Taking a look at some of what was said at the debate, rather than how it was said, here's Kerry's statement on giving Iran nuclear fuel: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together." The Iranians have rejected the overture as "irrational". And Bush noted that sanctions are already in place. Kerry proposed providing the most active terrorist regime in the world with material that can be used to speed up their nuclear-weapons program. He's offering to do for Iran what Bill Clinton did for North Korea: arm it. Does anyone other than John Kerry think this is a good idea?
Yes, being nit-picky and not looking at the context or how it was said, that would be a discussion. But since most of us don't want to get into long discussions about extemporaneous miscues which most people could distinguish the true meaning of, anyway then I ask, what is the point? Does John Kerry even think it's a good idea to arm them given every thing else he said about it in the debate? If we are really going to hold the candidates to account for every single word they spoke or misspoke then we can do that. Bush's list will be long, and make him look far worse than Kerry's list. For instance why did Bush claim that went into Iraq because Saddam refused to let weapon's inspectors back in? Clearly Saddam did allowe the inspectors back in? Is Bush so out of touch with reality that he didn't know what happened? Does Bush really want OBGYN's practicing their love on women all over the nation?
very clever, completly avoiding the issue and bring up something completely irrelevant. are you saying kerry didn't mean he'd give iran nuclear fuel? if not, what did he mean?
would you rather supply it to them or let them make their own? apparently Iran agrees with you basso.
Yes I'm saying that Kerry didn't mean that he'd give Iran nuclear fuel. Are you saying that Bush actually believes Saddam didn't let the Hans Blix and other inspectors back inside Iraq? Then what did Bush mean? I think it's obvious that he meant we could look at Iran's nuclear fuel program given that they were supposed to be using it for energy only and see whether or not they were using it for weapons. I think the main point is that it was obviously a mistake by Kerry. It might be funny to joke about a candidate's mistakes in speech. It happens to Bush all the time, and even Bush jokes about it himself. But if we are going to look at each word they spoke as if it wasn't a just simple mistake in speech, and take it literally, then it's fair to do so for both candidates.
no one's joking here. this thread is meant to be a clear-eyed look at a declarative statement by kerry. has kerry offered a "clarification?" how would he suggest we "look" at Iran's nuclear fuel?
I think it's a fantastic statement -- Kerry is saying that he would negotiate peace, not war, with Iran. Negotiation should always be the first step to resolution. Always. If one side believes there is no chance of negotiation, they have nothing to lose and will act accordingly. This is in stark contrast to the current administration's Axis of Evil crap which removed any chance of negotiation, peaceful resolution or progress.
I think that in 90 seconds his answer was well done. I believe that he was saying throught negotiations with threat of further sanctions or harsher measures they would be held accountable. Please see Kerry's response to nuclear proliferation for further details on some of the measures.
Thank you ragingFire, and John Kerry for clearing this all up. I really wanted to know if Bush believed that the inspectors were never let back in though.
As for Bush's sanction of Iran ... I only found the sanction to discourage foreign investment in Tehran's oil and gas sector. It's pretty darn useless, the UN does not bless it. Other countries ignore them. Can anyone find any other type of sanction?
I do wonder ... forget Kerry ... if Bush thinks he 's already done what he could by his sanction of Iran. What happens now that they are moving to making nukes? Are we bringing in the Marines as well??
Consider the issue from the Iran's viewpoint. Their two enemies in the world both have nuclear weapons. It is imperative for them aquire their own as a balance of power. Once they do the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevents either side from using their weapons in a first strike. Insane fundementalist are less likely to get weapons from an organized Islamic government than they are from a disorganized Soviet system. An organized government has to worry about retaliation against it's populace. The fact is with $50 dollar oil , Iran has enough currency to buy whatever they need to develop a nuclear program. Hell our own US companies will supply them through off shore subsidiaries if the profit exceeds the risk. I think it's just a waste of time and diplomatic capital trying to stop the inevitable.
the problems with this are, a) iran has said the proposal to buy nulcear fuel abroad is "irrational", and b) the IAEA doesn't want to escalate the issue to the security council. how would kerry deal with the reality of the problem rather than the fantasy of how he wishes it were.
Can you provide anything to support this claim? I hadn't heard that the US even TRIED this tactic. Leadership. GHWB took the issue of Iraq and Kuwait to the UN, got the resolutions pushed through, built a coalition the likes of which his son can only dream of, and got it done. GWB does not have the worldwide credibility to accomplish such a feat, especially after he thumbed his nose at the world to invade Iraq. John Kerry will do better.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041003/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_kerry_dc -- Reuters Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad. "We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference. Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power. President Bush (news - web sites) wants Iran referred to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program. But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use. Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs. Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel. "What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran. "We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said. "The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added.
Iran may say that now, but no real offer has been made. Kerry also has proposed some steps to follow after the offer has been made should Iran refuse the offer. It seems like a solid plan.
So let me get this straight: 1. We give Iran nuclear fuel 2. The UN oversees that they use the nuclear fuel properly 3. If they don't the UN acts as a global force Great stuff. We can't even trust the UN to get the food for oil program to work in Iraq and now we think we can trust them overseeing Nukes. Let me say this the only way we give Iran Nukes is if we (the US and our allies) are there to oversee it. Right now witht eh way things are in Iraq we don't have enough man-power to evven protect the inspectors we would place there.
