Posted on 09/12/2004 9:22:24 AM PDT by starfish923
Sunday, September 12, 2004
•AP: Europeans to Set Nukes Deadline for Iran•EU Mulls Relations With Iran•
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran on Sunday rejected demands by Europe's three major powers to abandon its uranium enrichment program but reasserted its readiness to provide guarantees it will not build a nuclear weapon.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi (search) said Iran already has the technology required to develop nuclear fuel and would not reverse the situation.
"If the demand is that we don't master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, it's out of the question because we have reached that point," Asefi told a news conference.
"But if Europeans want assurances that we only make peaceful use of nuclear energy, we are ready to give guarantees," he said.
Asefi said the guarantees Iran was prepared to offer will be within the framework of an extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Keep your fingers on the trigger.
After Bush is re-elected, Iran will abandon its nuke program, as will N. Korea--one way or the other.
so much for europes FINAL demand--and iran's promise--will there be another final final demand--i have an idea--ISRAEL f-16-f-15's
Iran needs to be worrying about why stuff keeps blowing
up in North Korea.
And what are the "three European powers" going to do about it? Throw spitballs?
WHAT? Iran is not going to cooperate with the EU? They are not going to stop making NUKES?
I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you. I thought they wanted to be nice. I thought we could trust them. I thought they meant us no harm. Gosh, I'm disillusioned.
Lol. That's about all the "three European powers" can do about it.
Say, who makes the biggest, meanest spitballs in the world?
Heinz, of course, in 57 varieties.
We'll "abandon" the nukes for them. Surgical strikes by Israel should do it, with America supporting Israel in the event of any Iranian retaliation. Problem solved.
Senator John "Effing" Kerry, or, "Hanoi John," will step in, if he's elected. He'll build even better relations with the European powers. They will talk Iran out of building more nukes.
Sure. Fine. Uh huh. Right. Whatever.
Yep, you're right. Kerry will have us "rejoin" the rest of the world and just by having a nice little talk with those naughty old Imans will convince them to play all nice. Words will do it everytime. Isn't it Noam Chompsky who preaches that words are reality or something like that?
The Dims/lefties/socialists/Eurotrash/anti-Americans could talk a rock to death. There's no reality to them. I could go on and on, but I'd have a fit. Don't get me started.
Quite the contrary. It us just because Bush is president and has been an outrageous bully, that they want to develop nukes for defense.
If you want them to stop developing nukes, vote for Badnarik. Otherwise a continuation of the Bush doctrine (pre-emptive strikes) will lead us inexorably to a world war.
Note: I really do not know what Kerry would do but I fear that he will end up doing the same thing as Bush, give or take a little.
It´s obvious that Tehran is playing games with France, Germany and the United Kingdom. It´s about time to compell them to play according to OUR rules! Let´s give them a lesson in diplomacy, let´s bomb their facilities.
You are right, this is not what Schröder, Chirac and Blair are going to do. They will prepare their peoples so long that it will be too late to strike. Waiting and threatening is useless when you are not willing to show strength. We saw this lack of strength before the Iraq war, and we saw it in Bosnia and Kosovo. Now we experience it in Iran.
LOL! You're too funny.
Hilarious post, but you forgot your < /sarcasm > tag...
No sarcasm intended. I mean it quite seriously. Anyone not blinded by partisan interest must by now see that invading Iraq was a mistake of biblical proportions. We have succeeded in making tens of thousands of new enemies, many of them probably willing to use terrorism to achieve revenge for their dead family members.
We wasted the lives of all the dead people (maybe as many as 20,000 counting all sides) fighting a nation that was no danger to us. In the meantime, we gave North Korea a pass since they really did have WMDs (nuclear, the real ones). This taught the whole world the lesson that the only way to avoid being invaded by the US is to have nuclear deterrence capability.
Seeing as you are a libertarian, I can understand where you are coming from, although it is my opinion that you are ultimately wrong in your overall conclusion.
I certainly agree that our actions have turned much of world opinion against us. It is not, however, prudent to base our actions on what others will think. Regardless what we do, it is an established fact that there are people in the world who have declared war on us and are willing to do whatever it takes to kill us. They are willing to hijack airplanes and crash them. They are willing to blow up landmarks. They are willing to take over school buildings, wire them with explosives, and kill children. There are no lengths that these people are not willing to go to destroy their enemies.
They are, at heart, bullies. They hold considerable power because they are willing to intimidate innocent people into supporting them and excusing their behavior. They tend to thrive in states where the leadership acts in much the same manner. The Taliban supported terrorists. Saddam Hussein supported terrorists. It is irrelevant whether the terrorists in Iraq were the same organization as the terrorists in Afghanistan - they are all bullies and they all have pre-existing hatred towards us. We often seem to forget these days that the president outlined many other reasons for entering Iraq than simple weapons of mass destruction.
Terrorists exist, they have proven a willingness to harm innocent people, and they pose a significant threat to world stability in the twenty-first century. The War on Terror is not simply a matter of defeating Al-Queda. Al-Queda was simply one in a handful of these organizations which wish to terrorize people and democratic governments into submitting to their whims.
Saddam Hussein had a record of supporting these groups. He also had a record of terrorizing his own people. I do not think it can be denied that the world is much better off without a man like him in power. Are there worse governments out there? Absolutely. I am bothered by the notion that people think that, in the War on Terror, we must go to war with Afghanistan OR Iran, Iraq OR North Korea. The fact is, one way or another, we need to defeat ALL of these rogue states, because one way or another they all support terrorism and they all would not think twice about causing us harm if they had the opportunity. Even if our military forces become overdrawn and we have to institute a draft, this is a necessary battle, just as World War II was.
Why Iraq instead of North Korea or Iran? We went into Iraq because it was a tad more politically expedient. There was heavy opinion against Iraq, and a decent casus belli in the fact that the first war was ended by a cease fire agreement that Saddam was in the process of violating. Iraq also has the benefit of having a central location in the Middle East, which would allow US forces to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and will create a good base of operations in case action is required in another Middle Eastern country. Had we chosen to invade Iran, it is probably likely that Saddam's actions to disrupt our efforts would be far worse than Iran's have been in the current battle. As for North Korea, we have other countries in the region that are able to exert political pressure on them. China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia are all threatened by the prospect of a nuclear Korea. While vital, it is not quite as vital as acting in the Middle East.
People died in Iraq. Sadly, that is what happens in war. Casualties, however, do not determine whether a war is just or not.
In regards to your point about people hating us, it should be noted that the people who are willing to act through terrorist means already hated us. They proved that three years ago yesterday. When everything around us is at risk, world opinion ought really be the last of our concerns. Yes, people died. But, if we fail to act, how many more will die instead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.