Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Eric, I’m sure you understand the concept behind the offer of fuel. If the US controls the production and disposal of the uranium, there’s no reason for Iran to develop an enrichment program that could be used to manufacture weapons.

If Iran is serious about only wanting to erich uranium for generating electricity, it is a “good deal”.

An offer like that puts Iran on the spot. If they’re determined to have a nuclear facility that can produce weapons, we can always bomb it later, like Israel did with Iraq’s reactor. And you can bet Democrats won’t condemn the bombing like Reagan did at the time.

Eric, this is way beneath you. The full quote is:

One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?

John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration’s. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.” Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

IT DOES NOT SAY NUCLEAR FUEL, NOW DOES IT? Perhaps that is what was meant, but, it may too mean natural gas, or oil, or solar technology.

Even if the intent was nuclear fuel, it would in fact be calling their bluff if nuclear fuel needed for energy production were provided with international and U.S. oversight of its use which no doubt would be the case if the fuel could be converted to weapons grade.

Your whole argument hinges on something that was not even stated, only assumed. And out of context, and with the presumption that there would be no accountability - frankly, a preposterous concept that would not ever see the light of day by way of a Congressional bill authorizing the spending.

You have a huge non-issue here, Eric.

Eric,
Ok, Kerry wants to find a way to defuse the Iran nuclear fuel as soon as he takes office. Now this problem has faced America for well over a year. Can you tell me what Bush has done or will do about it because I can’t find it on his web site.

Please don’t tell me he is going to do the stay the course and treat Iran like he did North Korea. By the way, did you hear South Korea has had nukes since 2000?

It’s the offer thats important. Obviously they’re getting Uranium from somewhereif they’re running reactors. They may even be getting it from the inside of the country. What we’re doing here is offering them refined nuclear or conventional fuel of the kind that would be good for energy production, a pretty sweet deal.

Which they’d only refuse if their interests were in weapons rather than electricity. This is more “Be scared of Kerry” BS, especially in light of the beginning of the paragraph. He wants to call their bluff, force them to reveal what it is they’re running their reactors for. He’s going to do what Bush utterly failed to do with Iraq- Put them and not the US on the spot.

Bush has consistently made our foreign policy tougher on us and our reputation than on our enemies. We cannot win a war on terror if we’ve succeeded in convincing people that we’re worst than the terrorists. One way of doing that is chosing to fight poorly justified or unjustified wars.

Our best protection against terrorists is the sympathy and cooperation of the world, because that, in itself, will allow our military, diplomatic, and covert efforts to move throughout the world with less resistance.

Bush, unfortunately, is too busy playing the war president, the bold fearless leader, to take such a wise course. He has to have our soldiers dying overseas to prove how safe he’s keeping us. When the next terrorist attack strikes, both us and the soldiers abroad will suffer for that attitude.

Eric—

And the Bush Administration is doing such a great job handling Iran and North Korea! Please!

I think the only problem with this strategy is that plutonium is a recoverable by-product of the commercial nuclear process. By giving them nuclear fuel we would be giving them the material needed for nuclear bombs. That’s a lot of trust to put into the Mullah’s hands.

By “calling their bluff,” I read that to mean we’d provide them with all the fuel they needed so they wouldn’t require uranium for nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, it’s not clear one way or the other from the interview.

George, I was under the impression that plutonium is only produced in so-called “breeder reactors”, not the normal nuclear reactors that Iran has.

I don’t think that making an offer that’s likely to be interpreted as fostering an energy dependence upon the United States (and subject to our good wills) and then putting forth an ultimatum where we assume hostile intentions if you don’t accept our offer is anything short of Imperialistic.

The United States is not happy about being dependent on other nations for essentials like food & energy, why would anyone else be? I would think many countries experience with our food aid (rock bottom “aid” combined with subsidizing our local agriculture markets, thus destroying native agricultural producers) would make any nation leery of depending on us for their energy as well.

It’s not about addicting them to our energy production, Jason, it’s about determining from their response what their priority is. If They give us a nice no thanksto the offer- against their energy interests, they will indicate that they’re running the nuclear plants to produce Nukes, not watts.

Uh Huh, Eric, why don’t you say it aloud.
” Kerry is really a secret operative for Al Qaeda. He wants to convert the entire US to Islam and then Nuke us all.” Jeez, you have a rich fantasy life.

This kind of terror baiting is what Cheney and Bush are all about. “Let’s not admit we have no plan except xenophobia, but instead create the fiction of Doomsday Kerry.”

That’s a good point, Jason. But we’re talking about an alternative to allowing Iran the ability to develop weapons-grade plutonium.

This is part of a nuclear non-proliferation strategy. If Iran is getting the nuclear fuel they need to generate power from us or from Russia, they don’t need to build enrichment facilities of their own that can be used to create weapons.

Whether they like it or not is not the issue. The issue is, how serious are we about non-proliferation.

American Pundit,

Eric, I’m sure you understand the concept behind the offer of fuel. If the US controls the production and disposal of the uranium, there’s no reason for Iran to develop an enrichment program that could be used to manufacture weapons.

Oh, I understand it. It’s the kind of nuance stupidity that we don’t need.

David,

IT DOES NOT SAY NUCLEAR FUEL, NOW DOES IT? Perhaps that is what was meant, but, it may too mean natural gas, or oil, or solar technology.

Even if the intent was nuclear fuel, it would in fact be calling their bluff if nuclear fuel needed for energy production were provided with international and U.S. oversight of its use which no doubt would be the case if the fuel could be converted to weapons grade.

Nice try. I’m not worried about trying to ‘call their bluff’. Does Kerry not already know that they’re goal is nuclear weapons not power? Is that even a question in your mind? If he still needs some kind of ‘gotcha’ I really question his intelligence, not to mention his judgement. Once they have the uranium, what ‘control’ do you think you’ll have? Inspections? The IAEA and the UN? Kofi Annan’s rigorous oversight?

Here’s another quote from Kerry’s website (link is in my post by the way.)

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. johnkerry.com

Dick Cheney is obviously correct. Kerry views Iran as just another peaceful nation.

If Mr Kerry were elected, he said, the country risked falling back into a “pre-9/11 mindset”, believing that terror attacks were just criminals acts “and that we’re not really at war”.

Greg,

Uh Huh, Eric, why don’t you say it aloud. ” Kerry is really a secret operative for Al Qaeda. He wants to convert the entire US to Islam and then Nuke us all.” Jeez, you have a rich fantasy life.

I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that Kerry’s nuance, and the left who buy into it wholesale, seem not to understand the nature of the threat nor the way to deal with it. It’s not about getting them to like us or playing elaborate diplomatic ‘gotcha’ games as if this were a group of people we compete against but can ultimately trust.

Iran is funding insurgents in Iraq. They already have the missiles to reach Israel. All they need next are ICBMs to truly threaten us. Then what will we do? The left starts with the negotiation option and appeases from there.

If I were the President those nuclear sites would be getting fully mapped right now for targeting. Sooner or later it will have to be done. I’d tell them up front. Stop or else.

It’s not really about the reactor type so much as it is dedicating a reactor to produce PU-239 verses using it to burn commercial fuel (probably MOX or Mix-Oxide). The question is can you separate the PU 239 from the spent nuclear fuel is sufficient purity to get weapons grade material.

There has been many a debate on this subject over the years. Carter banned the U.S. from re-processing spent nuclear fuel back in the 70’s based upon this very concern, but the Europeans have always re-cycled spent fuel into MOX using a separation technologies. The common impression is that it would be very hard to end up with weapons grade PU, but Carter must have had some technological reason to believe that it could be done by someone.

I too would err on the side of caution. At a minimum, you are giving them prime dirty bomb material that could be exported to the terrorists that they support. And the worst case is that they/someone has developed a decent separation technology and can recover a pure enough form of PU for a bomb. Either way there is no doubt that bad stuff (PU-239) is created as a result of the commercial nuclear fuel process, and I wouldn’t want to be involved in giving it to them.

This is an important discussion, though I’m wondering if anything can accurately be called a discussion when all three columns are monopolized by lefties shouting “me too!” as seems to be the case today. Looks like the polls have really got y’all stirred up.

Anyway, while Eric is trying to dig himself out of this pile-on, I think we need to consider another factor that is being overlooked.

Back in 1981, the French (of course) decided to help Sadam build a nuclear reactor. The Israelis decided that was a really bad idea from their standpoint, so they sent in combat aircraft loaded with various implements of destruction and put a stop to it.

Isn’t it pretty likely that they won’t permit Iran (or anyone else in their neighborhood, for that matter) to complete work on another potential bomb factory?

Despite all the opinionating about whether we should or shouldn’t provide those nice, friendly, and stable Iranians with nuclear fuel, I think there’s a real possibility that the whole issue may be overcome by events.

That, in my opinion, is the greater danger right now and if I was a mullah in Teheran, I’d be very watchful. And you can bet they are.

It’s not about getting them to like us or playing elaborate diplomatic ‘gotcha’ games as if this were a group of people we compete against but can ultimately trust.

This is where you guys just don’t get it. It has nothing to do with making Iran happy. It’s about getting the rest of the world on board without creating more terrorist recruits for bin Laden.

Most Muslims were cool (still are) with our operation in Afghanistan. They know it was for a good reason. Alternately, most see the Iraq invasion as the start of a crusade against Islam.

Building a solid case for military action is about “deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us.” Something Rumsfeld came to belatedly understand.

There’s nothing “stupid” about winning the war on terror. Bush’s ham-handed flailing of US military might in Iraq made the operation not worth the lives, limbs, and money it’s costing. It’s time to bring in someone who can wield military power in support of our foreign policy without ticking off our allies as well as our enemies.

Eric, what you and Bush both miss, is the need to demonstrate to our allies what we already know. Then we work with allies instead of alienating them. Kerry’s plan would demonstrate for the world to see exactly what Iran’s intentions are and leave no room for nations to say, “But that is not what Iran says”.

You unilateralists just don’t seem to understand what leadership is beyond having big bombs.

If I were in charge in Iran, you can bet your life that I’d be developing nukes, too. History has shown that the U.S. practices a two-tiered diplomacy — we negotiate with nuclear-armed nations, and bully nuke-free nations. In the “pre-911” era, the only war we feared was a nuclear war, and, if you couldn’t give us one, you didn’t have our respect.

9/11 should have taught us that our enemies don’t need nukes to hurt us, and that we can’t just crap all over the world without consequences. Unfortunately, our current president still seems to think that he can bully anyone he wants (with or without international support), as long as they don’t have the bomb. If we crush the ability of other nations to defend themselves against us, then we don’t have to worry about little things like respecting our neighbors. Perhaps if we would begin respecting the rights of other nations, instead of ordering them to follow OUR policies, then they wouldn’t feel they NEED the bomb.

Bottom line: If Iran gets nukes, we’ll start taking them seriously. If they don’t, it might take another 9/11 before we start taking them seriously. Either way, if they have any say about it, they WILL be taken seriously.

As a side note, I find it ironic that the one nation that speaks the loudest against nuclear proliferation (the U.S.) is the nation with the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, and the ONLY nation that has ever actually “dropped the bomb”!

Eric, if what I read of Kerry’s plan is true, we’ll be able to tell if they’re trying to screw us either way. If they refuse an offer which lowers the cost of attaining reactor-grade nuclear materials, we’ll know that they’re doing more than just refining uranium for energy generation. If they accept, we’ll know whether they’re acting in good faith by the amount of uranium we get back. Any discrepancies or irregularities pop up, and we can be down their throat in an instant. Also, reliance on us for energy puts their hardliners in a compromised position, and puts our foot in the door of their economy. The important part is that we not get lax about enforcement.

Thing is, though, if you read the material you quoted, you’ll know that Kerry considers Iran a terrorist state and that his offer is in many ways a test of the existence of Iran’s nuclear program.

One more thing, has it occurred to you that taking the spent fuel rods back means contact with us? An enterprising intelligence agency could put some spies into Iranian nuclear facilities, or recruit them from the staff.

One thing for sure, though- it will be a lot easier to get people to support our wars if they can’t argue with our evidence. A refusal of cheap energy will be persuasive to our allies as to Iran’s intentions.

Eric wrote:
> Brilliant! Maybe this would work
> with North Korea too?

Aw, Eric, you crazy kid! That’s exactly what the Bush Administration is doing!!!

Under the plan, South Korea and possibly other countries could begin providing heavy fuel oil to the North’s battered economy immediately if the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, promises to dismantle the country’s plutonium and uranium arms programs, U.S. officials said. The idea was floated by South Korea at the last round of talks and was neither rejected nor endorsed by the United States.

U.S. officials said this fuel would aid North Korea with its desperate energy situation and provide an incentive to begin preparations for dismantling its programs. Once North Korea began to display and secure its materials and weapons — and its claims have been verified by U.S. intelligence — the United States and the other nations at the negotiations would issue provisional security assurances. (Washington Post, June 24, 2004)

The Bush Administration policy towards North Korea has flip-flopped thusly over the past 3.5 years:

1) Ignore them.
2) Ignore them so much that South Korea and Japan no longer want to count on us to help them.
3) Ignore them so much that Beijing becomes the number one regional power broker.
4) When North Korea announces their secret nuclear weapons program, blame Clinton’s dumb fuel program.
5) Ignore them anyway, knowing full well that they are actively enriching nuclear fuel. Keep ignoring them. Allow them to continue producing this fuel for nearly two whole years.
6) Turn around full circle and go back to Clinton’s plan (see link above).

Eric, don’t you see how hypocritical your position on this is? It’s staggering. You think it’s stupid when Kerry proposes it for Iran, but this exact same approach is proposed by your guy for North Korea. Did you not know about the NK plan (I guess they don’t talk about it much in the right-wing news venues), or did you ignore it on purpose?

-Cf

> All they need next are ICBMs to truly
> threaten us.

Um, they’re a long, long way from that. ICBMs are rockets that go into space. When Iran achieves space flight, then I’ll be worried.

-Cf

Again, I will repeat,Eric, you have a wonderful fantasy life.

You presume that Kerry is a dupe. You presume that diplommacy and deal making has no place in geopolitics.

If you were president, you would have already nuked Iran. Thank God, no one would vote for you.

Did you happen to notice Russia announcing their right to preemptive strikes now? Boy, I feel safer already. Populist, nutcake speech may be good sounding in debate columns, but when people die because of hot headed and hard headed speech we all lose.

Kerry is hardly a pacifist. He doesn’t advocate anything you tried to smear him with, as you quoted Iran’s demands to Europe as though he would accede to their wishes willy nilly.

It is Bush’s lack of diplomacy that has weakened our positions, stuck us without help in Iraq, and will likely lead to attack because of the unpredictability of his policies.

Christopher Fahey said: “Aw, Eric, you crazy kid!”

It may have been meant in fun, Christopher, but you have no way to gurantee it will be received in fun. Therefore please, observe our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy regarding comments like that.

…It has nothing to do with making Iran happy. It’s about getting the rest of the world on board without creating more terrorist recruits for bin Laden.

Yes, and that is quite a task given how ‘the rest of the world,’ aka Europe, responded to the Beslan Massacre by Islamic terrorists by blaming the Russians for letting it happen. The left, and Kerry, want to follow Europe. Take a good look at the source of the quote. Kerry didn’t actually come up with this idea, the Europeans did. Kerry has stated that keeping ‘our allies’ on board takes precedence to doing the right thing. Is that a UN veto on American foreign policy? You bet it is. Worse, it is appeasement by proxy.

Rob,

Perhaps if we would begin respecting the rights of other nations, instead of ordering them to follow OUR policies, then they wouldn’t feel they NEED the bomb.

Bottom line: If Iran gets nukes, we’ll start taking them seriously. If they don’t, it might take another 9/11 before we start taking them seriously. Either way, if they have any say about it, they WILL be taken seriously.

As a side note, I find it ironic that the one nation that speaks the loudest against nuclear proliferation (the U.S.) is the nation with the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, and the ONLY nation that has ever actually “dropped the bomb”!

I understand your position, but I’d like to respectfully say that it is wrong. Our policy, vis a vis Iran, is that they must stop supporting terrorism. If that makes them want nukes, well —I wouldn’t blame the US. That’s like blaming the police for criminals being armed. You are articlulating a hallmark of the left’s arguments against America. We are to blame when the bad guys want to kill us. We are to blame when there is war. The fringe left uses the same arguments against the police.

My question to you is, would we be safer if we unilaterally disarmed ourselves of nuclear weapons? Completely? Would the world be a safer place?

I’ll give you my answer. It’s no.

> Kerry has stated that keeping ‘our allies’ on
> board takes precedence to doing the right thing.

When did he ever say that? What are you talking about? Just because he wants them on board doesn’t mean that he’s not willing to go it alone. You’re either making stuff up totally from scratch or making stuff up using bizzarro logic.

> Yes, and that is quite a task given how ‘the
> rest of the world,’ aka Europe, responded to
> the Beslan Massacre by Islamic terrorists by
> blaming the Russians for letting it happen.

The link you provided hardly supports your outrageous statement. At best (best for you), it shows that two people were critical of Russia’s handling of the tactics of the seige. Mostly it appears to be an article about how Putin can’t get the Europeans to stand by him as he cracks down on Chechnya.

But guess what? Yet again you criticize others for following the same policies your own candidate espouses. The Bush Administration’s policy regarding Chechnya is the exactly what you seem to be decrying when it comes from the mouths of filthy Europeans: that Russia must negotiate with the Chechens, and that military solutions are not going to work. That’s our policy, Eric!!

Understandably, Putin mocked this policy yesterday, saying that it’s the equivalent of asking the USA to negotiate with Osama bin Laden. Russian hyperbole aside, does it not strike you as untenable for the USA to maintain our right to unilateral pre-emption to fight terrorism while opposing it when other countries desire to use it?

This is only part of the reason why we shouldn’t use such a policy recklessly. Iraq was reckless and sets a dangerous precedent for many other would-be pre-emptive wars against terrorism.

-Cf

I used to have some sympathy for the Chechens. I used to compare them to the Poles or Czechs resisting the evil Russian Empire. No more. My mind has been changing and the latest incident makes it impossible for me ever to support Chechen independence. I can understand Putin’s frustration with calls to negotiate. I never expected the Russians to be on the front lines of civilization against barbarism. It goes to show that nations don’t have permanent enemies.

If you were an Iranian mullah, how would you approach the situation? (If anyone actually IS an Iranian mullah, please put out the authoritative word! otherwise I’ll rely on conjecture).
If I were a mullah… no, no songs allowed… anyway, I’d look at the the average age of the Iranian population, which is growing increasingly young, and increasingly distant from the fiery, pious days of the revolution. Western influence is undermining the true religion’s culture in a variety of ways; among other things, CIA funded broadcasts are actively encouraging dissidents. Before the revolution, the enemy funded the Shah & SAVAK, brutally repressing the true religion. Now that enemy is on the doorstep with over 100,000 troops. They’ve made it clear Iran belongs to an ‘axis of evil’- as if anything could be more evil than their decadence!- and the enemy possesses a vast weapons arsenal that includes nuclear weapons. They’ve openly declared they will launch a pre-emptive war and attack first. Recent history shows this enemy will not invade a country with nuclear weapons- but will attack to prevent it. Is there any choice? Kerry, Bush, they’re all the same in the eyes of Allah, they change the leaders but it’s clearly a matter of time before the attack comes. For the sake of the true religion and its people, Iran must develop nuclear weapons as quickly and surrepticiously as possible.
In addition, there is a very tempting target across the border in Iraq, and never likely to be a better time. Al Sadr and the Mehdi Army have done well. How far would it be wise to go? Wait to develop the nukes, or strike now, when the enemy is more vulnerable than it will ever be again?
I could go on; at any rate this is food for thought.

Mostly it appears to be an article about how Putin can’t get the Europeans to stand by him as he cracks down on Chechnya.

Hmm. Rather like Bush. You know I’ve been in work situations where someone told me that a coworker, ‘just can’t get along with anyone’. Turns out it was the one who told me that who really couldn’t get along with anyone. This sounds like much the same situation. Europe is still largely in appeasement mode. Kerry wants to defer to Europe.

But guess what? Yet again you criticize others for following the same policies your own candidate espouses. The Bush Administration’s policy regarding Chechnya is the exactly what you seem to be decrying when it comes from the mouths of filthy Europeans: that Russia must negotiate with the Chechens, and that military solutions are not going to work. That’s our policy, Eric!!

Beslen shows the bankruptcy of the European mindset. A liberal mindset- mind you. I’m sorry Beslen happened. Likewise September 11th. The question is do we say it’s just a criminal act? Or an act of war?

I wish Europe would follow Putin in declaring a willingness to launch preemptive strikes on terror bases anywhere in the world. Instead of begging terrorists to free their journalists because they’re on not on America’s side in it’s war on Iraq.

RUSSIA warned today it could launch preemptive strikes on terror bases anywhere in the world and put a bounty on two top Chechen rebels after the broadcast of a chilling video of the school hostage siege.

“We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region” in the world, Russian Chief of Staff General Yury Baluyevsky told reporters at a meeting with US General James Jones, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe. news.com.au

The Iraq war was not reckless, it was in fact the right thing to do for many reasons. Foremost is that it does strike at the heart of the Iranian Mullahs. The axis of evil. Now is not a time for appeasement, or diplomacy, or negotiation, with the enemy. We are at war. It is a time for defeating the enemy. Maybe it would help to think of the terrorists as Republicans?

Eric.

The Russian problem with Chechnya is they decided the ends justified the means in keeping the place. So they fought a brutal war to keep the place under their control. Not surprisingly, this selected against moderates in the area, and extremists gained power as they promised results. The Russians crack down harder. People stop thinking of results, they instead think of blood, and how they can let it. That or they passively sit on the sidelines, or stand in the crossfire.

This is not negotiation to please all sides, this is negotiation to end a smoldering conflict that’s a liability to all sides.

The question is do we say it’s just a criminal act? Or an act of war?

Unask the question, Eric. It’s a misleading direction. You think it will always be one or the other? You treat it like a criminal matter when prosecutions and arrests do the best job, like an act of war when it needs to be treated as such. It is a false dichotomy, especially in relation to making distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, to think that one side just wants to be weak while the other side wants to be strong.

Whatever the hell works. That’s what I say. Whatever we have to do, done with care, done with intelligence and our wits about us. Many of the men who bombed the WTC back in 1993 are behind bars. Is this not a positive outcome? The Taliban no longer control most of Afghanistan. I’m shedding no tears. I really haven’t invested myself in a dogmatism of approach. Appropriate methods are the ones I favor. Appropriate targets are the ones i want brought down. We don’t have the time to wait for military action to cleanse the world, nor the resources to approach things by ourselves, with our own army or government alone. We will have to catch the terrorists wherever they are, stop their plots regardless of whether it’s a combat officer’s weapon that’s pointed at them, that of a covert officer, or that of a police officer. I don’t care. I just want the job done, and done well. I don’t think most Americans would find that an irrational approach.

> I wish Europe would follow Putin in declaring
> a willingness to launch preemptive strikes
> on terror bases anywhere in the world.

?!?!?

Eric, are you serious? You think that we should just let Russia invade whoever they want if they simply say that they think terrorists are there?? What if these alleged bases are in Afghanistan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Holy moly, I can’t get over the fact that you see that quote from Baluyevsky as a positive thing. I was going to post that same quote as an example of the insane repercussions of the Bush administration’s policies, and yet you seem to laud that insanity as a good thing.

Do you realize, also, that your opinion is 100% opposite of the stated policy of the Bush Administration? The Administration thinks that only the USA has the right to pre-emptive wars. You seem to think that, now, anybody can do it. I guess at least you’re being consistent in your vision of an apocalyptic world of pre-emptive wars.

Startlingly, your view is far far more dangerous than even the Bush Administration’s is. I guess that explains the Bush appeal: if you desire neverending global chaos and violence, then Bush is clearly your man.

-Cf

Eric,

I understand your position, and why we want Iran to stop (a) developing nukes and (b) supporting terrorism. What I DON’T understand is how our current policies are expected to meet those ends. When your foreign policy is “we’ll do whatever we want to whomever we want, and won’t even stop to notice you unless you (a) split the atom, or (b) fly a plane into one of our buildings”, what do you expect? Perhaps if we start respecting their sovereignty, and enforcing international law on our allies as well as our enemies, we might get a little more respect in the world community.

For the record, I don’t only blame the current administration for this. Both parties have been crapping on the world for the last 50 years. And I don’t expect it to end if Kerry is elected. But I do think that Bush is making it much worse.

It’s strange that our leaders must win the hearts and minds of voters to get elected, but miserably fail to see that those skills can be useful after the election. Maybe they need to direct a few of those campaign dollars towards a “convince the Middle East that we’re not Satan” campaign. That could go a long way towards securing our nation.

Of course, as long as we can label our enemies as “terrorists”, we can de-humanize them, and blow them up, and our voters will support us. McCarthy taught us a lot, didn’t he?

And, as for disarming ourselves of nuclear weapons, it’s either that or live in eternal hypocrisy. Nuclear weapons are weapons of terror, whether you’re an “axis-of-evil” nation or a world superpower. They inspire fear, even when they’re not used (see MAD doctrine for details). When they are used, they do not discriminate between soldiers and civilians. The only times they were used, each one killed more civilians than 9/11 did. And why? To terrorize a nation into laying down its expansionistic claims. Yup… we’re terrorsts! That didn’t end in 1945. Immediately after 9/11, the Bush Administration said that we were considering every option, specifically mentioning “nuclear options”. We’re still terrorizing the world with the threat of nuclear destruction.

The double-standard needs to stop. Nuclear weapons are weapons of terror for them, and weapons of peace for us. Fear tactics and civilian casualties are “terrorism” for them, and “shock and awe” for us. I don’t know who originated this foreign policy, but it needs to stop NOW!

-Rob

cf-

I guess that explains the Bush appeal: if you desire neverending global chaos and violence, then Bush is clearly your man.

No, I desire multilateralism. Now that Russia is on board, we should coordinate with them on their preemption. Isn’t that what Kerry’s argument is against Bush? Not that the invasion was wrong but that ‘allies’ didn’t agree with it. Well, here’s an ally agreeing to the doctrine of preemption. You should be lauding the Bush administration for gaining a convert. Maybe after 300 school children are slaughtered in France, you might hear something similiar from the new President of France.

And, as for disarming ourselves of nuclear weapons, it’s either that or live in eternal hypocrisy. Nuclear weapons are weapons of terror, whether you’re an “axis-of-evil” nation or a world superpower. They inspire fear, even when they’re not used (see MAD doctrine for details).

If our nuclear weapons need to go because they inspire fear, what about our tank divisions? Bombers? Infantry? If the criteria is whether or not they inspire fear then we should just go pacifist completely in order to show that we mean no harm.

Of course that’s ridiculous isn’t it? So is the idea that we are too strong or that we are also ‘terrorists’.

French foreign policy veto…

“We consider that all military action not endorsed by the international community, through, in particular, the Security Council, was both illegitimate and illegal, is illegitimate and illegal. And we have not changed our view on that”, Mr Chirac told reporters in Evian. Tuesday, June 3, 2003- bbc

> Now that Russia is on board, we should coordinate
> with them on their preemption.

“On board”?? They are not “on board” with us at all. They’re taking advantage of the open door we left, that’s it. Are you saying that we should cooperate with them if they invade Afghanistan while we’re still there trying to keep the peace? If they make airstrikes in Jordan or Lebanon? If they bomb training camps in Pakistan?

> Isn’t that what Kerry’s argument is against Bush?
> Not that the invasion was wrong but that ‘allies’
> didn’t agree with it.

No, the argument is that the invasion was premature and that’s why the allies didn’t agree with it. A great number of Americans didn’t agree with it either, you know.

> You should be lauding the Bush administration for
> gaining a convert.

Holy moly, you are an apocalyptic. Bush doesn’t want converts to his doctrine!! The last thing anyone (except you) wants is to have Russia, India, China, and whoever else going around invading other countries pre-emptively. Do you realize that you are advocating something that nobody with any credibility at all, not even within the Bush Administration, is advocating?

Under this same doctrine, we would have had no justification for the first Persian Gulf War. Do you realize that? Protecting Kuwait’s national sovereignty, even in the face of Saddam’s accusations of Kuwaiti aggression, was the sole rhetorical argument for that war.

Eric, that Chirac quote proves what, exactly? Why did you use the word “veto”? It is dated a month after “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”. What could they veto then?

You may be happy to hear that I agree with you that American unilateral nuclear disarmament is insane. Almost as insane as your idea of giving all of the thugs and autocrats around the world, including Vladimir Putin, a blank check to invade whomever they please.

-Cf

If our nuclear weapons need to go because they inspire fear, what about our tank divisions? Bombers? Infantry? If the criteria is whether or not they inspire fear then we should just go pacifist completely in order to show that we mean no harm.

Of course that’s ridiculous isn’t it?…

Yes, that is ridiculous. And that is exactly my point! Our military inspires terror. So does Iran’s military (to a lesser extent). So why are they “terrorists”, while we’re “liberators”? If inspiring terror is such a damnable offense, then shouldn’t we be the first on the chopping block?

The truth is that we’re not fighting a “War on Terror”. We’re fighting a war on political enemies. Unfortunately, since we haven’t defined a specific enemy (besides “Terror”), Bush is free to interpret that to mean anyone he wants.

We’re not opposed to Iran because they support “terrorists”. Iran supports “terrorists” because we’re opposed to them. Iran is a political enemy — they have a different set of political values, a different set of economic values, and a different set of social values. If they were in the middle of an African jungle, we’d probably ignore them; however, as they’re sitting on oil fields, we actively oppose them. We’ve been slowly strangling them and the rest of the Islamic Middle East for decades, and the only defense they’ve had is “terrorism”.

Bush wants us all to think that the “war” started on 9/11. The truth is that the war has been going on for decades. 9/11 was just the date of our first real casualties in it.

Eric, so far I’ve heard you argue that pre-emption wasn’t Bush’s idea after all, that you disagree fundamentally and completely with Bush’s policies in North Korea, and that you disagree fundamentally and completely with Bush’s policies towards Russia. You’re on a roll here, you know. Have you considered not voting for him if you disagree with him so much?

-Cf

cf-

Let’s take this one step at a time Chris. Don’t hyperventilate on me here.

Are you saying that we should cooperate with them if they invade Afghanistan while we’re still there trying to keep the peace? If they make airstrikes in Jordan or Lebanon? If they bomb training camps in Pakistan?

Yes, obviously I think it would be great for Russia to contribute troops to Afghanistan, or even better Iraq. Do you think really think they are going to bomb Jordon or Lebanon or Pakistan? Probably Chechnya, da?

No, the argument is that the invasion was premature and that’s why the allies didn’t agree with it.

Premature. After twelve years? After almost a decade of on again off again inspections which left us with apparently no idea if it were working? With Saddam still in power. Saddam Hussein broke the ceasefire agreement.

The last thing anyone (except you) wants is to have Russia, India, China, and whoever else going around invading other countries pre-emptively.

That depends. If it’s Russia invading Poland, or India invading Thailand, or China invading Japan, then yes that would be wrong. Preemption is not a blatant war of conquest, or imperial annexation. That’s Michael Moore-land rhetoric.

Under this same doctrine, we would have had no justification for the first Persian Gulf War. Do you realize that? Protecting Kuwait’s national sovereignty, even in the face of Saddam’s accusations of Kuwaiti aggression, was the sole rhetorical argument for that war.

Fundamentally wrong. Removing Saddam from Kuwait does not equate with national sovereignty being inviolate. We didn’t remove Saddam from Kuwait soley because national sovereignty was violated, we did it because one country annexed the other in a predatory war of conquest. National sovereignty is not sacrocant. Just like your own citizenship is not sacrosanct. Felons don’t have the right to vote for instance.

I know, this is just too much nuance for you, but preemption is a correlate of self defence. Just like we empower the police to protect us in the name of self defence, the United States has a right to take it upon itself to act as a policeman when necessary. That is what we did in Iraq. We didn’t just pick a name out of a hat either. We didn’t decide to invade on a whim, or in a day… there is twelve years of involvement here that makes a difference as well. (More in my response to Rob below…)

Eric, that Chirac quote proves what, exactly? Why did you use the word “veto”? It is dated a month after “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”. What could they veto then?

Veto, because it is Kerry’s belief that because of France’s opposition we should not have invaded Iraq. It is a veto because the quote illustrates the shared belief of Kerry and Chirac that any military action not endorsed by the international community is illegal. ipso facto that is a veto on US foreign policy.

You may be happy to hear that I agree with you that American unilateral nuclear disarmament is insane.

I am glad.

Almost as insane as your idea of giving all of the thugs and autocrats around the world, including Vladimir Putin, a blank check to invade whomever they please.

But to fine tune what I actually believe, rather than you putting spin on what I’m saying, I certainly don’t think the doctrine of preemption gives a Saddam Hussein a green light to invade Kuwait for instance. That is your interpretation, the left’s interpretation, of what preemption is. This is the characterization of George W. Bush as Hitler. The invasion of Iraq as imperialist war for oil. There is a difference between preemption and wars of conquest.

Eric, so far I’ve heard you argue that pre-emption wasn’t Bush’s idea after all, that you disagree fundamentally and completely with Bush’s policies in North Korea, and that you disagree fundamentally and completely with Bush’s policies towards Russia. You’re on a roll here, you know. Have you considered not voting for him if you disagree with him so much?

Apparently, I do disagree with the Bush policy vis a vis Russia and Chechnya. I also disagree on some of his domestic policy. Certainly Kerry leans in the opposite direction.

But think that the Russians coming out and saying this is actually a good opportunity for Bush to create a closer relationship with Putin and perhaps a greater cooperation.

Rob,

Our military inspires terror. So does Iran’s military (to a lesser extent). So why are they “terrorists”, while we’re “liberators”? If inspiring terror is such a damnable offense, then shouldn’t we be the first on the chopping block?

This is what is wrong with the left. Blame America First. The moral equivalency is staggering. Terrorists, liberators… it’s all the same. I’ll take a stab and say we are oppressing the world with our capitalist tyranny as well?

The truth is that we’re not fighting a “War on Terror”. We’re fighting a war on political enemies. Unfortunately, since we haven’t defined a specific enemy (besides “Terror”), Bush is free to interpret that to mean anyone he wants.

That must be why the neo-cons have been pushing to bomb those Buddist villages next. Islamic terror has nothing to do with it. Thank you, Rob. Christopher has been trying to convince me that the far left didn’t exist.

We’re not opposed to Iran because they support “terrorists”. Iran supports “terrorists” because we’re opposed to them.

We oppose them how? By requiring that they stop funding the killing of Pizza Restaurant patrons in Israel? That they stop executing their citizens for infractions of a 7th century religious code? That they not execute a woman by stoning and throwing off a cliff as punishment for adultery or being raped? That they stop the brutal suppression of student protestors who disagree with their government?

Iran is a political enemy — they have a different set of political values, a different set of economic values, and a different set of social values. If they were in the middle of an African jungle, we’d probably ignore them; however, as they’re sitting on oil fields, we actively oppose them. We’ve been slowly strangling them and the rest of the Islamic Middle East for decades, and the only defense they’ve had is “terrorism”.

Bush wants us all to think that the “war” started on 9/11. The truth is that the war has been going on for decades. 9/11 was just the date of our first real casualties in it.

You’re right, they do have a different set of values. And inasmuch as they are terrorist values we should oppose them.

By the way, ‘blood for oil’ is not an argument.

> That is your interpretation, the left’s interpretation, of
> what preemption is. This is the characterization of George W.
> Bush as Hitler.

No, it’s part of the characterization of George W. Bush as reckless idiot.

-Cf

To: C.F.- Your characterization of Pres. Bush as a “reckless idiot” is interesting. You see at least he has taken a position that you (however wrongly) CAN characterize ! Sen. Kerry, on the other hand, has taken ALL positions on EVERY issue. If he were driving on a freeway everyone, in every lane, would be l-o-n-g dead. If, as seems likely, Pres. Bush wins reelection we will be safer. If Kerry wins we will be up the creek without a paddle, map, accurate location or correct date, while not knowing what the hell we are doing (remember Cambodia, ‘68) ! How’s that for an example of a “Reckless Idiot” ??

Eric, your arguments actually almost sound coherent here. Notice I said almost.

Russia in Afghanistan? Why not Hussein in Kuwait?

While I like the idea of involving Russia, India, and China in UN type actions. There is also the small reality that these are also tyrranical regimes known for brutality (excepting India). We don’t need their military help, we need their political cover to avoid reprecussions from all the cold war shenanigans we are guilty of.

Bush has so bungled Iraq, that I have my doubts as to any opportunity to turn it around, saving brutal repression and essentially a form of colonialism or protectorate state over the next tens of years. Even that sounds pretty unworkable at this point.

No one has come close to more than putting a band aid on Haiti in the last 100 years or so. If we can’t build a nation there, what hope is there in Iraq?

I think your heart is in the right place, Eric, you just get a little giddy over Bush’s flag waving from time to time.

greg,

I do feel a little giddy at the moment. How did you know?

One thing that gives me some hope that Iraq will not be a Haiti is that the Iraqis have a history of sucessful self rule and rule of law that Haiti doesn’t.

My wife’s uncle is from Iraq. He has several degrees. Iraq has a history of moderate secular government with things like co-ed education. University level education for women!

One thing we cannot do is do it for them. There is an element of do it yourself that must happen for the Iraqi’s to be succesfull. They must be able to step up to the plate at some point and take responsibilty for their country.

They can and will be a successful democracy. There are Iraqi’s who ‘get it’.

My view of the present stage in Iraq is that the resistance has to be drawn out and played out. We are doing that and doing it successfully.

“My view of the present stage in Iraq is that the resistance has to be drawn out and played out. We are doing that and doing it successfully.”

All things considered, I think the right has declared too much victory way too many times in this war. We need to quite talk about how we’re winning and actually do so. Saying we’ve won just raises false expectations.

To: S.D.- If the Right can be accused of declaring victory what can the Left be accused of ? It seems that the Left desires only a few things in Iraq, utter defeat and humiliation of all U.S. forces ! Mention the words “Total Failure” and a leftists eyes gleam with anticipation and saliva trickles down the corner of his mouth. The only way for the New-Left to win is for America to lose !
The party of F.D.R., Truman and Kennedy is dead.

You’re right, they do have a different set of values. And inasmuch as they are terrorist values we should oppose them.

Yet we’re still left without a real definition of “terrorism”. It’s not killing innocent civilians (because Hiroshima wasn’t terrorism). It’s not sowing fear and chaos (because “Shock and Awe” isn’t terrorism). It’s not religious extremism (because Israeli extremism isn’t terrorism). So what is terrorism, them? We can’t wage “war on terror” unless we know what terror is. From your post, all I can find is a vague reference to “Islamic terror”, which would imply that this is a holy war.

The dictionary has failed to answer the question, so I ask you, Eric — what exactly is “terrorism”? With this many lives at stake, a Justice Stewart-esque “I know it when I see it” isn’t sufficient.

(Of course, if you prefer, you can just write me off as the “far left” again, and return to the comforting illusion of one-dimensional “left/right” politics. If it were really that easy, I’d be voting for Kerry this year. Unfortunately, the real world is a little more complicated than that.)

Am I the only one that sees that Bush invaded Iraq, not for oil, not for Saddam, but just so we can use it as a battlefield?

Henry, you’re going to have to expand on that before I feel comfortable commenting on it. :)

Eric, just for laughs maybe you’d like to reply to my first post above about how Bush’s policy towards North Korea is nearly identical to the Kerry-proposed policy you mock regarding Iran.

-Cf

AP,
Will be glad to. First, we all know that Afganistan does not lend itself to our military equipment. Carrying out those orders would have been hard and cost a lot of men lives. Therefore, since Iraq had threaten the Isral and her allies (i.e. U.S.) Our administration/military figured that it would be safer for the U.S. to attack Iraq thus bringing the Al Qaeda to Iraq and eliminating a two front war where we would have to protect Isral. Given the option Bush really had no chioce, but to go along with the plan.

Bush is not going to win, check the financials, he has not raised as much as Kerry, and the winner was determined this early summer. This is the main reason that Bush and his friends are putting out the commercials and attempting to downgrade Kerry. When the ship is sinking what do you do? You scream for help, you run crazy around the boat for a life vessel! Understanding the program is really an awesome venture, it is even more funny how this idiot claims we need him. We are in this war for his personal wealth, or the oil in Iraq. What happened to the billions of dollars they found in Iraq, I bet a ton of the military officials got fat and in Bushies favor when they hid those bucks.

Wanna be a millionaire, go to war for me, tell the media what I want them to hear …

It is so obvious, wake up.

Bush Campaign Video

Bush Video

exjf ioorkujtco.