Kerry seeks to hand over keys to America to Europe

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can someone actually tell me what Bush's Iran policy is precisely? Does the current administration actually have a policy beyond bomb-don't bomb?

I don't know. Hopefully the LA Times or CNN will plaster it all over their headlines for a couple days so you can learn what to think.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can someone actually tell me what Bush's Iran policy is precisely? Does the current administration actually have a policy beyond bomb-don't bomb?

I don't know. Hopefully the LA Times or CNN will plaster it all over their headlines for a couple days so you can learn what to think.

Your sarcastic comments aside, I'd like to know what you think of Bush's approach to Iran thus far. Can you elaborate on how his policy (assuming it exists beyond merely talking about it) is working?

A quick search of the Bush/Cheney site reveals this latest bit on Iran:

To Iraq's east, the government of Iran is unwilling to abandon a uranium enrichment program capable of producing material for nuclear weapons. The United States is working with our allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Iran meets its commitments and does not develop nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

And this:

For international norms to be effective, they must be enforced. It is the charge of the International Atomic Energy Agency to uncover banned nuclear activity around the world and report those violations to the U.N. Security Council. We must ensure that the IAEA has all the tools it needs to fulfill its essential mandate. America and other nations support what is called the Additional Protocol, which requires states to declare a broad range of nuclear activities and facilities, and allow the IAEA to inspect those facilities.

And here's the WashingtonPost.com take on the current administration's "efforts:"

Since May, Congress has been moving -- with little notice -- toward a joint resolution calling for punitive action against Iran if it does not fully reveal details of its nuclear arms program. In language similar to the prewar resolution on Iraq, a recent House resolution authorized the use of "all appropriate means" to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry -- terminology often used to approve preemptive military force. Reflecting the growing anxiety on Capitol Hill about Iran, it passed 376 to 3.

In contrast, two of the most prominent foreign policy groups in Washington are calling for the United States to end a quarter-century of hostile relations and begin new diplomatic overtures to Iran, despite disagreements on a vast range of issues. Because the "solidly entrenched" government provides the only "authoritative" interlocutors, Washington should "deal with the current regime rather than wait for it to fall," says a Council on Foreign Relations report released today.

The disparate range of proposals underscores the near void in U.S. policy toward Iran -- in stark contrast to the two other countries in what President Bush calls the "axis of evil." The administration launched a war to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq and is now engaged in delicate talks over nuclear issues with North Korea. But six months before its first term ends, the administration has still not formally signed off on a strategy for Iran since a review of U.S. policy was begun in 2001, U.S. officials say.

Pressed to define U.S. policy on Iran, one frustrated senior U.S. official cracked, "Oh, do we have one?"

Bush administration policy has generally been piecemeal and reactive to broader or tangential issues, rather than to Iran itself, U.S. officials say. "What we have is a summation of various pieces -- one piece on nuclear weapons, one on human rights, another on terrorism, other pieces on drugs, Iraq and Afghanistan," a senior State Department official said.

So how is Bush's "policy" any different than Kerry's? At least Kerry is talking about sanctions. Frankly, all Bush has done is chatted up his committment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and yakked on and on about working with the IAEA and UN. Furthermore, Bush is even talking about working with the Euro allies as well as the UN.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You havent seen people dying have you?

I have, and I tell you if you killed my son with such a cavalier attitude, I would make every attempt to slit your throat.

You say it so casually. You really have no idea. I am not upset with you really. You are merely ignorant in the true sense.

Think carefully about how "you get the job done". You might wind up having a job done on you, and then people will say "what did we do to them?"

9/11 merely was someone getting a job done in their eyes.

I've seen people dying, and I don't say it casually. As I already stated in this thread, war should be nothing but an ultimate last resort. I also didn't mean to infer that we should go around warring with people at will, and I apologize for the lack of clarity and can understand why you're pissed. I was simply trying to make the point that sanctions just haven't proved to be effective in the past. Sorry. :<

So how is Bush's "policy" any different than Kerry's? At least Kerry is talking about sanctions. Frankly, all Bush has done is chatted up his committment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and yakked on and on about working with the IAEA and UN. Furthermore, Bush is even talking about working with the Euro allies as well as the UN.

The UN is doing weapons inspections in Iran (or that was the last I heard). What else should/can he do?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...pNews&amp;section=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If elected U.S. president, Sen. John Kerry would offer Iran a deal allowing it to keep its nuclear power plants if it gave up the right to retain bomb-making nuclear fuel, Kerry's vice presidential running mate said in an interview published on Monday.

Sen. John Edwards told The Washington Post that if Iran did not accept this "great bargain," this would confirm the Islamic state was building nuclear weapons under cover of a nuclear power initiative.

If Iran rejected this proposal, Kerry would ensure European allies were prepared to join the United States in imposing strict sanctions against Iran, Edwards said.

:Q

Anyone but Bush eh? How about Chirac?

so basically kerry wants to use the same strategy with iran that did not work for over a decade in iraq concerning sanctions, and use the same strategy clinton tried with north korea tha also did not work regarding nuclear arms...typical democrat, stick with what does not work as long as it seems like a good idea. 😀

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The UN is doing weapons inspections in Iran (or that was the last I heard). What else should/can he do?

I believe it's the IAEA not the UN. Really, I don't know, ask the original poster, who seems to think something more is warranted. Frankly, besides the "deal" for peaceful nuke plants that Kerry is suggesting, I don't see much difference between the two candidates on Iran.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so basically kerry wants to use the same strategy with iran that did not work for over a decade in iraq concerning sanctions, and use the same strategy clinton tried with north korea tha also did not work regarding nuclear arms...typical democrat, stick with what does not work as long as it seems like a good idea. 😀

Bush is following the same strategy, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can someone actually tell me what Bush's Iran policy is precisely? Does the current administration actually have a policy beyond bomb-don't bomb?

I don't know. Hopefully the LA Times or CNN will plaster it all over their headlines for a couple days so you can learn what to think.

Your sarcastic comments aside, I'd like to know what you think of Bush's approach to Iran thus far.

From the link in the first post in this thread.

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said earlier this month that Iran's noncompliance should be referred to the Security Council in September, but diplomatic sources in Washington said this may slip to late November, following the U.S. presidential election.

Isn't that what you think should be done???

Besides, clearly, since we have no evidence that Iran is planning to build WMD we have no basis for any kind of action against them, so don't worry your pretty little head and just enjoy Must See TV Thursday...it's the 'Joey' premier!!!! Or donate a few thousand dollars to a college fund for an underprivelaged ethnic minority.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said earlier this month that Iran's noncompliance should be referred to the Security Council in September, but diplomatic sources in Washington said this may slip to late November, following the U.S. presidential election.

Isn't that what you think should be done???

I asked you smart guy. What do you think? I mean, on one hand you have a problem with Kerry suggesting we work with our European allies and the UN and impose sanctions if need-be, and yet you don't apparently have the same problem with Bush whose policy is verbatim what I just said. What gives? Meaning, what is your problem precisely?

Besides, clearly, since we have no evidence that Iran is planning to build WMD we have no basis for any kind of action against them...

But yet you just know that they are.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lemme see, how is Bush's policy any different from Kerry's? First, you slap two nuclear capable nations on your axis of evil hitlist, then invade a third on the list- sit back and watch 'em develop nukes as fast as they can... Tell me, o great thinkers of the neocon persuasion, what would you do in their place?

Current US policy virtually demands that such governments go nuclear, or perish. If we only respect strength, they'll do their best to get some, and the Bushies are depending on it... They hardly knew what to do with themselves when the coldwar ended, and their military industry pals really need the business....

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Lemme see, how is Bush's policy any different from Kerry's? First, you slap two nuclear capable nations on your axis of evil hitlist, then invade a third on the list- sit back and watch 'em develop nukes as fast as they can... Tell me, o great thinkers of the neocon persuasion, what would you do in their place?

Current US policy virtually demands that such governments go nuclear, or perish. If we only respect strength, they'll do their best to get some, and the Bushies are depending on it... They hardly knew what to do with themselves when the coldwar ended, and their military industry pals really need the business....

I know...it's so horrible how the Republicans made Iran and NK seek to develop nuclear weapons...afterall they were just minding their own business, right?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can someone actually tell me what Bush's Iran policy is precisely? Does the current administration actually have a policy beyond bomb-don't bomb?

I think Ahmed Chalabi is in-charge of the US policy on Iran.

Never fear, the Bush admin is on-top of this one.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, tell me, Hero of Pellinor, what would you do in their place, as an Iranian or NKorean patriot? Fade, crumple, or what?

And, just for the record, I'm not defending either regime, merely pointing out that Neocon policy certainly doesn't improve the situation one bit...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You havent seen people dying have you?

I have, and I tell you if you killed my son with such a cavalier attitude, I would make every attempt to slit your throat.

You say it so casually. You really have no idea. I am not upset with you really. You are merely ignorant in the true sense.

Think carefully about how "you get the job done". You might wind up having a job done on you, and then people will say "what did we do to them?"

9/11 merely was someone getting a job done in their eyes.

I've seen people dying, and I don't say it casually. As I already stated in this thread, war should be nothing but an ultimate last resort. I also didn't mean to infer that we should go around warring with people at will, and I apologize for the lack of clarity and can understand why you're pissed. I was simply trying to make the point that sanctions just haven't proved to be effective in the past. Sorry. :<

So how is Bush's "policy" any different than Kerry's? At least Kerry is talking about sanctions. Frankly, all Bush has done is chatted up his committment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and yakked on and on about working with the IAEA and UN. Furthermore, Bush is even talking about working with the Euro allies as well as the UN.

The UN is doing weapons inspections in Iran (or that was the last I heard). What else should/can he do?

Far as I am concerned, I am not pissed really. 😀
I do get frustrated at times as do many from the Vietnam days. We aren't able to pass on our experience to the younger generation, many of which seem eager to make our mistakes. This isn't directed at you. It's all good as they say 😉

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Lemme see, how is Bush's policy any different from Kerry's? First, you slap two nuclear capable nations on your axis of evil hitlist, then invade a third on the list- sit back and watch 'em develop nukes as fast as they can... Tell me, o great thinkers of the neocon persuasion, what would you do in their place?

Current US policy virtually demands that such governments go nuclear, or perish. If we only respect strength, they'll do their best to get some, and the Bushies are depending on it... They hardly knew what to do with themselves when the coldwar ended, and their military industry pals really need the business....

Answer your own question. What would you do in their place?

It's painfully obvious at this point that Iran is going for nukes. (Did anyone see the pics of their nuclear sites that they buried? I'll try to find them...) Who here would support military action against them though, given our situation in Iraq?

 

[Zephyr106]

so don't worry your pretty little head and just enjoy Must See TV Thursday...it's the 'Joey' premier!!!! Or donate a few thousand dollars to a college fund for an underprivelaged ethnic minority.

The frothing at the mouth hatred is strong in this one. Grow up.

BTW how is Kerry's idea different from Bush's? Has anyone found the current policy toward Iran?

Zephyr

 

[CycloWizard]

This place looks like it's a reasonable source of information:

http://www.iranexpert.com/2004/iran20july.htm

The Bush administration has not developed a clear policy on the issue. Last year, it endorsed European Union efforts to persuade Tehran to abandon the military aspect of its nuclear program. With those efforts now at an end, the administration is reverting to unspecified threats to dissuade Tehran from "going nuclear."

[Kerry's] idea is simple: The United States and its allies should offer to provide Iran with as much enriched uranium as it needs for producing electricity and, at the other end of the cycle, receive the total amount of spent uranium fuel for reprocessing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty disingenuous, CycloWizard, suggesting that I should answer my own question, particularly when you've offered a great deal of criticism for what you've represented as myself failing to offer alternatives...

I've offered that same question many times before you showed up here, and nobody's ever even attempted to answer it, simply because to do so would be to admit that the Bush Admin hasn't offered the Iranians any constructive alternative to going nuclear.

And, unlike many, I really don't regard the Bush Admin as stupid, at all, meaning that the law of unintended consequences will be difficult to apply. They're knowingly forcing the nuclear option on both the Iranians and the DPRK to further their domestic fearmongering agenda. Of course the Bushies aren't doing anything about it- it's what they want.

If you'd care to offer up any other rationale for our policy, or any other way that those on the other side of such policy can react differently within a proud and patriotic mindset, have at it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unfortunately Europeans are vastly more educated and sophisticated in their thinking than Americans. It's natural for primitives to hate the more enlightened. It brings up inferiority feelings and that brings out the hate. Club swinging morons are always proud of their clubs.

 

[maluckey]

Yup,

And it's normally fatal when the "BIG" thinkers and their enormous brains ignore the fact that the club can and will dash their oversized heads like Cantaloupes dropped on a sidewalk. To ignore a growing "club" is to embrace it's power over you, whilst you think of more important matters, like where to get a hat for your enormous head.

 

[dannybin1742]

maybe once bush has merged church and state we will have a direct link to god and we can pray for everything to happen, and he will listen

like pray for the jobs he has not created, pray for north korea to give up making nuclear bombs...etc.....

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Yup,

And it's normally fatal when the "BIG" thinkers and their enormous brains ignore the fact that the club can and will dash their oversized heads like Cantaloupes dropped on a sidewalk. To ignore a growing "club" is to embrace it's power over you, whilst you think of more important matters, like where to get a hat for your enormous head.

Hehe, kind a what I mean.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Pretty disingenuous, CycloWizard, suggesting that I should answer my own question, particularly when you've offered a great deal of criticism for what you've represented as myself failing to offer alternatives...

How is that possibly disingenuous? I'm calling for you to do the same thing that you're asking other people to do - offer an alternative to the existing.

As for the rationale behind our policy, I'd say we're not already in Iran because Bush is trying to make everyone happy by allowing weapons inspectors in again (which has never accomplished anything in any country). The same people that are wondering why he isn't doing more are the same people who crucify him for what he's already done in a similar instance, Iraq.

 

[dudeguy]

talk about going soft on terror.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What's so bad about him getting Europeans to fight on the same side of the US?

 

[Rainsford]

This thread makes me a sad panda. 🙁

It APPEARS to be Kerry bashing, but all I see is a lot of noise with little content. Kerry has a possible diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear problem that would include our allies (remember those guys?) and might actually work without involving us in ANOTHER war, and not only is that "going soft on terror", but it's handing the keys to America over to Europe. And all of that despite the fact that Bush's policy seems to be...nothing...maybe some vague threats that Iran probably isn't too worried about. Oh, we're going to invade them too? Somehow I think we have our hands full as it is, do we really need to occupy a THIRD country? Guess I better plan on spending the next couple of years as a draftee :roll:

Your (you know who you are) positions aren't what bug me, it's your total lack of coherent thinking. You attack Kerry's ideas despite the fact that Bush has NO ideas beyond invading...and as we can see that has played out SO well with the weakest of the "axis of evil" countries. Anyone want to guess how much tougher invading Iran...or North Korea for that matter...would be? I know some of you neo-cons have this idea that war is all about charging onto the beaches and punching some Nazi in the face, but I suggest you pull your heads out of the sand a take a good, hard look around. Invaind Iran and/or North Korea would be a VERY BAD IDEA. Lots of people would die to solve a problem I'm not sure can't be solved some other way. It's not like we've exhausted all our options here. And if we ARE going to take a shot at solving the problem, I think we're better off if we're not doing it on our own.