Post #218,895
8/11/05 6:50:45 PM
|
Keeping the United Nations out of the picture
Iran is way off the reservation, and the UN are doing nothing about it. They've threatened to break the seals - [link|http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8924|backing off] only after US pressure - they're refining uranium, and they feel no need to apologize to anyone. Why should they? It's just the UN and the EU after all.
The question is implied: what are you gonna do about it?
Meanwhile, it turns out that [link|http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007608.php|Iran has been supplying] the Sunni "insurgency" in Iraq with bombs that can do serious harm to troop carriers. This on top of their support for al Sadr and similar lowlifes. And their last election was a blatant fraud, in which no one was allowed to run that the people might have wanted to vote for. The pro-democracy movement in Iran is waiting for us to do something. With a little support from us, the students will rise up and overthrow the mullahs. Without it, they probably won't risk it. (The [link|http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457622/posts|Kurdish part of Iran] is already rising up. But the Kurds have had more success in the past than Shia Arabs.)
But first, the United Nations. We lost precious months in 2003 waiting for the UN to shove its hypocrisy and follow up on its own resolutions. That never happened, and it never would have. Part of the reason for that was always obvious: the UN is a hopeless institution. The more detailed reason has emerged over the past few years: the oil for food scandal. France, Russia, Germany and China were all bought and paid for by Saddam, and Kofi's little Turtle Bay debating society helped negotiate the deals.
So now Bush has sent John Bolton to the UN as our ambassador, over some worthless Senators' [link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050621-121515-4570r.htm|filibuster], as a recess appointment. Detractors object that Bolton [link|http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3117|is obnoxious and has no respect for the UN], and is therefore a bad choice for this post. I grant the premise, but why what logic does the conclusion follow? That is precisely the sort of man we want to send there right now. The point is to send a message: get your s**t together, you snivelling corrupt bastards, and damn quick. Who better than Bolton to send that message? John Bolton is a living human rebuke. Here's hoping they take him to heart.
So now Kofi Annan is talking all nice and promising reforms, while praying that [link|http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm707.cfm|Volcker's investigations] never reach him. But we've been here before. Remember [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutros_Boutros-Ghali|Boutros-Boutros Ghali]? Rwanda? Any reform of the UN, short of taking it all apart, coming up with a new charter, and sticking the old name on it to confuse the limousine left, will fall short of what's needed.
The UN is *consitutionally* incapable of doing any real good in the world. It's corrupt and feckless by design, not accident. It's built on the premise that if you get a bunch of powerful people together who have no shared values in common at all, and have them talk at each other, their various disagreements can be sorted out. It simply doesn't work that way. All the problems that can be solved by talking or threatening get solved long before they reach the UN level. The problems that reach the UN are the ones that can't be solved by talking or (empty) threats. There's no way the UN can accomplish anything with what it's given to deal with. Where would it even begin? By the time this less than august body even gets a chance to speak, there's no longer anything left to say.
So what do they do instead? They emit meaningless resolutions, skim graft off of charities, run interference for mass murderers, and make sleazy backroom deals to keep the mud peoples down. Maybe new reforms will put a stop to all this, but I doubt it. And even if they do, what good purpose will the UN serve?
Slowly, but surely, the world is facing up to this. John Bolton and the Volcker investigation will surely help the process along. But Bolton's job now is to make his job obsolete. We need to clear the UN out of the way so we can put up something better in its place. Almost anything would be better. But I'm specifically thinking of a treaty organization of democracies, acting to protect and extend freedom and human rights throughout the world, by whatever means avail. No thugocracies need apply. If your people don't get a vote, neither do you.
(And no, the European Union is not going to do the job. Never did - Balkans - never will. In fact, it's got its own problems these days.)
For now, the UN crowd is on the ropes. Distracted. Humiliated. Scrambling for a way to justify their existence. They never could do any good, but now they're temporarily incapable of doing harm. That's good enough, for the moment.
It clears the way for us to deal with Iran.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/un.html#20050811|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/un.html#20050811
[link|http://fnmarlowe-politics-world.blogspot.com/2005/08/keeping-united-nations-out-of-picture.html|Comment at blogger.com]
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #218,897
8/11/05 6:55:31 PM
|
Time to widen the quaqmire?
|
Post #218,906
8/11/05 7:17:14 PM
|
Wow.
He almost admitted Clinton did something right. (And no, the European Union is not going to do the job. Never did - Balkans - never will. In fact, it's got its own problems these days.) apt-get install godlike-powers
|
Post #218,927
8/11/05 10:18:14 PM
|
ah, the payoff at last
"I\ufffdI, in my small way, helped this great good man promulgate his teachings."
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #218,931
8/11/05 10:39:16 PM
|
One huge problem with your picture
There is no legal basis for objecting to Iran's removing the nuclear seals. Iran put there voluntarily as a show that they where serious about negotiating over the nuclear issue. But since those talks seems to have failed, Iran has no reason to leave them. Iran has every right to refine fuel for nuclear power generation.
Like it or not, there is even less legal basis for action against Iran then there was for action against Iraq. Against Iraq there was at least a pile of faked evidence and a long history of violating rules.
Jay
|
Post #218,937
8/11/05 11:11:54 PM
|
It's not clear that Iran has that right.
Iran has every right to refine fuel for nuclear power generation. Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm|July 1, 1968]. AFAIK, even with the recent controversy, they still are a party to the Treaty. The NPT [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm|says]: Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
[...] Though there is some [link|http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/CirincioneandWolfsthal.asp|problems in the language of the NPT], the clear reading of the text is they only have rights under Article IV if they comply with the rest of the treaty - including Article III. Iran was getting unmonitored equipment and technology from [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4583793.stm|Pakistan ] and maybe North Korea. They had a clandestine research program. They weren't living up to the treay obligations. I heard someone on a news show (maybe on the BBC) say that it only makes sense for a country to have its own uranium reprocessing facilities if it has more than 40 reactors. The facilities are expensive to run, and it makes much more sense to buy/lease uranium for power reactors from other countries. Iran is building a reprocessing plant before it has [link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm|one operational power reactor]. That certainly gives an indication that the reprocessing is not for power generation purposes. It's clear to me that Iran wants the bomb, despite their protests to the contrary. Iran has been flouting the NPT and they should be called to account for it. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #218,959
8/12/05 2:53:25 AM
|
'Course that's technically specious, inefficient and
disingenuous.
Just like all the propaganda that led to the invasion of Iraq and the resultant creation of the densest training ground for Retribution directed at the US, ever; 100,000 + heaped dead burned bodies later VS our 3000 initial casualties - and with no end in sight. Tar Baby. Who in US would have imagined the selective data-taking and its massaging, that made that loopy thesis fit the aims re Iraq (aims which accompanied this cabal into office from Day 1) - then?
'Call Iran to account?'
It's another performance of The Green Table ballet, this time for the Dad/Son filial angst of a certifiable zealot, in possession of the means to act-it-out. Those means came via a succession of orchestrations of the US' actual governors, those with the concentrated wealth. Imagine what the odds are of Impeachment -- even, now.
Where does techno-processing logic, 'reason' relate to this exercise of raw Power?
As with the lesson of Hitler and the undefended Sudetenland and, as all realize today - ditto re N. Korea, had they no sabre to rattle: Iran is acting on the fact of their any-day vulnerability to this out-of-control juggernaut.
If they prove stubborn in this? they will have to go a long way to match our own Dear Leader's seeking of Armageddon for his Faith-'base'. Which Ayatollah shall it be? Curious people everywhere want to know.
Do we imagine everybody in the world is as gullible as half of our part-time electorate [twice]? Think I'm seeing a replay of The Green Table, only that.. was Art
and this isn't.
No physics needed, however much fun are calculations of yields.
(It's a bit late for Robert's Rules of Order, innit?)
Ashton
(Ever been inside Hanford, WA?)
|
Post #218,984
8/12/05 9:37:03 AM
8/12/05 10:55:58 AM
|
There are various alternatives...
1) Agree with Iran that they can do whatever they want. Let them become a uranium exporter under whatever terms they want. Let them build reprocessing plant and bombs if they want.
In short, do nothing because it's 'too dangerous' and, after all, 'nobody trusts Bush anyway' (as some have said).
2) Work through the IAEA and the UN to try to ensure that Iran follows its obligations under the NPT. If it's determined that they haven't, then refer it to the UNSC. If a consensus is reached that Iran must be called to account, then impose sanctions.
This is the "called to account" that I was referring to (at this point). This is where we are now, but the IAEA seems to be strongly divided so it's not clear that they will take any action. And if it reaches the UNSC via a divided vote rather than a unanimous recommendation, it's not terribly likely that they'll impose sanctions. It's not clear whether the East/South and West can come to an agreement on what to do about Iran soon.
This could default to #1 if a consensus for action to have Iran honor its commitments can [edit:]not[/edit] be reached.
3) Give Iran a short deadline to accept full, unconditional inspections and a total cessation of nuclear reprocessing activities. If they don't comply, prepare for military action.
This would be extremely difficult unless the military action was restricted to air strikes. Action like this, reminiscent of Israel's attack on Iraq's reactor, might solve the immediate problem, but the Iranians apparently have buried a lot of their nuclear facilities so it would not be easy.
Many believe this is Bush's preferred alternative. I don't, but it's hard to tell whether it will happen if things don't improve. It's clear that some do prefer this approach though.
4) Invasion of Iran to remove the mullah's from power and to end Iran's nuclear programs.
I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating this, except for a few people at the Pentagon and military think tanks and universities whose job it is to do warfighting scenarios.
I read you as advocating #1 because we have no moral standing to tell Iran what to do. I think that is a dangerous position given Iran's governmental support for foreign organizations that preach and commit violence.
Iran has no legitimate need for uranium reprocessing facilities at this time. They've demonstrated that they will skirt safeguards so even a civilian power program is a hard sell with me unless they have a change of heart. So far, they haven't.
Yes, the rules are different for the bomb-holding powers that drew up the NPT and offered nuclear power to others under nonproliferation conditions. Them's the breaks. Life's like that sometimes.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #218,996
8/12/05 10:04:27 AM
|
Israel can always bomb the facilities into rubble
"the reason people dont buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfy, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #222,007
8/31/05 6:48:07 PM
|
Works for me. But have they got the range?
Lately there's doubt about whether they've actually got what they're acting liek they have. Err on the side of caution I say. Should have intervened in North Korea as we did in Iraq at an analogous point in time. But Dubya wasn't in office yet then.
Proactivity is so right wing. I'm working on a think piece on that topic. Will post in philosophy/religion in a few days.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like my posts, don't click on them.
Never mind the AP> Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/]
"The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|
Post #222,017
8/31/05 7:11:08 PM
|
they have the range if they need it.
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #222,041
8/31/05 8:11:25 PM
|
After all, they stole it from us.
|
Post #222,043
8/31/05 8:14:34 PM
|
Im talking about attitude not equipment
during the Iranian hostage crisis I remember one quote about the failed rescue mission, paraphrased "If they were ours, in six months we would have bought the house next door, tunnelled over and took them out from the inside. They want to hit Iran, they will, no half assing,
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #222,167
9/1/05 10:05:35 AM
|
You are sooooo wrong!
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #218,997
8/12/05 10:07:02 AM
|
fissionable sauce for geese, ganders
Another_Scott, in the course of his two cents worth (an exceptionally precise and accurate appraisal, BTW), loftily observes that Yes, the rules are different for the bomb-holding powers that drew up the NPT and offered nuclear power to others under nonproliferation conditions. Them's the breaks. Life's like that sometimes. And are you aware of this country's notional obligations under the NPT and how well we've complied with them? No and no? I thought not. What you're really saying, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, is that treaty obligations are for little people. The Iranians have observed that the junta here is treating North Korea very gingerly. They know that were it not that Iraq has lodged in our throat, this regime would be preparing to devour Persia as a second course, an undertaking that would likely garner few confederates, notwithsatnding philbot's vivid and comical hallucination of abolishing the UN and replacing it with "a treaty organization of democracies, acting to protect and extend freedom and human rights throughout the world, by whatever means avail" (if we must invade, ah, liberate the place, can we at least name the enterprise something snappier than "Operation Iranian Freedom"? I'm thinking "Clusterfuck II: The Heretic"). Iran has drawn the rational conclusion that a known bully and coward will be most reluctant to assault a nation with the means to make an attack very, very costly. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #219,009
8/12/05 11:16:51 AM
|
Thanks. I think. :-)
Yes, I'm aware that under the NPT and various other treaties we're under obligations to eliminate our nuclear weapons. The preamble to the [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm|NPT] says: Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament, While it's a noble goal, the text there is a bit nebulous as to what needs to be done and when. Iran has drawn the rational conclusion that a known bully and coward will be most reluctant to assault a nation with the means to make an attack very, very costly. There's no doubt that that's part of their calculus. And there is a logic to it if one doesn't want to work with the existing world order. (They'd advance a lot further a lot faster if they cooperated with the West more, IMO.) However, remember that North Korea and Pakistan and Iran started their nuclear activity long before GWB was in office. Iran's apparently had a covert nuclear program [link|http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_11/Shaffer.asp|since the early 1970's] - one that continued after the Shah's demise. [Begin tongue-in-cheek:] Given that, we yet again see that it's all Jimmy Carter's fault. [image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...] Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #219,073
8/12/05 3:52:46 PM
|
{Chortle type=All-on-the-same-page -?-}____finally
OK, it IS a Dance, duelling surds and triple-entendres and thinly-veiled lies and puffery: all around. SNAFU for 'diplomacy' in white gloves. Over green-flocked tables.
That Dance is about the totally-inept-at-mouthnoises: in "our corner"
--VS--
(pretty substantially?) The. World.
Hubris aside (and for US, in '05 - I deem that an Oxy-oxymoron)
Short-of Our launching a spasm war [Rand Corp. '50s def'n] as precipitate response to say, the first detonation on US Fatherland soil?
(Though assuredly these days, precipitate-R-US)
Do we really imagine that Our Military tactics, equipment, fodder, transistors, , , shall cow the Entire Planet (for more than a few months, say?)
Rhetorical question, sorry.
little-Jesus evidently *Believes precisely that.
* (And Oh - does our smirking-fellow Believe when he believes stuff)
Rest case; taking bets:
The Antsy Armageddon Boys <VS> the Can We All just get-over this Duelling-Gods-stuff?
That Dance is looking a lot like a Totentanz, to those of us who kept up with the analyses of war-games of that First think-tank (that Other Rand - a Corporation - how Very apropos) Gawd I miss irony. Miss also people who remember, intimately, what fission/fusion Is Like.
You. Decide. Mr. Muricanpeepul Personified
(We'll bury the bodies.)
If we can.
If we can find many parts.
And if we feel up to it.
At 500 R/hr on the ion chamber.
With all those cells leaking all fluids internally.
I recall reading an internal report about an 'incident' whereby a Pu-enriched solution was permitted to overflow where it Wasn't supposed-to: into another tank with Pu-material. A n-Second Criticality occurred. Calculations were that this poor sod got ~ 10,000 REMs. 500 total-body will do it. Slower. I omit the horrifying description of How.. it was, he died, and just say: agonizingly.
|
Post #219,037
8/12/05 1:31:15 PM
|
That is a white man's treaty
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #219,117
8/12/05 10:28:02 PM
|
Re: It's not clear that Iran has that right.
Though there is some problems in the language of the NPT, the clear reading of the text is they only have rights under Article IV if they comply with the rest of the treaty - including Article III. No country has actually followed the treaty perfectly. I'm not a legal expert, but from everything I have read, nobody close to the situation feels that they can point to a violation of any significance. The IAEA says that they have no evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb. Even the US says that they expect Iran to need another decade before they can build a bomb. As much as Iran refining nuclear material makes us nervious, we can't invade simply only a strong theory that Iran is building a bomb. Heck, the US government claimed much stronger evidence before the invasion of Iraq and look how many WMDs they turned up. I heard someone on a news show (maybe on the BBC) say that it only makes sense for a country to have its own uranium reprocessing facilities if it has more than 40 reactors. The facilities are expensive to run, and it makes much more sense to buy/lease uranium for power reactors from other countries. Only if you trust those countries. If your depending on another country for nuclear fuel, they have a big stick to hold over your head. Jay
|
Post #219,119
8/12/05 10:34:06 PM
|
Your last sentence is very ironic
Or at least becomes so if you remove the word "nuclear" from it.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #219,038
8/12/05 1:34:12 PM
|
Of course, you realize we can't afford THREE wars at once
don't you?
If the sweet neocons hadn't shot our wad on petty personal grudges, we'd have something to throw at Iran. But we don't. We're stretched perilously thin now and there is no way we could even manage to repel an attack on our own soil as the Nat'l Guard has been sent overseas.
Go get yourself a Risk game board and try to take over the world on your first turn to get a feeling for where we are right now.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
