I can't say about ClutchBBS but many including the President have stated that they were doing the will of the UN because Saddam had violated UN Resolutions. To my knowledge though none of those resolutions mandated invasion for non-compliance.
Whether they joined us or not it was obvious that Saddam was not going to be left in power. By the time we were going to invade Saddam being in power was not an option. Regardless of what went on before, at that point their options were to join us and hopefully get a slice of the Iraq pie to be carved up, or to not join us and get nothing. All other deals underhanded and legit were going to be null and void, and they knew it.
I don't care if you respond or not - really - don't bother. The article that FranchiseBlade was kind enough to post stated the following: I read that to mean that it was the U.S. that put the teeth in the sanctions threat. From the article It's no secret that Iran has the world's third largest OIL reserves so why do they need to build nuclear power plants?! This is why we're even having this discussion. As far as the 'catastrophic' impact of economic sanctions on Iran. Iran remains one of the worlds most closed economies. It's economy is almost double the size of Saudi Arabia's but it's exports are less than 1/2 their's - amounting to less than 10% of GDP. (yes I know about multipliers - don't go there) I don't think you can refute that it is policy of the U.S. that has put the Iranians on the defensive - not the Europeans. It is no coincidence that the Iranians capitulated after Bush was elected. They probably would not have - if he had lost.
Monty, that's among the most futile posts ever. You've been posting for two days straight now, and all you can offer is correlation - and nothing more. You haven't even backed it up with secondary conjecture from other lame-o sources. I don't think you can refute that the United States Military presence in Iraq prevents Giant Pandas from rampaging through my living room and wreaking havoc. . Can. Not. Be. Refuted. Enough with incomplete logic. Answer this question, yes or no: If Europe, their largest trading partner, by a wide margin, and their only lifeline to the Western world, were to embargo all trade with Iran overnight, it would have a significant, largely negative impact on the Iranian economy Yes or no?
It can't be refuted either that the US military presence in Iraq doesn't encourage giant pandas from rampaging through your living room either.
Actually their best best (in their minds) was to let the US do the dirty work and STILL try to get a piece of the Iraq pie .
Possibly... I agree with the first part the U.S. may have put the teeth in the sanctions threat, at least up to a point. I mean Cheney who holds the energy conference meetings has lobbied to have all sanctions against Iran removed before, so who knows? But I agree that the U.S. would likely be the one's that put a move toward sanctions into action. That is why I said I won't say that the U.S. had nothing to do with the agreement. But I think most people know who have tried to fix a problem that finding a solution is the hard part. That is what France, Germany, and GB have done with support from the UN. It may have been the U.S. policy that put Iran on the defensive and seeking Nuclear arms in the first place. The U.S. policy seems to be to negotiate with those that have nukes, and those that don't may be subject to an invasion. I disagree that the election had any real effect on the Iranians reaching the agreement. They weren't going to agree to just anything. Bush has had very little in place in the way of plans toward Iran, except to call them part of the axis of evil. It seemed pretty clear that Kerry was going to be way more involved in getting Iran to stop the program than Bush was. He actually had plans ready to put into place. Cheney has done business with Iran, advocated making it easier to business with Iran in the past, and the U.S. is currently spread to thin to take action against Iran militarily because of Bush's policy. Here is a run down of Iran and the interaction. I'm not speaking in guesses about who was scared to death of what, but in what has actually happened. Bush spoke briefly of the problem with Iran, but provided no solutions at all. Kerry spoke passionately about the problem and spoke only a little about the solution. The EU, and UN have been actively involved in assessing the problem, and finding a solution. Iran signed on with the steps towards solution proposed by the EU, and has dealt with them for some time and in a reletaive high level of intensity. Judging by the course of action taken by all the parties mentioned including Cheney, I don't believe Bush's election played very much of a role at all. I do believe that the U.S. willngness to push for sanctions did play a role.
If someone can provide evidence to me otherwise, I'd be glad to hear it, but given the current commitments I really don't believe that the US could commit to fighting in Iran at this point without causing serious manpower shortfalls elsewhere. I don't see how the Supreme Council could feel any fear at an invasion in the short term from any US forces, no matter who won. I don't think that the US could do much more than something along the lines of cruse missle strikes or special forces attacks. Any real commitment would leave the US vunerable. Conversely, it seems to me that the Iranians are in a position to inflict pain on the United States given their ties with the Iraqi Shia and the proximity of large numbers of US ground forces is Iraq. I don't mean to imply anything about who should or shouldn't have won the election, just trying to be realistic. Furthermore, I don't think it would be that hard to drive a wedge between Great Brittian and the US, given the vitrol I here coming from there on an almost daily basis, and I don't think Germany is quite as anti-US as they are being made out to be. Finally, I hear alot of stuff about how Mr. Bush has the leadership in Iran on their heels. I urge those of you who feel this way to look at the situation more closely. The war in Iraq has essentially ended all of the pro-democracy youth reform movements, and instead provided the youth of Iran a coherent exteral enemy. In this sense, it has strengthened the internal situation for the Mullahs. Again, this may be a temporary thing, and the coming Democracy in Iraq coupled with increased peace might offset this effect, but the pendulum has swung away from internal Iranian reform in the short term. On the other hand, I think that it is encouriging that Bush was able to throw a bone to the Europeans and show that he can stay in the background when needed. This shows me so much more than I see when I hear the Limbaugh clones prattle on and on about the worthless UN, and US millitary might. Clearly, the man is able to operate in a much more thoughtful way than many of the simplistic AM talk show pundits would lead you to believe. Finally, when I hear people on the liberal side, become upset with the concept of Cheney proposing ending sanctions and engaging Iran, I have to laugh to myself and think about Republicians and the way they used to rail against Clinton and engagement with China. It leads me to believe that no matter what Bush does he will be demonized in the same way that Clinton was. I suggest the Democrats out there step back and contemplate how moronic the Republicans were when the tables were reversed -- that is not an example to emulate.
Saudi Arabia has an exceptionaly silly trade surplus. Saudi Arabia: Exports - $86.53 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) Imports - $30.38 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) Iran: Exports - $29.88 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) Imports - $25.26 billion f.o.b. (2003 est.) In this sense your figures are somewhat misleading, but otherwise the point is well taken. One must note, however, that the Iranians began to balk about withdrawing from the nuclear non-preliferation treaty only after the IAEA stated that they were going to recomend sanctions.
Actually I railed against Clinton's close ties with China too. Many others on the left were doing everything they could to use The U.S. diplomatic and economic influence to do something about China and the situation in Tibet. I agree the Republicans were moronic. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't point out that Cheney was in favor of lifting sanctions against Iran, and was fined for illegally doing business with Libya. When somebody does something greedy and works with countries engaged in terrorism, it is worth pointing out. Those things deserve to be demonized. I wasn't even doing that. I was pointing out that the U.S. threat toward Iran is somewhat unclear.
On second thought..... ---------------- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6516658/ Powell says Iran pursuing nuclear bomb Secretary cites evidence of missile effortBy Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg Updated: 11:16 p.m. ET Nov. 17, 2004SANTIAGO, Chile - The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. advertisement Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons. "I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead." • More news on Iran Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to limit Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment program. "I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of matching warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in Manaus, Brazil. 'No doubt in my mind' "There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said. Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it was seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts were underway, not previously disclosed, to arm missiles with nuclear warheads. Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated that Iran was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size of a nuclear warhead to fit on a ballistic missile. "Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on this capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were striking because the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had not seen any information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work. In a 32-page report released this week, the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, wrote that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities," such as weapons programs. But ElBaradei said that he could not rule out the possibility that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Powell also told reporters that the United States had not decided what action to take following Sunday's agreement. The Bush administration had insisted that Iran's past violations warranted taking the matter to the U.N. Security Council. Powell said the United States would monitor verification efforts "with necessary and deserved caution because for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community." Blueprints in mid-90s Meanwhile, in Paris, the exile group charged that Iran was continuing to enrich uranium and would continue despite the pledge made Sunday to European foreign ministers. The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, or NCRI, also claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb in the mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of bomb blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear ambitions. Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Paris-based NCRI, told reporters at a news conference that the Khan network delivered to the Iranians a small quantity of highly enriched uranium that could be used in making a bomb. But he said the amount was probably too small for use in a weapon. The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen organization, which the U.S. State Department has labeled a terrorist organization. The NCRI helped expose Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2002 by disclosing the location of the government's secret uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But many of its subsequent assertions about the program have proven inaccurate. On Wednesday, Mohaddessin used satellite photos to pinpoint what he said was the new facility, inside a 60-acre complex in the northeast part of Tehran known as the Center for the Development of Advanced Defense Technology. The group said that the site also houses Iranian chemical and biological weapons programs and that uranium enrichment began there a year and a half ago, to replace a nearby facility that was dismantled in March 2004 ahead of a visit by a U.N. inspections team. The group gave no evidence for its claims, but Mohaddessin said, "Our sources were 100 percent sure about their intelligence." He and other group members said the NCRI relies on human sources, including scientists and other people working in the facilities and locals who might live near the facilities and see suspicious activities. The IAEA , the U.N. nuclear monitoring body, had no immediate comment on the claims but said it took all such reports seriously. The agency has no information to support the NCRI claims, according to Western diplomats with knowledge of the U.N. body's investigations of Iran. Some diplomats and arms control experts privately discounted the Iranian group's latest claim, saying it appeared designed to undermine the deal that the Tehran government signed with Britain, France and Germany. In Tehran on Wednesday, Iranian officials said they considered the enrichment suspension temporary and contingent upon a favorable decision at the IAEA meeting next week and on quick progress in talks next month on long-term guarantees that Iran can apply nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Richburg reported from Paris. Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer in Washington contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company
<a HREF="http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5980">Rafsanjani: Iran will continue enrichment in six months</a>
