Presidential Debate Transcript October 8 2004: Senator John Kerry: "We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did. " http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
So this categorically rules out any unilateral action if deemed necessary by President Kerry? doubtful. anyway it appears from the context that Kerry is referring to large scale, long term military deployments that overextend capacity rather than quick strikes that you refer to.
Saddam was. In fact, as the Bush Administration itself has pointed out, ending Sanctions was his number one goal, as they prevented him from pursuing WMD programs, etc. Read the Duelfer report; it's right there, in spite of the fact that the Report is explicitly written in terms most favorable to Bush & co.
I know that you weren't saying that. I do believe that others were. Bigtexx even asked why liberals couldn't give credit where credit is due. I was giving credit where it was due. It was due to the EU, and the UN. The U.S. might have also played a role, but there is no way to really ascertain that. Nobody has said that the U.S. forces in Iraq made a difference except some people on this board. Meanwhile there are other countries and organizations that are working on negotiations, applying pressure and actually working hard getting something accomplished. While you might not be dismissing the effort from these groups others are. You are correct that Iranian officials want to keep their hold on power. There have already been democratic reform movements there, and perhaps some of the pressure brought to bear by the EU and UN, would have aided those reform movements and that is what made the officials take this action.
Having a military spread too thin and Iraq that can't control that country might indeed play a part in Iran's thinking. Nobody KNOWS. We do know that the UN and the EU has been working on this for some time, and they are the ones that got the deal done. Giving all the credit to the U.S. is like giving credit to Detroit for the Rockets losing in the playoffs last year. The Rockets only lost to the Lakers because they were afraid of Detroit who might come out of the East and beat them. That denies the fact that it was the Lakers who played the game and did the work. It's not the greatest analogy, I know, but it does fit in that the EU, and the UN were the ones in the game doing the work. Might the U.S. and what it might do have made a difference? Maybe. Nobody has said they did. It might be argued that N. Korea wasn't invaded because they already developed nukes, and that if Iran was truly afraid of the U.S. they would develop nukes as quickly as possible in order to prevent a U.S. invasion. That's not what's happening here.
Actually we were getting off point here and I take back a few of my comments from earlier. It seems like, after reading another story on this, that this was a Britain/France/Germany effort moreso than anything UN related; and that raises the questions as to Iran dealing with them rather than the US -- possibly to further drive the wedge between the two - and also because, let's face it, it's probably easier to cheat on these guys than the US, be it Bush or Kerry.
I agree - it does not categorically rule out the possibility - but I have given you the quote you asked for - and you have now resorted to playing with words - nice try ....
Catch my edit? You resorted to ignoring the context. Here's the full quote Is this answer complicated? Yes, because his answers are always complicated. But only an idiot or somebody who is being dishonest could read that and not think that he is talking about large scale, long term deployments rather than the type of quick strikes that you refer to. Do you not agree?
iran cannot, will not, drive a wedge between the US and UK. germany and france? wedge's already there.
Ok, so further drive it/cement it/whatever. I was in London for work most of last week. Outside of No. 10 Downing street, there is a pretty large wedge whenever I discussed it, and I wasn't exactly hanging out in the Eastend or Camden town or anything.
I just got back from London last night Sam. Should have hooked up, I was in Fulham for Friday/Saturday. DD
That's a terrible example since we now know that Reagan was willing to trade arms for hostages secretly while publically saying we would never negotiate with terrorists.
Here's a scenario: Maybe all the "give Bush credit people" and the "give the UN credit people" are BOTH right? The UN did the negotiating but the US presence next door helped Iran make some decisions. Personally I think that Iran is taking the UN for a ride. They saw how easily Saddam strung the UN along and how easy it was to bribe UN employees to get his way so Iran is giving it a shot. They also saw how North Korea just had to say the right things and they were left alone to develop nuclear weapons. Iran probably noticed that even though the world has been fooled so many times with promises (North Korea, Saddam, Hitler in his talks with Chamberlain and Russia), it keeps falling for the same old tricks. I wouldn't trust the Mullahs in Iran for a second. Remember, they are negotiating with infidels so they probably don’t even considered what they’re doing as lying when they say one thing and do another. They're just stalling for time. The UN in their naivety is just giving Iran the time to finish their nuclear program. But that's just my opinion. Hope I’m wrong.
I'm willing to concede that the presence of US troops next door might've played a role but the question is to what extent. My view of it has always been that the invasion of Iraq was an unneccessary distraction from the main focus on terror and if our point was that we were going to get serious on countries that were hostile to us we made that point loud and clear with Afghanistan. Also on Iran's border. Any benefit we get out of flexing our muscle to raise doubts among countries like Iran and Libya I believe are far outweighed by the costs of occupying, pacifying and rebuilding Iraq. Anyway if we consider of the timing of this Iran should've cut a deal a year and a half ago when the US had just demolished Saddam rather than now when its pretty clear that we're bogged down there and they can benefit greatly by continuing to forment trouble amont Iraq's Shia. So I can believe our presence in Iraq plays a role in Iran's calculus but I have a hard time buying this was a decisive factor.
Completely missed in this "UN/EU vs. Bush" argument is the fact that the sanctions threatened by the US, through the UN, were what drove the mullahs to the conference table. I would also imagine that there is minimal deviation between Brit & US views on the issue, meaning that the US had a de facto seat in the negotiations. US rattles the sabers & the Brits do the talking. But the threat of punishment (sanctions, which were much more feasible and would have inflamed the domestic discontent in Iran) was an necessary component of the deal. Good cop, bad cop so to speak. Sounds like a pretty collaborative effort. Kudos all around. The trouble now is holding Iran to the deal, and turning their "suspension" into a permanent end. Fooling the IAEA hasn't been too difficult in recent years...who's watching the watchers?
