The White House says Iran has one last chance

[Almighty Colin]

VOA News:

The White House says Iran has one last chance to meet its obligations under U.N. nuclear agreements, before the Security Council considers possible action. Diplomats say U.N. inspectors have found traces of weapons-grade uranium at a second site inside Iran.
Diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency say U.N. inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at an electricity plant west of Tehran that the government had previously said was a non-nuclear facility.

Earlier this year, U.N. inspectors found weapons-grade enriched uranium particles at a plant about 250 kilometers south of the capital. Responding to that finding, Iran said the material may have already been on the equipment when it was purchased outside the country.

Enriched uranium could be used to make nuclear weapons, and the U.N. agency has given Iran until the end of October to prove that it has no secret nuclear weapons program.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan says, if Tehran does not meet that deadline, the dispute should be brought before the U.N. Security Council.


Scott McClellan
"This is one last chance for Iran to comply, and if it doesn't, we believe it should be reported to the Security Council," he said.

The United Nations wants Iran to allow tougher inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran says it is only using nuclear material to generate electricity. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday that Iran will not abandon its uranium enrichment program because it is only for civilian purposes.

Mr. McClellan says the Bush administration believes Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, and is trying to hide that development from U.N. inspectors.

"These are part of a long-standing pattern of evasion and deception to disguise the true nature and purpose of Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

The IAEA will consider a report on the state of Iran's nuclear program at its next board meeting November 20. It may then refer the case to the U.N. Security Council, which could recommend economic and political sanctions.

Iran says it will cut back its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency, because it says the October 31 deadline is politically motivated.

[[Labret]]

Good.

The sooner the manchild gets more American kids killed, the quicker he leaves office.

[Mike AI]

How many people are murdered everyday in the United States?

Right now more Americans are killed in New Orleans each day then Americans in COMBAT in Iraq.

The military is not some big summer camp program, it is an extension of US diplomacy. While it is not being reported, our troops ARE making a difference in Iraq, and the vast majority of Iraqies are happy we are there.

I know you have a hard time looking at the bigger picture, but try to grasp these concepts....

I know for some people the idea of Saddam back in power, and Iran with nuclear weapons sounds peachy keen... We are living in a world where only the United States is willing to hold up the bar... while everyone else shriks their responsibilities.

Wonder who will be crying the most when they get nuked from Iran or a terrorist that Iran supports...

Oh and a nice retort without including Zionism would be great!

[Nickatilynx]

Right now more Americans are killed in New Orleans each day then Americans in COMBAT in Iraq.

Oh come on.Thats too right wing even for me,and I always thought Thatcher was a pinko! LOL

How many Americans are in Irag, compared with NO?

An American is 60 times more likely to die violently in Iraq than in California,I believe.

Not incredibly high,but high-er. ;-)))

it is an extension of US diplomacy

Its the ultimate failure of diplomacy.



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Sep 25 2003, 01:53 PM

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Sep 25 2003, 04:52 PM

Oh come on.Thats too right wing even for me,and I always thought Thatcher was a pinko! LOL

How many Americans are in Irag, compared with NO?

An American is 60 times more likely to die violently in Iraq than in California,I believe.

Not incredibly high,but high-er. ;-)))

Its the ultimate failure of diplomacy.

NO has less people then Iraq!

Show me the info on Cali and Iraq... I do not beleive it.

War is not always a failure in policy - sometimes it is a necessity!

[PornoDoggy]

Gawdamitey ... [Labert] over here, Mikerone AI over there - it's a fucking Steeler's Wheel moment.

Trying to make some sense of it all
But I can see it makes no sense at all
....
Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

Mikey ... this may come as a real shock (or a real disappointment) to you, but it is possible to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration represents the worst possible mistakes in foreign policy since Vietnam and still not want Saddam back in power.

Another disappointing newsflash - real live genuine patriotic Americans have the right to question how and where those troops are deployed (even if you AND Rush AND Neil AND the ghost of John Fucking Birch don't like it). There are thinking, educated people who consider what you defend as "realpolitik" to be the failed policies of 19th century imperialism wrapped up in a Kissengeresque veneer of pragmatic power projection. These policies are all the more dangerous because many of the fundamental problems we are confronting in those areas of the world vulnerable to Islamic terrorists are the aftermath of both those eras/policies.


And come on - surely you must realize that arguements about the relative safety of Iraq compared to NO are pathetic in the extreme.

[Labret] - the laundry called. Sheets are ready, but they don't know if it's medium or heavy starch for the brown shirts.

[Mike AI]

PD you think I love Bush, but I think he has not done to well, ESPECIALLY when it comes to issues here at home.

With the war on Terror, he gets a B+ He would get a higher grade if he would be kicking more ass, stop defending the house of Saud, etc...

We are winning the war on terror.... no matter what the press says. We are being successful in Iraq.

[Mike AI]

PD read this interview of a Democrat who just came back from Iraq, from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/24/ltm.03.html

AMERICAN MORNING

Iraq & the Media

Aired September 24, 2003 - 08:34 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The mounting death toll, meanwhile, in Iraq among U.S. troops well documented; 166 U.S. soldiers dead there since the 1st of May. That's when the president declared major fighting over. But are reporters focusing too narrowly on the bad news in Iraq? That's a charge leveled by U.S. Representative Jim Marshall out of the state of Georgia. He wrote that in an op-ed column published this week by the "Atlanta Journal-Constitution." He's with us live in D.C.
Good morning, sir. Nice to have you with us.

REP. JIM MARSHALL, (D), GEORGIA: Happy to be here.

HEMMER: Also in our studio, CNN's Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf, who will be going back to the Iraqi capital in about a week's time.

Nice to see you, Jane. Good morning.

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Thanks, Bill.

HEMMER: First to the Congressman, your main accusation says essentially that the negative reporting could lead to the deaths of more U.S. service members. Explain how you see that logic and that parallel, sir.

MARSHALL: Well, this is a guerrilla conflict, and we can't win it without the Iraqis stepping forward. We can't force freedom on them. They've got to take it for themselves. Their willingness to step forward and take chances is going to depend an awful lot upon how they perceive things going. If the media is painting a bleak picture, they're apt to see things fairly bleakly. If we're discouraged, if we're not resolute, they're apt to see things pretty bleakly. They don't come forward, they don't give us intelligence information, they don't fight. The consequences to us are pretty bad.

HEMMER: So you're saying the negative news, negative headlines encourages more terrorist activity?

MARSHALL: There's no question that it does that and will over the course of time do that. Americans need to think about this as they think about their nightly news and local TV stations and front pages of newspapers. If you think about it, in most communities, that's awfully negative stuff, and yet people can -- they have a sense that that doesn't really paint a fair picture of our community and what's really going on. In Iraq, it's a similar sort of thing. I don't think there's any grand conspiracy here. I think it's the tendency of media to focus on the negative, because the negative sells, and we need to be aware of that. To the extent the media can change and start showing a little bit more of the picture, that would be great. But at the very least, Americans need to know things are going better in Iraq than is depicted on our television screens.

HEMMER: I understand your point.

You're back from Baghdad. Do you see his point, and does he have a fair point?

ARRAF: I think he certainly has a fair point in that it's a very complicated situation, and everyone's trying to figure out the best way forward in something that's still very volatile. I don't really think that the terrorists are really watching the media, listening very much. I don't think that's really affecting them. And I think it really does a disservice, Bill, to the Iraqi people to think that if we have more good news stories, then their confidence will increase. That's really not the problem.

HEMMER: Let me share with our viewers quickly a part of what the Congressman wrote. We'll put it up on the screen He says, "I'm afraid the news media hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with the rest of the story, the progress made daily, the good news."

Why is it that we only hear about shootings on a daily basis and not about the school that's being rebuilt or the water treatment plant that's now been re-established or things of that nature, like a hospital?

ARRAF: There are small bits of good news, and we do try to do them, and everyone who's there tries to do a balanced picture. But I don't think we can forget that this is against the backdrop of something that cannot be seen as other than bad news. American servicemen are dying, Iraqis are afraid, and it's really only when you've been there, as we have, and as the representative have, that you get a sense of it.

But one of the things I have to say, as well, is that most congressional delegations who have come to Iraq do not even spend the night. They consider it too unsafe and they go back to Kuwait for the night, which is really an indication. We can't be overly -- we can't paint a rosier picture than exists. And the reality is, it is pretty bleak there.

HEMMER: Yes, Congressman, there are some new poll numbers that came out from the folks at Gallup earlier today. Listen to some of the numbers that they're putting out. Only 33 percent in Baghdad of those surveyed say they're better off now than before the war. 94 percent say their city is more dangerous now. Yet -- and here's a positive note here -- 62 percent do think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the effort. Does that, those poll numbers that you're watching, especially 94 percent, do they not reflect the reality on the ground in Iraq today?

MARSHALL: There's no question that it is dangerous in Iraq today, and it's dangerous for the people of Iraq, in part, because Saddam released an awful lot of criminals before the end of the conventional part of this war. Zogby took a poll, 70 percent of the folks that Zogby polled said that allied forces need to stay there for a year. Think about 774 embedded journalists. That's the total. I think the high point toward the embedded journalists during the conventional part of the conflict spread them out over the military forces in Iraq today, have them send videos, news articles home, and I think what you'd find is an awful lot of that 90 percent of those journalists would not be seeing mayhem, they'd be seeing progress.

And there are literally thousands of stories of progress that can be given. We're headed in a good direction. This is not an ideal situation. Nobody wants to spend this kind of money in support of this effort.

But the fact of the matter is, we've got an opportunity to do an immeasurable amount of good to our national security if we're successful here. We need to stay the course. The key to the deal is whether or not Iraqis step forward and secure their own freedom. We can't force them to do that. If they do that, then this is something that we'll look back on and say was a wise thing to do, to stay in there and try to secure a secular representative government in this country.

HEMMER: Understood. About 10 seconds left. Final thought on what he said.

ARRAF: Just Representative Marshall's thought on more embedding, I don't think that's the solution. With embedding, journalists -- putting them with the military, you get narrower coverage, and you get the purely military picture. That is not what we need. We need wider coverage, we need journalists out there with Iraqis.

HEMMER: You be safe when you go back Baghdad.

ARRAF: Thank you so much.

HEMMER: Jane Arraf, our bureau chief in Iraq.

And, Congressman Jim Marshall, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

MARSHALL: Sure.

HEMMER: Out of the state of Georgia, with us today from Washington D.C.

[PornoDoggy]

Mike ... I don't care if it's presented by a Democrat or a Republican, the idea that telling more good news about what is going on in Iraq will somehow deter terrorism is every bit as intellectually weak as your "more people die in NO" arguement. Grasping at straws, my friend.

Most arguements that we are "winning" the war on terror are made by the very same people who declare that this is a long war unlike any that we've ever seen before. It's way too early to tell HOW we are doing in the war on terror. It remains to be seen if the war in Iraq had any relationship with the war on terror in the beginning, and it will be years before we see if the tactical victory against Saddam was a defeat in the war on terror.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 25 2003, 01:00 PM
it is an extension of US diplomacy.

'US diplomacy' is an oxymoron.

[XXXManager]

PD.
For you to claim that a policy is the worst you should offer a better one.
But for someone else to prove your claim is wrong, he/she just have to point out a worse one. Just one.
So lets take any.
Any policy until now that the US had only kept the Middle east in his favorable terrorist hive status.
Clinton's policy of embracing Arafat making him a "legitimate '''elected''' leader", staying out of things that are "not his business" like the dark regimes in the middleeast and other places around the world didn't help you avoid the 9/11. Afaik it only made it possible.

If you suggest keep staying away and wait for that "side of the world" to start loving you, force the creation of a palestinian state with no law or order in, ran by a terrorist leader (which will only turn into another black country who hates the US for being a western democracy) and support international terrorism, weakening the US industry and big companies (to create a more 'fair' environment [not that I don't think it is these days though]), allow everyone around the world to have his nuclear enabled dictatorship...

What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?

[[Labret]]

And come on - surely you must realize that arguements about the relative safety of Iraq compared to NO are pathetic in the extreme.

You just got to let statements with analogies like that stand alone. They speak volumes about the cognitive abilities (or lack thereof) of the person making them.

[Labret] - the laundry called. Sheets are ready, but they don't know if it's medium or heavy starch for the brown shirts.

Bout time.

Ill send my nigger right over with instructions and to pick up the rest of the order.

Wonder who will be crying the most when they get nuked from Iran or a terrorist that Iran supports...

Crying? The only tears you will see are tears of joy streaming down my cheeks as I watch the sheep bleat and cower in fear. Their delicate little world destroyed, decades of consumer diplomacy come home to roost. Protect us o' beloved manchild, kill more of the angry brown men who worship the same God differently than we do. That will make them stop wont it?

Well... odds are they will be using it on Americans or Zionists, in either case it is a win / win.

Oh and a nice retort without including Zionism would be great!

doh, you got me. You and Buff must have a mind meld going. You are on fire.



Last edited by [Labret] at Sep 25 2003, 05:38 PM

[XXXManager]

Labret
Go back to GFY

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 04:54 PM


What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?

riiiiiight

Our "diplomacy" has kept your theocratic welfare state afloat and inflamed the middle east.

Want to solve a huge part of the problem with sand niggers wanting to kill Americans?

Stop supporting Israel and let the Arabs wipe them off the planet.

They will then inevitably turn on each other as they always have. Let the middle east descend into chaos. If they are busy killing each other they are not killing fat stupid Americans right?

But then again, that is why we liberated Iraq right? We hated seeing Saddam treat his people like shit. They need to be like us. Colonialism is the only way. No that never backfires. Ask France and England.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY

Can you explain to me how you can support a zionist state and at the same time condone working in pornography? I am confused, please help me to understand.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Sep 26 2003, 01:36 AM-->