It looks that worthless and useless organization known as the UN, and our soft do-nothing allies in 'old Europe' managed to get Iran to call off its nuke program, and they didn't invade or get thousands and thousands of people killed to do it.
countdown to the first person to reply that Iran is doing this cause they are scared of us coming after them like we went after Iraq in 5....4.....3......2..
definitely a positive development, but anyone who believes this actions was taken in a vacuum, divorced from the reality of 125k US troops on iran's border, is kidding themselves. as i said, as positive development, but it's not a deal yet. and my real reaction can be more aptly summed up in four words: Jimmy, Carter, North, Korea.
Your thread title says: Iran agrees to end it's Nuke program From the article that you linked: <b>Iran said on Sunday it had submitted a letter to the United Nations’ atomic watchdog agency announcing it would suspend uranium enrichment activities</b> I never thought of <i>end</i> and <i>suspend</i> as interchangeable.
The reality is that those 125K troups have got their hands full now and maybe years to come. Now who is kidding who.
The link I arrived at the article from was I tried to remember it verbatim, and I failed. I hope there wasn't too much confusion.
We can guess whether the troops in Iraq played a part or not. All the same we shouldn't sell short the intense involvement of the IAEA, France, Germany and Great Britain, who have all been working intensely to reach a solution. I am happy they succeeded.
One could also draw the conclusion that the Iranian government is playing for time. I hope something permanent comes from this, and it's encouraging, but we can't relax for a moment. It is good to see the Europeans becoming more engaged. Hopefully, this will be just one of several areas where they can begin to assert their clout in a constructive and meaningful way. We'll have to wait and see. Keep D&D Civil!!
This only proves that a BUNCH of religious zealots are less dangerous and more sane than a maniacal dictator, like Saddam. I would be more impressed if they could pull this one with Kim Jong Il.
Iroc it is correct. If Kerry wins, I think Iran continues, I think they are fearful of a US invasion if they don't cooperate. People who realize their power is being undermined will do anything to maintain that power. The Mullah's must have asked Allah and he said..."Do whatever it takes to stay in power" DD
No offense but this is a problem of 'America Ego.' Not every decision made by every country in the world happens because of an American election, or misguided American war. France, Great Britain, Germany, and the UN have been involved in diplomacy with Iran for a while over this. There have been proposals, denials, negotiating, counter-proposals, and more rounds of negotiation going on day in and day out in Iran. It is self centered, egotistical and wrong to ignore all of that and think because America has an election, Iran changed its mind. The fact is that during the election, the person who talked most about the danger of nuclear proliferation was John Kerry. The person who most often talked about Iran working towards nuclear capability was John Kerry. The candidate who specifically addressed the problem, and dealing with Iran's growing nuclear capability was John Kerry. But our election mattered little if at all, compared to serious negotiations and diplomacy these other countries, and the UN was involved in. The IAEA probably had way more to do with this decision than the U.S. election. The IAEA after all is the organization that has done the monitoring of Iran and other nation's nuclear capability, has evidence, numbers and facts about all of it.
There is NO CHANCE that Iran does this if Kerry would have been elected. NONE. Bush is feared by our enemies, which is a very good thing. He delivers on his promises, unlike previous administrations who just laid down and took it whenever we were attacked by al Qaeda.
Key word on Kerry and Iran is 'talked' - yes Kerry did talk about Iran alot. But it is the President and his team that architected the situation directly or indirectly in which IRAN is flanked in the west by U.S. troops in Iraq AND in the east by U.S. troops in Afganistan. Say what you want about U.S. negotiating leverage - but putting things in perspective - if back in it's hey day the USSR took control of Canada and Mexico and proceeded to convert them both to communisim - we might feel a tiny bit of pressure to capitulate to certain of their demands.
The majority of America had it correct in the election result. George W. Bush is tough on terror, and has our enemies laying down. Libya and Iran are exellent examples of this. Liberals, it wouldn't hurt you every now and then to give credit where credit is due. Force is the only thing those crazies over there understand.
You are correct that it is our president who takes the action. Kerry was never in that position, and never did act with regards to Iran. Bush was in that position, and despite having the opportunity Bush never acted with regards to Iran either. It is also the President that has too few troops in Iraq to keep that place under control. I hardly think seeing the U.S. facing all those troubles in Iraq, makes Iran think they should cooperate with France, Germany and G.B. Bush's willingness to invade countries may or may not have played a part in Iran's decision. We don't know that and can't say that for sure. We do know that some other countries, the UN, and it's IAEA have been working on this problem and engaging Iran directly with evidence, offers, counter-offers etc. It was with the parties, and not the the U.S. that Iran handed the letter stating there willingness to halt the program was handed. It has been stated that it is with parties that further talks and any agreement to end the program permenantly will happen. It's like a work project where one group does all the work, and now a different group that wasn't really involved is trying to take the credit.
Yep. George W. Bush is one standup guy. It just appears that he's a white fundamentalist-Christian CEO and nothing else.
Giving credit where it is due would be a good thing. How involved was the Bush administration on the all the proposals and counter proposals that got the deal done? What interaction did the Bush administration have? Now let's ask what interaction the IAEA, France, Germany, and G.B. had. Who did Iran send the letter of compliance to? Was it the U.S.? Who did Iran say it would continue to work with? Was it the U.S. or these other parties involved that is going to keep working towards a permenant halt to the nuke program? Trying to give the U.S. the credit when the other folks did the work, isn't very becoming.
