 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:17 PM "okay for Israel to illegally and clandestinely commit nuclear proliferation and get away with it...but it's not okay for Iran, North Korea, or Syria or anyone else to do it" LH, you have missed a very significant point. Israel LEGALLY developed its nuclear devices- ISRAEL DID NOT SIGN the NPT. The other countries you mention DID sign ( though I am not sure about N. Korea) and got significant help in their civilian nuclear power programs because of that. ISRAEL did not, and has NOT signed the NPT. Anyone without nuclear weapons who signs the NPT gives up the right to develop nuclear weapons, and agrees to the monitoring which both N. Korea and Iran have refused to allow. A clear violation of international law, like Canada exporting asbestos to SE asia. Those powers that had nuclear weapons at the time they signed the NPT agreed NOT to supply the technology or certain materials to others. Should N. Korea have done so ( in Syria, for example) that makes them in violation of the NPT as well. ( IF they signed it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:34 PM http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=20070509-Zarate-NPT-IAEA-PeacefulNuclear&PDFFolder=Essays also, "There are currently 189 states party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China." "Only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew." "Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, North Korea violated [6] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device, Iran has been accused of seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability, and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. " Article I:[7] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices. Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture. Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. 2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative). Three states—India, Pakistan, and Israel—have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made a statement that some interpret as tacitly admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons[11], breaking a long-standing policy of official denial, though it is not known to have conducted tests (see List of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. Pakistan reportedly has 60. India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. The main reason quoted by India for not signing NPT and for possessing nuclear weapons is that China, with which it has fought war in 1962 and has long standing border dispute, is one of the "nuclear haves". According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—later apprehended and jailed by Israel—revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986. from Wikipedia... NOTE: "Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958" "The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. " So, Israel is supossedly guilty of violating a treaty IT DID NOT SIGN by its efforts starting 10 years BEFORE the treaty existed???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:35 PM "If they are doing it indeed to build nuclear weapons, I don't regard the mere building of weapons as a crime." But the NPT DOES consider it to be a violation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:02 PM LH, You state: "Of course the USA has treaty obligations to protect Israel if Israel is attacked. I have no argument with that." Since a SINGLE nuclear bomb could destroy a majority of Israel's industry and population, you seem to imply that you accept the idea that, after Israel is so severely damaged, the US is within it's rights to inflict the same level of damage on the nation that is responsible. As someone who does NOT want to see a global thermonuclear war, I would rather that we take steps BEFORE that is neccesary, and prevent the initial destruction if possible. Since a LARGE number of the casualties in any nuclear attack on Israel would be Palestinian Arabs, both within Israel and in the surrounding region, perhaps it is those who want Israel to be bombed BEFORE it can take steps to defend itself who feel that the Arabs are not quite human enough to worry about. If that's what YOU are saying, it speaks for itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Oct 07 - 02:06 PM BB, I am opposed to ALL people using nuclear weapons on one another. 100% opposed to it. EVER. From here till eternity. I would be much in favor of doing away with all nuclear weapons...if those who had them would only be willing to give them up. They're not. Clear? I make no differences between dead Israelis, dead Iranians, dead Syrians, and dead Americans...or dead Canadians. They all have equal value. I have no desire to extract "an eye for an eye" from anyone. They are all equally entitled to live happy lives without fear, and their unnecessary deaths would all be equally unfortunate, as far as I'm concerned. I think you're emotionally favoring Israeli lives over Arab and Iranian lives when it comes right down to it, I think that is crystal clear, and that's all I'm objecting to. It's a double standard, morally speaking. It's unacceptable to me, and it's morally repugnant. Tell me honestly that you do not regret the death of 1,000 Iranians or North Koreans or Syrians any less than you regret the death of 1,000 Israelis or Americans. Tell me that, and we have nothing to disagree about in this matter. I think we would both prefer an end to nuclear proliferation. I know I would. I don't really give a damn about the technical legalities of who signed the NPT or not...I regard that as legal BS and chicanery...the kind of fancy stuff lawyers pull in court, intended to obscure responsibility for certain parties...given the fact that Israel did not sign the NPT, but that in the real world that whe have to live in Israel is just as responsible as anyone else when it comes to having a nuclear arsenal and having the sense and decency not to use it violently on someone ELSE. No one is "God's Chosen" set apart from others, BB. No one gets an exemption from moral responsibility. No one gets to do things with impunity that others are not allowed to do, such as build a secret nuclear arsenal and pretend it doesn't exist when everyone knows it does. No one's life is worth more, by virtue of his nationality or culture, than is another person's life. And the size of his country, whether large or small, does not permit him such moral exceptions. The Israelis have proven again and again since 1948 that they are fully capable of defeating Arab armies with their elite conventional forces. They do not need atomic bombs, and their having them is just as dangerous as anyone else having them. They should have been obliged to sign the NPT in the first place. That they were not obliged to do so is in itself indicative of gross moral inconsistency and irresponsibility on the part of whoever was in charge of the process (probably the USA, I would assume). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 07 - 02:38 PM LH, "BB, I am opposed to ALL people using nuclear weapons on one another. 100% opposed to it. EVER. From here till eternity. I would be much in favor of doing away with all nuclear weapons...if those who had them would only be willing to give them up. They're not." I am opposed to anyone using nuclear weapons. I am also opposed to the use, by anyone, of other WMD. The principle of MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction) is one that I consider fatally flawed in that it presumes that BOTH sides are sane, or will act sanely. Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost. The number that would be lost if the programs were allowed to continue to completion are far greater, and potentially include the entire human race. "I make no differences between dead Israelis, dead Iranians, dead Syrians, and dead Americans...or dead Canadians. They all have equal value. I have no desire to extract "an eye for an eye" from anyone. They are all equally entitled to live happy lives without fear, and their unnecessary deaths would all be equally unfortunate, as far as I'm concerned." I agree. When countries such as Syria, Iran, and N. Korea cease to act in ways that threaten the existance of other nations, there will be no need for anyone to be killed: But as long as those governments insist on developing direct threats to other nations and NOT demonstrate the willingness to act according to international law and treaties, they will place both others and their own people in danger. "I think you're emotionally favoring Israeli lives over Arab and Iranian lives when it comes right down to it, I think that is crystal clear, and that's all I'm objecting to. It's a double standard, morally speaking. It's unacceptable to me, and it's morally repugnant. " I object to ANY country that attacks the civilians of other countries. It seems a double standard to object to Israel efforts to defend its population by attacking the launch sites of illegal area mass bombardment rockets, and NOT object to the attacks upon Israel's civilian ( both Moslem and Jewish) population. THAT is a double standard. "Tell me honestly that you do not regret the death of 1,000 Iranians or North Koreans or Syrians any less than you regret the death of 1,000 Israelis or Americans. Tell me that, and we have nothing to disagree about in this matter." I regret the death of ANY civilians by military action: Perhaps I regret the deaths of those who do nothing but exist to cause those deaths more than those who act in a military manner and hide behind civilians. Innocents SHOULD NOT be used as shields- the ones who do so are responsible for the deaths that result. "I think we would both prefer an end to nuclear proliferation. I know I would." If it were possible to remove WMD from the world, and insure they could not be developed, I would rejoice: BUT as a person with a BS in Physics, I know that there are too many people who could make one ( given the materials), and that the materials are too easy to obtain. If we could just wipe out the knowledge that enables people to kill each other so easily... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:00 PM LH, "the real world that whe have to live in Israel is just as responsible as anyone else when it comes to having a nuclear arsenal and having the sense and decency not to use it violently on someone ELSE." It seems to me that Israel HAS demonstrated that. In previous wars, even though the use of its nuclear weapons would have been more effective ( in terms of Israeli lives) than conventional forces, Israel has NOT used them. How many nations, whose very existance has been repeatedly threatened, have shown such restraint? I believe that it has been made clear to ALL parties that the weapons that Israel has will not be used unless the existance of Israel and its people ( both Jewish and Moslem) is directly threatened. Can you say the same about Syria or Iran? Or Iraq, who DID use WMD against its OWN population???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:06 PM "The USA is the one playing the role of pre-WWII Germany at the present time, BB. It's a great power making up patently phony excuses to launch first strikes on minor powers, just as Germany did. It's accusing others of its own devious intentions and its own crimes, just like Germany did." - Little Hawk Totally ridiculous. Wargaming again LH?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Oct 07 - 06:18 PM Well then, I think, BB, that we agree on most of the moral essentials. ;-) We just don't agree on how to go about expressing our opinions about them. I am bothered by what I think are double standards which give Israel an unfair break. You are bothered by what you think are double standards which give enemies of Israel an unfair break. You see Israel largely in terms of being a heroic "victim". I see Israel largely in terms of being an arrogant regional aggressor. More talk by both of us will do nothing to undo that conundrum, I'm afraid. No chance. It's a question of individual perception, and no amount of quoted info or logical blather about it will resolve our differing perceptions. It'll just consume a lot of keystrokes to no useful purpose. As for Teribus, he and I will never agree about much of anything and it doesn't matter anyway. Life will go on. Meaningless verbal victories will be vainly claimed by an assortment of restless, resentful minds which have apparently nothing better to do with their spare time than to pester each other at long distance via their computer keyboards. If there is a God, I'm sure he feels great compassion for each of us... ;-) By all means, BB, continue delivering your daily news bulletins, and I will drop in now and then and comment when I simply can't resist succumbing to the nagging temptation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Bobert Date: 03 Oct 07 - 06:32 PM Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again... If I am the leader of a country without a nuclear weapon and there is another country with 'um that keeps threatening me, it is my ***responsibility*** to try everything I can do to level the playing field... Martial Arts, 001 (non credit, remedial)... Also Military Scinece 001 (non credit, remedial)... Also Common Friggin' Sense 001 (non credit, remedial)... Screw NPT's... If you are gettin' ready to whack me I'm gonna be lookin' 'round fir a good stick myself... What we have is a situation where a punk, who used his daddy's influence to hide from having to learn about "real war", who now is going thru some psycological problems and, as a consequence, the rest of the world is suffering along with him... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:52 PM Warheads for peacefulIran Hands IAEA Nuclear Blueprints Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:04:36 PM By GEORGE JAHN Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency, handing over long-sought blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday. Iran's decision to release the documents, which were seen by U.N. inspectors two years ago, was seen as a concession designed to head off the threat of new U.N. sanctions. But the diplomats said Tehran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of Iran. The diplomats spoke to The Associated Press as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei put the finishing touches on his latest report to his agency's 35-nation board of governors for consideration next week. While ElBaradei is expected to say that Iran has improved its cooperation with his agency's probe, the findings are unlikely to deter the United States, France and Britain from pushing for a third set of U.N. sanctions. The agency has been seeking possession of the blueprints since 2005, when it stumbled upon them among a batch of other documents during its examination of suspect Iranian nuclear activities. While agency inspectors had been allowed to examine them in the country, Tehran had up to now refused to let the IAEA have a copy for closer perusal. Diplomats accredited to the agency, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were divulging confidential information, said the drawings were hand-carried by Mohammad Saeedi, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and handed over last week in Vienna to Oli Heinonen, an ElBaradei deputy in charge of the Iran investigations. Iran maintains it was given the papers without asking for them during its black market purchases of nuclear equipment decades ago that now serve as the backbone of its program to enrich uranium -- a process that can generate both power or create the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment has been the main trigger for both existing U.N. sanctions and the threat of new ones. Both the IAEA and other experts have categorized the instructions outlined in the blueprints as having no value outside of a nuclear weapons program. While ElBaradei's report is likely to mention the Iranian concession on the drawings and other progress made in clearing up ambiguities in Iran's nuclear activities, it was unclear whether it would also detail examples of what the diplomats said were continued Iranian stonewalling. Senior IAEA officials were refused interviews with at least two top Iranian nuclear officials suspected of possible involvement in a weapons program, they said. One was the leader of a physics laboratory at Lavizan, outside Tehran, which was razed before the agency had a chance to investigate activities there. The other was in charge of developing Iran's centrifuges, used to enrich uranium. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 16 Nov 07 - 02:05 PM BBruce: "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost. The number that would be lost if the programs were allowed to continue to completion are far greater, and potentially include the entire human race" Oh dear, here we go again. Let's not forget that the USA and UK violated international law when it went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway in the absence of a UN mandate, while Israel has ignored countless UN resolutions etc., No-one's morally above the law, but when the laws are made and broken by anyone to suit themselves, then no-one's under any obligation to keep them. It becomes a vicious circle. Iran is in no breach of the NPT - its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes, they say and there is no definite evidence to the contrary, despiet the illegbal sanctions that have been placed on it. That's not to say the Iranians don't intend to develop nuclear weapons (and with all the belligerence and posturing in today's world they'd be both mad and not mad not to, if you can figure that). Yet unproven intention is no case for punishment or sanction. If it were so, the Iranians could with moral and legal impunity attack israel at any time for having nucelar weapons which they MIGHT sometime use against Iran, or the US for openly having them and considering using them against Iran (even depleted uranium shells or mini-nuclear bunker busters). Moreover, they'd only be following GW Bush's doctrine of 'pre-emptive strike'. Hopefully sanity will prevail, but everyone needs to back up a step or two. The USA and other nuclear powers need to have a re-think of the nucelar policy: it's a case of don't do as i do, but as I say. The USA is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons - they killed over 250,000 CIVILIANS with them. So, while they might be talking from experience, they have no moral right to lecture others. I'm sure if Iran had been the first to use them, it would now be used as a stick to beat it with. The NPT? Don't make me laugh! A concocted and shambolic thing if ever there was one. The Big 5 had nuclear weapons, now they needed a mechanism to make sure no-one else got them. Despite that a few more countries joined the club, realising a few nuclear weapons got you taken a lot more seriously. A real NPT would be the Big 5 (and the others) all shwoing a bit of real concern by demolishing ALL their own stockpiles before lecturing anyone else - or admitting the only reason they are able to make such ridiculous demands is partly due to their nuclear capability in the first place. BTW - i don't want to see nuclear war either, just in case anyone got the worng idea there for a minute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 16 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM BBruce: "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost" I think we can see from the Iraqi experience that the number lost on the 'other' side (ie, Iranian) will be far higher than US / Uk casualties. How many soldiers has the US lost in Iraq? 4,000? How many in the Twin Towers? 3,000? Total = 7,000. Now multiply that by almost 100 (!) and you get the scale of Iraqi deaths since the US invaded in 2003. Around 700,000 dead in 4 years. The Iraqis are clearly coming off worst, and not surprisingly, since the US has vastly superior resources - arms, vehicles, training, money. It's not a fair fight by any means, and nor will it be in Iran. And once again it will be civilians - who are alive at the moment - who will suffer and die most in any invasion of Iran. That's men, women and children, in plain English. Now, if you think 100 times Iranian casulaties are preferable to 1/100th the number of US casualties, then LH's point stands: you think US llives are worth more than Iranian lives, and have created a sliding scale of humanity in your mind. Yes, it's better no-one developed, or had such awful weapons, but despite all their experience in Iraq, some Americans persist in believing in the might of force argument, in the beleif that you can just send in the cavalry, cut out the tumour and everything will be right again, the balance restored. Certainly it will be far more difficult to difuse the potential for aggression now that the Us has invaded Iraq and has its troops all over the Middle East - as conquerors / occupiers in Afgahnistan and iraq, and as sentries in Saudi Arabia. How do you think this looks to the average Arab? Who do you think looks like the exapansionist aggressor? What would ordinary US folk do if Iran was massing its armies along the Mexican border, had invaded and occupied Canada and was threatening war on the US?? Come on lad, get real. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 07 - 03:15 PM "Iran is in no breach of the NPT " False statement. The UN has declared Iran to be in violation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 07 - 03:25 PM Nickhere, Re 16 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM , OU are not being fair. In the case of a nuclear war, 40 million to 1.6 BILLION would be killed, and almost all would be civilian. THAT is the point I was trying to make when I stated "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost" I do not consider that the death of thousands should be accepted casually: BUT if there are those who threaten to kill millions, and have the real capability to do so, I would not say to let them proceed because thousands might die in stopping them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:40 AM Ah Nickhere, you seem to highly qualified to answer the following: Can any Iranian apologist explain the following regarding Iran's "peaceful" nuclear programme: a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret. b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade. c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material. d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead. e) why when after the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denied its existence. As for the NPT being a joke, international disarmament wrt nuclear weapons was subject to amazing progress up to the point that first India then Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons. One of the big 5 as you term them still continues to disarm - the UK. By the bye, Nickhere, there is no such thing as a "mini-nuclear bunker buster", they trialed an unarmed one, they have immense problems with the casing for such a weapon with a nuclear warhead. Funding for further research was subsequently withheld - that is a matter of record. 700,000 Iraqi dead in 4 years, killed by the US armed forces? Some form of verification and substantiation for those figures would be nice. If Hopkins or ORB is mentioned also please make it perfectly clear to those reading this that the figures presented by both are not factual, they are estimates, estimates vehmently dismissed as ridiculous by others undertaking exactly the same work such as the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Iraqi Interior Ministry and IBC.org. I look forward to reading your answers. But somehow I think I may be waiting for some time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:01 PM No problem Teribus - I am still waiting for you to tell me what you think to be the most effective form of protest from several months ago.... 700,000 dead in Iraq - Lancet etc., As for the Iraqi govt...well, well. They're would try and say things were better than they were, downplay the bad situation. Plus they are there by grace of the US neo-cons who decided what kind of Govt Iraq would have (a pro-US one - can you imagine any Islamic 'extremist' candidates being given much of a chance to go for the running, much less being accepted if elected?). No, not all killed by US forces, but answer me this...how many of the dead might still be alive if the US HADN't inavded?? The US talked of 'nuking' Afghanistan back in 2001, and not just at street level. As I said, they are still the ONLY country in the world to have actually used them. The NPT? So why doesn't the USA (for a start) just scrap all its missiles? Then there'd be a few thousand less of them in the world. Instead, they scrapped lost of old ones, but the big arms companies are still turning out new, improved ones. Is Iran hoping to make a bomb? Quite possibly. But who's to balme for that? As I said, if everyone backed up a step or two, the situation might be resolved a lot sooner. Instead, the US keeps ratcheting up the pressure and the stakes almost as if was hoping to goad Iran into a fight. Can YOU answer my question about what Americans would do if Iranian troops were massed along its borders, talking openly about making 'military strikes' into the US? Talking about making strikes on the US' missile sites as a pre-emptive strike, in case Americans ever thought of talking about 'nuking' Afghanistan or any other countrt that wouldn't do what it wanted? Hasn't American openly talked about killing millions - about turning Afghanistan into a 'parking lot'. Come off it! A few words come to mind - kettle, pot, black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM Teribus: "By the bye, Nickhere, there is no such thing as a "mini-nuclear bunker buster", they trialed an unarmed one, they have immense problems with the casing for such a weapon with a nuclear warhead" I'm glad to hear it. Long may it continue thus. The money would be better put into health care or victims of natural disasters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:47 AM I thought that I did answer your question a long time ago about what I thought to be the most effective form of protest - take a leaf out of Ghandi's book - peaceful but total non co-operation, civil disobedience. I take it Nickhere that you personally have never bothered to read the Lancet article or the John Hopkins Report. I say that Nickhere because you along with others on this Forum repeatedly refer to "Around 700,000 dead in 4 years" as though they were fact and then quote as source, as you have done in one of your last posts simply "Lancet". Now not even the authors of the John Hopkins Report, or the editors of the Lancet in their introduction to that Report have EVER stated the number of dead, because they cannot, because the work and findings are estimates, they are not factual. Now exactly why should an anti-war organisation like Iraq Body Count play down the figures Nickhere (Part of a grand conspiracy no doubt). Their analysis of the Hopkins work makes good reading and imparts some logical common sense to the subject. On surmising how many Iraqis would have died in Iraq had the US not acted to remove Saddam in March 2003, I would estimate going on the lowest of Saddam's averages over his 24 year reign of terror in Iraq about 250,000, taking his highest it would be around 411,000. But there again if the US had not removed Saddam from power in March 2003, I would also imagine that by now that sanctions would have been lifted years ago, Saddam would have had unrestricted access to rearm, and by now he would be engaged in a second war with Iran, because believe me there would be no way in creation that Saddam Hussein would sit back and let Iran become nuclear capable. By all means let the US scrap all its nuclear weapons (Magician waves wand - whoosh - The US's nuclear weapons disappear) Now is the world any safer? What have all the others done? And why? While you are perfectly correct in stating that the US is the only country ever to have used an atomic weapon in anger during World War II, you must acknowledge they are not the only country to have detonated atomic or nuclear weapons in the earths atmosphere. Do you know how many atom bombs have been exploded in the earths atmosphere Nickhere? You'd be surprised at the number, yet on this Forum people such as yourself chatter on about the next bomb to drop will signal the end of the planet - it won't. Now Nickhere you were going to explain the following to us - "No problem" remember, for some reason you failed to address any of the points raised: a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret. b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade. c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material. d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead. e) why when after the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denied its existence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 19 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM All fair points, Teribus. Ok, let's start at the beginning. "No problem" referred to the fact I was still waiting for an explanation as to what you considered to be the most effective form of protest; thus, 'no problem I'm sure you won't waiting months for a reply as I had to'. But in fairness to you you ahve posted your reply above (civil disobedience, the Gandhi way). It certainly sounds good, and I'd be inclined to agree. But it'd mean large numbers of people who'd have to be willing to consign themselves to jail and allow their livelihoods to be destroyed in order to wrest democracy back from the oligarchs. Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of colurse they are less effective in that sense; but if no-one protested our 'leaders' could at least say no-one minded the war, there'd be no voice of dissent. Civil disobedience may yet come, but there's a time and place. First, it would need mass support to be effective: as with Gandhi's example - he didn't bring India to a stanstill alone. There are further points to be made here. 1) The mass of Indians might have been willing to risk their lives and livelihoods in order to secure an independent India, but would they have made the same sacrifice for say, the people of Uganda? Because that's what the anti-war message asks. It's actually very difficult to find people who see 'the brotherhood of man' as including people far, far away from them. Most people don't give much of a damn about the arabs in Iraq, or the victims in Rwanda, and are willing to accept whatever world order prevails as long as it doesn't hardship them directly. Indeed, your own approach to countries like Iran etc., are along these lines. For it seems it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon (even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred). Now apply the same approach to the USA. Let's suppose the Iranians decided the only way to stop the White House neo-cons from attacking any more countries or disrupting any more democracies was to destroy as much of the country as possible. Bush's 'pre-emptive strike'. So thyey manage to fly in and unleash some of their firepower on the big cities, anywhere there are nuclear facilities (e.g Long Island) and if millions of people die in the process, well, that's too bad. At least the US will be so busy bandaging its wounds it won't even have to time to think of attacking anywhere for a while, and the world might see a short era of peace and quiet. (Now whether that'd be the actual outcome is irrelevant here, as we're just supposing the reasoning of the Iranian govt). My question here is, how many attacks would be allowed to happen and how many Americans would be allowed to die before Americans rose up in outrage and epected the world to do the same? Why should it be any different for a place like Iran or Iraq, unless of course, from a western perspective, their lives simply aren't worth as much. That's why you are unlikely to get mass civil disobedience in protest at our treatment of these long-suffering people. Phew! Right, second point 2) India, despite popular myth, did not achieve independence through Gandhi alone. there was a very active war of independence going on at the same time under the leadership of Subhandra Bose. Today he's regarded as a hero on the same level as Gandhi in India. Next. Iraqi death estimates. The Lancet report estimated something in the region of 600,000 deaths a year ago, as a result of, and since, the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is an estimate. In such war conditions, one cannot neatly stack up all the bodies and count them. It is in the interest of both the US forces and the Iraq government to downplay the figures, as to do otherwise would be to admit things are not as rosy as they look. US soldier casualties are also downplayed - 'killed in a helicopter crash' often turns out to mean "shot down by 'insurgents' " on closer inspection etc., Then there was the journalist fired for showing the coffins of US soldiers being flown home. This is standard practice in any war, and I am not surprised to hear people saying 'Did 600,000 really die?' now. Basic services in Iraq are almost non-existant, meaning people have little access to electricity and clean water, which they did have under Saddam. Now you are quite correct in saying Saddam wouldn't tolerate Iran having nuclear capability (which he wanted for himself). So of course the west would rush to Iran's defence if he attacked, just as they did with Kuwait....actually, no, they wouldn't, because in the west, Iran is the bad guy. They even helped Saddam to attack Iran for years, so little wonder Iran might feel the need to do whatever necessary to ensure ITS own security. Or is that a luxury only allowed to the countries we approve of? Yes, despite what you think, I am quite well aware that hundreds of above-ground nuclear tests were carried out from the late 1950s until they were banned. they contributed aboput 7% to the level of background radiation, and their contribution is currently estimated to have dropped to about 1% of the background level of radiation (the rest from natural sources and events like Chernobyl etc.,). But while such activities might be linked to an increased incidenece of leukemia etc., (and this is not acceptable) there is a world of difference between that and actually intentionally dropping those devices on heavily populated cities in order to kill as many civilians as you can. That's what the USA did, and remains the ONLY counry to have done so, despite all their misgivings about other countries. The Italians have a phrase "Chi la fa, la pensa' which translates as 'the thief thinks everyone's stealing from him'. Perhaps it's a good time to add a reminder. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just the 250,000 + who died in the immediate blast and aftermath, but also thousands who died prematurly in later years, and all those who remained unmarried thanks to the fact no-one - afraid of genetic defects and put off by the ugly scars - wanted to marry nuclear victims. Thus all those people were deprived of a normal married life and the joy of having kids etc., Is there any memorial in all the USA dedicated to the memory of the vcitims of this particular holocaust, inscribed 'lest we forget'? Maybe there is - does anyone know of one? Now you might say the US is just trying to stop the dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons, but this wouldn't be entirely true either. India - a country that has long-running tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir, and as likely a candidiate as any to use nucelar weapons - was allowed to acquire them. Pakistan itself wasn't strongly discouarged from nuclear-arming by the US while it was a valued ally against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Yet we now know one of Pakistan's top scientists shared soem of that know-how around. It's not really about stopping countries from acquiring the bomb, but about stopping countries that are not western allies or western aligned from acquiring it. That's just rank hypocrisy of the highest order and needs no serious consideration. You touch on this yourself while asking what would the rest of the world do if the US simply scrapped its weapons. fair question, and of cousre the answer is that we don't know. It'd be such an unprecented step that no-one could guess what'd happen. If the US was also to pull its troops out of all the places it has them posted and publicly commit itself to purely peaceful, economic and diplomatic means of foreign policy and trasnparent 'world policing', shake hands with Iran; the world might breathe a collective sigh of relief. Israel would be obliged to make a fair settlement with the Palestinians. Iran might consider 'perhaps we don't need a bomb after all' Al Qaeda would be deserted in droves after an interval of a few years. Then of course other countries might take advantage of what looked like 'softness' to step up attacks or chance their arm. So here it is: thanks to our own nature, fear and suspicion of each other, we're locked into a cycle of mutual mistrust and ever-escalating military budgets. You know those movies where the whole earth unites to fight the invading aliens? Would never happen. Some earthlings would collude in surpressing their fellow-earth brethern in order to enjoy a slightly priviliged advantage in the new order. You'll always find people like that. Your last list of points are your fairest and most convincing however. If indeed the things you accuse Iran of are true, it does seem likely they are hoping to acquire nuclear bomb technology. I read of the IAEA report on the nuclear blueprint story in the newspapers the day after my last posting. It's just with all the sexing up of the Iraq dossier that these days it's hard to know what to believe. The US has been making a case for attacking Iran for some time, just as they did with Iraq. We know most of the Iraq case was pure nonsense, but now it's too late and thousands have been shot down like dogs in pursuit of the dollar thanks to our swallowing those lies. So you might forgive us if we approach these latest claims with caution. There could be a number of explanations for the points you mentioned. If I was Iran and I had a nuclear programme, knowing how I was regarded by a belligerent superpower with troops next door and a fleet of aircraft carriers just off my shoreline, I might be quiet about my programme as well. Even if it were a peaceful programme, I would feel sure it'd be interpreted as an excuse to attack me. Plus I'm not sure that Iran has been as secretive as you say. Following the story over the last few years, Iran's presidnet has made a number of public announcements as to the progress of Iran's nuclear programme. But I don't know if these stories are covered by the media where you live. The Iranians might not plan to build a bomb but leave themselves the option of doing so if they wish. Even if they do plan to build a bomb, there's no certainty they would actually use it except in case of survival - i.e if attacked first. That's their right, if it's the only way for them to ensure they are not destroyed like their neighbour then why shouldn't they take that route? In which case building a bomb is a race against time. When the US invaded Afghanistan there was much talk of 'nuking the country'. Now, thankfully that hasn't happened, though it's nearly as bad. You must also remember that much sabre-rattling takes place on the international stage. If the Iranians even succeed in making the world believe they have bombs, they have a good chance of being left alone, no-one wanting to risk a nuclear confrontation with a country desperate for survival. If so, mission accomplished, and Iran joins the elite club of countries that get to live unmolested. BTW, are the USA/ Russia/UK/ France etc., nuclear facilities open to IAEA inspection? And why should only NPT countries be considered? That leaves nuclear countries like Israel out of the loop, and if nuclear non-proliferation is to work, all countries with nucelar programmes need to transparent. Then of course Mordechai Vanunu would know all about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:00 PM "even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred)." The People's Republic of China is estimated by the U.S. Government to have an arsenal of about 150 nuclear weapons as of 1999, which matches the Chinese government statement that it possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal amongst the five major nuclear-weapon states. Wickipaedia Estimate of N. Korea weapons to rise US officials cite strides in nuclear capabilities By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post | April 29, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The United States is preparing to significantly raise its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons held by North Korea, from ''possibly two" to at least eight, according to US officials involved in the preparation of a report. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/29/estimate_of_n_korea_weapons_to_rise/ According to a late 2002 CIA analysis, "Restarting the 5 megawatt reactor would generate about 6 kilograms [of plutonium] per year. ... The 50 megawatt-electric reactor at Yongbyon and the 200 megawatt-electric reactor at Taechon would generate about 275 kilograms per year, although it would take several years to complete construction of these reactors." If about 5 kilograms of plutonium was required for one bomb, the North Korean bomb-production rate would thus be about 55 weapons per year after the reactors are completed. ["North Korea Can Build Nukes Right Now," By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, November 22, 2002 Pg. 1]. A story in the New York Times on July 20, 2003 reported that US intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have a second facility that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The second facility is believed to be buried underground at an unknown location. The story, "North Korea Hides New Nuclear Site, Evidence Suggests" by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker New York Times reported that sensors on North Korea's borders have begun to detect elevated levels of krypton-85, a gas emitted as spent fuel is converted into plutonium. The report says the issue that most concerns American and Asian officials, though, is analysis showing that the gas is not coming from North Korea's main nuclear plant, Yongbyon. Instead, the experts believe the gas may be coming from another hidden facility, buried deep in the mountains. North Korea is believed to have 11-15,000 underground military-industrial facilities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-plutonium.htm And a single bomb could destroy 80% + of Israel's industry, and 70% of the population... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:54 PM The Hopkins Researchers are no longer the statistical outlier. Opinion Research Bureau has recently done a study that estimates about 1.2 million civilian violent deaths in Iraq since 2003. Details here. IMHO, it is foolish or deliberately obtuse to make a distinction between a statistical estimate and a fact. Very few scientific facts are not based on statistical estimates. If a countable body or certified death certificate is required for a death to be factual, there were few factual deaths under Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Milosovic, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:40 PM That's true BBruce, and I would hate to see any Israeli citizens being killed by a nuclear bomb. Of course a nuclear bomb wouldn't be confined by whichever of Israel's borders one accepts, and people all over the region would suffer horribly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:43 PM "Of course a nuclear bomb wouldn't be confined by whichever of Israel's borders one accepts, and people all over the region would suffer horribly. " And this would slow Hezbollah down how THEY were the ones who placed rocket launchers in civilian areas, and schools, in order to drive up the civilian casualties in Lebenon. In case of nuclear attack on Israel, the real losers would include the Palestinian people, who would be sacrificed on the alter of Iranian destruction of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:17 PM Nickhere: "No problem" referred to the fact I was still waiting for an explanation as to what you considered to be the most effective form of protest; thus, 'no problem I'm sure you won't waiting months for a reply as I had to'. But in fairness to you have posted your reply above (civil disobedience, the Gandhi way). But Nickhere I posted that almost one month ago, on 27th September, 2007 on BS: Should we care about Burmese? Thread. Now I said that demos/protest marches were ineffective, you seem to agree that civil disobedience is more effective. "Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of course they are less effective in that sense;" "First, it would need mass support to be effective." But I was under the impression that the anti-war lobby was convinced that they already HAD mass support. I was also under the impression from the anti-war lobby that that mass support was world-wide. Now this rather mystified me: ". Indeed, your own approach to countries like Iran etc., are along these lines. For it seems it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon (even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred)." – Nickhere When have I ever said or implied that, "it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon". By the bye Nick as far as the number of bombs go, they only require two as a minimum, four as a maximum. After all, the plan is that neither the Government of Iran, or its armed forces would deliver any of them, that task would be delegated and assigned to others who do not have a country or a government that anyone could retaliate against. My bet Iran will use Hamas or Hezbollah to attack Israel and Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaeda off-shoot or clone to strike at the United States of America. Timing for this depends very much on what the US does in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. If the Democrats take the White House and cut-and-run in time honoured fashion, then this could happen within the next three to five years. If the Iranians did this right, the US would be like "Humpty-Dumpty", their military would be of no use to them, there would be no-one to hit. The Iranians must be cursing the dissident who blew the whistle on the uranium enrichment plants in 2002, otherwise they would still be secret yet and that I believe would have suited their purpose a lot better. Exactly what has been "our treatment of these long-suffering people"? And which long suffering people are you referring to, the Iranians? As far as I know the US has not threatened Iran in any way "India, despite popular myth, did not achieve independence through Gandhi alone. There was a very active war of independence going on at the same time under the leadership of Subhandra Bose. Today he's regarded as a hero on the same level as Gandhi in India." Now let's see his name for a start was Subhas Chandra Bose, his activities during the Second World War amounted to very little, certainly no "very active war of independence". Between the outbreak of war in 1939 and early 1941 he was under surveillance, in 1941 he escaped from India via Afghanistan and Russia to Germany. He stayed in Germany and Austria with his Austrian wife until 1943 when he was taken by U-180 to Singapore, where he took over the INA which consisted of ex-Indian Army POWs. Their peak was when they fought alongside the Japanese forces at Kohima and Imphal where they were defeated. After these battles and the subsequent drive down to Rangoon the INA suffered desertion and diminished in importance as a propaganda tool for the Japanese who stopped funding them. Subhas Chandra Bose supposedly died in a plane crash over Taiwan in 1945 on his way to Tokio. So while some may think well of him in India Nick he most certainly was nowhere near as significant or effective as Mohandas Gandhi with regard to India's struggle for independence. Glad to see that that you now refer to Iraq death estimates, that is a bit different to your original "700,000 + deaths in four years" claim. Still no opinion as to why an anti-war group such as IraqBodyCount would downplay the numbers of fatalities? "They (The West/US) even helped Saddam to attack Iran for years, so little wonder Iran might feel the need to do whatever necessary to ensure ITS own security." – Nickhere. Left wing myth, go away and read about it. Iran/Iraq War 1980 to 1988, in the latter half of that period Saddam Hussein was helped because it looked like he was going to lose and that result would have suited no-one, particularly Saddam's trading partners (France, Russia and China). The hundreds of atomic tests contributed 7% of background radiation levels which "might have" contributed to "an increased incidence of leukemia etc.,". But the odds are marginally better than 10:1 that they didn't. Nuclear disarmament was well under way up until India then Pakistan tested their weapons. The number of operational weapons had been reduced by around 67%. India acquired its nuclear technology from the USSR, Pakistan's came from China. The US had very little to do with it. So your contention that, "It's not really about stopping countries from acquiring the bomb, but about stopping countries that are not western allies or western aligned from acquiring it." That's just rank stupidity of the highest order and needs no serious consideration, as neither Russia or China could ever be described as western allies or western aligned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 20 Nov 07 - 07:22 PM BBruce "And this would slow Hezbollah down how THEY were the ones who placed rocket launchers in civilian areas, and schools, in order to drive up the civilian casualties in Lebenon" As if Israel doesn't have military bases and military hardware scattered all over its population areas as well. "In case of nuclear attack on Israel, the real losers would include the Palestinian people, who would be sacrificed on the alter of Iranian destruction of Israel" No, the real losers would be Israelis and Palestinians, and anyone else unfortunate enough to get caught in the blast, God forbid, But personally I think Ahmadinejad does a lot of sabre rattling and unless someone is foolish enough to actually launch an attack, little will come of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:05 PM "unless someone is foolish enough to actually launch an attack, " Which is what * I * am afraod of. We just seem to differ on who the idiot who will launch the attack most probably will be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 21 Nov 07 - 06:11 PM Sure thing. Let's hope it will be neither! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 22 Nov 07 - 03:52 PM BTW I was wrong it seems about US Iraq militrayt casualties. 3,800 have died on active service, but around 6,400 have committedn suicide during or shortly after their tour of duty. Why isn't this story being covered in the media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 22 Nov 07 - 04:27 PM Teribus, you say you posted a reply to my question as to the most effective form of protest on another thread about Burma. I didn't realise it was the custom in your part of the world to reply to a question from one thread on another thread ages later and that the recipient was supposed to guess where it had been hgidden and poke it out. But at least now I know. However, I feel duty bound to advise you I do not have time to read all the threads on Mudcat! ;-)) Anyway: Teribus "Now I said that demos/protest marches were ineffective, you seem to agree that civil disobedience is more effective. Quouting Nickhere "Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of course they are less effective in that sense;" Yes, but as you will quickly see, 'less effective' is quite a different matter altogether from 'ineffective'. So let's be clear - I did not say protest marches were ineffective as your juxtaposition implies. I should point out that I was thinking of forms of protest that are still within the bounds of the law, and was not going so far as to advocate breaking the law, which you do by advocating civil disobedience. Nor am I saying I don't agree with civil disobedience. You say you thought the anti-war movement had mass support, as a way of implying my post suggested it doesn't (and which would therefore be a contradiction of the anti-war position). Again, this is a solipism. The anti-war movement does indeed have widespread support. there are lots and lots of people who morally do not support Bush or what is happening in Iraq etc., My point, which you seem to have missed, is that this support does not extend as far as breaking the law -yet. That people - even though they may disgaree with the war - are few in number who are willing to put their jobs and comfort on the line making the sacrifice for people far far away. That is human nature. We criticise the Germans for not resisting Hitler, but here we are with a moral outrage that we could do something about and we just let it go on. Perhaps history will judge us as harshly? The Germans at least had the excuse that they would have probably disappeared into concentration camps if they raised even a fuss. Of course, an even more effective form of 'protest' would be to raise a privbate army, storm the government and put a stop to the nonsense. But then you'd just be feeding a cycle of war, plus it would be illegal. So once again, I was thinking of a from of protest that most are willing to participatye in, and it has the effect of being a voice of dissedence, at least when it's not starved of media coverage as often seems to happen. About that death toll - 600,000 was the figure given by Lancet about a YEAR ago, and it's safe to assume it's being going up since. I certainly doubt it has gone down. I'm glad to see you are no longer insisting that the bodies be stacked up for counting... Iran / Iraq war: so, the USA NEVER armed or funded Saddam? Am I correct in thinking that's what you are saying? As for the US not threatening Iran. 1) you forget they have already interfered with Iran by deposing their democratically elected leader in 1958 and installing the pro-US Shah; which Iran has not forgotten. By the way Iran signed up to the NPT under the Shah, and since it's had a total regime change since then, I see no reason why it should continue to be bound by an agreement made with an unelected leader illegally installed by the US. 2) The US has never forgiven or forgotten Iran for the US embassy hostage crisis. Though under the terms signed to secure the hostages release the US agreed never again to interfere in Iran or its government etc., Seems the US is the one renaging on its signed agreements. 3) I seem to remember far more recent threats made to Iran, at the lower end of the scale were White House comments about not ruling out 'any measures' (read militray intervention'). And Yesterday on the news they were talking more openly of attacking Iran. There's little doubt they'll do it, perhaps having learned from Iraq they just want some psuedo-legal backing for what they intend to do anyway. And as sure as night is day, just as has happened in Iraq, thousands upon thousands of Iranian civilians will die or have their lives reduced to abject misery. Is that all right with you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 07 - 02:08 PM Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM That Iran has not got a nuclear weapon but may be keeping open the option to acquire one - That is news Amos??? Now have a think back what was happening in 2003 that caused more than just Iran to stop its nuclear weapons programme? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Dec 07 - 05:01 PM Have a read. This article explains alot. "In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 03 Dec 07 - 05:44 PM And the Russians (You know them dianavan, the ones with 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US) have been doing what over the last four years? Vladimir Putin has been rather vocal about it in recent months Dianavan. Now the intelligence community of the United States of America, or at least 16 of its agencies, has reached a concensus that "the nation (Iran) halted its weapons project in 2003 because it feared international sanctions". Now if memory serves me correctly the intelligence community of the United States of America reached a concensus on something else relating to WMD in that region around that time. And does my memory fail me in thinking that that evaluation was greeted in exactly the same manner, as this little snippet? Oh I have got no doubt at all that they crash stopped their programme to the best of their ability, but it had damn all to do with the threat of international sanctions, unless the term "sanctions" is used in its old "Cold War" context (Roughly the same as "serious concequences"). The following are the reasons the Iranians stopped, or should I say more correctly, halted, their programme: 1. The whistle had been blown on their Uranium enrichment facilities in 2002, they could no longer keep their work secret, and now had the IAEA to face. 2. Dr A. Q. Khan's operations had been shut down and the Government of Pakistan was co-operating fully with the US Intelligence Agencies and Government. 3. Libya had just come clean and renounced its WMD programmes and revealed a hitherto unknown nuclear weapons programme. 4. US had acted against Saddam Hussein exactly as it said it would. So tell us Dianavan, the US is not going to invade or attack North Korea is it? The US is not going to invade or attack Iran, in fact it has not even threatened Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:10 PM Speaking at a White House press conference today, Mr. Bush said he saw the report as "a warning signal" of a continuing threat from Iran, and he insisted that it vindicated his administration's "carrots and sticks" approach to the Iranian nuclear question because Iran had halted its weapons program. "I still feel strongly that Iran's a danger," Mr. Bush said, in his first comments on the report. He added: "I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program, it would create a danger for the world." He said that he had learned of the new intelligence findings only last week, and that no one in the intelligence community had urged him to step back from his tough warning, made in October, that a nuclear Iran could pose a danger of a "World War III." This is the thing about Bush and his machine. He completely stone-facedly inverts what something means without batting an eye. Case in point: a new report comes out saying that Iran had stopped developing nuclear weapons some time ago, rebutting multiple assertions from Bush and Co. about nuclear armageddon being brought on by Iran. Good news, say most folks. Maybe they aren't as crazy as we thought. Bush comes out and says the report is a warning signal. "The enemy stopped making weapons" is warning signal??? WTF is UP with this dude? The only people I know who see the world in quite so inverted a fashion are in an extreme posture of cranio-colonic intraposition. Man. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM I agree Amos, G Bush seems detremined to see things how he wants to see them, regardless of the facts left inconveniently about for everyone tro trip over! I suppose fact of the matter is, he WANTS to invade Iran as it's necessary for whatever plan he has in mind for the region and nothing, it seems will get in the way of that. What a decidedly dangerous man to have in charge of the world's most powerful military. He reminds me of the school bully who keeps hanging round his next victim, goading him and provoking contexts for a fight which he's fairly sure of winning. In any case, Bush's reactivation of a previous Republican's Star Wars programme is aimed to make nuclear wepaons redundant by taking war into outer space as if there isn't enough of it already. It'd be nice to see the WMD redundant, but if only one country has the technology, it'll start to throw its weight around a lot more, and more recklessly, than it currently does. Then he says "Iran could have been a danger in the past, it might be a danger in the present and it will be a danger in the future" in a 'speech' reminiscent of his "I've made good jugdements in the past, I've made good judgements in the future". Maybe he wants to demonstrate his sweeping command of English language tenses. When there was talk of obliging all immigrants become proficient in the use of English if they wanted US citizenship, I remember thinking "the US better be ready to see its President deported". But soon he'll be gone, as he can't run for a third term. The world might be breathing a sigh of relief, but I think that's when we need to be extra vigilant. Any sucessor to Bush will effortlessly be able to come across as an Einstein, but that appearance could mask an even deadlier agenda. At least Bush is so painfully obvious that he has managed to politicise a whole generation of otherwise apathetic people. His handlers won't make the same mistake twice....probably! ;-)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:00 AM According to Nickhere, "G Bush seems determined to see things how he wants to see them, regardless of the facts left inconveniently about for everyone to trip over!" A couple of points Nick: The first is that George W. Bush, or anyone else holding the Office of President of the United States of America, is duty bound to see things from one perspective and one perspective only. He does not have the luxury of being able to give people the benefit of the doubt. The second relates to all these facts that have been left inconveniently lying about for people to trip over, and I must admit that there have been many, you should know you have refused to answer questions I have raised relating to those facts: - Why were Iran's Uranium enrichment facilities built in secret? As a signatory of the 1968 NPT Iran is obligated by the same Treaty that permits exchange of nuclear technology to declare absolutely everything connected with its nuclear programme. - Why has Iran elected to use P2 type centrifuges for enrichment of Uranium? Type P1 centrifuges enrich uranium to levels required for fuel; Type P2 centrifuges enrich uranium to the much higher levels required for weapons. - Why does Iran require the number of P2 Type centrifuges to run rapid cascade enrichment? - Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations, their al Quds Brigade is the secret underground army of the Iranian revolution, answerable not to the high command of the IRGC, but directly to the highest authority in Iran, the Head of the Iranian Revolutionary Council, Ayatollah Khamenei. The scope of their operations over the last 25 years has taken in Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and Argentina Since the NIE came out I have heard no denials that a weapons programme was being run in Iran. I have heard lots remark on the fact that it was halted in 2003. If it was halted in 2003 it seems to suggest that it was running in 2002, 2001, 2000, etc – Get the drift Nickhere, Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons pre-dates Afghanistan and Iraq, it pre-dates the election of George W. Bush. "I suppose fact of the matter is, he WANTS to invade Iran as its necessary for whatever plan he has in mind for the region and nothing, it seems will get in the way of that." If you suppose that then I believe that you suppose wrong. The US has never threatened Iran with any form of action whatsoever beyond those sought through UN Sanctions and trade restrictions that can be imposed on trade between the US and Iran. "In any case, Bush's reactivation of a previous Republican's Star Wars programme is aimed to make nuclear weapons redundant by taking war into outer space as if there isn't enough of it already." MSM labeled it the "Star War's Programme", it is more correctly termed the "Strategic Defense Initiative" for the eminently logical reason that it is a defensive system. Now Nick can you explain to me how one can threaten anybody with a weapon system that is purely defensive. Or do you attempt to imply that having a defensive system capable of knocking out a potential enemy's offensive missiles the US would start throwing its weight about? If that is the case can you then explain America's willingness to share this system with anyone who wants it? And I agree, "It'd be nice to see the WMD redundant". Which is why I'd like to hear officially from Iran that it had, like Libya, renounced its nuclear weapons programme, but all we have heard so far by way of an evaluation by the US is that Iran "halted" this programme possibly as early as 2003. Now you tell me Nickhere, does that report really fill you with that much confidence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Nickhere Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:40 AM Teribus, here's the brief reply as it's late and I must get off to bed soon. "As a signatory of the 1968 NPT Iran is obligated by the same Treaty that permits exchange of nuclear technology to declare absolutely everything connected with its nuclear programme" Signed under the Shah (installed by the US, since deposed, new regime in force now, but anyway they seem willing to - grudingly - comply with IAEA inspections: when can we expect the USA to do the same?) "Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations' So says the same people who said Saddam had WMD etc., etc., any old excuse... even if it is true, it would be a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Ever heard of the 'School of the Americas', old chum? The USA has sponsored terrorism by the bucket load since ages ago. It's just that no one has been able to call it to book since it does happen to be the world's main superpower, able to act above the law. No wonder the US refused to sign up to the International Court etc., "The US has never threatened Iran with any form of action whatsoever beyond those sought through UN Sanctions and trade restrictions that can be imposed on trade between the US and Iran" Evidently we watch different TV stations, read different papers. BTW it's the US who has a massive fleet off the coast of Iran, it's troops in the neighbouring country, not the other way round. Come on, seriously - if the tables were turned and Iran had its soldiers swarming along the borders of the USA (having invaded Canada and Mexico) and its guns trained on Washington DC would you or would you not consider them acting at least provocatively if not belligerently? That's not including the long litany of acts against Iran, the shooting down of flight IR 655 etc., etc., arming Saddam to attack Iran by proxy. Star Wars 'defensive'? Yes, in the same way nuclear missiles are said to be defensive: no one will attack you if you have them but they have offensive applications also. If Iran had as much as a water pistol, Bush would be stomping around yelling about the 'threat to the world's safety' Bush has done nothing to make the world a safer place, quiet the opposite on the contrary. If he's allowed to continue, it can only get worse. Now, any chance of you answering one of my questions - "And as sure as night is day, just as has happened in Iraq, thousands upon thousands of Iranian civilians will die or have their lives reduced to abject misery. Is that all right with you?" ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 09 Dec 07 - 03:17 AM "Iran, or more correctly Iran's Revolutionary Council, currently sponsors International Terrorist Organisations" Actually, its the present government of Iran that keeps Al Qaeda out of Iran. As to the nuclear question. If Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If the present treaty is to be viable, then the U.S. should be open to inspections and should stop aiding countries who are not signators, like Israel. The Nepalese grocer argues that Pakistan and India now talk to each other because they both have nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:47 AM "Star Wars 'defensive'? Yes, in the same way nuclear missiles are said to be defensive: no one will attack you if you have them but they have offensive applications also. " Missiles are hardly a valid example to use. As someone who has worked on those programs ( LACE, RME, DSPSE, MISTI-3) I can state that they do NOY have any offensive capability. They DO allow for the consideration of something other than global thermonuclear war in the case of an accidental launch , or the use of a few weapons by some terrorist group. The previous stratagy of MAD said that the US would launch it's missles upon detection of the fireing of missiles at the US or our allies: Under SDIO, the US has the option to destroy those missiles before they can impact: Thus allowing for something other than massive retaliation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:52 AM "If Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And if Iran had NOT signed the NPT, and taken advantage of the benefits of it ( denied to Israel, since it did not sign) Iran WOULD have the right to develop nuclear weapons. I have not seen any effort by Iran to repudiate it's signing; only the flagrant violations of that treaty as noted by the IAEA, a UN agency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:54 AM "new regime in force now, but anyway they seem willing to - grudingly - comply with IAEA inspections: " False statement, according to the IAEA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM Iran dismisses nuke documents as fakes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency presented documents Monday that diplomats said indicate Iran may have focused on a nuclear weapons program after 2003 — the year that a U.S. intelligence report says such work stopped. Iran again denied ever trying to make such arms. Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, dismissed the information showcased by the body as "forgeries." He and other diplomats, all linked to the IAEA, commented after a closed-door presentation to the agency's 35-nation board of intelligence findings from the U.S. and its allies and other information purporting to show Iranian attempts to make nuclear arms. A summarized U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, made public late last year, also came to the conclusion that Tehran was conducting atomic weapons work. But it said the Iranians froze such work in 2003. Asked whether board members were shown information indicating Tehran continued weapons-related activities after that time, Simon Smith, the chief British delegate to the IAEA, said: "Certainly some of the dates ... went beyond 2003." He did not elaborate. But another diplomat at the presentation, who agreed to discuss the meeting only if not quoted by name, said some of the documentation focused on an Iranian report on nuclear activities that some experts have said could be related to weapons. She said it was unclear whether the project was being actively worked on in 2004 or the report was a review of past activities. Still, any Iranian focus on nuclear weapons work in 2004 would at least indicate continued interest past the timeframe outlined in the U.S. intelligence estimate. A senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component — which brings missiles back from the stratosphere — was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead. Other documentation showed the Iranians experimenting with warheads and missile trajectories where "the height of the burst ... didn't make sense for conventional warheads," he said. Smith and the senior diplomat both said the material shown to the board came from a variety of sources, including information gathered by the agency and intelligence provided by member nations. "The assumption is this was not something that was being thought about or talked about, but the assumption is it was being practically worked on," Smith told reporters. He said the IAEA presented a "fairly detailed set of illustrations and descriptions of how you would build a nuclear warhead, how you would fit it into a delivery vehicle, how you would expect it to perform." The U.N. agency released a report last week saying that suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest. But the report also noted Iran had rejected documents linking it to missile and explosives experiments and other work connected to a possible nuclear weapons program, calling the information false and irrelevant. The report called weaponization "the one major ... unsolved issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear program." Most of the material shown to Iran by the IAEA on alleged attempts to make nuclear arms came from Washington, though some was provided by U.S. allies, diplomats told the AP. The agency shared it with Tehran only after the nations gave their permission. The IAEA report also confirmed that Iran continued to enrich uranium despite demands by the U.N. Security Council to suspend the work. The council has sanctions on Iran for continuing enrichment, which can produce the material needed to make atomic bombs. Iran says its enrichment program is intended solely to produce lower-grade material for fueling nuclear reactors that would generate electricity. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazee, said the intelligence information turned over to the IAEA was "baseless" and alleged it was fabricated by an Iranian opposition group. "I'm afraid to say that, according to my information, some of these allegations were produced or fabricated by a terrorist group, which are listed as a terrorist group in the United States and somewhere else in Europe," Khazee said told the AP in New York. He appeared to be referring to the Mujahedeen Khalq, also known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, which was listed as a foreign terrorist group by the U.S. government in 1997 and the European Union last year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM From the Washington Post: How Famine Changed N. Korea By Kay Seok Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17 SEOUL -- Today in Pyongyang, the New York Philharmonic, the most prominent U.S. cultural institution ever to visit North Korea, performs live on state TV and radio. Many observers have cautiously dubbed this a prelude to a thaw between Washington and Pyongyang. But for North Koreans, a very real thaw, unseen by the musicians, has been transforming life for years. A famine that killed a million people in the 1990s has driven fundamental societal changes in North Korea. As people struggled to survive, they were forced to defy many restrictions imposed by the state, which has consequently lost much of its control. Before the famine, North Korea could plausibly be called a hermit kingdom. Citizens had no source of information but state media and were banned from traveling outside their immediate area of residency, except for family weddings and funerals. The state intelligence agency tightly monitored people. Most important, the state dominated food distribution, control that kept people subservient and immobile for fear of losing their only access to sustenance. Things changed in the early 1990s. After decades of government mismanagement of the agricultural sector and years of natural disasters came the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with it, an abrupt end to barter trade. North Korea's chronic food shortage grew into a full-fledged famine. At least 1 million of the state's then-20 million citizens starved to death while waiting for rations to resume. But not everyone followed the state's orders. A massive number of North Koreans -- possibly in the tens of thousands -- sold their belongings, packed their bags and left the cities for the countryside, where food was more readily available. Most of them of course lacked permission to travel. But with even police officers out hunting for food, the authorities were unable to stop the widespread relocations. The state's restriction of movement began to break down. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans escaped to China throughout the 1990s to find food and work. Tens of thousands of them were arrested and repatriated as "illegal migrants," while others voluntarily returned home to feed their families and use their new knowledge or skills to make money. These people inevitably brought back news from the outside world, information undistorted by the government's propaganda machine. Markets began to spring up all over North Korea, replacing the ration system -- now defunct -- as the main source of food. At first, markets operated on the barter system, where desperately hungry people could exchange anything valuable for food, but they gradually developed into places where people bought and sold items to make a profit. Today, in Pyongyang and beyond, the country is teeming with bustling markets. North Koreans are engaged in all kinds of businesses, selling homemade noodles, running express buses and real-estate development, both legal and illegal. Echoing the words of many other North Koreans, a 60-year-old woman from Wonsan told me, "In North Korea, people now only care about making money." Some activities motivated by profit-seeking have led to greater access to information: Consider, for instance, the roaring trade in pirated and smuggled CDs and DVDs of South Korean soap operas and movies. After years of watching these stories, many of the North's urban residents have learned that South Korea is far richer and freer than their own country. It is increasingly common knowledge that South Korea is the world's 13th-largest economy and a democracy, while North Korea remains a poor dictatorship. About a decade ago, most North Koreans "knew" that South Korea was a desperately poor country and that its capital, Seoul, was filled with prostitutes and beggars. They also "understood" that North Korea was a "workers' paradise" going through temporary difficulties because of U.S. sanctions. Of course, not all is different or rosy in North Korea. Kim Jong Il's government still holds unchallenged power, and it continues to run a prison-camp system that enslaves tens of thousands, including young children. Periodically, it publicly executes people for offenses such as stealing state property or other "anti-communist" behavior. North Koreans also complain of the ever-rising level of corruption and extortion by officials. But whatever the North Korean government does to return to its pre-famine society, for many North Koreans the changes set in motion by the famine are irreversible. In fact, many North Koreans that I have met, especially the young, say they want more change. They have survived the country's worst disaster in half a century. Compared with their parents, they are far more informed, open-minded and unafraid. And therein lies hope for North Korea's future. Kay Seok is the North Korea researcher for Human Rights Watch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM The internal disagreements on policy within Iran are an interesting study. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: Amos Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:48 PM Does the Bush Administration Want War or Peace? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: CarolC Date: 15 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM Excellent talk about Iran here... http://fora.tv/2007/06/25/Iran_A_Grand_Bargain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 08 - 11:26 AM Washington Post War of the Rockets By Jackson Diehl Monday, May 5, 2008; Page A17 Last Tuesday, Israel faced the fallout from a Palestinian family of five perishing in the Gaza Strip during an Israeli strike against militants firing rockets at an Israeli town. On Wednesday, the Bush administration woke to a front-page picture in The Post of a 2-year-old Iraqi boy killed in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad aimed at Shiite militiamen launching rockets at the city's Green Zone. The similarity of these tragic and politically costly episodes was anything but a coincidence. For months now, Israel has been mired in an unwinnable war against Hamas and allied militias in Gaza, who fire missiles at civilians in Israel and then hide among their own women and children, ensuring that retaliatory fire will produce innocent victims for the Middle East's innumerable satellite television networks. A growing number of the militiamen have been to Iran for training, and some of the missiles they launch are Iranian-made. Their objective is obvious: to exhaust Israelis with an endless war of attrition while making it impossible for Israel's government to reach a political settlement with the more moderate Palestinian administration in the West Bank. Now U.S. forces have been drawn into a similar morass in Sadr City, the Shiite neighborhood of 2 million ruled by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. As Iranian-made rockets rain down on the Green Zone and nearby neighborhoods, U.S. forces attempt, so far in vain, to stop the fire by attacking Shiite militants from the ground and the air. Hundreds of people have been killed, filling the satellite airwaves and handing a new argument to the "this war is lost" lobby in Washington. It's not hard to grasp the common strategy at work here or to intuit what interest it serves. The rockets fired from Gaza and from Sadr City are two prongs of an offensive aimed at forcing the United States out of Iraq, putting Israel on the defensive -- and leaving Iran as the region's preeminent power. The third front, in Lebanon, is also the model. There the Hezbollah militia has armed itself with thousands of rockets and long-range missiles in preparation for a repeat of its 2006 war with Israel, while making Tehran a power in domestic Lebanese politics. The fourth front is in Afghanistan, where Taliban militiamen near the Iranian border now come armed with Iranian-made weapons. Countering the strategic Iranian challenge -- which also includes its unimpeded nuclear program -- is likely to preoccupy U.S. policy in the Middle East for years. But the more immediate problem for both the United States and Israel is how to end the wars of the rockets. As Israel has demonstrated over the past 18 months, selective strikes against rocket crews by aircraft or special forces can inflict a lot of casualties -- but don't stop the launchings. As U.S. forces have shown in Baghdad, sending substantial ground forces into Sadr City (or Gaza), building walls and fighting for control of the streets doesn't bring quick relief, either. Israel has so far avoided a similar offensive in Gaza in part because of another problem, the lack of an exit strategy. Even if the streets can be cleared of militants, who will ensure that no rockets are fired after the invading forces depart? Neither Iraqi nor Palestinian government forces seem up to the job. Both Israelis and Americans are tantalized by the prospect of a political solution. With U.S. encouragement, the Iraqi government is negotiating with both Sadr and Iran; Israel is talking to Hamas through Egypt. Both militias say they would be happy to observe a cease-fire in exchange for political concessions. (Sadr has already announced one, though the rocket launches continue.) But neither will agree to disarm. This is again the model of Hezbollah, which participates in the Lebanese parliament but refuses to give up its weapons, giving it the ability to wage war at any time of its -- or Tehran's -- choosing. Hamas will not surrender its option to bleed Israel, nor will the Mahdi Army its means to harry the American enemy. Some think all this can be settled by a direct approach to Tehran by the United States and a grand bargain that would stop the flow of weapons and trainers to Baghdad, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan, along with the nuclear weapons program. In exchange for what? Never mind: The next president, especially if a Democrat, will probably try it. But let's hope Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain also are thinking about a grimmer possibility: that Iran believes that its offensive is succeeding and that its goals are within reach, and that it has no intention of stopping. As long as neither Israeli nor U.S. commanders can find a way to win the war of the rockets, that's likely to be the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 08 - 11:52 AM http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/unsc_res1803-2008.pdf In case anyone wonders what the UN is doing... Note Paragraph 11 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce Date: 05 May 08 - 11:53 AM oh- 800 |