• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Says Diplomacy Just Starting on Iran

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,987
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: Reuters

MAINZ, Germany (Reuters) - President Bush said Wednesday that European diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program were only just beginning and that comparisons with Iraq were wrong.


"Iran is not Iraq. We just started the diplomatic efforts and I want to thank our friends for taking the lead. We will work with them to convince the mullahs that they need to give up their nuclear ambitions," Bush told a news conference.

Bush has repeatedly said the U.S. launched its war on Iraq only after then leader Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with a series of U.N. resolutions over a number of years.

Mindful of past divisions in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush said after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder it was vital for Iran to hear the world speak with one voice.

Bush repeated Wednesday his verbal support to efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a deal under which Iran would abandon uranium enrichment that could be used to make a bomb in return for trade benefits and security guarantees.

"You know yesterday I was asked about a U.S. decision and I said all options are on the table. That's part of our position. But I also reminded people that diplomacy is just beginning." Bush said Tuesday the idea that he was preparing to bomb Iran was "ridiculous" but also added that "all options are on the table," a clear reference to possible military action.
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"all options are on the table"

Good. Let Iran know from the beginning that we're not going to dance around for 12 years and let the U.N. pass spineless resolutions.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Batman said:
"all options are on the table"

Good. Let Iran know from the beginning that we're not going to dance around for 12 years and let the U.N. pass spineless resolutions.
War with Iran is obviously unnneccesary. The Iranians are much smarter than the other prominent member of that 'axis of evil', North Korea. They dertainly don't want war. I feel any diplomacy will probably work. Iraq was ignoring UN sanctions. You know, if an organisation passed economic sactions that in turn starved your country, you'd probably not listen to them anymore either. The UN had Iraq on its knees, their economy unwinding and leaving millions starving. And then we bomb the Iraqis??
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
Iraq was ignoring UN sanctions. You know, if an organisation passed economic sactions that in turn starved your country, you'd probably not listen to them anymore either. The UN had Iraq on its knees, their economy unwinding and leaving millions starving. And then we bomb the Iraqis??
The U.N. had Iraq on it's knees, the people of Iraq were starving, yet Iraq was 'ignoring' sanctions. :confused:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe it was something about the air space over Iraq. Anyone know exactly what sanctions Iraq ignored? But yes, Iraq was kneeling to the might of the UN, with the USA sitting back and smiling...until we bombed them. That is American diplomacy.
in my previous post when I say "...ignore them..." 'them' refers to the UN, not the economic sanctions. Vauge, don't you have some info about the sanctions Iraq ignored that drove us to the illegal occupation?
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Umm...first Iraq couldn't ignore sanctions, that is idiotic. Sanctions are placed on a country so that people won't send items that are banned to them, so the only people who could ignore them are other countries...

And onto Iran, I think that Bush was completely in the wrong, or not in the know. What he said was incredible for its sheer brazeness or idiocy, you never know with him. He said something like "No plans to attack are in the planning, that being said, all things are on the table and possible." Are you kidding me? You are actually planning on attacking Iran when your troops are so streached that troop levels are some of the lowest in quite a long time (also due to people not enlisting and re-enlisting). If you honestly believe the warhawks in Bush's administration aren't planning this idiotic approach of hardlining (I made up a word) Iran will not lead to war, then you my friend, do not know what you are talking about.
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
I believe it was something about the air space over Iraq. Anyone know exactly what sanctions Iraq ignored? But yes, Iraq was kneeling to the might of the UN, with the USA sitting back and smiling...until we bombed them. That is American diplomacy.
in my previous post when I say "...ignore them..." 'them' refers to the UN, not the economic sanctions. Vauge, don't you have some info about the sanctions Iraq ignored that drove us to the illegal occupation?
You're breaking my heart and getting harder to follow. :confused: Iraq not flying in the northern and southern air space was part of the cease fire agreement not sanctions. As far as diplomacy let me say it again - 12 years and 17 resolutions. :shock:
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
in my previous post when I say "...ignore them..." 'them' refers to the UN, not the economic sanctions.
Here's what you said:
anomaly said:
Iraq was ignoring UN sanctions.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Batman said:
Here's what you said:
Terribly sorry I've made this all too confusing. I figured it out though. It's a case of a mistaken word. They are UN resolutions not the UN sanctions. Apparently, Iraq ignored some 18 'resolutions' and though their country was crippled by economic sanctions (obviously not capable of waging any war or producing any weapons), we decided that it was the best time to send out our bombers in an effort to liberate the Iraqis. Hope that makes it clearer.
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
Terribly sorry I've made this all too confusing. I figured it out though.
I guess the third time's a charm.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iraq ignored some 18 'resolutions' and though their country was crippled by economic sanctions (obviously not capable of waging any war or producing any weapons),
If the "Oil for food" program money hadn't been highjacked by the UN, and if Saddam had put the money into food, no one would have gone without.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
If the "Oil for food" program money hadn't been highjacked by the UN, and if Saddam had put the money into food, no one would have gone without.
So that's hy it was right to go to war with Iraq? Should we go to war with the UN? Or are you saying that this is a humanitarian war? If that's the case, why did we not invade Sudan?
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Squawker said:
If the "Oil for food" program money hadn't been highjacked by the UN, and if Saddam had put the money into food, no one would have gone without.
Some of you are so glad to put the UN down. I can remember when the war of Iraq was over the US asked the UN for help, as the bill to rebuild Iraq was higher than expected. The UN swept any bitterness aside and agreed - for the Iraqi people. Also the Iraqi elections wouldn't have been such a big sucess without the UN.

The UN (co-founded by the USA, UK and USSR) was set up to ensure WW2 didn't happen again, I would call it a sucess - would you not?
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
So that's hy it was right to go to war with Iraq? Should we go to war with the UN? Or are you saying that this is a humanitarian war? If that's the case, why did we not invade Sudan?
Are you saying that you would support a humanitarian war if that was the reason given?
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GarzaUK said:
Some of you are so glad to put the UN down. I can remember when the war of Iraq was over the US asked the UN for help, as the bill to rebuild Iraq was higher than expected. The UN swept any bitterness aside and agreed - for the Iraqi people. Also the Iraqi elections wouldn't have been such a big sucess without the UN.

The UN (co-founded by the USA, UK and USSR) was set up to ensure WW2 didn't happen again, I would call it a sucess - would you not?
They served their purpose for the first twenty or so years. Like all bloated bureaucracies they became too bogged down with red tape, and the people who work there became lazy and incompetent. The powers that be could not make an unbiased opinion about Iraq, if they were on the take. Now that the story is out, of course they wish to show their willingness to help.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
GarzaUK said:
Some of you are so glad to put the UN down. I can remember when the war of Iraq was over the US asked the UN for help, as the bill to rebuild Iraq was higher than expected. The UN swept any bitterness aside and agreed - for the Iraqi people. Also the Iraqi elections wouldn't have been such a big sucess without the UN.

The UN (co-founded by the USA, UK and USSR) was set up to ensure WW2 didn't happen again, I would call it a sucess - would you not?
The UN seems to have become this odd almost twisted version of it's former self. When it was first conceived there were good guys and there were bad guys. Now it seems that every country qualifies as a good guy no matter what their activities entail. I think that point is very evident by Syria's recent placement on the Security Council.

http://www.adl.org/Terror/terrorism_syria.asp

I mean here's a council who's very reason for existence is to promote the security of all the member nations. And you have an active member on that council engaging in state sponsored terrorism. UN Brilliant!
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Batman said:
Are you saying that you would support a humanitarian war if that was the reason given?
Certainly not. Humanitarian? The only time a humanitarian effort was needed in Iraq was during Clinton's era. Saddam, when we invaded, had slowed or, by some estimates, even stopped his mass killings. But, may I ask, why do you, Batman, support this war?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BTW, the problem with the UN is that each country is only concerned with one thing-their particular corporate interests (oil for food an example). Besides, the UN has no real power anymore, as the USA continually walks right over them.
 
Top Bottom