Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Chops:

Heh. Way to work in the Red Sox bit. How they doin’ this year, btw?

I suggest to you that playing nuclear dominoes in that part of the world is not such a good idea. Granted, reasonable people would see the deterent effect. However, these are not all reasonable people, and I would hate to see a Mid-eastern version of the cold war, in a nuclear perspective, drag out for the decades it took for the US and USSR to resolve the issue. The aftermath of that cold war has not been terrific, seeing as many nukes are still unaccounted for and rumors that they are for sale to the highest bidder.

The larger question is what the international community should do, if anything. It would be nice to have a fully functional UN to resolve this issue. But the UN has lost a great deal of face in recent days. If the US was more credible from a foreign policy perspective, we could at least begin talks. But what reason do the Iranians have to listen to us? Should they fear invasion?

I hate to say it, but the only people who will convince the Iranians and other countries in the region to reject nuclear politics are the other countries of the region with like cultures. The problem with that solution is that I don’t know that any of them are interested in being the mouthpiece.

Chi Chi -

The Red Sox are doing great!

But the UN has lost a great deal of face in recent days

I don’t think they ever had much face to lose. Seriously: when was the UN ever powerful and well-respected?

The larger question is what the international community should do, if anything.

Exactly. And, like the Washington Post, I evaded answering this question because I don’t have a good answer.

I hate to say it, but the only people who will convince the Iranians and other countries in the region to reject nuclear politics are the other countries of the region with like cultures.

I dunno about this. Iran has no friends; only interests. This is a serious problem. Look at the U.S. and France - our interests often diverge, but our friendship means we’ll never go to war. It would be unthinkable on both sides. Iran, however, has no good friends it can count on, or who can talk it down off the nuclear ladder. None of its neighbors are Persian, and only Iraq is Shi’ite-led, and it has had poor relations with all its neighbors going back to the time of Cyrus the Great. So I don’t think we can count on other Middle Eastern countries to do anything except create conflict.

So, why is Bush proliferating US Nuclear technology to India, again? Someone needs to tell the president about the domino effect, he was asleep or high in that history class too, apparently.

David -

Nuclear weapons are like virginity, either you have them or you don’t. India has them, so helping them with power plants isn’t going to make an impact on their nuclear ability.

And indeed, a few (India, Pakistan, Israel) have already succeeded in gaining nukes, and others (Iraq, North Korea, Iran) are or have been well on their way to nuclear armament.

I thought there were no WMD’s or active WMD programs in Iraq, has evidence that they did surfaced recently? I’d like to see it; and maybe I’ll change my mind about how I will decide whom I will give my first vote to in 2008. Also, didn’t N. Korea announce that they “had manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense”. That would put them in the “have already succeeded in gaining nukes” category, would it not?
_________________________________________________

In terms of solutions to the problems with Iran and N. Korea, I recommend having the United States have either the United Nations or NATO lay down an ultimatum saying that inspectors must be allowed back into those countries and that all nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction be immediately suspended. The result of not complying would be a multi-lateral military action by the EU, USA and UN against the non-compliant country or countries.

I know this sounds a little odd coming from a person who opposes the current mess in Iraq. My reasons for opposing the invasion of Iraq is that Iraq did in fact comply with our demands to the best it could (They could not hand over non-existent WMDs, could they?); Weapons inspectors were in the country, inspecting to make sure there were no illegal activities occurring.
_________________________________________________

Chi Chi: I am proud to say the Red Sox are #1 in the American League East- 5 games ahead of those backward Yankees

See this is where I would usually throw up my hands and say “SCREW IT! Whatever they want to do fine” because, honestly the collective hands of the world are tied behind their back and Iran knows it. The UN could talk to them but then you run into the same problem that you had with Iraq under Saddam, he does whatever he wants to do and the UN will just sit there and say, “You keep doing that and we will write you more nasty-grams and tell you how bad you are.” Then it is up to the good ol US of A and our good friends the Brits to run in and enforce the UN resolutions by ourselves while the rest fo the world sits down and shakes their head saying what big bad bullies WE are. SO what do you do? Well I don’t know but I can tell you, if Iran comes remotely CLOSE to getting nuclear weapons, the West, as I am sure you all know, well we are in deep $&!*, as the above post-ers pointed out, Iran has no real friends, but as a muslim nation with fundamentalists, the West is not that far down on their list of “Places to Nuke”. This in and of itself is a Clear and Present danger, not because they are muslims, but because if we do retaliate, they believe they will go and be patted on the back by Allah for doing such great harm to the infidels. They have no joy in life, no reason to be anything more than suicide bombers, and in this case on a MUCH larger scale that a car bomb. Mind you I am not talking about your everyday, run of the mill, law abiding, true Muslims but the fanantics that reside in almost EVERY Islamic state. And who is to say that a few of those fanatics aren’t in their nuclear program right now? Once again, what do you do? What CAN you do short of invading Iran to serve a higher purpose, a kind of the end usurps the means type thinking? Sanctions? UN nasty-grams? Don’t do that or we will…? As I said I am sure that Iran has more than a few level heads that are serious about peaceful use of their new found nuclear power, but what of the rest? Our hands are seriously tied, Iran will continue to develop and enhance their nuclear program, and their is nothing we can do about it, no matter how much we want to and try to stop it.

I agree. Pandora’s box has already been opened. Remember Iran was once attacked by the then American puppet Saddam’s Iraq. If I were Iranian I would be doing my very best to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the mess in the middle east. The best foreign policy is one where we ally ourselves with Islamic theorcracies. Let them fight their own terrorists. At least the disgruntled in western nations would be able to return to their homes in Islamic bliss, and we could preserve our freedoms instead of having to compromise them in the name of security.

Load Toad -

I was with you for the first few sentances. But please identify the last time a Shi’ite committed a suicide bombing anywhere in the world. Fortunately for us all, the Shi’ite theology has upheld the Quranic prohibition of suicide, and the Iranian brand of fundamentalism has a much less military outlook than that of the Sunnis.

While I grant that trusting Iran’s intentions are not high on my to-do list, why is it that we assume their intentions are hostile because they wouldn’t take hand-outs? If they can make nuclear fuel for themselves, strictly for peaceful use, and it is their intention to do just that, they may refuse the hand-outs so they have the opportunity to prove their own ingenuity. They may refuse to participate in the international community because it’s a mess. They may be reclusive (the whole not having any friends may be intentional) and ethnocentric. Why do we assume they have to be hostile?

Chops, I’m pretty sure the Hezbollah suicide bomber who took out the Marine barracks in Beirut was Shiite. That’s just off the top of my head.

The latest US intel says it’ll be at least a decade before Iran has a bomb if they decide to pursue it - and the worldwide consensus is that they will IF they are left alone.

The IAEA has monitors in place at the facilities, and you can bet that US and Israeli intelligence is watching everything that goes into Iran for signs of covert programs.

Currently, the best course of action is the one Democrats recommended, and President Bush finally embraced: work with the international community to ensure that Iran doesn’t use their civilian nuclear power program to build a bomb.

As Dr. Rice recently put it,

You know, I do think that in — when I first went to Europe, I found that somehow we’d gotten into a position where it was the United States that was the problem in the Iranian situation, and so you actually had a strange situation in which the Iranians — in which the Europeans were trying to broker between the United States and Iran. That was not a good place to be.

And so through that trip and then the President’s trip to Europe and then my return trip to Europe, we worked hard to come to a common position so that we could leave Iran effectively no way out except to go through the EU-3 talks.

In addition, President Bush should be accellerating efforts to make sure no one is helping Iran with the precision equipment or the expertise necessary to build a bomb.

David is right that proliferating nuclear know-how and technology to India is a bad idea: India is forging close ties with Iran to secure that country’s oil. What’s the quid pro quo? It’d better not be help with Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program.

We should also be leading an initiative to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The current treaty is fatally flawed because it’s voluntary and there’s no mechanism for enforcement.

President Bush recently floated the idea of having the US, Russia, or the EU control the nuclear fuel lifecycle, so that there is no need for countries like Iran to have (and invest in) the technology to enrich uranium. It’s good to see the President considering another Democratic idea that he once ridiculed.

Its too late for all that. The only solution is to attack Iran. Like it or not, the US Policy is now Military Force with International Sanction. Any move to Diplomacy is a sign of weakness. By using the Hammer, we only have nails for problems. A decisive strike will prove that America is not cowed by massive casualties in Iraq, that we will keep fighting.

We must invade Iran to save the World.

“We must invade Iran to save the World.”

Aldous,
I wish the world was as simple as you see it. Me see bad guy…me kill bad guy. This only works in video games, action movies, and the diluted daydreams of Neo-Cons. I am sorry to bust your little bubble, but the world is far more complicated than US=Hammer US Problems=Nails. You probably still believe that we were justified in killing over 200,000 innocent civilians by dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan. That same mindset that says, “the Japanese/Iraqi/Persian civilian lives are worth less than American lives.”

Ah, Aldous, master of sarcasm… even new liberals here think you’re a neo-con.

Warren:

others (Iraq, North Korea, Iran) are or have been well on their way to nuclear armament.

I thought there were no WMD’s or active WMD programs in Iraq, has evidence that they did surfaced recently?

Iraq had a thriving nuclear program in the early 1980s.

The days of competing superpowers are over; the new paradigm is states v. non-states, and nukes are a one-way weapon inasmuch as they can only be used against states. Thus, in the current climate, developing nukes signals that you see yourself on the side of the non-state actors and against the rest of the world’s states.

I love how you define the paradigm as states vs non-states and then conclude that certain states are really on the side of non-states, rather than accepting that states vs states is still a quite valid paradigm. After all, we just invaded two states. Remember Afghanistan and Iraq?

As far as “who needs nukes” goes, that argument might be more persuasive to other countries if we and our allies, like Israel, gave up ours first. We remain the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons against another. And last I checked, weren’t we pushing to develop nuclear bunker-busting missiles? Not exactly a comfort to those we’re telling they shouldn’t bother with developing nukes. We can’t keep acting as if the rules don’t apply to us, as if we’re the adults and the rest of the planet are children who should do as we say, not as we do.

Jarandhel -

In Afghanistan, we fought the Taliban, not a state. Really, we just intervened on one side in a civil war, and propelled them to victory. In Iraq, we did attack a state, but one that had a history of doing so itself. There are still a few states that refuse the new paradigm of nonviolence between states, but these are a tiny minority. Compare the conflicts of this era to those of any preceding century and you’ll see what I mean: it’s not a law of physics, sure, but it is a new paradigm.

As far as America de-nuking… sure. And why don’t we take guns away from the police while we’re at it?

In Afghanistan, we fought the Taliban, not a state. Really, we just intervened on one side in a civil war, and propelled them to victory.

The Taliban controlled 90 percent of that country, and were themselves a revolutionary group fighting a civil war. To recognize civil war as an proper means of governmental change, but refuse to recognize the Taliban had already used those means to effect such change, is silly. The Taliban, when we invaded Afghanistan, were the state. We decided we didn’t like them being in charge, and so backed their opponents, who previously controlled only a few strongholds in the northeast.

In Iraq, we did attack a state, but one that had a history of doing so itself. There are still a few states that refuse the new paradigm of nonviolence between states, but these are a tiny minority.

Apparently we are one of that “tiny minority” if we justify attacking a state simply for having a history of attacking other states.

Compare the conflicts of this era to those of any preceding century and you’ll see what I mean: it’s not a law of physics, sure, but it is a new paradigm.

If that is so, then why are you so hesitant for America to de-nuke? After all, you have said that nukes are only appropriate to use against other states. So if there is such a radical paradigm shift in this century, why do we need weapons that cannot possibly be used against our new enemies?

As far as America de-nuking… sure. And why don’t we take guns away from the police while we’re at it?

That’s just it, though… you think of America as the police, and the rest of the world as either the people they are protecting, or criminals. This is a false analogy. America is one nation among many, and the many have NOT empowered America to be their sheriff. We need to get away from this “team america: world police” mentality.

Iran has benefitted enormously from the invasion of Iraq. Where they had been on the verge of moderates controlling to government with a big democratic push from below, ceased nuclear programs while in talks, and isolated on the world stage, they are now turning back to a strong religious hardline leadership in the face of the American threat, emboldened to restart their nuclear ambitions, and have all kinds of attention and political support from Russia, China and India who all lost their oil contracts when Bush appropriated the Iraqi oil industry for his bosses at Big Oil. But best of all - they had a mortal enemy on their border who is now well on the way to becomeing the second Shiite nation in the world. Thanks Mr. Bush!

Read an excellent analysis of it here (scroll down for the article which is pasted in after the commentary).

The US has demonstrated repeatedly that any nation that has the Bomb is safe from us. Our warhawks won’t touch North Korea. Pakistan has suported the islamic fascists we are battling, supported and still protect the Taliban, and are supposedly protecting Osama too - but they have the Bomb, so what does Bush do? Ups their international aid and lavishes them with economic and political rewards. Hands off Pakistan. The best thing Iran could do to protect themselves from US aggression is to develop nuclear capability as quickly as possible. Fortunately the experts say they are at least 10 years away so there is time to defuse the threat the US poses to them through regime change here at home. The next president is really going to have to work hard to restore Americas credibility in the world. ‘Honest and trustworthy’ has not exactly been a priority for the last several administrations.

Let’s keep in mind that the US has absolutely no right to be running about the world and telling any nation what it can or cannot be doing, can or cannot have, destroying and building nations, and punishing cultures we don’t like. The US does not own this planet. If the people of the middle east want freedom they need to stand up and take it, or live with the consequences.

Iran has benefitted enormously from the invasion of Iraq. Where they had been on the verge of moderates controlling to government with a big democratic push from below, ceased nuclear programs while in talks, and isolated on the world stage, they are now turning back to a strong religious hardline leadership in the face of the American threat, emboldened to restart their nuclear ambitions, and have all kinds of attention and political support from Russia, China and India who all lost their oil contracts when Bush appropriated the Iraqi oil industry for his bosses at Big Oil. But best of all - they had a mortal enemy on their border who is now well on the way to becomeing the second Shiite nation in the world. Thanks Mr. Bush!

The law of unintended consequences. We’ve achieved for Iran what it could never have achieved on its own. But keep in mind that the law applies to all parties. Iran could become the world’s primary nuclear target if nuclear terrorism actually occurs. Developing such weaponry may be the single most dangerous thing it could do. Ironies on top of ironies. Gallows humor seems to be the only legitimate source of comedy these days.

“You probably still believe that we were justified in killing over 200,000 innocent civilians by dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan.”

I absolutely believe it.

Chops asked “when was the UN ever powerful and well-respected?

The UN has always been respected by almost everyone except tin-horn dictators and neocons. They both object to it for the same reason: because it gets in their way.