Reply With Quote
What is sure to become known as the "Libya Effect."
What is sure to become known as the "Libya Effect."
This is sure to dissappoint Dan.
Now if we can only get N.Korea on the "Libya" band wagon.
Not too likely Joe.
Didn't NK "suspend" their program like 3 times already? None of these "mea culpas" should be taken at face value unless they surrender fissionables already refined, and the means for refining.
True, and I agree.
So you guys are giving France props now?
And don't forget that this deal accepted by Iran was with French, German and Britain ambassadors and it was reached because of Iran's desire to avoid U.N. sanctions.
During the past couple of years the Bush administration has been against any negotiating with Iran and has even expressed its dismay with our European allies.
I hope this deal can be followed through.
Like ex, I suspect that Iran will only suspend temporarily. This buys them more time to work in secret.
I'm sorry but this should be framed as the epitome of what is wrong with the liberal mindset...
You think France and the UN showing Iran their sensitive side is what broke through to the Iranians, and not the fact that we have "unilaterlially(with the help of 30 other counties), kicked the out of, and loaded up our military in, countries that directly border them?
You are wrong.
Sanctions don't do ...that's why North Korea has been on them for 50 years...that's why Saddam was on them for 12 years...Sanctions are the equivalent of suspending a kid from school rather than having his daddy whip his ass....I looked forward to suspensions because they gave me an excuse to do what I wanted to do anyway...but I didn't like it when my Daddy got his belt out. The rogue leaders of santioned countries don't suffer the sanctions, the populations do, and that breeds hatred. Sanctions punish the victim, not the criminal.
They are and largely ineffective against any country whose leader is not held accountable to his people.
Thank god for Republicans. Whew that(this election) was a close one. Hopefully most of these crazy liberals will make good on their promise to leave the US. Otherwise this country doesn't have much of a future as the leader of the free world.
By the way Joe...It looks like Bush, not Kerry, was right about how to solve the Iran issue...Bush advocated them method we were using(of letting the European powers negotiate with Iran)...Kerr was the one saying it was failing...Kerry, like those who supported him, was wrong.
Last edited by whottt; 11-15-2004 at 03:29 PM.
Thank god you guys didn't win this election.
I'd say that too, if I were Iran.
Well for the past two years Bush's policy has been based around the threat of taking Iran to the Security Council and that was what Kerry was saying.
And Whottt, Bush was [b]against/b] negotiating and the allies decided to go forward with it and succeeded (temporarily at least).
If it were up to Bush this agreement never would have been reached.
This is not true....Bush has always said he would pursue the diplomatic solution until it was exhausted...he just said we weren't going to negotiate with them. He always encouraged the European allies to negotiate with them and that left him free to stand behind them with a big ass stick...making that diplomatic solution a very attractive one for Iran.
Do you think it's a coincidence that in the days leading up to the election Iran was bragging about how far their missles could reach and saying death to America and now that Bush has been given 4 more years they are suddenly willing to accept a solution that they were lauging at last month?
The only thing that changed was that Bush got re-elected, and his threat of war is one that most countries in the world are taking very seriously now.
Call it the Iraq effect. And you might even want to call the cause of this new peacful Iran..."The Fallujah effect".
I think both sides suck, and neither is responsible for this.Thank god you guys didn't win this election.
That's not true. Bush has always remained strong in his opposition to negotiating with Iran, the "axis of evil" along with North Korea and Iraq.
It's always the same: country starts developing nukes, countries that already have nukes their pants and offer bribes. If a country is dead set on having nukes for its protection, they ignore the bribes (India). If all they were after were the bribes in the first place, they take the bribes (Iran).
Con sious say...it whos breath smells like , is likely full of it.
Don't try and act like you are objective or neutral on this...point me to one thread where you have been critical of the Democracts or their candidate. You haven't. I've been watching you.
You are pro-anti-American and have the typical out of touch with reality, head up ass mindset, with regards to world affairs, that all the so called educated liberals have.
Well what about the typical out of touch with reality, head up ass mindset, with regards to world affairs, that all the so called educated conservatives have? And you know they exist!
He's always remained strong in opposition to the US negotiatin with Iran. Guess what? Read the news lately? His way worked.
I guess Kerry's multilateral approach involving the US wasn't necessary...and without the threat of force offered by Bush do you think we would now have this agreement?
But Bush always backed Europe and the International community negotiating with Iran...classic good cop bad cop...
He has terrorist loving nations like Germany and France negotiate, along with decent good countries like the UK...all imploring Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions...all the while making it clear in his own comments that the only alternative to accepting Europe's offer is war with the United States.
You don't get the point...all of Bush backers aren't surprised by the fact that Iran is getting more peaceful...
You Kerry backers were the ones saying it couldn't be done this way.
Bush has always advocated letting Int Com negotiate...while we prepared to kick their ass if they choose to remain hostile.
Observe:
Bush - June 18, 2003"The international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon," Bush told reporters at the end of a meeting in the White House Cabinet Room. "Iran would be dangerous if it had a nuclear weapon," he said.
- Bush - Tuesday, August 31, 2004Tuesday, August 31, 2004
TAYLOR, Mich. — Calling war divisive for the country, President Bush (search) said he will continue pursuing diplomatic rather than military options to try to get Iran to halt its nuclear program.
Bush - Tuesday, September 28, 2004Tuesday, September 28, 2004
•Transcript: Bush Talks to O'Reilly •Raw Data: O'Reilly Interviews Bush
WACO, Texas — President Bush, preparing for this week's much-anticipated campaign debate on foreign policy, is insisting Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.
"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."
Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."
Yeah, like you are.Don't try and act like you are objective or neutral on this.
Bushy had nothing to do with this one, and of course neither did Kerry. Money talked as it usually does.
The moment NK acts up, China will kick their ass, and everyone knows it (US, NK, China, SK anyway).Now if we can only get N.Korea on the "Libya" band wagon.
As for Iran, methinks the recent sale by the US of smart bombs designed to penetrate concrete and bunkers to Israel had a lot to do with their willingness to deal.
Show me one...you want to say conservatives have that type of mindset with regards to the environment, scientiffic research, even economic ideas...I'd probably agree with you...but as far as foreign policy...the conservatives know the score...the liberals are ing insane. So insane that one issue was enough to drive me away from the crats and support a candidate who stance I don't like on nearly every other issue.
Sometimes you got to fight...and sometimes you can avoid a big fight or having to fight every day, by kicking a smaller guys ass.
You know wht they say you should do to avoid getting raped in priston?
Well, they don't say you should walk around bemoaning civil rights and getting in touch with your sensitive side...they say you should go up to the biggest guy you can find, jump him and beat the living crap out of him to the best of your ability to send a message to every other person in that prison that you are not to be ed with.
The modern Liberal idea of foreign policy would be great if everyone had the mindset of a modern liberal...unfortunately not every one does.
Guess what? Not everyone wants peace and human rights...if they did we wouldn't have these problems in the world right now.
I didn't back anyone, but saying Bush got something done by not doing anything is hilarious. I said the Euros would do the dirty work so Bush wouldn't have to be seen as talking to any baddies.You Kerry backers were the ones saying it couldn't be done this way.
I was right.
He still hasn't gotten anything done with Korea, and that is on him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
