OnTheRocks Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 upfront....I am not too familiar with how far along Iran is at in with this program. do you suppose they were waiting to see how the American election ended before they decided to back off this program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yes it would have, because they are listening to the European Union's attempts at diplomacy. It was the EU that convinced Iran to stop enrichment temporarily, not Bush. Hopefully It'll last, but a year ago a similar agreement was made and then not kept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yes it would have, because they are listening to the European Union's attempts at diplomacy. It was the EU that convinced Iran to stop enrichment temporarily, not Bush. Hopefully It'll last, but a year ago a similar agreement was made and then not kept. 117399[/snapback] Wrong, the EU gave them permission to go ahead just a week or two ago. Iran stated that they understand there are some countries who are concerned with what they ae doing and decided to maintain the peace the will suspend operations. This absolutely means either Israel or the US said it won't exist for very long if they started up and decided to back down. To sit there and say the EU convinced them not to is a flat out lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 upfront....I am not too familiar with how far along Iran is at in with this program. do you suppose they were waiting to see how the American election ended before they decided to back off this program? 116528[/snapback] I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether Iran would have been willing to make a non-binding public statement with regard to their program with no verification if Kerry were elected? Is that the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether Iran would have been willing to make a non-binding public statement with regard to their program with no verification if Kerry were elected? Is that the question? 117840[/snapback] I don't understand your question either. actually...i was just trying to stimulate some discussion....on a topic i don't know a lot about. it wasn't intended to bash Kerry...and it wasn't a way to stand on a soap box and beat my chest with "Bush is Great...and all nations cower at the news of his election." I don't know that this announcement is non-binding and can't be verified. do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether Iran would have been willing to make a non-binding public statement with regard to their program with no verification if Kerry were elected? Is that the question? 117840[/snapback] If Kerry had won, there are plenty of folks out there that would have spun this into some kind of victory for JK's policy of "bilateral talks will solve everything." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether Iran would have been willing to make a non-binding public statement with regard to their program with no verification if Kerry were elected? Is that the question? 117840[/snapback] oh, i'm sorry but you forgot to phrase your question in the form of an answer Mr Connery, you control the board... Ha-ha! I'll take TheRapists for $500 Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 If Kerry had won, there are plenty of folks out there that would have spun this into some kind of victory for JK's policy of "bilateral talks will solve everything." 118227[/snapback] ...and because Bush won there are plenty ready to spin it into a great victory of gunboat diplomacy. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 ...and because Bush won there are plenty ready to spin it into a great victory of gunboat diplomacy. Your point? 118257[/snapback] Is that you will minimize anything this Admistration accomplishes out of blatant partisianship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 oh, i'm sorry but you forgot to phrase your question in the form of an answer Mr Connery, you control the board... Ha-ha! I'll take TheRapists for $500 Alex 118239[/snapback] I'll take S Words for $1000 Uhh...that's Swords Mr. Connery.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I don't understand your question either. actually...i was just trying to stimulate some discussion....on a topic i don't know a lot about. it wasn't intended to bash Kerry...and it wasn't a way to stand on a soap box and beat my chest with "Bush is Great...and all nations cower at the news of his election." I don't know that this announcement is non-binding and can't be verified. do you? 117862[/snapback] Well, since bashing was not your goal, you might have thought a little bit more before titling the thread "....would this have happened had Kerry won?" Anyway, all they did was "pledge" that they wouldn't use the gook (its a technical term) for weapons. They did invite the IAEA to do some sort of inspection at some future date. However, it is those same kind of inspections that failed to discover the program we now they had in full swing so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 Well, since bashing was not your goal, you might have thought a little bit more before titling the thread "....would this have happened had Kerry won?" Anyway, all they did was "pledge" that they wouldn't use the gook (its a technical term) for weapons. They did invite the IAEA to do some sort of inspection at some future date. However, it is those same kind of inspections that failed to discover the program we now they had in full swing so..... 118446[/snapback] I asked a question. i clearly stated it wasn't a Kerry Bash...or a Bush chest puffing post. thanks for still not aswering the question. Do you think this would have happened hads Kerry won. A candidate who clearly has a record of being weak on defense? *edited to remove unkind unecessary words. - OTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 I'll take S Words for $1000 Uhh...that's Swords Mr. Connery.... 118327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Wrong, the EU gave them permission to go ahead just a week or two ago. Iran stated that they understand there are some countries who are concerned with what they ae doing and decided to maintain the peace the will suspend operations. This absolutely means either Israel or the US said it won't exist for very long if they started up and decided to back down. To sit there and say the EU convinced them not to is a flat out lie. 117536[/snapback] Have you even read anything about what took place or why Iran suspended production of it? They were in a conference with 3 countries when they agreed to do it: Germany, France, and Britain. The IAEA had a deadline of November 25 for them to stop before they threatened to bring it to the UN security council. Its been the US' position on it for a long time to just bring it to the security council a lot sooner, but the EU would not agree to do it. The EU felt that they could reach an agreement with Iran to stop or at least suspend the enrichment for a while. The tentative and rather shaky agreement between the EU and Iran was first talked about on November 5th, with Iran compromising on November 11th during the next series of talks. Iran's decision came based on a couple of things - they wanted to avoid a November 25th deadline from the IAEA to take it to the UN Security Council, and they also wanted an opportunity to have a voluntary compromise in which they would be able to negotiate a solution which would help their country in other ways if they could not continue to pursue their enrichment programs. The United States was not involved in the discussions, and the United States had been pressing since October to take it to the security council, back when Iran was still defiant about suspension of their uranium enrichment programs. To claim that the US or Isreal had to threaten them for Iran to agree my friend is the flat out lie. Iran was concerned with the IAEA deadline of November 25th and did not want it to go in front of the security council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Well since those cowardly turncoat old Europeans, Germany and France, were in on it, it MUST be a very bad thing. And could Britain be about to betray us? Perish the thought!!!!!!! That's sarcasm folks. I don't know what "may" have happened and what may still have happened but the fact that these three European countries spearheaded thing this does seem to signal that they viewed the THREAT as real, if not imminent. As opposed to...oh, never mind, that would be a different thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Well, since bashing was not your goal, you might have thought a little bit more before titling the thread "....would this have happened had Kerry won?" Anyway, all they did was "pledge" that they wouldn't use the gook (its a technical term) for weapons. They did invite the IAEA to do some sort of inspection at some future date. However, it is those same kind of inspections that failed to discover the program we now they had in full swing so..... 118446[/snapback] WHAT????? Inspections don't work????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 WHAT????? Inspections don't work????? 118730[/snapback] Shocking. Next he'll be saying the UN is corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I'll take S Words for $1000 Uhh...that's Swords Mr. Connery.... 118327[/snapback] i'll take anal bum covers for $1000 alex mr connery, the category is an album cover ha-ha! i made an anal bum cover once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Is that you will minimize anything this Admistration accomplishes out of blatant partisianship. 118298[/snapback] Is my assessment that Iran's "committment" is of little value amounting to nothing more than a public "pledge" not accurate? Or is the actual issue of no concern to you? Beyond taking shots at me because I see no reason to be impressed with a public promise by Iran of all nations, do you have anything substantive to add to this debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I asked a question. i clearly stated it wasn't a Kerry Bash...or a Bush chest puffing post. thanks for still not aswering the question. Do you think this would have happened hads Kerry won. A candidate who clearly has a record of being weak on defense? *edited to remove unkind unecessary words. - OTR 118470[/snapback] I don't at all accept your premise that Kerry is "weak on defense" but I know better than to argue it with you. Politics by platitude: "tax and spend", "weak on defense", "activist judges", "big goverment", "liberal elite", etc, etc. Frankly, I think it is a littel childish to be talking about national security in such vague and abstract terms as "strong" or "weak". It is a tiny bit more complicated than that. If we must use such terms, I prefer "smart" defense to "stupid" defense. I think Iran would have been willing to make more concessions and concrete ones at that under President Kerry. First of all, they would have less of a reason to worry about a pre-emptive strike from the United States, the primary reason they would need a nuclear arsenal. About the only thing nukes do for a country with respect to its relations with other nuclear nations is to offer it protection against a first strike. That is Cold War Doctrine Basics 101. You shoot them, they shoot you and they can because they have nukes too. Now, which leader would be more likely to lead a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Bush, easily. If you are the defense minister for Iran, how do you counter that threat? Nukes baby, nukes. That's how. Of course, if there is no threat of such an attack, then if you are Iran you can afford to negotiate, to delay, to trade getting nukes today for some tangible benefit now. You can always get nukes tommorow anyway. I won't even get into Kerry actually having some credibility internationally. I know the right wants to down play it or treat it like it isn't a big deal but the fact is, the rest of the world sees Bush as an idiot/liar because of the whole WMD debacle. Whether or not they are justified in that belief is beside the point entirely. Fact is, that is the international verdict and as such, has an impact on diplomacy. I will skip getting into this issue any deeper because I know you totally excuse the President for screwing that up royally so there really is no point. You'll say "they are wrong for blaming him on that" and I'll say "but they do" and then you'll just say "who cares? they don't matter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts