He only has to look to his father. :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandogge
They seem to both be good at making bad situations even worse. :D
Printable View
He only has to look to his father. :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandogge
They seem to both be good at making bad situations even worse. :D
I think that it is you who are naive. The obvious move would be to give them our nukes (admittedly it may be too late to do that now). That way we could use markers in the metal so we would know if they nuked us. The reason for this is that they may dismantle the nuke and ship a warhead back to us. We give them the nukes and completely undercut Russia and China, while pressuring our ally (Israel) to finally deal decisively with the Palestinians. We also make an ally, strategically way more important than Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Mutually Assured Destruction works only if you can identify who nuked you. The situation now is that any number of countries can nuke us and we would not know who it was. This is thanks to the Raygun administration and their multi-billion dollar star wars boondoggle. They actually released a multi-million dollar study (that perhaps only one other country (Russia) was capable of producing) that stated missiles were only one of many means of delivering a nuke, publicly. Now of course, the probability of another country nuking us has grown exponentially. While financially damaging us, they could simply lay the blame at the terrorists feet. To be frank, you are completely blind to how dire the situation is in reality.
I hadn't realized that Summit and Blurred had set up a geopolitcal think tank in Summit County. Have to look for some of their policy papers in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Colorado is right down the road from Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Gotz
It makes total sense.
How exactly did we make this bed when nearly the entire Iranian nuclear infrastructure was acquired from Russia (they sold Iran the Bushehr reactor, among other things) and Pakistan (who themselves got the tech from China). The US has had absolutely nothing to do with this clusterfuck, and in fact have stepped back to support the efforts of the UK, France and Germany to negotiate a reasonable solution over the last two years. That path has now been proven to be fools' gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
Folks, obviously Bush, Rummy and the rest of the idiots in that cabal are not exactly the second coming of George F. Kennan. But how about not reflexively insisting that things must be our fault when shit goes down overseas? If you think that the US is somehow responsible for the crap Iran is pulling, you're just stupid and uninformed.
Obviously you forget about the time I hacked into NORAD with my home computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedem
Or maybe that was Matthew Broderick? I forget now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
ahmen to that
Wow. Was this a joke? Am I missing the sarcasm? You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Weapons grade nuclear material can only be produced in a select few locations. Each of those locations, due to peculiarities in their enrichment process or the type of uranium ore they are using, leaves a distinct "fingerprint" on their product. In the event of a nuclear blast domestically, we would very quickly be able to determine where this stuff was produced and subsequently track it through to where it came from. The notion that we should provide the Iranians with nukes to undercut someone else is hysterical, or at least it would be if it wasn't such a dangerously bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Budget
And I love how it's the Regan administrations fault for releasing this "top secret" information that a nuke could be delivered in ways other than a missile. Someone should alert the Japanese Imperial Army about that, b/c I heard from a friend that we might use a couple nukes on their cities w/o the use of missiles. Who would have possibly thought of the idea of delivering a nuke via clandestine means!!?? [Guiness ad] brilliant![/Guiness ad]
TW has put in a solid performance, and is now 2 for 2 in the pure pwnage department.
You mean the contras, meddling in other countries business, playing both sides for years, supporting terrorist regimes, and being general foreign policy RETARDS had nothing to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
What fucking planet are you on again?
The fact is (true or not) much of the world sees the U.S. as a hegemonic aggressor. What is a way to prevent that military aggression? Nukes. In this context, it makes perfect sense for the governments of Iran, North Korea, et al, to seek nuclear weapons to, in their eyes, deter U.S. aggression. Would the U.S. have invaded Iraq if Sadaam was sitting on means to obliterate Tel Aviv?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
Of course not. We went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, which nukes aren't...........uh, wait they are. ok, nevermind. you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheDutchie
Really? That's news to everyone but you. The US is in fact still a signatory to this treaty. It has, however, dropped out of the ABM treaty, if that's what you were referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
Or maybe you thought we live in North Korea, in which case then, yes, we have dropped out of the NPT.
How am I wrong? We knew Iraq had no nuclear weapons. If you can think clearly for a second, the reason for the present crisis vis a vis Iran is due to the fact that we want to prevent them from having such weaponry--precisely because, once they cross that threshold, our hands our tied in relation to our military capabilities in dealing with them. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
I love editorials:
Bad for America, Bad for the World
US Nuclear Hypocrisy
By DAVID KRIEGER
Every five years the parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet in a review conference to further the non-proliferation and disarmament goals of the treaty. This year the conference ended in a spectacular failure with no final document and no agreement on moving forward. For the first ten days of the conference, the US resisted agreement on an agenda that made any reference to past commitments.
The failure of the treaty conference is overwhelmingly attributable to the nuclear policies of the Bush administration, which has disavowed previous US nuclear disarmament commitments under the treaty. The Bush administration does not seem to grasp the hypocrisy of pressing other nations to forego their nuclear options, while failing to fulfill its own obligations under the disarmament provisions of the treaty.
The treaty is crumbling under the double standards of American policy, and may not be able to recover from the rigid "do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do" positions of the Bush administration. These policies are viewed by most of the world as high-level nuclear hypocrisy.
Paul Meyer, the head of Canada's delegation to the treaty conference, reflected on the conference, "The vast majority of states have to be acknowledged, but we did not get that kind of diplomacy from the US." Former UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook also singled out the Bush administration in explaining the failure of the conference. "How strange," he wrote, "that no delegation should have worked harder to frustrate agreement on what needs to be done than the representatives of George Bush."
What the US did at the treaty conference was to point the finger at Iran and North Korea, while refusing to discuss or even acknowledge its own failure to meet its obligations under the treaty. Five years ago, at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the parties to the treaty, including the US, agreed to 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. Under the Bush administration, nearly all of these obligations have been disavowed.
Although President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, the Bush administration does not support it and refused to allow ratification of this treaty, which is part of the 13 Practical Steps, to even be discussed at the 2005 review conference. The parties to the treaty are aware that the Bush administration is seeking funding from Congress to continue work on new earth penetrating nuclear weapons ("bunker busters"), while telling other nations not to develop nuclear arms.
They are also aware that the Bush administration has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue a destabilizing missile defense program, and has not supported a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, although the US had agreed to support these treaties in the 13 Practical Steps.
The failure of this treaty conference makes nuclear proliferation more likely, including proliferation to terrorist organizations that cannot be deterred from using the weapons. The fault for this failure does not lie with other governments as the Bush administration would have us believe. It does not lie with Egypt for seeking consideration of previous promises to achieve a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
Nor does the fault lie with Iran for seeking to enrich uranium for its nuclear energy program, as is done by many other states, including the US, under the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would no doubt be preferable to have the enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium, both of which can be used for nuclear weapons programs, done under strict international controls, but this requires a change in the treaty that must be applicable to all parties, not just to those singled out by the US.
Nor can the fault be said to lie with those states that, having given up their option to develop nuclear weapons, sought renewed commitments from the nuclear weapons states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. It is hard to imagine a more reasonable request. Yet the US has refused to relinquish the option of first use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear weapons states.
The fault for the failure of the treaty conference lies clearly with the Bush administration, which must take full responsibility for undermining the security of every American by its double standards and nuclear hypocrisy.
The American people must understand the full magnitude of the Bush administration's failure at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. This may not happen because the administration has been so remarkably successful in spinning the news to suit its unilateralist, militarist and triumphalist worldviews.
As Americans, we can not afford to wait until we experience an American Hiroshima before we wake up to the very real dangers posed by US nuclear policies. We must demand the reversal of these policies and the resumption of constructive engagement with the rest of the world.
http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger05312005.html
you asked a simple question, and the US military had already answered it. Quit changing the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheDutchie
So the Iranians decided to build a nuclear bomb b/c we funded an insurgency on the border of Honduras and Nicaragua?Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
And since when don't powerful countries "meddle in other countries business"? I guess we should have just stuck to our own business when those pasky Germans were threatening the UK. Why should we have bothered with that whole Lend-Lease program to the Brits and Russia? Can't we just mind our own business??!!
Oh, and what of all the other countries out there who "mind their own buisness"? Let's see, just since WW2:
UK - created the Suez Canal crisis in 1956; occupied Sierra Leone in 2000 to halt a civil war; continues to support thugs in its former East African colonies (Kenya, Ethiopia)
France - fought vicious colonial wars in Algeria and Vietnam; has funded and defended thuggish regimes in its former West African colonies for decades (Algeria, Ivory Coast, Mali, Chad, Congo, C.A.R., among others)
Russia - continues to meddle in the affairs of nearly all of the former Soviet states; actively supports insurrections in Georgia (Abkhazia and Lower Ossetia) while supporting opposition in Ukraine and fomenting unrest in the Baltics, and most of the "Stans" in Central Asia. And as long as we're talkin' about old shit, invaded and occupied all of Central Europe (twice, in the case of Hungary and Czech) and Afghanistan. Supported the Serb regime of Slobodan Milosevic while he was busy slaughtering Bosnians, Kosovars and Croats.
China - invaded Vietnam in 1979 (got ass kicked); funded and supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, leading directly to the genocide of 2 million of that country's 6 million civilians; continues to press unfounded territorial claims with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Brunei; gave Pakistan nearly its entire nuclear infrastructure; continues to provide North Korea with free food and oil, thereby undercutting Western efforts to isolate the Hermit Kingdom.
And that's just what I could think of w/o any research. If you think the US is alone in interfering with other countries, you are either on crack, or just uniniformed. And if you think the Iranian nuclear program is somehow a response to the perceived threat from the Bush administration, how do you feel about your argument when you discover that this program actually began during the Clinton administration?
Got any more brilliant theories?
All this saber rattling regarding what should be done about Iran is ridiculous. Why do you think that Iran is so flagerantly flaunting these resolutions? Because the hard liners desperately need the US to take military action against them in order to rally the population around their failing policies and government.
Think about it. The Iranians are tremendously dissatisfied with the religious hardliners that control the country, and the Government knows it. The only way that they have been abe to gain any support is by blaming the west for holding them back from providing electricity for the country (henceforth nuclear energy). By casting these issues as a matter of nationalism, the clerics are able to replace their messages of religion with nationalism giving them greater legitimacy in the public sphere. Attacking Iran would be nothing if not the biggest victory we could ever hand fundementalism.
So instead what do we do? We do nothing, They are still YEARS away from procuring a bomb. If we don't attack them, the overwhelmingly young population of the country will eventually rise up for change (as they had begun to do in years past), and hopefully we can work with them in order to ease the nuclear tensions in the area.
Changing the subject? I made a post about why Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons and why the U.S. wanted to prevent them from doing so. I understand what you mean that Sadaam had the capability to destroy Tel Aviv ("the U.S. military answered it") --but lets not confuse the scale between a nuclear weapon (you know, what were talking about RE: Iran) and relatively paltry lethality and destructive nature of gaseous weapons (my argument would be that Sadaam def. DID NOT have the capability to destroy Tel Aviv and if he did the invasion of Iraq would not have occured). In any case, you are pretty much missing the point in regards to the efficacy of the different weapons and, therefore, the reason for the present crisis. Once a country, like N. Korea, develops a nuke, U.S. military options become much less tenable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
The US policy w/r/t the NPT is truly mindboggling in its stupidity. No arguments there. The free ride we've given to India this year will almost certainly reduce our already impaired legitimacy when it comes to the proliferation issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
But let's not kid ourselves w/r/t Iran. Their nuclear program started during the Clinton Administration, so it is fundamentally impossible for it to be a reaction to anything W has done. Second, the editorial implies that the author actually believes Iran's claim that the program is for civilian energy purposes. This theory would make sense if:
1) Iran wasn't sitting on the world's third (possibly second?) largest reserves of oil and second largest reserves of natural gas.
2) Iran hadn't already violated its obligations undert the NPT to open up its nuclear infrastructure to inspection by the IAEA. At every step, Iran has obfuscated and hidden the truth about the magnitude and purpose of its program. The only reason many of its facilities were discovered at all was due to the work of an Iranian opposition group. Sensible compromises offered by Russia to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia have been turned down. Why would you want to enrich the uranium yourself if your intentions are only to make reactor-grade uranium? You could get that from anyone.
But hey - if it makes you feel better to reflexively blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world, knock yourself out.
I agree that, like all govts, the Iranians are using this as a smokescreen to take the attention off their failing economic policies (though oil at $75/bbl helps to paper some of those problems over). OTOH, given that Katami and his ilk were routed in the recent elections, what makes you think there's going to be a swing back in the other direction? The liberal/moderate movement in Iran is effectively dead nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
Are you willing to bet your life on the prospect of the young Iranians voting the mullahs out of power in 5 years? If so, let's play poker at my place sometime.
Don't kid yourself. US options w/r/t North Korea are greatly reduced only b/c Seoul is 20 miles from the DMZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheDutchie
Katami wasn't beaten because he was a reformer, but because he stood idly by while the government cracked down viciously on the Universities, the press and all reforms around the country; hereby losing the publics confidence. (not to mention the widespread allegations of electoral fraud).
I'm not saying that anyone is going to be voted out. The future of Iran will be a bloody one.
Not my place to say what the US should do but.... On this issue I don't think it should take the lead. Iran is not Iraq at all. I don't think thay would be quite the pushover. I think nationalism against the US would be 10 times the force in Iran than Iraq.
So what to do , stick the course with UK and France and be a team member. Hard for US to do sometimes. But put heat on Russ. and China to get them to solve the mess and and I'm not sure if this can be done but get them to guarantee the nuclear safety of Israel. In that if a nuke goes from Iran to Israel both China and Russ. each have to launch a response with 5 times the kilo tonnage. Formalize MADD on a reginal level without the US having to be the bad guy and everyone knows what will happen.
I don't know , that will never happen and it kinda of heartless but.
Does anyone else here find it ironic that the same people squealing about the preempive strike/war in Iraq are the same ones advocating an Iran intervention?