Chairman Kerry: "Iran Must Comply With International Demands Or Face Consequences"

[ProSense]

09/25/2009

Chairman Kerry: "Iran Must Comply With International Demands Or Face Consequences"

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following statement today in response to President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown statement on Iran’s secret nuclear fuel plant:

“In light of Iran’s continuing deception, the international community must step up its demands that Iran halt its enrichment and reprocessing work, answer the International Atomic Energy Agency's questions, and provide IAEA inspectors with the full complement of access and transparency they require.

“President Obama has offered Iran every opportunity to open a constructive diplomatic dialogue on its nuclear program. To this point, there is no evidence that Iran intends to reciprocate. I continue to support engagement with Iran, but now is the time to supplement engagement with (more robust) international sanctions. That’s the only way to dramatically increase the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran from the outside and help leverage pressure on the regime from its own population which wants a different relationship with the world. Tehran must make a fundamental decision on whether it wants to continue its pariah status or enter a more constructive relationship with the world.”

[ShortnFiery]

1. Sanctions only make the poor people within Iran suffer.

This is so damn wrong. :(

[ProSense]

2. "This is so damn wrong." Oh BS. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

3. It's starting Prosense. Cue the M$M to manufacture consent.

:(

[ProSense]

4. Get a grip.

Get over being Bush whipped.

[DevonRex]

5. Some people here have permanently and totally lost their minds.

[ProSense]

8. Remember when everyone thought the Iranian election was stolen?

They wanted Obama to do everything possible against the Iranian government. It's pure hypocrisy with a constant anti-Obama, anti-U.S. government theme.

[DevonRex]

10. For a few people here, whatever Obama does or does NOT do is wrong.

It's just a matter of them figuring out which way to attack him that would "justify" their totally bizarre and ignorant positions.

[uponit7771]

12. I agree there are some Freeper Undercovers here that give NO objective criticism but on some

...issues, like war or saber rattling, America has lost the benefit of the doubt.

This country has started too much shit with too many people that cost this country too much for what we've gotten out of it....no doubt.

[DevonRex]

14. America is no longer governed by Bush. Obama's hands and that of

the State Department, etc., cannot be tied by what Bush did. They have to deal with what is happening NOW and address those concerns as best they can. That is their sworn duty, as a matter of fact.

So, because Bush/Cheney were evil bastards, the people of hte United States no longer deserve any sort of defense? We cannot say what we think from now on because of them? They have forever silenced us? We're easy targets? We all deserve to die? What?

[uponit7771]

15. What Bush did can be placed at the hands of the American people who voted for him and who have the..

...ability to impeach him not it's leaders. If I were Iranian I couldn't absolve the American people from what Bush did regardless of the millions who fought against him through peaceful channels. This isn't China where we don't have a choice on who calls the shots...we do.

"...So, because Bush/Cheney were evil bastards, the people of the United States no longer deserve any sort of defense? ..."

K, DevonRex...strawman noted...I NEVER said we don't deserve defense just that we've LOST the benefit of the doubt on how much a country poses a threat to us due to a CONSISTENT past of getting threat assessment wrong and I don't think that's an unfair statement.

Again, Iran is NOT saying it opposes inspections just that it opposes the intrusive like inspections imposed on Iraq...can you blame them?

Obama's running thangs is an improvement when it comes to world relations but not the end of the matter...

[DevonRex]

17. That's NOT a strawman.

If we cannot, according to you, be given the benefit of the doubt about who to SAY is a threat to the US, then how, according to you, can we actively or forcefully DEFEND ourselves from that threat that you say we have no credibility on?

It seems to me that the only thing that would satisfy some people is a direct attack on the United States. Because, after all, we have no credibility BEFORE that, do we? We can't TALK about threats before they happen, because then we're JUST LIKE BUSH. Right?

[uponit7771]

19. Easy

"...If we cannot, according to you, be given the benefit of the doubt about who to SAY is a threat to the US, then how, according to you, can we actively or forcefully DEFEND ourselves from that threat that you say we have no credibility on?..."

Easy...Check and double check and triple check with an even hand not Pre Iraq war like inspections imposed on a nation who's democratically elected leaders we overthrew generations ago cause we didn't like ....whatever about them.

"...It seems to me that the only thing that would satisfy some people is a direct attack on the United States..."

I trust America's ability to respond to CREDIBLE threats when COMPETENT leadership is in charge more than I trust the ability for another nation to pose any significant harm to us.

"...Because, after all, we have no credibility BEFORE that, do we?..."

No,...we don't...and yes...that's how MUCH Bush fucked it up for everyone.

"...We can't TALK about threats before they happen, because then we're JUST LIKE BUSH. Right?..."

No, our agencies have to get their shit together before our notion of what a threat is can be taken seriously IMHO. While they're at it we can still check, double check and triple check before their assessments are taken at face value.

They've gotten a tone of things correct when it comes to national security but the fact that wars, like Iraq and other threat assessments (like USSR) can be politicized to the degree they do in this country means there needs to be some type of checks and balances in those agencies.

If there were checks and balances then I would expect the people in the agencies to be screaming by the thousands at what Bush was doing which was stating their assessments as unequivocal when they weren't.

[ProSense]

23. What?

No, our agencies have to get their shit together before our notion of what a threat is can be taken seriously IMHO.

Until you're satified that they have "their shit together," what do you propose they do: ignore threats?


Ridiculous.

[uponit7771]

27. I've already told you, check.....double check....and tripple check with an even hand. That is NOT...

...what is happening with Iran

[ProSense]

30. How the hell do you know they are not doing that?

You think Obama came out and made a statement because he has gut feeling?

[DevonRex]

33. LOL. They looked in their crystal ball and decided Obama is Bush.

[Cha]

43. Not me..I think PO is freakin'

micro-managing the situation.

[DevonRex]

24. You said that you believe we don't have any credibility on defense until we're attacked

because of Bush.

That ends my discussion with you.

[uponit7771]

26. Link and quote me...thx in advance

[DevonRex]

28. Here is is. Guess you have a very short memory since it's just above.

Here is where You quoted My question to you:

"...Because, after all, we have no credibility BEFORE that, do we?..."

And here is Your answer to My question:

"No,...we don't...and yes...that's how MUCH Bush fucked it up for everyone."

[dionysus]

58. BUT, you point that out and here come the lame cheerleader jokes and brownshirt references.

projection is awesome.

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. They worked against South Africa

[invictus]

6. Iran has not committed a single violation.

Iran has every right to enrich uranium for energy generation.

[ProSense]

7. "Iran has every right to enrich uranium for energy generation." Yes they do.

So inspections are not a problem, right?

[uponit7771]

9. Nope, can those "inspections" be no more intrusive than any other country?

See, our news is filtered and usually we can NEVER present the other persons perspective...

[ProSense]

11. This isn't about the U.S. media.

Do you really believe that the MSM is the only source of world news? If that was the case, no one would have a clue as to what Bush was really up to.

[uponit7771]

13. My point was few people can offer Irans perspective because they don't know it due to under reportin

...of their side of the story.

Iran has a cogent argument; they're open to inspections (no one has EVER claimed they weren't) as long as the inspections aren't any more intrusive than any other nation and the inspections that the "west" are pushing for are waaaaay more intrusive than the rest of the free world has to go through.

America has lost the benefit of the doubt when calling an enemy and an enemy, I don't want a nuked up middle east either but after Bush what can we expect?

[ProSense]

16. "Iran has a cogent argument; they're open to inspections"

Who said they would be more intrusive? They have to comply with IEAE standards.

"America has lost the benefit of the doubt when calling an enemy and an enemy"

And regaining it means being derelict to our responsibilities as a member of the world community?

This is a Bush-whipped mentality. As DevonRex indicated above, Obama's hands can't be tied because Bush was evil.

[DevonRex]

18. As I said before, some people think we have no right to defend ourselves

anymore because of Bush. If we have no credibility in just talking about threats, then I guess we can only respond after a direct attack. Maybe they'd think we had credibility then. But then maybe not.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Yes, that's what the defense contracting industries via the M$M tells us to do: Protect ourselves

by making them even MORE filthy rich off of weapons of death and destruction.

[ProSense]

25. And there is still no explanation on the hypocrisy surrounding the Iran elections.

We're supposed to threaten the Iran government over its election, but nuclear arms, pffft!

[ShortnFiery]

29. Yes! Our elections in 2000 and 2004 were NOT fair but I didn't hear any threats from the

outside world. :eyes:

[ProSense]

32. What the hell are you talking about? The American left was demanding the U.S. intervene.

You're confused.

[DevonRex]

31. They'll ignore that as usual. Can't expect honesty, you know.

[ShortnFiery]

34. It's not like the USA has been honest with either it's people or the world.

We have a shitty track record. Just because we have a President who can string a sentence or two together and is magnanimous can not detract from the fact that we invaded and still occupy two Muslim countries.

We have no clout. We're RESPECTED. However, by many within the world this is based on FEAR and LOATHING.

Sure, be proud, but realize that we do NOT hold any moral high ground.

With the USA, Might means Right. No more - No less.

[DevonRex]

35. This is not the Bush administration. zzzzzz.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Believe it or not, a new President in the WH does not erase the slate re: Foreign Relations.

We help overturn a democratically elected President in Iran in 1953. The Iranians have long memories because the Shah was a brutal thug, in addition to being a puppet of the USA.

We have ZERO moral standing ... we only rule by fear and threats.

Whether it's Bush swaggering or President Obama presenting a cogent speech, the TRUE message is clear:

The USA has the mightiest Army in the world and YOU will do what we say ... OR ELSE!

[ProSense]

40. Says who?

You?

THE NATION'S GLOBAL STANDING....

It was fairly common last fall to consider America's standing in the world in the context of the U.S. presidential election. It was largely a given that the Bush/Cheney administration was not respected in much of the world, and had done considerable damage to our reputation. President Obama was poised to improve our standing and undo some of went wrong.

Obama has only been in office for six months, but for the most part, it seems the early international signals are encouraging.

A new global survey has found a vast improvement in views of the United States since the election of President Barack Obama. But it also finds broad opposition to one of his key policies -- sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and confirms a drop in confidence in the United States among Israelis.

Mr. Obama, according to the survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, enjoys greater confidence among Germans than does Chancellor Angela Merkel, and among the French than President Nicolas Sarkozy. His election in itself, pollsters found, helped restore the United States' image abroad to levels unseen since the Clinton years.

Improved attitudes toward the United States were most marked in Western Europe, but also evident in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as some predominantly Muslim countries.

In some cases, the improvements in American credibility were almost hard to believe. In England, for example, just 16% of Britons trusted the U.S. leaders to do the "right thing" in world affairs last year. Now, the number is 86%. The increase "was slightly larger in both Germany and France," the NYT added.

The results were not universally positive, and in some Middle Eastern countries, anti-American animosity remains high. However, confidence that the United States will do the "right thing" improved in every Middle Eastern country involved in the study -- except Israel, which the numbers were largely the same as last year -- and for the first time since Pew began asking, "people in Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia -- all predominantly Muslim nations -- expressed greater confidence in the American president than in Osama bin Laden."

Obviously, those numbers can change. What's more, while Americans have transitioned from post-election excitement to the hard slog of governing during a deep recession, international audiences are very likely immune to the day-to-day challenges in U.S. politics.

That said, for those who hoped to see America's standing improve with the change in administrations, we appear to be taking steps in the right direction.

[DevonRex]

41. LOL. Says "them." And "they" are such athorities, doncha know?

[ShortnFiery]

42. Says every MILITARY dalliance within our history since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

[ProSense]

48. Don't be ridiculous. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

54. I know the list is quite breath taking in length, but it's far from ridiculous. n/t

[uponit7771]

22. Blix did, everyone who's looked at the demands have...

Theses guys have - http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4984

and anyone reading the stipulations on what Iran has to go through...

"...And regaining it means being derelict to our responsibilities as a member of the world community?..."

No, just check, double check, triple checks with an even hand.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Paddle faster I hear banjos

--er--drums...

...war drums.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

38. "bomb, bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran." Moronic. n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

46. is there a single democrat you like? because all you do is trash dems here.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

47. Stupid ass comment.

[karynnj]

52. Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.

Kerry's threat is the imposition of sanctions - and he prefers diplomacy to that.

[BeyondGeography]

45. Obama started the week by pulling the plug on BushCo's missile shield

And it is now clear that a key part of that decision was to start building a foundation for a strong and broad diplomatic offensive against Iran. All you have to do is read Medvedev's comments about Obama this week to understand that he has arrived at this moment with the greatest amount of non-military leverage possible to begin the process of defusing this threat. The sky-is-falling types should be cheering him, but instead they call him a warmonger. Fools.

[ProSense]

51. Seriously, all one has to do is

look at the G 20 world leaders, from Argentina to the UK, to see the new level of cooperation and mutual respect since Obama took office.

[DevonRex]

53. Yes, they are fools. Yet they seem to think they know something nobody

else knows. And they seem to think that because of Bush, we have no credibility at all anymore and the only time we can do anything regarding national or international security is when we're attacked.

[karynnj]

55. Exactly

If you want more backup for that point of view, here is a SFRC hearing where the need to get Russia and China on board to make a serious sanctions threat was discussed by Nikolas Burns. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090506a.html

This is a fascinating hearing - the first half, not related to this issue, was with Morgenthau who closed BCCI, partly because of information from Kerry.

[BeyondGeography]

60. It's the right strategy; and it doesn't just target the nuclear threat, it undermines Ahmedinejad

in the eyes of his own people, so you end up with a long-term solution. Attack him militarily, and he's a hero again. Weaken his government politically and economically, and he (and his aggressive ambitions) go away. The right calculations and decisions have been made, and our President has credibility. I am optimistic.

[karynnj]

61. Same here

In addition, with the stepped up rhetoric and this disclosure, which was guaranteed, to heat things up. Iran has been a powder keg since Obama took office and this is an attempt to not just avoid setting it off, but to defuse it.

[dionysus]

56. i agree with this, but must ask the question;

is there any scintilla of proof iran is out to make bombs?

i would think any country has a right to use nuclear energy for electricity, we would be assholes denying anyone that.

that said, not good practice to let them build bombs.

*that* said, even if they did have a bomb, does anyone really think they'd use it for more than invasion deterrence?

[ProSense]

59. Senator Kerry has been consistent on this issue.

Kerry labels long standing demand that Iran stop enriching uranium as ”ridiculous”

[dionysus]

63. i know that, i'm not knocking john in any way for his statement.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

64. Right on time to stoke up the FEAR. Our "intelligence" agencies uncover another message from ...

wait for it ..... yes, Osama Bin Laden.

The ruling elite doesn't have any creativity nor any shame. :eyes:

[DevonRex]

65. Seriously hon, you're fighting against the LAST president still. It's over.

You're like those Japanese soldiers on some island in teh Pacific who didn't know that WWII was over decades later.

[dionysus]

66. obama is a rovian plot. don't be one of the sheeple. you have blood on your hands.

:P

[DevonRex]

68. Is this when we're all supposed to fall on our swords or something

because we're all guilty of something? Or is it that we're supposed to paint huge targets on our roofs? Never can keep it straight...

[ShortnFiery]

70. No, keep making the MI complex contractors filthy rich.

Have they mentioned that there are more civilian contractors than military in Afghanistan at the present time?

[DevonRex]

72. Focus, dear, focus. One conspiracy theory at a time or your brain'll splode!

[ShortnFiery]

75. No, it's not a conspiracy to state the FACT that we spent more on the military this year

than last.

You want to believe everything that is fed to you by our leaders now that Obama is President.

Enjoy your deluded world.

[SIMPLYB1980]

78. Yes we must all commit hari kari right now.

It's the only way to make up for all the blood and dishonor on our hands.

[DevonRex]

81. ...

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

69. We all have blood on our hands. The peoples of the Middle East want us to

pack up our empire out of two of their sovereign nations. THEN, perhaps we'd take their threats as "genuine concern" instead of a ploy to get at Iran's vast Oil fields.

Hum, does anybody wonder if this TOUGH language from the US has anything to do with Iran switching it Oil revenues from dollars to Euros?

[ShortnFiery]

67. No baby, the foreign relations slate is not wiped clean for the rest of the world at the mere

presence of a new President. The machinery of the MI complex will NOT be denied.

[DevonRex]

71. Darlin' Bush's presidency is over, just like WWII is. No matter how

hard the generals wanted to fight WWII again in Vietnam, it didn't do them one speck of good, now did it?

[ShortnFiery]

73. No, this is not over. With regard to foreign relations we are right on track to suit

the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives ... who are all going to "make a killing" in the stock market.

Cha Ching!

And far too many people are going to willingly give 700++ of our tax dollars each year ... all to supposedly keep us safe.

It's a game to them.

[ProSense]

79. Oh BS. You are just spewing nonsense. n/t

[burning rain]

74. Is that Kerry's everyday title now--"Chairman"?

lulz.

[karynnj]

80. When he issues statements on foreign relations, yes

However, in person, he likely answers to "John" or "Senator"

[burning rain]

83. You don't think he gets that title over breakfast?

Teresa: "May I have the pepper, Chairman?"

[SIMPLYB1980]

76. Then Kerry is a warmonger.

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

82. Yeah, and so is Feingold. n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

77. The hypocrisy is blinding...nt