Bush, Putin: Iran Should Not Have Nukes

[cthrumatrix]

Bush, Putin: Iran Should Not Have Nukes

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia - Seeking common ground amid sensitive differences on democracy, President Bush (news - web sites) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) agreed Thursday on new efforts to keep nuclear arms away from terrorists as well as sovereign nations like Iran (news - web sites) and North Korea (news - web sites).


"We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that," Bush said. "We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush


Russia IS the country helping Iran build their nuclear power plants with the spent fule going back to Russia.

This information is not good if George wants to BOMB Iran anyway.

[LiberalEsto]

1. Bush, Putin should not have nukes...

I wouldn't even trust them with slingshots

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. Pea shooters are even questionable... n/t

[ananda]

2. what a joke!

They *agree* that Iran and NK should not have nucular weapons? Make me laugh more and my side will really split.

NK already has them, dummy... and nothing will stop Iran from making one, it's already started, and little agreements that it shouldn't don't matter one jot. I'm glad, because little countries have no other effective means of deferring insane bullies like Bush.

Sue

[Megahurtz]

3. Bushitler is just looking for an excuse that will "look good"

to the ignorant public to go ahead and attack Iran. He already has his mind made up but is afraid of appearing stupid doing it.

Doesn't he know he looks stupid anyway?

[cthrumatrix]

5. the press conf. was an absolute hoot -- Russia calling out OUR press

and freedom in the press...LOL

[Tempest]

4. Putin once again gets the best of Bush

Putin agrees Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but doesn't address Iran having nuclear plants for energy production.

Bush is such a moron.

[aden_nak]

6. This is coming from Bush, who I wouldn't trust with the remote control.

[lebkuchen]

7. Bush said the exact same thing to "Gerhard"

Europe is taking bush for a ride.

[cthrumatrix]

9. IF Iran doesn't have nukes ? Can or will Bush attack Iran?

all this posturing could backfire

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. You have to hand it to Putin

He's never said they should have nuclear weapons. Quick reminder here; it was the 18th of this month when Putin said they were not developing nuclear weapons. He is helping them build the nuclear reactors, however.

Bush is the one saying its a precursor to weapons and must be stopped. Sounds to me like Bush didn't get his way, again. :eyes:

[shantipriya]

11. Iran should not have nukes

Why does USA & Russia have them? What a hypocritical position.After what we did to Iraq, why wouldn't any nation try to protect itself from warmongers like us?

[oasis]

12. Putin overtakes Bush as the master of doublespeak. (eom)

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Expanded Putin remarks here

"We are not going to make up, to invent any kind of special Russian democracy, we're going to remain committed to the fundamental principles of democracy that have been established in the world," he said. "But of course, all the modern institutions of democracy, the principles of democracy should be adequate to the current status of the development of Russia, to our history and our traditions.

"Both leaders said they also had agreed that North Korea and Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bush had said all week on his first trip to Europe since his re-election that he would press Mr. Putin on his reasons for his retreat from democratic reforms. He is on his final day of a four-day trip to Europe intended to repair relationships ruptured after the war with Iraq.

"Russian officials had also said that Mr. Putin could challenge Mr. Bush on his own concerns about the actions of the United States around the world and the American election system.

"Bush administration officials have suggested that such concerns include the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the disputed 2000 election in which Mr. Bush became president by a single vote of the Surpreme Court."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/international/europe/24cnd-prex.html?ex=1109912400&en=d4ca866d2ea71511&ei=5053&partner=NYTHEADLINES_HP

</snip>

Does anybody else find the use of the qualifier "modern institutions of democracy" intriguing? And then he says these are adequate for Russia, meaning what? Not ideal? How can democracy be adequate unless it's a watered down version like the kind Georgey is spreading around the world? Could just be me but Putin is a cryptic kind of guy.

[Igel]

14. I can't find the quote in Russian (and am going to look a bit

further), but "adequate" may be a goofball translation.

And since there are ancient institutions of democracy ... on the other hand, "modern" is pretty much a throw-away word.

My hunch is that he's saying what's obvious for a number of countries: you don't usually go from totalitarianism to a completely open system overnight. But I want to see the quote.

Edited to add: http://www.interfax.ru/r/B/politics/2.html?id_issue=10753553


"Bratislava, 24 February. Interfax. Russ. Federation Pres. Vladimir Putin affirmed that Russia's choosing of democracy is final. 'Russia independently made the decision to choose democracy 14 years ago, without any external pressure. She made the choice in her own interests, for herself, in the interest of her people, her citizens. This choice is final; there is, and will be, no going back", V. Putin stated at a press-conference at the conclusion of the Russia-US summit in Bratislava on Thursday. In his opinion, "nobody outside can provide any guarantees concerning this process. I must say that it is impossible." "Because of the internal condition of Russian society it is simply impossible to turn towards a totalitarian system."

Hmm... A Putinesque "3rd way"?
(edited yet again to remove the Russian original ...)

[daleo]

15. Comical - Bush (U.S.) and Putin (U.S.S.R./Russia) lecturing others

These countries have been directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of the warfare and weapons development of the last 6 decades or so. They are hardly in a position to lecture other countries about war, peace, and weaponry.

[Deja Q]

16. Just wait until putin agrees with * that Syria shouldn't have any...

Didn't Russia recently sell some nuke-related stuff TO Syria?