Kerry: 'Do what we must' to stop Iran on nukes

[jimnyc]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry, President Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of state, said Thursday that the United States will "do what we must" to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon even as he signaled that diplomacy remains a viable option with Tehran.

Testifying at his confirmation hearing, and with Senate approval a foregone conclusion, Kerry addressed a range of concerns raised by members of the Foreign Relations Committee, from his past outreach to Syrian President Bashar Assad to GOP concerns about the nomination of Republican former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.

"The president has made it definitive — we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Kerry said in his opening statement. "I repeat here today: Our policy is not containment. It is prevention, and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance."

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-must-sto...-politics.html

[red states rule]

Based on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign will that include obtaining a permission slip from the UN?

[jafar00]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.

[jimnyc]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.

At this point, what do you propose the US does with NK? Our stance is no different with them, but they have them already. Preventing Iran from getting that far is a totally different animal.

[aboutime]

Do what you must with Iran that doesn't have nukes, nor missiles that can reach the US, nor have they directly threatened the US except for retaliation if attacked, while DPRK has missiles that can reach the US and has successfully tested Nuclear Weapons and has directly threatened the US. And DPRK doesn't garner the same if not more attention? Sometimes US logic escapes me.

jafar. You tell us you live in Australia? Take a good look at a Globe, or Map that shows the differences in Distance....via a N.K. Missile between the U.S.A. and Australia.

After thinking about how much closer YOU are. Tell us WHO should be paying MORE ATTENTION?

And tell us what LOGIC is involved with North Korea as you denounce, or ask silly questions about US logic???

[red states rule]

Kerry will have the same policy with the Iran as he did with all terrorists in 2004

[taft2012]

Based on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign will that include obtaining a permission slip from the UN?

Based on Joe Biden's 2012 Vice Presidential debate, the whole discussion should be dismissed with a loud guffaw and a "Ohhhh, there's nothing to worry about!"

[mundame]

I know what they are going to do: I figured out this whole kind of thing during the European Union crisis.

They will kick the can down the road into the next administration.

Because the rule for all politicians is never be proactive, only react to an actual crisis in the moment.

This is because trying to solve an incipient crisis often brings it on, is unpopular, or causes worse trouble. Like when the Federal Reserve tried to stop the stock market's crazy bubble rise in the summer of 1928. The market reacted so strongly by falling a lot that they backed off and no federal reserve board has ever interfered that way again, including the latest bubble that broke in 2008. Let things happen as they will, THEN react: at least then you can't be blamed.

They will do nothing until war has already started and Israel or the U.S. is bombed, or some other serious move has been made, as when Saddam moved into Kuwait.

Moving to solve a problem in advance often works out poorly, as when Bush Jr. decided taking out Saddam entirely would be a GOOD thing to do. Whoops, that didn't work well. Bogged down for ten years and lost.

And I think that makes a lot of sense, because often things solve themselves, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. So many people wanted to nuke them, but that turned out to be unnecessary. So they wait and wait until Hitler actually does invade Poland. It makes sense, really, because things we fear often don't happen at all, and things we never see coming blow up in a moment.

[taft2012]

Moving to solve a problem in advance often works out poorly, as when Bush Jr. decided taking out Saddam entirely would be a GOOD thing to do. Whoops, that didn't work well. Bogged down for ten years and lost.

Yes, Saddam is still ruling with an iron fist in Baghdad, sneering at us, and doing his victory dance at the end of a rope.

[mundame]

Yes, Saddam is still ruling with an iron fist in Baghdad, sneering at us, and doing his victory dance at the end of a rope.

It wasn't cost effective. And Iraq is a total mess and we didn't really get the bases we wanted, though we have an "embassy" that's a lot more than that.

The idea, I think, was to put the fear of God into the evil dictators who found our sanctions the fountain of youth. What was the phrase? Not decapitate....replace the leadership, anyway. Via, you know, death. Because sanctions were so very not working: see North Korea and Iran.

However, trying to bring down regimes while still fooling the people that they're our newest, bestest wittle friendsies didn't work either. And it's bankrupting our nation, all these many losing forever wars.

Sometimes you just can't solve the problem. So far, they haven't.

[taft2012]

It wasn't cost effective. And Iraq is a total mess and we didn't really get the bases we wanted, though we have an "embassy" that's a lot more than that.

The idea, I think, was to put the fear of God into the evil dictators who found our sanctions the fountain of youth. What was the phrase? Not decapitate....replace the leadership, anyway. Via, you know, death. Because sanctions were so very not working: see North Korea and Iran.

However, trying to bring down regimes while still fooling the people that they're our newest, bestest wittle friendsies didn't work either. And it's bankrupting our nation, all these many losing forever wars.

Sometimes you just can't solve the problem. So far, they haven't.

I wasn't aware that the margin between victory and defeat in a war was found in accountants' ledgers, and that not being "cost effective" was an indicator of defeat.

The idea.... was to carry forth what President Bush said after 9/11, that we were waging a war against terrorism, not necessarily governments. And that leaders who harbored terrorist organizations, but denied any link to them, were liable.

Was it successful? During this period Qadaffi felt the pressure and unilaterally surrendered his WMDS. Probably the oldest terrorist organization in the world, the Irish Republican Army, decommissioned itself. Two significant successes the liberal media was loathe to report and hopes were quickly forgotten.

What is truly bankrupting our country is our socialist programs. Programs that have never won, anywhere they were ever attempted. But that record of eternal failure never seems to sway the liberals in their eternal "war on poverty."

[mundame]

I wasn't aware that the margin between victory and defeat in a war was found in accountants' ledgers, and that not being "cost effective" was an indicator of defeat.

The idea.... was to carry forth what President Bush said after 9/11, that we were waging a war against terrorism, not necessarily governments. And that leaders who harbored terrorist organizations, but denied any link to them, were liable.

Was it successful? During this period Qadaffi felt the pressure and unilaterally surrendered his WMDS. Probably the oldest terrorist organization in the world, the Irish Republican Army, decommissioned itself. Two significant successes the liberal media was loathe to report and hopes were quickly forgotten.

What is truly bankrupting our country is our socialist programs. Programs that have never won, anywhere they were ever attempted. But that record of eternal failure never seems to sway the liberals in their eternal "war on poverty."

It was not cost effective AND we were defeated, twice. Not counting Vietnam, same thing, where we were supposed to have learned not to do this crazy stuff.

Sure, good idea, go after terrorists. So why not leave Afghanistan the moment we lost at Tora Bora? We knew he wasn't there, and he wasn't there. This whole idea of security colonization is a total screw-up. It does not work. Stop it and try something else. I'd be okay with actually going to war, REAL war, but not these half-hearted social work wars. Boy, do they not work. Boy, are they bankrupting us.

The Irish Republican Army deal has nothing whatsoever to do with us. And it will certainly spring up again: it has done so for....let's see, what's 2013 AD minus 800 AD? A long time.

Yes, Qaddafi was much impressed. I can't say that worked out well for him, or us, or anyone --- this week the news was full of France and Britain trying to get their citizens out of Benghazi fast because of the Algerian hostage crisis, which apparently is being run by the Libyan terrorists in Benghazi. I question saying anything whatsoever in that part of the world was "solved" by Bush's stupid Iraq war.

I agree with you about the socialist programs, of course. People here are trying to persuade me that is the whole problem with our deficits, but I don't believe it since historically, it's always the losing wars, wars, wars that collapse a nation's financial system. It's been a remarkably common event. There has only been one time before right now that social programs have collapsed a financial system (Germany, support for the miner strikers in the Ruhr, to avoid giving France coal for reparations. Collapsed the entire monetary system, 1923.) I need numbers, numbers.....you could be right, but I just don't believe all these pointless, off-budget ten-year wars aren't the reason we have overwhelming deficits. That was always what brought down the Henrys and Henris, for centuries.

[fj1200]

...you could be right, but I just don't believe all these pointless, off-budget ten-year wars aren't the reason we have overwhelming deficits. That was always what brought down the Henrys and Henris, for centuries.

[mundame]

Clicking on an emoticon is sure easier than doing the research to post figures to prove your point, isn't it?

Boy, I definitely sympathize with that.

I need to get me some good smilies so I never have to research any numbers.

[fj1200]

Clicking on an emoticon is sure easier than doing the research to post figures to prove your point, isn't it?

Boy, I definitely sympathize with that.

I need to get me some good smilies so I never have to research any numbers.

I already did the research, I already posted it for you in another thread, and you are already ignoring it when it's inconvenient.