tune for 60 years

Rob, London, UK

BUSH is right, wrong regime must go.

PURUSHOTHAMAN, KERALA, INDIA

Great! Bush lost one lapdog and now has another partner in pre-emptive strike crime with Sarkozy. Why can't our President use his words in diplomacy instead of sword rattling. Is he such a spoiled rich kid that anhyone who defies him has to have his ass kicked. How did we let ourselves get into this mess with this guy? When will it end? Sooner than 17 month from now one can only hope.

Richard, Santa Monica, california

G.W.Bush speech excerpt:

"The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

I think Bush's specific use of the word 'holocaust' was his diplomatic attempt at suggesting that if Iran gets the bomb Israel will not tolerate it and will take care of matters unilaterally, possibly precipitating a nuclear exchange between those two countries.

I believe the United States will take action to confront Iran more agressively diplomatically, economically and militarily if necessary. But I do not think Bush was suggesting the preemptive use of US nuclear weapons in the region unless Israel is overtly threatened or attacked by Ahmadinejad's rabid Iran.

If Iran is able to acquire nuclear weapons regardless of US and UN attempts to prevent it, the whole region could be set aflame by the self-defense instincts of the most immediately threatened nation. Retaliatory strikes from Iran would only serve to pull other regional and international actors with security interests and military capability into the fray with disasterous consequences.

Iran has no need for HEU.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

Jonathan, the US didn't enter the war to prevent us speaking German, but to prevent themselves having to learn Japanese! By the way, you didn't even declare war on Germany, but waited for Hitler to declare war on you. We turned the tide of the war in North Africa and Burma without American help. We're grateful for the fact that the Americans came in, but we get a bit tired of the Americans banging on as if they did it all and we did nothing. We had the resources of a world-wide empire as well as this little country, don't forget.

Robert Forde, Clevedon, UK

I trust Isreal, a secular parlimentary democracy, which possess some semblance of reason having an atomic weapon than a farsical democracy which is really a a religous dictatorship led by mystics of the spirit having one, if they must. At least they will not misinterpret their own self intrest for the will of god (one of the greatests treasons man can make because it will become undisbutible in logical discourse because we cannot definitvely confirm the will of a deity).

Hank Rearden , Galt's Gultch, USA

I think GWB's specific use of the word 'holocaust' was his obviously diplomatic way of stating that if Iran gets the bomb, Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and take care of matters of its own accord thereby precipitating a possible nuclear exchange between, at least, those two countries.

I believe the United States will take action to confront Iran more agressively diplomatically, economically and militarily if necessary. But I do not think Bush was suggesting the preemptive use of US nuclear weapons in the region unless Israel is overtly threatened or attacked by Ahmadinejad's rabid Iran.

If Iran is able to acquire nuclear weapons regardless of US and UN attempts to prevent it, the whole region could be set aflame by the self-defense instincts of the most immediately threatened nation. Retaliatory strikes from Iran would only serve to pull other regional and international actors with security interests and military capability into the fray with disasterous consequences.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The UK finaly paid off its last installment of US$83.25m to the US in Dec 2006 and US$22.7m to Canada which was what was owed to the us over the last 50 years.

I don't think anyone should complain, but the USA did to quite well out of WW2, doubling their financial investment in the war and with Britain having finaly lost its empire and its wealth paving the way for the US to be the dominant force of the past 60 years.

Of course no ammount of money makes up for the huge loss of life. In the end it was actually the Russians that made it possible to defeat the Nazis. No one should forget that fact either. With out their millitary might Europe would have almost certainly fallen. And we would probably be speaking Russion not German since Germanys strength was less than that of the Russians towards the end of the war.

AD, sacramento, California

We British are severely bored by the US still trying to make us grovel with gratitude for events over 60 years old. I find it interesting that WW2 is still being exploited portray the US as saviours, this is because very little of their conduct since deserves praise. FYI the invasion of Britain (Operation sealion) failed due to Hitler's inability to knock out our airforce and Navy long befiore the Americans were compelled by self-interest to get involved. Admittidly they were instrumental in the liberation of continental Europe but for Britain the war would have, at worst, ended in stalemate. The invasion of Britain had already proved impossible. The war was very profitable for the US and sent them into economic boom (which they then spent on a nuclear arsenal) while the rest of Europe suffered post-war decline. You helped us, you did not 'save' us. The BRITISH stopped the invasion of Britain so spare us your self-rightous vanity, if you want our gratitude then earn it in TODAYs world

Gil, London, UK

We British are very bored with the US still trying to make us grovel with gratitude for events over 60 years old. I find it interesting that they still go on about WW2 as very little of their conduct since deserves praise. FYI the invasion of Britain (Operation Sealion) failed long before the US was compelled by self-interest to get involved. This was due to Hitler's failure to knock out our Navy and RAF. I admit that US invoilvement was important in the liberation of the continent but for Britain the war, at worst, would have ended in stalemate. The invasion had already proved impossible. The war was profitable for the US and sent them into economic boom (which they spent on nuclear arms) while Europe suffered the post-war decline. Spare us your self-rightous vanity, the BRITISH saved Britain, you merely helped Europe so stop droning on about this age-old conflict. If you are so desperate for our gratitude do something worthy of it! and in the 21st century i might add not the 1940s!

Gil, London, UK

Is Philip Brydon forgetting that Israel is the only democratic state in the middle east, and that its nuclear weapons exist to *defend* itself after countless wars initiated against it. Is he forgetting that Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, is responsible for the majority of terrorism in the ME and the world, and is actively working against US troops in Iraq. Deterrence worked during the cold war? Erm, this is not the Cold War. Will it be so bad if Iran has the bomb? You obviously have no idea about Iran or the Middle East as such a question only exposes your naivety.

Mike, London,

Neoconservatives have a strangle hold on Bush. He has to do what they say.

Mohammed, London, UK

Jonathan from Idaho, you need history lessons, the US was nowhere near Berlin when it fell to the SOVIETS, not the US.

As for Bush, the man has been a donkey all his life, why would he change now? I pray for the sane amongst the Americans to once again rise to the challenge.

Akram, London,

Now might be a good time to invest in a nuclear fallout shelter.

Steve P, Leeds, England

If America follows the religious lunatic that is Geroge Bush and allows attacks on Iran (given that the only nuclear threat in the middle east comes from Israel and America) then I for one would gladly fight against America and do all I can to ensure Bush would not be allowed to live out his days cutting wood in Texas.
This is serious - the worst US president in history, being pushed and told what to do by the most twisted vice president in US history, are going to push this madness through and will not be satisfied until the whole of the middle east burns. Time for humanity to take back control of OUR world!

Bobby Smith, London,

I thought people like Mr. Barrette were made up. 'True believers of liberty and freedom...'? How can anyone believe that conservative rhetoric nonsense?
Life is not a Superman comic - no matter what they say on Fox.

It is painfully obvious that now, having acquired the world's 4th largest deposit of oil, Bush and the neo-cons want the world's 3rd largest deposit. At 70 + dollars a barrel why wouldn't you. Who cares about the numerous innocent civilians who are going to die. Nobody cares about all of the civilians that have died and are dying in Iraq.

Furthermore, so I guess Israel's nuclear weapons don't threaten to put a region already known 'for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust'.

Jonathan, Tokyo, Japan

We're doomed...

David, Detroit, MI USA

Bush’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. This guy needs to be carried away for his own good.

Phil Greene, houston, Tx

Some people from the U.S. that actually support invasion in Iraq and probably look forward to another one in the region fail to mention the fact that hardly any U.S. foreign military mission after WWII has brought anything positive. Invading Afghanistan, then Iraq, now possibly Iran bring chaos, warfare and threatens the stability of the whole Muslim region. Bush is heating things up with his speeches, i.e. "the axis of evil" and "god with america" stuff, which only fuels Muslim jihad agains the Christian countries.

Maciej, Poznan, Poland

Wouldn't it be great if everything went back to the ways it was after the second worldwar when the US was the hero and evil had been taken care off, everything must have been calm and nice. Now, everyone hates everyone. Us in the EU yells at the US, the US yells at the middle-east, and china and russia are starting to act really weird and creepy.
I think people should remember atm that it's not the US they hate, it's Bush and his lack of knowledge when it comes to warfare. And, as it seems, the corruption around these two wars.

Magnus, Lund, Sweden

Same sound bites as before.
Talk nonsense, tell lies, make people think they are in trouble and before one knows the real truth, these comfy chair 'liars' would have started another 'war', all for the sake of 'oil'.

Arvin, London, GB

Don't you see? Sarkosy is jew. Then, he likes a war against Iran. – vernon lord, Guadalajara, Mexico

In my view, this open racism highlights the violent irrationality that is gripping and blinding an increasing number of left-wing critics of US efforts in the Middle East. What comes to mind is the similar attitude that back in the Thirties led so many European (and particularly French) left-wingers to oppose strongly any action against Hitler. Then as now, biased mass media and weak vote-seeking politicians were crucial in spreading a deeply emotional short-sightedness, against which even the many blunders of to-day's Bush administration pale into insignificance. Reason enough to worry, I believe.

Mario Ferretti, L'Aquila, Italy

After reading some of the comments from my fellow Americans, I almost feel ashamed for the level of ignorance their views portray. To the rest of the civilized world, I apologize on their behalf. No all of us over here believe the propaganda and the lies. Over half of us didn't vote for this man and are horrified at the actions of our government. A lot of us are educated enough to identify middle eastern countries on a map. Some of us have actually been there, and are actually fluent in more than one language. Some of us know that Ahmadinejad is just the president of Iran, he is not actually in charge. Some of us know the difference between Israelis and Zionists. Some of us actually studied world history and have knowledge of the extent of the United States involvement in WW2. The problem in this Country is that the people with the smallest minds have the biggest mouths. and George Bush is their leader.

Pat, Virginia, USA

hmm a lot of anti-american opinion here. whatever the faults of the US (and there are quite a few US policies i don't agree with) i would rather them than live under sharia...which is the aim of the totalitarian rulers of the Islamist sects. the US is still a democractic nation, people if you don't like it you can protest and they let you. under the regime you are supporting you would be far more severely punished. Lesser of two evils if you need to see it that way but that is what it comes down to. I know if its the devils over in the states or the alternative i know where i'm going, (assuming that nice democracy will accept me)

Ben, folkestone, uk

We British are very bored with the US still trying to make us grovel with gratitude for events over 60 years old. I find it interesting that they still go on about WW2 as very little of their conduct since deserves praise. FYI the invasion of Britain (Operation Sealion) failed long before the US was compelled by self-interest to get involved. This was due to Hitler's failure to knock out our Navy and RAF. I admit that US invoilvement was important in the liberation of the continent but for Britain the war, at worst, would have ended in stalemate. The invasion had already proved impossible. The war was profitable for the US and sent them into economic boom (which they spent on nuclear arms) while Europe suffered the post-war decline. Spare us your self-rightous vanity, the BRITISH saved Britain, you merely helped Europe so stop droning on about this age-old conflict. If you are so desperate for our gratitude do something worthy of it! and in the 21st century i might add not the 1940s!

Gil, London, England

do not worry. If bush or the USA wanted to confront Iran, it would have done that long time ago.

The USA created the Iranian frankenstein in the ME, so that the ME will be permanetly embroiled in wars.

Iran knows that very well, hence the Iranian bluster.

If Iran stop being a threat to its neighbors, it will be definietly attacked. But the Iranians know that very well and they keep on raising the level of insecurity according to the wills and desires of the USA.

Just ask yourself this simple question: since Iran was already a bigger unchecked threat and an "enemy" of the USA, why didn't the USA attack Iran first?

When I read stuff like that from GW Bush, I feel sleepy. we need a man who means his words.

adam hoffman, Gainesville, USA

Would everyone please stop saying its about oil please? Its ignorant to believe that a war that will cost $500 Billion was about getting free oil. In case you didnt realize, $500 Billion would subsidize the American FOREIGN Oil purchases for about 113 years (without interest). With Interest - 147 Years. Please, Oil is about the most ignorant comment imaginable. Also, please keep in mind - the ones that were owed the most money in oil from Iraq were to two countries that most opposed the war - thats right - France and Russia.

Jason, New York, NY

Well said, Nick. Citing America's contributions in WWII to try and justify what's happening now is the equivalent of the guy who brags about his glory days as a high school football player 20 years later while he's pumping your gas.

It doesn't matter anymore.

Our reputation has been flushed away due to a lack of truthfulness and accountability by the current president and staff. He has resorted to fear tactics now that he has lost all credibility.

Unfortunately, his loss of credibility reflects on all of us, including our heroic servicemen who helped liberate Europe.

Bill, KC,

The Iranian Proliferation concerns are real and one that would undermine regional security.
The Iranians have not complied to the IAEA in its entirety of inspections. The continued backing of insurgents and instability withing Iraq by the Tehran Regime is hampering the implementation of United Nations Resolution by the coalition forces.
Iran has made many deteriorating comments towards the State of Israel and its continued pursuit of nuclear development is indeed a cause of concern of regional security.
The Iranians should comply with the IAEA or face reciprocal measures from the International community.

The Director, London, United Kingdom

It seems to me that we have heard all of this before. I think that the world will be glad to see the end of Bush. The US has too much of a history of imposing its abhorrent culture on the rest of the world, ever since they invented the hamburger.

Paul Webb, Alicante, Spain

Dear George, Pennsylvania, US
If US would have sit back from the beginnig we would not have any of these problems. (but the oil, the oil)

Helena Mathys, Hameenlinna, Finnland

Can there be any more hype and drivel out this guys ho- down yankee doodle mouth.

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, UK

I woudl love to know where our friend from Idaho gets off telling us all that the good ol' US of A have to shoulder the burden of policing the world. Who gives them the mandate to say who is evil or not?
All I see is evidence of them butting into any country with the mineral wealth to affect global politics and either using strong arm tactics to influence ideology or, in the event that this fails trying to inspire a global fear frenzy in order to justify military intervention folloed by the installation of a puppet government of their choosing.
As for their wonderful contribution during WWII, thanks, but they only got involved because the Japanese forced the issue at Pearl Harbour, and after becoming involved blue on blue or friendly fire incidents increased the number of allied casualties by 60%. Sounds like history may be repeating.

Andrew Entwisle, Dublin, Ireland

Jon,
If you wanna go that way back in history, if it wasn't for Colombo and later the english, you would still be picking bananas now.

Things have to be separated. Just because the US economy needs a boost, as it always does from time to time, it's not as simple as that. Or it shouldn't be.

And all your US friends can have atomic weapons, like Israel, India, Pakistan, but... not Iran, too much oil to be a friend, if you can't control them, then they are a state enemy! Way to go!

Sad, the muppet show started a long way back, with Florida being the last moment of glory for guys like you.

Ivan, Lisbon, Portugal

How can anyone nowadays take any notice at all of what George W Bush says. We've been lied to regarding WMD's in Iraq so why should we believe that Iran is planning Armageddon. We mustn't forget that the Bush family is personally profiting through their shares in the weapons industry. Creating or prolonging conflicts means money in bank for them. I honestly believe this man is indeed this evil.

Magdelane Heart, Oslo, Norway

George, Pennsylvania, US and Jonathan Barrette, Hayden, Idaho should note that the Nazis were developing long range missiles and nuclear weapons. Perhaps the US entering WWII may have turned out to be an act of self preservation in the end, had events unfolded differently. Winning WWII required the efforts and sacrifices of all of the allies. The US could not have done it alone or without Britain. Had Britain and her allies not held back the night for as long as it did, without US assets, things would've been very different for the world, not just Europe. I don't doubt the significance of US involvement in WWII or fail to honour the ultimate sacrifice of so many US service men. However, its just a shame it took so long for the US to get involved in the WWII, while Britain and the rest of Europe paid a heavy price in the transition process which saw the US rise as a super power. Lets hope the world reacts more appropriately over Iran.

Richard, Devon,

Who still listens to that redneck? Does anybody actually pay any attention to anything that idiot says? Ohhh, the boogeyman is going to come and get you in your sleep and drop a nuclear bomb on your head! Please! I was more scared watching Freddy vs Jason!

Simon Peter, Toms River, USA

"How dare the Britz speak such nonesense about our dear president & America, when it is WE who saved your a** in WWII"


Well George from Pennsylvania I think you should go and read up a bit more on the history of WWII. You might find out that if it wasn't for the millions of Russians who fought and died in that war there would have been little America or the Brits could have done to stop old Adolf having his nasty way.

Magdelane Heart, Oslo, Norway

We British really have grown bored of Americans still trying to make us grovel with gratitude for events that took place over 60 years ago. Interesting is it not that WW2 is still being exploited by the US to make everyone think they are saviours but very little of their conduct since deserves praise. FYI the invasion of Britain was thwarted by BRITISH fighting spirit and Hitler's failure to knock out our airforce and navy. Operation sealion failed long before the US was compelled by self-interest to get involved. No, we would not be speaking German. The war at worst, would have ended in a stalemate for Britain. American military involvement was instrumental in the liberation of continental Europe but left it crippled by interest charges while the yanks enjoyed an economic boom through the sale of arms. A boom they then invested in a nuclear arsenal. They did not 'save' Britain, the British did. Why don't you do something worthy of gratitude and you won't have to keep referring to WW2

Gil, London, UK

I would say the issue is laughable if it weren't very serious indeed.
So, this illegal President is ready to spread a nuclear holocaust in order to prevent Ahmadinejad from spreading a nuclear holocaust.
I wonder if the man hears what he says. And if American Republicans do understand his illiterate language.

Claudio, Ascoli Piceno, Italy

Well, I certainly come from a fairly prosperous nation with a high standard of living... don't really know how much that has to do with the US intervening militarily all over the shop recently (WWII was a long time ago especially in terms of political and social forces of the middle east and Europe). Just because I live in a prosperous nation does not blind me to the fact that more than half the world live in abject poverty.

Nosaj Tsnug, The Gong, Australia

NIce to see the fifth column is alive and well in the comments section!

Viv, london, england

Jonathan, I am sure we Europeans are very happy to be reminded for the umpteenth time that without the Americans we would all be speaking German. Without belittling in any way the US forces in WW2, Europe was overrun by what was, at the time, the most formidable army in the world, and Britain was spared invasion in large part by the efforts of the RAF and the fortuitous presence of the Channel. True, the liberation of Europe could not have been achieved without the USA, and for that, believe me we are very grateful, but until attacked at Pearl Harbour the Americans, profitably, stayed out, so spare us please your selective view of history. After WW2 the Americans were defeated by the Viet Cong, hardly the Werchmart, and the current Iraqi adventure hardly seems to be going to plan. How many Iraqis have to die for you to free them? As for Iran, it’s a dangerous situation which will not be helped by more gung-ho expressions of heroism. The world is not a comic-strip Jonathan.

Nick, St Ouen, France

I wonder why the Bush administration has chosen this time to highlight the danger to world pease. The world is not at pease and many of it's conflicts can be linked in one way or another to US forgine policy. However an attack on Iran would be a wonderful diversion from the problems of the US economy, indeed also from our own. We as peoples, and nations have bought things we don't need with money we don't have and now it's pay back time, we do not have the funds and the credit line has dried up. This has taken wealth from the poor and given it to the rich. History shows these cycles are often followed by social upheaval, our leaders don't like that kind of powershifting upheaval so "Lets have a nice war, to keep the people otherwise engaged"

Dave H, Leeds, United Kingdom

GW Bush is the biggest threat to the world and his Neocon buddies are the source of instability and future Holocaust if there is going to be any. His daddy funded Bin Laden and he himself is funding Saudi's and Israeli's with over $50 Billion...you tell me who is the source of stability?

Joe, California, USA

The USA has not kept the world in peace and prosperity as Mr Barrette claims in his post.

Has he forgotten Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and the illegal rendition situation ...to name but a few.

And the American prosperity he eludes too has been created by an enormous borrowing binge by the USA - not by real wealth creation but debt. If I were to borrow and live above my means would I too be living in prosperity... like the USA is.

A couple of thousan years ago the Roman historian Tacitus wrote.... "they make a wilderness and call it peace"

Seems to be at the heart of US policy these days.

Martin Birch, Sydney, Australia

This has been coming for years.

The extremists want a world under the Shia fist.

Iraq was our generations WWI.

Iran just may lead us to WWIII.

God Help Us All.

Daniel, Union, NJ

Is George forgetting that the people who put the middle east at risk of nuclear holocaust are the Israelis? They've had the bomb now for many years. Will it be so bad if Iran has the bomb? Deterence worked during the Cold War; why is the current situation so different?

Philip Brydon, Stuttgart, Germany

Jonathan Barrette's post suggests that that men like Ahmadinejad are insane because their express purpose is to wipe out nations. Isn't Ahmadinejad's transparency and forthrightness more acceptable than the fraud which your nation propagates - insisting that it's gripe is with 'mad' individuals like Ahmadinejad or Hussain or Bin Laden, while quietly destroying nations? Liberty and freedom are built on mutual trust, honesty and transparency as a rule - the US cannot pretend to fight for ideas that it steps on every day.

Gabriel Casey, Belfast, Northern Ireland

"The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October 2006) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Therefore you better hope the US wins!

firefox, Eugene, Or

How dare the Britz speak such nonesense about our dear president & America, when it is WE who savd your a** in WWII?

Britain will be the first target from Iranian nuclear weapons. When/If that happens, we'll just sit back and...

George, Pennsylvania, US

IMO, Bush is like that guy who dates a chick just so he can try to get with her hot friend.

Democratize Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran and get easy access to that nice bubblin' crude!

I, like most people (I hope) just want a peaceful life. We should use our science and technology to get us off this rock instead of making new ways to blow it to bits.

I also think we should sweep out our own tent here in the USA before jumping into anyone elses.

Tony, Chicago, IL - USA

Before any wild talk of imminent world war, has anybody thought of severe economic sanctions against Iran? If the US announced that it would confiscate, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, any vessel carrying oil from Iran, as well as the cargo, and also threatened to bomb any pipeline exporting Iranian oil (not bomb the terminal...too much reconstruction), then given that the threat is credible, it is likely that Iran would cave in and allow inspection of its facilities. It is unlikely that any confiscations or bombing would be needed (would YOU buy oil which you may not receive?). And if there is a temporary increase in the price of oil, so what? We'll use less for a while and avoid the need to send our sons to die in a grim part of the world. Presumably, faced with catastrophe and humiliation, the Iranians would remove the political pygmy Armedinejad from office, and we can all then concentrate on positive ambitions.

david jones, london, london

Try getting out of idaho jonathon, you might see some of the suffering american greed causes around the world, by the way america would have been speaking japanese if it werent for your allies, or do you think you did it all on your own, bet its pretty cosy in well fed idaho.

stuart ledger, brisbane.,

Clearly Georgie Boy wants to go down in history, he has had his itchy little finger hovering over that button for almost 8 years now.
What is even more scary is that History will remember him,
as the man who stole an election,
set out on an illegal war based on lies and hear say.
And then stood by whilst New Orleans fell back into the dark ages. -this will be you legacy Mr Bush.

Richard , Hong Kong , China

JB from Idaho: It was Russia that did it for the Nazis, not America. Just so you know.

David Masu, Zürich,

Nice of you to remind us about WW11 Jonathan but don't forget you charged us for helping. Two generations after the war the UK was still paying the War Debt to the US. Are you forgetting that you wouldn't send us destroyers until we agreed to give you half of the Virgin Islands too?

George, Glasgow, UK

What the hell has the Middle East got to do with the USA as it's thousands of miles away? Oh sorry I forgot apart from the huge oil reserves in Iraq that the US hasn't managed to get it's hands on Iran also has huge oil reserves. Wonder what the odds are of the US invading oil starved Zimbabwe in the name of democracy?

George, Glasgow, UK

Would that be worse than the Bush created holocaust in Iraq today? Why would he want to invade a country that has acknowledgement from both Iraq and Afghanistan leaders as being helpful in their desire to stablize their respective countries. Why hasn't the Bush invasions into both those countries not achieved a peaceful end? And now the lamest of lame ducks wants to open up a third disaster in Iran! One has to feel for the long suffering peoples of the middle east after the terrorist actions of this most despicable of US Presidents!

Gary Butler, South Brighton, Australia

It seems that all Mr. Bush wants to do is antagonise the Middle East and set it on a track to nuclear war before he leaves office in 2008.

Harry, Stevenston, Scotland

Well, Rod, the fact is that the United States has kept the majority of the world in a state of peace and prosperity. Its easy for you to make ignorant statements, since you seem to have forgottent that without the United States, you and your liberal compatriates would be speaking German right now. Iran is run by a maniac that has stated many time of his attention to wipe Israel off the map. His intention is clear, and his goal is clear, he has never hidden it. Once again is the job of true believers of liberty and freedom to sholdier the burden that keeping the peace, and defeating madmen like Ahmadinejad.

Jonathan Barrette, Hayden, Idaho

Its like the run up to Iraq, posturing and positioning. The one certainty is, that Bush will seek war prior to the end of his presidency because he wants this to happen and doesn't trust anybody else to do it. It is so inevitable, and the holocaust he talks of is the mutual destruction of Iran and Israel. Isreal will strike if america doesn't step in. These are givens. I just hope and pray that Iran can avert this but Iran's leaders are far too proud. In second place, I pray that lives are spared as much as possible and that Russia, China and Pakistan don't get sucked in, triggering a third world war. Lets face it tho, the military plans are in place, now is the war of propaganda and the war of negotiating with other parties who may have an interest. Once all is in place, the trigger is pulled. This time there will be even less statebuilding than in Iraq, it will be chaos and looting. God help us all.

Philip, London, England

For God's sake! That man has been saying that the world was increasingly safer every day since he was elected and reelected.
How come should we end with a looming nuclear holocaust? What do they need to make this planet safe?
Must we ask Miss Teen USA to audit these clowns?

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Really, something has to be done about George Dubbya before he goes too far and starts WW III . Where are the James Bonds when you need them?

Colin Burt , Wide Bay , Australia.

George W. Bush is lying again and should not be believed.

Mike Coleman, Washington, DC

If Iran had the capabilities of a world power we would all be dead already.
Far worse than the old Soviet Union is a country deeply rooted in the belief that death is an ultimate goal worthy of pursuit at any cost.
At least the Russians had some common sense.

Gus, Los Angeles, USA / CA

Iran has said it's running a nuclear program to generate electricity because it wants to be able to export more oil and increase its revenue. So far, there has not been one shred of evidence from anyone anywhere to prove that the Iranians are developing weapons. I think it's high time that the Chicken-hawk Cheney and Draft-Dodger-In-Chief shows the world some tangible and real evidence. All we've seen and heard so far is empty rhetoric. They lied about WMD's and 45 minute launch times in Iraq. Their track record would suggest it's more of the same. America now has military bases and presence in 130 out of 190 countries globally. It has also fought more wars than any other country since WW2. It spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined. The only time I can recall Iran in any military action in the last 30 years was to defend itself in a war started by the American and CIA backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing to do with the Iranian's pricing their oil in Euro's either!

Rod Polisher, Scunthorpe, UK

"Iran's nuclear ambitions 'could lead to holocaust"

Bush has already played:

1) The 911 card (most famous)
2) Boogie man al qaeda card
3) Islamic caliphate taking over the world card
4) We're gona lose our 'freedom' card
5) Hitler card
6) Anti-Semitism card
7) And now the holocaust card?

He must have gotten a huge cheque from AIPAC.

Mohammed, London, UK

Bush wants to do in the Middle East what Nixon did in the Far East. When our Vietnam war was failing Nixon invaded Cambodia. Bush wants to bomb Iran because he thinks that by spreading his war our American prospects will improve. He is mistaken.

Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY 14886, USA