Military "option" last resort w/ Syria...
 

DUBAI (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said military action was a last resort in dealing with Syria and he hoped Damascus would cooperate with a probe into the killing of former Lebanese premier Rafik al-Hariri.

"A military (option) is always the last choice of a president," he told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Tuesday when asked about a U.N. investigation that implicated Syrian officials in the killing of Hariri.

"I am hoping that they will cooperate. It (military action) is the last -- very last option," he said. "But on the other hand, you know -- and I've worked hard for diplomacy and will continue to work the diplomatic angle on this issue."

Reuters obtained a transcript of the Bush interview, conducted in Washington on Monday, from Dubai-based Al Arabiya.

Bush said Syria had to meet a set of demands from the international community, including expelling Palestinian militant groups, preventing insurgents from crossing its borders into Iraq to fight U.S. forces, and ending Syrian interference in Lebanon.

"Nobody wants there to be a confrontation. On the other hand, there must be serious pressure applied," he said.

"In other words, there are some clear demands by the world. And this (U.N.) report, as I say, had serious implications for Syria, and the Syrian government must take the demands of the free world very seriously."

Hariri and 20 others were killed on February 14 by a bomb in Beirut. The U.N. report by German investigator Detlev Mehlis said the decision to kill Hariri "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials" colluding with counterparts in Lebanon.

Syria has vigorously denied the accusations.

Mehlis is due to brief the U.N. Security Council about the results of his probe on Tuesday.

Diplomats said the United States and France were working on a resolution demanding Syria cooperate with the investigation but may not seek to impose sanctions immediately.

Bush would not be pinned down on what action Washington would take if Syria does not comply.

"I certainly hope that people take a good look at the Mehlis report ... there's clear implications about Syrians involvement in the death of a foreign leader," he said.

"The United States was willing to help, work with other countries, and we will, to make sure that out of the United Nations comes a clear message."

Asked if the United States would support a call by Hariri's son Saad for an international court to try his father's killers, Bush said the decision lay with the United Nations.

"Well, we want people to be held to account. And I'd be glad to talk to other leaders to determine whether or not that's the best course of action. But certainly, people do need to be held to account. And the first course of action is to go the United Nations," he added.

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

I swear to fucking god.....

You shouldn't swear...it's bad.

And anyway, it's Bush that swears to God.

I think that Bush wants to bring the whole of the world (except for those countries he likes) under his rule. The first great Empire of the USA...maybe even his own "Reich".

Like that'll help him much.

Bet your bottom dollar that if he does France and Germany will Veto it and it will just be you with our dick of a Prime Minister tagging along.

Gawd last thing I need is to return home from Iraq, only to go on to the next country we attack... please dont let this happen.

FOr fuck's sake what is wrong with that man!?

God I fucking HATE this administration!

Fourth Reich! Fourth Reich! Fourth Reich!

What? No. I must admit, these wars are not the greatest decision. But he's only trying to bring peace to the world. Yes, maybe we are trying to bring TOO much peace. But atleast he's trying. Plus, there havn't been anymore attacks on America. But you probably don't care about that, your in England.

Sure there has been many attacks. Thousand of troops have died since 9/11 and were Americans. And what about all them beheadings... Americans.

More like the dumbest decisions.

Through war? Please. That's just propoganda he's using to accomplish his main goal. If he wants to bring peace to the world, I suggest starting at home. Take the 100 billion plus spent in Iraq, and make sure there aren't hungry Americans. After that, provide financial aid to struggling countries. That's a road to peace -- more peace than going to war with them. There will never be peace in the world -- it's against human nature. Any man who's the president of a nation should realize that. A brief study of human history will prove that. But things can be more peaceful, and the way to accomplish that would not be through war.

No, we're trying to bring too much war. Lets see, Afghanistan, Iraq, threats on Iran, North Korea, and now Syria. Fourth reich!! Think about it. If you want peace, it has to be brought about tactfully, not through jingoist policies. We are asking Syria to allow foreign officials into their country and investigate. We would stand for no such thing.

That doesn't cut it at the level he's at. We're not simply talking about a childish issue, where "at least he's trying" would be sufficient, we're talking about innocent human lives.

America is not justified in attacking whomsoever it pleases for domestic safety.

Also, any more attacks since when? Exactly, what is the frequency of a major attack? How do you define a major attack?

Just like we could care less about other countries.

Since we're seen with you as invading Iraq and all those other stupid countries we've got terrorists trying to blow us to bits.

And it isn't only American troops that get killed, or Americans that get beheaded. Every week we hear about more British soldier deaths, and in the past we've heard about so many beheadings of Brits.

And you're right. In a way I don't care much about attacks in America.

But since 9/11 we haven't heard of any more attacks in America, so what's there to care about?

I don't have time right now to write a thoughtful response mjordan. I do, however, propose an offer. Wipe the Middle East from the face of the planet with nukes. It's obviously a country that's sociologically a thousand years behind the times, while only about ten years technologically behind. Way out of proportion. Like I said I don't have time, so I can't explain how useless of a region it is. On top of that, would you miss it? Would anyone miss it?

;)

If you could get the Balkans as well then that would teach them to vote for neighbours instead of countries that might destroy them in Eurovision...

But what about the oil? If you nuke the place then you can't get at the oil for hundreds of years, and if you did it would be in some way radioactive.

It's not the only place on the planet that has oil. Besides we need to find an alternative. Oil won't last forever, and I for one am tired of relying on the Middle East, making them fat and wealthy in the process. I believe nuking that area will simply expedite our search for a fuel alternative.

At the moment though, the world needs as much Oil as possible. And doesn't quite a bit of oil come from the Middle East?

Without that then we'd need to start drilling in other places, and so deplete the worlds resources even more.

If you're being sarcastic, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

On the other hand, if you're serious, this is the most absurd reply I've seen you give.

I'd like to think he's a little to intelligent for that to have been his serious reply.