BS: Obama- Bush's third term?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM

BB-
to return to the thread's stated topic, if you think that Obama's view (and voting record) show an overall similarity to Bush's proposaal, I'd suggest that you've been watching too many satellites. McCain, on the other hand, has voted the Bush program some 95% of the time. Now, that's change that's hard to put your finger on.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:44 PM

"Diplomacy, supported by sanctions,"

The above phrase is such a broad statement as to be practically useless as a means of defining somebody's policy framework or political outlook.

Diplomacy can take many forms from aggressive and bullying to opportunistic to conciliatory.

All we can infer from it here is that it represents the vast swathe of non military alternatives, of which there are countless possibilities and variations.

Diplomacy can also be entered into as a long term *high tolerance* process or a short term *low tolerance* process.

Where one politician might be quick to proclaim a breakdown in diplomatic efforts, thus merely paying it lip service and hastening the last resort, another might wish to avoid the last resort until there really was no alternative.

Diplomacy is a word as wide as the sea and as varied in character as a hot sunny day and an icy foggy night.

Both Mali and Antarctica have weather. But weather means quite different things to the folk who use the word in each context.

So they would all use diplomacy.

What does that mean to them?

I would wager that they have quite different ideas about what that means.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 02:26 PM

"...over 40,000..."? Did I miss something, or is there an extra "0" in there?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:12 PM

"...military force as a last resort..."

Amen

But this is the part I do not trust in the current regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 11:37 AM

Diplomacy, supported by sanctions, and military force as a last resort- which is what Bush, Clinton, and Obama have all stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:50 AM

There are some important differences between the United States and Iran.

So far, at least, the United States has never gone so far to extremes as to turn its national government over to fanatics or religious zealots. I grant you the last eight years have come close, but I think on balance they don't fully qualify.

As suicide bombers all over the world have demonstrated time and again, religious fanatacism completely overrides a due regard for secular balance. It opens the door for moral absolutism which simply renders the commons more toxic.

Because of this difference, and other related differences in culture, it makes a LOT of sense to require Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

How that requirement should be prosecuted is a very different question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:49 AM

"Bush would have been happy if Saddam had complied"

Ha! This is a speculation of yours that is completely at odds with the accounts of those who were in the meetings at that time.


"I guess the war was a success"

Not for Capt. Thomas P. Casy and his friends and family, and the friends an families of >40000 others, and the 10 to 100 times that number of Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:38 AM

"Bush had decided to go to war no matter what"


No.

Bush had decided that the threat that Saddam posed must be stopped. Since the protestors gave Saddam the idea that he did not need to comply with his "Last and final" chance , THEY are the responsible ones for the war- Bush would have been happy if Saddam had complied.

It was the protestors that declared that the US should NOT act regardless of whether SADDAM complied ( and those nations that promised Saddam that the UN would take no acton against him, even if he did not comply) that are at fault, not Bush for having decided that the threat was one that needed to be dealt with.


Let me see... Iraq was 3 - 5 years away from having a WMD ( by the information available worldwide at the time) ... That means, had it been left to the UN, ( as the situation in Iran has been) Saddam would now have WMDs.

Since he does not, I guess the war was a success.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

"THOSE are the ones who caused the war, by encouraging Saddam to think that he could get away with further non-compliance ( As determined by the UN reports) with the cease-fire terms. "

No.

Bush had decided to go to war no matter what. This war is completely the child of Bush and his supporters. Remember his plan to paint US planes in UN colors and fly them into Iraqi air space in an attempt to get him to fire on them? Why did he contemplate this? Because the UN emphatically did not want this war.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 08:40 AM

"...no moral authority to use as leverage over other nations when it comes the use of immoral weaponry"

Wrong. The United States and the other Western nations mentioned will not use nuclear weapons. They are there for defence. If we intended to use them, that would have been done in some place since 1945. It was not. Saddam Hussein and the nutcase in Iran planned to use them on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,CO
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 08:23 AM

The piece no one here seems to understand is, as long as imperial powers like the US and Britain, have nukes, and regional powers like India and Pakistan and Israel have nukes, there is simply no rationale for saying to ANY country "but you can't have them because we don't like you and think you are dangerous."

That is the major problem facing us now in terms of non-proliferation, just as it was when the US raced to be the first nation to actually use nuclear weapons.

Why would any country listen to the one and only nation who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, war atrocities, etc. with nuclear weapons, and continues to commit those crimes and atrocities with new weaponry year after year after year?

The US, Britain, et al have absolutely no moral authority to use as leverage over other nations when it comes the use of immoral weaponry.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:48 AM

Are those the same ones who did NOT require that Saddam ever comply with his UN obligations, but criticized the US for even asking him too? Had they made it half as clear that Saddam HAD to comply as they made clear that they objected to any US action, there would NOT have been a war- Saddam would have met his obligations instead of depending on "Popular opinion" to protect him from the consequences of his actions.

THOSE are the ones who caused the war, by encouraging Saddam to think that he could get away with further non-compliance ( As determined by the UN reports) with the cease-fire terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:52 PM

"...the senate report indicates that the available intelligence supported the conclusion. Your comment is based on what was found after the invasion, after Saddam had more than three months to remove evidence..."

Yet at that very time 23 million (or more) people actually got it right, and were marching in the streets. How is it that us dumb hippie folkies knew more that the Senate did then, or BB does to this day?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:08 PM

No country or politician ever rules out the possible use of force in a crisis...but some use such rhetoric to deliberately incite public paranioa and public support for their own plans of future aggression, while others don't use it that way.

So the tone of the rhetoric and the timing and the context are very important.

********

If Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons, then they are doing nothing different than what Israel (and South Africa) already did a long time ago. No great powers have threatened to obliterate Israel or South Africa for so doing. The U.N. has not gone after them for doing it. If Iran is enriching uranium, they already have a legal right to do so...so why wouldn't they? They need the enriched uranium for their electrical power projects regardless of whether or not they are planning to build any nuclear bombs. If they did build some nuclear bombs, they would do it, I should think, so as to have a credible deterrent against outside attack by the USA and Israel...both of which keep threatening repeatedly to attack Iran.

Given the fact that Israel and the USA have enough nuclear bombs right now to easily obliterate every significant target in Iran and the entire Middle East....why the heck would the Iranians fire one off first???????? They are tremendously outgunned. They're not stupid, and I doubt that they are intent on committing national suicide.

The only people who fire off nuclear bombs first are those who imagine that they can get away with it and not be targeted in return. So far in history that has been the USA. Period. No one is going to use such weapons when they know that a similar counterstrike by the other side would destroy them, because wars of aggression are launched with one thing in mind: victory...and victory at an acceptable cost. If victory at an acceptable cost is clearly not possible, then the first attack will not be not made.

The people who dearly wish to make a first attack (meaning Israel and the USA) will seek justification for it by saying, "We had to prevent Iran (or whoeve else) from someday attacking us."

This is logic akin to me murdering my estranged neighbour or relative with a shotgun one day and burning his house down, and then telling the police and the general community, "I had to do it. He hated me. He was out to get me. His whole family was out to get me. And I knew he was insane, so it was imperative for me to strike before he struck first and killed me and my family."

That is a defense that would not last 5 minutes in a court of law, because it is evidence of the criminal insanity of the defendant himself!

However, there are no police and no higher authority in the world to whom Iran can appeal in such a situation...because the world is in fact lawless. The only law that truly applies in the world is this one: he who has the most money and the most firepower does exactly what he wishes to do...and he does it to those who have less firepower and money, and no one can stop him or arrest him for so doing, because no one has the means to!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:06 PM

excuse confusion of double negatives

I meant it would be a bad idea to rule out force.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

True.

The Iran issue is how to cleave to the careful line drawn between weapons programs and civilian energy-producing applications.

The Iranians are either telling the truth about their plans, or they are not.

IF they are, should that goal be suppressed because of the associative link with possible, but not actual, weapons uses? Why?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:31 PM

This is rubbish.

If someone asked me my views on bearded bruce, I would say he seems like a nice guy.

If someone asked me how I'd feel if I knew he carried a gun, I'd say a little uneasy.

If someone asked me how I'd react to bearded bruce pointing a gun at me I'd say that I wouldn't rule out the use of force to defend myself but might try diplomacy first.

Ask any politician how they would react to Iran insisting on developing nuclear weapons, and they will say to you that they would not rule out the use of force to prevent it.

It wuld be a bad idea not to rule out force.

But it doesn't follow that you want to go to war.

and it doesn't follow that you have the same political, diplomatic or economic strategies in the interim as other politicians who also wouldn't rule out force.

The conclusion arrived at is miles away from the evidence provided

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:24 PM

The present military-industrial system running the USA has to have wars in order to maintain itself in the economic style to which it has become accustomed since the end of WWII.

That's the basic reason Bush and many presidents before him have gone to war...NOT to protect the USA, but to maintain the continued war production levels of the military-industrial complex. Trumped-up excuses have been found for those wars, and more will be found soon, I am sure.

It's quite similar to the scenario set out in Orwell's "1984" where the ruling system had an endless war going in various distant foreign places as well as an endless domestic surveillance program happening, fueled by constand paranoia about imagined threats, both foreign and domestic.

Those threats were all in truth illusory, but they served to justify the system's continued state of foreign war and domestic surveillance.

And that's what you have in the USA. There was no way that Saddam was any real threat to America. Not at any time. But America was a very real threat to Saddam, as has been amply demonstrated.

And there will be other Saddams. Depend upon it. If they did not exist, they would have to be invented (in Washington). Ahmadinejad is the foremost man presently being marketed as the new "Saddam", and it's convenient for America that he fits the profile so very well indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:23 PM

Amos,

the senate report indicates that the available intelligence supported the conclusion. Your comment is based on what was found after the invasion, after Saddam had more than three months to remove evidence.

What I do KNOW is that there are now TWO (Iraq and Libya) nations that, prior to the invasion, had WMD PROGRAMS ( note: NOT weapons YET) that do not have those programs at this time.

I dislike the present administration's lack of resolve on N. Korea, and suspect that we will regret that in the near ( 6- 8 year) timeframe.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:17 PM

That might have been because there was no evidence that WMDs--nuclear or any other kind--were actually in play. I would think that dealing with actual circumstancers, rather than imaginary ones, is a prerequisite for the position, no? As well as having enough mastery of analytical skills to be able to estimate the difference with a good probability of accuracy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:05 PM

As for disliking war, Bush has demondstarted that, given a (high, according to the information available) chance that WMD would be used against the US, and given that the UN declared Saddam in violation of the "last and final" chance to come clean, he was willing to use conventional means to remove a WMD threat ( that according to the Democratic MAD philosophy would kill tens of millions) shows a dislike of nuclear war that I would like to see in a number of others.

Nuclear weapons are NOT just more powerful bombs.They have effect far greater to the environment, and to allow the use of them to become "acceptable" in conflict is not "a fair and reasoned proposition."

Yet the UN ( as shown by actions in N.Korea, Iran, et al) was prepared to do so rather than deal with the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:03 PM

Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.
Politicians say what they think will get them elected.

Just keep repeating that statement, and you will be able to understand easily what they say at any given time...and you will realize why it almost always ends up sounding so similar to what their opponents are saying.

It's like selling Snake Oil to the rubes at the county fair in 1888. Just TELL them what they want to hear! ;-D

And make sure you don't get too tired, because you might slip up somewhere and say something that isn't worded quite right...or that is a bit too revealing...and if you do, then the media sharks and other predatory people who serve your opponents will leap on it and you will find it hanging like an albatros around your neck for days, weeks, months...even years!

Such is the life of a politician and a Snake Oil salesman. It's a dirty business, hazardous to both one's health and moral fiber...but think of the potential rewards of success!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:58 PM

"Why, then, would anyone seek to spill that bucket of paint over in Obama's direction?"

Perhaps to indicate disgust with the painting of McCain. McCain is just as awake, curious, interested, intelligent, literate, insightful and is also determined and courageous.

SO, if YOU choose to use tactics on a candidate that I prefer, I see no reason not to use such tactics on the ones you support.

Or do you have somne special dispensation that makes you God for this topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

Painting Obama as "THird Bush Term"--knowing perfectly well that that hat belongs much more correctly to McCain than to Obama--is extremely disingenuous. Judging by Bush's actual actions, the two men are as far apart as they could be int erms of priorities, approaches to situations, ability to communicate. Obama is awake, curious, interested, intelligent, literate, insightful and is also determined and courageous.

Bush is not literate, very incurious, uninterested in most things, illiterate, not insightful, and has the courage that comes from obstinacy and the determinationt hat is born from the refusal to evaluate changing conditions.

Why, then, would anyone seek to spill that bucket of paint over in Obama's direction?

Projection, I guess; or the need to nullify those aguianst whom one has destructive impulses. It is certainly nopt a fair and reasoned proposition.

Note that Bush asserted on his recent trip to Germany that he doesn't like war.

Does that seem consistent with his record?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:51 PM

Whereas Obama's agrees with mine? The only example I have is his "vote against Iraq" that to me ( given what was known AT THE TIME ( see the Senate Report)) indicates we disaggree on what an enemy is.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:48 PM

And when Bush says he will defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I believe him.

Oh, I believe him too. I just don't think his definition of "enemy" agrees 100% with my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:45 PM

I would venture the opinion that all presidential candidates honestly intend to "defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The critical difference lies in who one perceives as an enemy, and how readily one would proceed to engage in "defense."

There are misguided individuals who might consider me to be a domestic enemy of the country. I hope none of them get elected and decide to kill me. I'm an opponent of many powerful individuals who have claimed to speak and act on behalf of the US, but I'm nobody's "enemy," and I love the American people and the American countryside regardless of who's running the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:44 PM

Well, yes, there is that.... (grin)

But I didn't want to get into it, because it would make for a pretty lengthy discussion.

I might add that I trust McCain even less than I do Hillary and Bush. And in Bush's case, that's really something!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:36 PM

I wish Bush had defended the US from his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:32 PM

Why wouldn't you believe him, BB? He's an American. Why would he NOT defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Seems to me that anyone who becomes president will do that.

As to what they said (and they all said basically the same thing)...nothing surprising about that! ;-) They are all saying EXACTLY what they think they need to say in order to create a certain impression in the American public's minds, which is:

1. I won't sell out America.
2. I take foreign threats to America seriously and will act decisively.
2. I'm not a coward, a patsy or a pushover.
3. I'm not insane either...so I'll try dimplomacy first.

So???????????? What else would you expect them to say?

All you are really saying is that at an instinctive gut level you don't particulary trust Obama.

Fine. That's your privilege.

I don't particularly trust any of them, but I trust Bush and Hillary a bit less than I do Obama.

And that's my privilege.

We all have our own gut feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 02:10 PM

"When Obama says that military force is not off the table, but should be seen as a matter of last resort, I believe him. When George W. Bush says the same thing, I don't. "


And when Bush says he will defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I believe him. When Obama says the same thing, I do NOT know if I believe him or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM

This thread about cats? Rugs?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:34 PM

From my earlier post:

It's probably the only thing that's kept the fool from invading Iraq already.

Obviously, I meant Iran. It'd be a lot easier if they still called it Persia.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:35 AM

BWL said it best, contrasting "charcoal gray" vs "dove gray."

ALL poiticians talk out of both sides of their mouth, anyway, so as citizens and as voters we need to observe actual decisions, not pronouncements. Actions DO speak louder than words. Everyone gives lip service to the pursuit of peaceful means, just as everyone needs to maintain the implicit threat of possible military action as a factor in negotiations. But, quite obviously, different folks tend towards different emphases.

Bush and his entire coterie have shown that they see diplomacy only as an irritating process you are expected to hurry through before you can start the real fun and drop the bombs. This gang of short-sighted thugs cannot be allowed to speak for our country any longer!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

I haven't heard Bush called wrong on the proposition you cite, Bruce. But I think it should be taken into account that it was NOT his initial response, but the result of a few go arounds of saber-rattling and public refutation thereof.

The difference is, Obama got it right the FIRST time.


PDQ: No.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:07 AM

One difference, BB, is that when Bush said he had exhausted diplomatic channels before he went to war, he was lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:04 AM

Yes, all three say that diplomacy is the preferred means of dealing with Iran, but that a military option is "not off the table". It's not a matter of black ("We should nuke them fuckers right now!") or white ("Military force should never be used! Peace and love will find the way!) but a continuum of shades of gray.

I personally feel that George W. Bush's attitude is somewhere in the charcaol gray zone. He'd love to invade Iran given any pretense if he only had the resources to do it. Obama's attitude is more in the dove gray area. He genuinely sees military intervention as a last resort, but doesn't rule it out as a possibility.

Single sentence sound-bite quotes can make both attitudes sound the same, but they shouldn't be taken in isolation. They should be considered within the context of the person's entire history of both statements and actions. George W. Bush has already started one war for extremely dubious reasons while Obama vocally opposed starting that war. That means the two men have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes justification for use of military force.

When Obama says that military force is not off the table, but should be seen as a matter of last resort, I believe him. When George W. Bush says the same thing, I don't. In a way, I'm glad that US military resources are stretched so thin by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's probably the only thing that's kept the fool from invading Iraq already.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:38 AM

Neither. I am pointing out that the criticised policy of the Bush administration is the welcome "change" of the presumptive Democratic candidate.

So, why was Bush wrong and Obama right, saying the SAME thing????

It is reasoning like this that allows the Democrats to achieve defeat even when they have the advantage. They would get far more positive credit for just admitting that Bush was not entirely "evil", or that their candidate at least got his feet wet when he walked on water.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:32 AM

So, Bush, Clinton and Obama all say everything is on the table. Do you have some objection to talking instead of bombing? Or are you just somehow against furniture?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:23 AM

I'm on the official shit list here. So I posted my protest as a song.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:21 AM

"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:20 AM

Forty years later and nothing's changed, except the name.

'Obama You're The Man'                              
                                                   
The papers and the radio                              
They lied to us today                                          
We need you with your honesty
You know we've been betrayed
The country needs a statesman
Without one it can't stand                                    
The country needs a President
Obama you're the man.

The government has been misused                     
They've treated war like chess
No one ever wins at war
Someone loses less
The people need a patriot
Who'll redesign the land
The country needs a President
Obama you're the man

Your opponents offer promises
But they're empty like before
You wouldn't let our children die
To perpetrate a war
Obama you're the candidate
Our honour must demand
The country needs a President
Obama you're the man.

America's been burdened
And corruption is to blame
It owns the politicians
Democracy's in chains
The alternative is obvious
It's in the voters hands
The country needs a President
Obama you're the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:17 AM

PDQ:

That sounds like an insane statement, did ya know that? You have some kind of massive telepathic power in play here, that you can speak with certainty for a billion people? Or are you just playing the redneck card?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:17 AM

But the point remains- the SAME policy that when stated by Bush is criticised is the one supported by BOTH Obama and Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:15 AM

sorry - IAEA, not IAEC

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency issued a report saying Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment activities, a United Nations official said. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency opens the way for U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Facing a Security Council deadline to stop its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has left little doubt it will defy the West and continue its nuclear program.[47]


In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had failed to meet its obligations to report its enrichment activities, which Iran says began in 1985, to the IAEA as required by its safeguards agreement.

Article 19 of Iran's safeguards agreement allows a report to the Security Council if the IAEA fails to verify that nuclear material is only for peaceful uses. Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute[59] requires a report to the UN Security Council for any safeguards non-compliance. The IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions,[42] decided that "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement" as reported by the IAEA in November 2003 constituted "non-compliance" under the terms of Article XII.C of IAEA Statute.[39]

The IAEA reported on August 30, 2006 that while it "is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran", it "remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear program" and that Iran's adherence to the recently agreed "action plan" was "essential."

Then Chairman of IAEA Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation[97] (and Director of the Australian Nonproliferation and Safeguards Organization) John Carlson noted in considering the case of Iran that

Formally IAEA Board of Governors (BOG) decisions concern compliance with safeguards agreements, rather than the NPT as such, but in practical terms non-compliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT.[98]

The IAEA Board of Governors eventually concluded, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions,[99] that Iran's past safeguards "breaches" and "failures" constituted "non-compliance" with its Safeguards Agreement[100][39] even though the IAEA had concluded that there was no diversion of fissile material to military use. In the decision, the IAEA Board of Governors also concluded that the concerns raised fell within the competence of the UN Security Council.[39]


However, the report adds that "the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear program. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the [unratified] Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research."

The report also outlines a work plan agreed by Iran and the IAEA on August 21, 2007. The work plan reflects agreement on "modalities for resolving the remaining safeguards implementation issues, including the long outstanding issues." According to the plan, these modalities "cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities." The IAEA report describes the work plan is "a significant step forward," but adds "the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol."[101] Although the work plan does not include a commitment by Iran to implement the Additional Protocol as a permanent legal obligation, IAEA safeguards head Olli Heinonen observed that measures in the work plan "for resolving our outstanding issues go beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol."[102]


The November 15, 2007 IAEA report found that on 9 outstanding issues including experiments on the P-2 centrifuge and work with uranium metals, "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency," but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking due to Iran's refusal to continue voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol, as it had done in the past under the October 2003 Tehran agreement and the November 2004 Paris agreement. The only remaining issues were traces of HEU found at one location, and allegations by US intelligence agencies based on a laptop computer allegedly stolen from Iran which reportedly contained nuclear weapons-related designs. The IAEA report also stated that Tehran continues to produce LEU. Iran has declared it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, despite Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear enrichment.[105][106]


ElBaradei criticized Iran, however, for continued attempts at uranium enrichment. "Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities...," wrote ElBaradei.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: pdq
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

"Obviously no one wants to see Iran get the bomb"

Except for the 1.8 billion followers of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:57 AM

"Seldom does anyone official publicly acknowledge that under the agreement that Iran signed onto, Iran is allowed to pursue what they have acknowledged pursuing."

Probably because Iran is NOT allowed to do so without the IAEC monitors that it threw out of the country, nor has allowed the access specified in the NPT to. That is to prove that they are not pursuing what they ARE prohibited from doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:54 AM

Seldom does anyone official publicly acknowledge that under the agreement that Iran signed onto, Iran is allowed to pursue what they have acknowledged pursuing.

It seems apparent that communication and diplomacy are called for. Obviously no one wants to see Iran get the bomb.

Subject: BS: Obama- Bush's third term?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:47 AM

It seems to me that the presented statements of Obama and Clinton are in accord with the statements of Bush- to a degree greater than any ones of McCain. so...


Bush:
"He said he had told Merkel that diplomacy remained his preferred choice for dealing with Iran. But he added that "all options are on the table" and said Tehran needed to "verifiably suspend" its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful.
"The message to the Iranian government is very clear: that there's a better way forward than isolation and that is for you to verifiably suspend your enrichment program and the choice is theirs to make," Bush said. "


Clinton: ""U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said."

Obama: "And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."




More text- so the context becomes clear- which most here deny to the Bush administrations statements


Clinton:

"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said."

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them





Obama:
more text - so you might see context.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."