U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.
In a little noticed remark during the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said he believed the United States should have provided Iran's hardline, cleric-led Islamic regime with nuclear fuel even as intelligence reports indicate Tehran is on the verge of producing a bomb.
"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," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
TEHRAN, Oct. 11 (UPI) -- Iran has denied reports that said the country would welcome U.S. Sen. John Kerry's proposal for a bargain to solve the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program.
"(U.S. presidential candidate) John Kerry's proposal is part of electoral campaigning in the United States, and we are not interested in being drawn into such issues," said Hussein Mousavian, head of the foreign policy committee at Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
The proposal, virtually put forward by vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, said Kerry would be willing to supply Iran with its required nuclear fuel for power generation if Tehran abandoned its uranium-enrichment efforts. The rejection by Iran, according to Kerry, would confirm Tehran was pursuing nuclear weapons.
Commenting on possible direct talks with Washington on Iran's nuclear program, Mousavian rejected the idea, saying his country would not negotiate "due to the United States' antagonistic policies."
A little distorted view, selectively edited by your good self. And you dare to critisize Moore .
Kerry's proposal is backed by the majority of European nations as the way to prevent Iran ever getting Nukes. You see, whilst the nuclear fuel is supervised by the outside world, the world knows exactly how much fuel is being used, meaning how much spent fuel is produced, which is removed by the outside world. Whilst Iranian produced nuclear fuel is unknown.
Read this article and view Mr Ackerman's biased approach in its full glory.
Obviously you think that the Bush approach is better. Bush's idea to prevent WMD proliferation is to invade, then forget to protect the nuclear facilities from looting, leading to previously controled material landing in the hands of any terrorist with a couple of dollars.
So, Mr Ackerman, what do you think? Control the nukes, or do not control the nukes?
Sure control the nukes but not by giving our enemy the materials to build them.
This was to show you how wrong Kerry is on foreign policy.
So we see that Kerry's plan for Iran was rejected by the Iranians. We also know that Kerry's plan to bring in the French was rejected by Mr. Chirac. Bottom line Kerry's foreign policy stinks.
Kerry's plan was rejected by Iran. Does this not mean, given that Iran are hell bent on getting hold of Nukes, that the plan is not good for Iran's plans to be a nuclear power.
Be it on record that Ackerman believes that Kerry is wrong on the Iran issue, because Iran does not like the idea of not being in control of nuclear fuel production. Iran disagrees with Kerry on Iranian nuclear wishes, therefore Ackerman believes Kerry is wrong. Ron, are you a terrorist?
Everyone should have nukes and lots of them. This would stop war immeditately everywhere because everyone would be too scared of everyone else to annoy them. If Iran got nukes there's no way the USA would touch them thus avoided lots of dead people killed in part II of the neocon's project to rename the 21st Century into the catchier titled "New American Century".
We need a new policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which worked for the USA and USSR (and they were "evil") for 50 years. Obviously not everyone has heard of MAD yet and someone needs to send the MAD policy to India and Pakistan because they don't seem to be following it.
Ron Ackerman said this in post #8 : It means that Kerry has no plan because Iran rejected Kerry's plan. I'll go with the Bush plan thank you.
Iran can be brought to line, and they have also said they are not going to seriously consider a proposal that is part of a campaign pledge. If Kerry were in the white house, they would have to seriously consider this. Given its broad international support as well, they would end up with no choice, (you see that is what happens when you cooperate with the international community, rather than alienating it).
Do you really think that Nuclear plants getting looted is in the best interests of the US, or anyone else to that matter? That is what Bush's plan involves. He has proven that in Iraq. Secure the oil fields first, and forget about the nuclear plants. Do you not think this sort of demonstrates his priorities, (oil), and his lack of real interest in dettering terrorism, (by allowing nuclear plants to be robbed by god knows who).
Kerry the appeaser. Let's negociate with terrorist regimes like we did in Vietnam. In other words succum to their demands. Wh the heck cares about the locals anyway? Let's surrender and let them fend for themselves like he proposed in Vietnam.
De' ja vue?
Thank God our ALLIES (Kerry says we have no credible ones) are with us on the Iran and N. Korea issues.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
USA1 said this in post #13 : Kerry the appeaser. Let's negociate with terrorist regimes like we did in Vietnam. In other words succum to their demands. Wh the heck cares about the locals anyway? Let's surrender and let them fend for themselves like he proposed in Vietnam.
De' ja vue?
Thank God our ALLIES (Kerry says we have no credible ones) are with us on the Iran and N. Korea issues.
Incidentally USA1, do you believe that oil interests are more, or less important than terrorist threats? If you believe oil interests are more important then you really are a true Bush Republican.
Obviously, Bush secured the oil sites in Iraq, whilst forgetting the nuclear plants that subsequently got looted. This proved that Bush is more interested in oil than terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
In other words, if you support Bush, you support terrorism by supporting oil interests over security interests.
10-12-2004 03:33 PM
.
