Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke in Seattle last night and gave her advice on dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat:
the United States would be wise to counter the nuclear threat with direct talks instead of saber rattling ... "It's not appeasement. You've got to deliver a tough message,"And we know how well Albright's "tough message" to Kim Jong-Il helped prevent North Korea from getting nuclear weapons
I DID recently read an article in a foreign paper that the Iranian strategy is apparently to "wait Bush out". In other words, HE IS a deterrent to Iran. And likely they hope for a Hillary/Madeleine Albright type mindset to come into the Whitehouse, and that said liberal mindset will give away the store to the terrorists.
What can you expect of someone who's best chum spent his life committed to destroying Isreal. Idiot!
Posted by: Jeffro on May 10, 2006 10:37 AMIran and North Korea and China and Syria and whatever other badguys are out there on the planet will wait the 2 1/2 years until "W" is out of office.
These countries have been biding their time for decades and even centuries hoping to get back at the West. They'll spend the next 30 months developing their technology, modernizing their military and, in China's case, improving their blue water navy until a weaker US president comes into office.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the military and I wouldn't want to be an ally of ours next door to one of these tyrannical regimes if an Algore or Hillary gets sworn into office in 2009.
Posted by: Reporterward on May 10, 2006 11:08 AMalternatively, what is our current strategy? bush refuses to talk to iran. the u.n. is blocked by russia (apparently bush, when he looked into putin's heart, didn't see this part) and china. and since iraq is going so swimmingly, military action isn't really an option.
so, again, i repeat, what is our current approach to iran?
see the following, an excerpt of which is posted below:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10326/
"Flynt L. Leverett, who served in senior posts at the National Security Council, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, says that the United States has gotten itself into a diplomatic dilemma with Iran “because we essentially don’t have a strategy” for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. Asserting that the Bush administration rejected an invitation made by Iran in 2003 to open a strategic dialogue, Leverett says that Bush “is, on this issue, very, very resistant to the idea of doing a deal, even a deal that would solve the nuclear problem.”
Leverett, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, says President Bush considers the Iranian regime “fundamentally illegitimate.” As a result, he says, the administration is stuck with two choices—dealing within the UN Security Council, where Russia and China are effectively blocking serious punitive measures, and unilateral military action, which Washington is not in a position to undertake."
Posted by: dinesh on May 10, 2006 11:09 AMDo question the patriotism of those on the left. Question it every day.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2006 11:16 AMI think the point is, given that Clinton kept this "idiot" in charge, what can we expect from a second Clinton Administration.
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 11:32 AMN Korea - why do you insist on having multi-lateral talks? Should have unilateral.
Iraq - why do you do it unilaterally? (new definition of unilateral = many countries involved) Europe disagrees with our action.
Iran - let Europe handle it (they have more time as they are under-cutting us in Iraq)as France & Co. are influential and we should listen to them more. Why are we not involved.
So the basic conclusion is:
1 Bush insists and gets multilateral in NK - libs say he is wrong.
2 Bush and many other countries involved in enforcing UN resolutions and actions - libs say he is wrong, we need more global input
3 Bush lets Europe deal with Iran - libs say he is wrong should not have left it to Europeans - the same group we were meant to listen to about Iraq.
So - no matter what Bush does libs say he is wrong. The lib policy - give them a tough message, no enforcement threat, just appease, sorry, I mean negotiate ad nausium.
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 11:54 AMwhat should we do about iran?
1) talk and/ or 2) bomb. we are not in a position to bomb, so we should figure out a way to talk to these people.
the current administration has not articulated an approach, other than "all options are on the table".
Posted by: dinesh on May 10, 2006 11:57 AMSharkansky is a great read for local politics, but you commentators are off the deep end.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 11:59 AMThe Iranian president is a lunatic. Perhaps we do need someone from the left in power since they have the most experience at talking to lunatics.
Let's really defuse the situation - open diplomatic relations with Iran and appoint Jimmy Carter the ambassador to Iran. That's sure to win us friends and cause Iran to stop threatening to close Hormuz, nuke Israel, nuke the U.S., cut off oil to the world, etc.
The Iranian president many times appears to be a composite bad guy of the sort found in James Bond, Matt Helm, and Austin Powers movies. Why didn't Hollywood write scripts that had the hero negotiate with these bad guys? Is it because sometimes there really are bad guys that can't be trusted in negotiations?
Follow-up: do you care? Is this just war for war's sake, or do you ever plan on winning one of these things?
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 12:02 PMNow, 1st, your allegation is yet unproven by hard evidence.
2nd, even if true, do you think it would stop if we bombed Iran? Or get much, much worse?
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 12:11 PMWWII took almost 6 years
WWI took around 4 years
Vietnam took 12+ years
Korea took years
So how is this so out of whack? Other than the number of troops lost is tiny relative to the others.
The same way we appeased Hitler in 1932/1933 when he blatantly ignored treaties. Would it have been easier to take him out in 1934 when he had no military? Or was the 6 years and millions of deaths the better option?
Apparently libs feel the millions of lives lost and the enormous economic cost was better than stopping him before he was a real threat.
And who says history doesn't repeat itself?
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 12:17 PMJust some real facts. They foreign fighters and supplies coming across the Syrian border have been dramatically cut back thanks, in no small part, to our men and women from the Stryker brigades at Fort Lewis. You'll see continued progress being made once our armed forces do the same on the Iranian border.
And contrary to popular opinion. We just don't go into wars willy nilly with no planning under this administration. Nor do we do cruise missile diplomacy like in the past administration. Dropping a few bombs from 40,000 feet does not effect positive regime change.
Posted by: Reporterward on May 10, 2006 12:23 PMJust some real facts. They foreign fighters and supplies coming across the Syrian border have been dramatically cut back thanks, in no small part, to our men and women from the Stryker brigades at Fort Lewis. You'll see continued progress being made once our armed forces do the same on the Iranian border.
And going to war with Iran wouldn't make the situation on the Iranian border any worse? Do you have any reason to believe this besides faith? If it's so easy to secure the border, why hasn't it been done yet? We've been there three years.
And contrary to popular opinion. We just don't go into wars willy nilly with no planning under this administration.
The evidence does seem to indicate otherwise.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 12:28 PMMax -
Perhaps you could talk some sense into Iran, or if you have any ideas of what kind of message would work, we'd all like to hear it.
Well Max can you answer your questions? Or do you expect everything to go perfectly?
Did you know that over 800 people died on the Dover coast for the practice to the Normandy invasion? Is that Roosevelt's poor planning and willy nilly entering WWII? Or could this be the normal droaning on of "Bush is wrong"?
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 12:43 PMPOOR MAX: It will take 48 hrs max for our armed forces to eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions alaong with all Iranian military capability, about how long it will take you, MAX, to sober up after your bong habit. We only lack the will to take care of business........you dreamy eyed fool. And that business is protecting idiots like you from a thermonuclear explosion at the Pike Place Market......
Haven't heard this kind of talk before. And look at Iraq now - our boys are just drowning in flowers. You're in total denial of reality - which is probably what it takes to support Bush these days.
Iran is at least 10 years away from the bomb. There's plenty of time to win in Iraq, a project you folks already seem happy to abandon in favor of bigger, better wars. And hopefully the next administration, democrat or republican, will have the basic competence to come up with a war plan for defeating a third world nation without costing a trillion or so and alienating the world we once proudly led without even the assurance of victory to balance it out.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 12:54 PMThe abandon Iraqis has only come from the democrats as the only alternate offered to Bush's policy. So what "basic competence" are you referring to?
I'll ask again, is just the "Bush is wrong" broken record being played?
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 01:00 PMDid you know that over 800 people died on the Dover coast for the practice to the Normandy invasion? Is that Roosevelt's poor planning and willy nilly entering WWII? Or could this be the normal droaning on of "Bush is wrong"?
We won WWII on two theaters against two of the strongest nations of that era in less time than has elapsed between "bringing freedom to Iraq" and reading stories like this. We're still nowhere near winning. And this is all in regards to a third world nation. But hey, I'm sure with Iran it would all be different.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:02 PMAgain, who is at fault for allowing Germany to get its strength? Why didn't we follow through on the treaty we signed in 1918? Why didn't we stop Hitler when he only had a rag-tag army in 1934 when he started to break the treaty? Why didn't we save the millions of lives lost in WWII by following through on our treaty obligations? Because we had democratic appeasers in office.
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 01:12 PMNews flash, the rest of the world has never held the USA in high regard. They only like us when we're providing military support, financial aid or disaster relief.
…and alienating the world we once proudly led without even the assurance of victory to balance it out.
Not quite sure what this statement means. If you're saying that everything in the world was just peachy until GWB came into office you're are in much greater need of a reality check then the rest of us.
I'd also like to mention, it was the Clinton administration's inactivity that allowed for terrorists to plan 9/11. What the heck, let's just keep chatting with Iran over the next 10 years so that they DO have the time to develop nukes behind our backs.
Posted by: Jeffro on May 10, 2006 01:16 PMThe abandon Iraqis has only come from the democrats as the only alternate offered to Bush's policy.
Abandoning Iraq is inherent in any plan to go to war with Iran. We're strained right now in Iraq, and war with Iran would split our efforts while actually ramping up the difficulty in Iraq. Plans for pullout in some level are already being made. source (subscriber only for the full article).
So what "basic competence" are you referring to?
Are you joking? Iraq. Look at it. Look how it's been waged. That is the same level of planning, foresight, support and political nonintervention that will be brought to a war with Iran. That is to say, little to none.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:19 PMAgain, who is at fault for allowing Germany to get its strength? Why didn't we follow through on the treaty we signed in 1918? Why didn't we stop Hitler when he only had a rag-tag army in 1934 when he started to break the treaty? Why didn't we save the millions of lives lost in WWII by following through on our treaty obligations? Because we had democratic appeasers in office.
That's a gross misreading of history. I suggest you read Kissenger's great book, "Diplomacy" to get some idea of what was going on with American and worldwide diplomacy from the turn of the century to the start of WWII. I'd counter point by point, but it would take too long and I don't want to sidetrack the main discussion.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:24 PMSo you want us to wait the ten years, like we waited and waited for Al Qaeda (thank you, Willie) to attack and take out over 3,000 of us?
I remember what the right wing was saying about Clinton's cruise missle attack on Al-Qaeda in 96. It wasn't "he didn't hit them hard enough."
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:27 PMPulling troops back has been planned for quite awhile, why does that surprise you? Or did the MSM forget to publish that before enough dems started calling for troop reduction so they could pretend that it was dem pressure that made Bush do it?
BTW, what do you do? Are you in all the military strategy meetings to know what is going on with Iran plans? Or are you one of those that think that all are plans should be public knowledge so that the enemy knows what we are doing? You certainly think that leaked classified information in the Washington Post is gospel, without knowing the source the full context or other parts that the leaker didn't like and kept classified.
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 01:33 PMSo, your response to evil is to.....talk, rewrite history, hate real leadership-Bush, and wallow in denial. What is it like to be in dreamland? Sounds like life is nothing but Disneyland for you......
Thank God there are clear thinking adults in charge of policy, rather than political hacks like John Kerry, or you, MAX......
Love it, you hang your hat on a 10 yr intelligence estimate, and howl that intelligence is inherently evil and innaccurate all the rest of the time. Very clear thinking, my man.....
A domestic terrorist attack will disrupt your supplier, MAX.....
Posted by: THS on May 10, 2006 01:35 PMGotta have boots on the ground.
Posted by: Jeffro on May 10, 2006 01:35 PMIt comes down to appeasment, no backbone to stick to agreements made (1918 traty), and millions of lives, the standard D policy! The standard D policy!
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 01:43 PMSo what "basic competence" are you referring to? The dems that would come in next, that's who. As I said the dems plan is "turn tail and run". That is the dems way of honoring the military and their heroic effort to protect all of us.
Some democrats want a full pullout, some democrats don't. Whether a democrat or republican takes the executive office next, the results will probably be somewhere between pullout and the status-quo. That's just political reality.
The competence I'm talking about is just the basic ability to do what you one says one will do and advance the interests of the USA. Bush does not have this. The best he can do is claim he is doing what he said he would do while reality speaks a different truth. Hopefully, the next administration will be competent.
BTW, what do you do? Are you in all the military strategy meetings to know what is going on with Iran plans? Or are you one of those that think that all are plans should be public knowledge so that the enemy knows what we are doing? You certainly think that leaked classified information in the Washington Post is gospel, without knowing the source the full context or other parts that the leaker didn't like and kept classified.
I'm a citizen, and like all citizens I can only make up my mind by the evidence I have available and my personal experience. The evidence available says we don't need to go to war, and my personal experience is witnessing Bush screw up nonstop in Iraq while continuously claiming everything is wonderful.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:45 PMIt comes down to appeasment, no backbone to stick to agreements made (1918 traty), and millions of lives, the standard D policy! The standard D policy!
Read a book. You have no concept of the American public's opinion on involvement in world affairs preceeding both world wars, you have no idea what Woodrow Wilson and FDR did to change that, and you have no idea what was going on in the world at the time.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 01:48 PMI do need to agree with you that Ds do as they say, as they take every side of every arguement, so they can't help it. You just don't know which one they really mean until afterwards.
That sounds like a comment Barack Obama made at the Gridiron dinner: "You hear this constant refrain from our critics that Democrats don't stand for anything. That's really unfair. We DO stand for anything."
(My thanks for that Obama quote to someone who posted it the other day on a thread here. I don't have the name - sorry)
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 01:51 PMOr, maybe, she's just trying to prove she really is a redhead?
Posted by: Cartman on May 10, 2006 01:55 PMIf we had done a very minimal when Germany could do nothing in the 1934 time frame it would not have taken much to stop Hitler. Probably no more than a stand and a sending of troops, not even a fight. But appeasment is the mantra then and now. It was a far larger commitment once we showed how weak we were by doing nothing. Same with the terrorists through the 90s.
Posted by: Fred on May 10, 2006 02:00 PMWilson had even more of an uphill job, trying to convince a nation that had since it's inception being adamantly against "foreign entanglements" to join WWI.
If you read National Review, Krauthammer or other conservative intellectuals, they often refer to Bush's philosophy as Wilsonian. OMG DEMOCRATIC TRAITORS. ugh.
Posted by: MAX HATS on May 10, 2006 02:26 PMThese evil men all have a common trait; they are brazen. Why meet these aggressive depots with a timid, diplomatic response? Give them what they know! Intense and decisive force without equivocation.
Damn world opinion. The world thanks us now for ending WWII and they will thank us later for ending Islamic fanaticism.
Fire up the B2s. Destination, Iran.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2006 02:38 PMWho says we are not in a position to bomb those mullas and thier toy centifuges? I believe we have a nice modern airbase right in their backyard.
Posted by: Danno on May 10, 2006 03:30 PMHad FDR not, had FDR followed MAD MAX's advise and yakkity yak/appease/hand wring, this thread would be in German/Japanese dialects.
PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.......AND IRON WILL, RESULTING IN THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF EVIL. WORKED FINE IN WWII.
Posted by: THS on May 10, 2006 03:32 PMYou are the one who needs to do some reading.
Start here:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2006 03:43 PM
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
Contents:
Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Iran’s nuclear history
From shah Reza to Khomeini
The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of uranium
US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
Seeking allies
The strange European delegation
Russia and China
Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?
Birth of a new world order
Questionable elements
The UN theatre
Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
US President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear weapons. Well, we remember, that in 2002 he accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts.
Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the very first moment in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only to stop proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help each other to develop civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and England) promised nuclear disarmament. (So far, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NPT’s watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s agreement with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3]
Iran’s nuclear history
At that time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to develop nuclear energy in Iran. [4] The US offered all the help and stuff he wanted: a research reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was started in 1967, but went critical soon after. Then the French became good friends too. They promised to repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered their services to the shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel from France, two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian students went to UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year, and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor completed yet, the shah ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the shah’s blood shedding oppression rose to a climax.
From shah Reza to Khomeini
The opposition against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup of the CIA, the English and the shah. [5] Mossadeq had successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case at the International Court in The Hague. [6] During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the protests of the population. In 1960, to please his American friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was jailed and recidivist a few years later he was expelled. The shah’s oppression increased over time. In riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By 1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January 1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A long hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them failed. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three days. However, the war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands of lifes. With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and Saddam’s mistake to invade Kuwait, the US attitude toward Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’ enemies now. But since these countries detain 10.5 and 10 percent of world’s oil reserves respectively and the US is world’s biggest consumer (with 25 percent of world’s oil production), it was foreseeable the US would not just ignore these countries. The US now has less than 2 percent of world’s oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly increasing and, according to Bush, 60 percent today. [7]
The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium
On June 16 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that Iran had not reported a uranium import of 1991 and the subsequent stocking and processing. That is true. But from a confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, that this import contained just 130 gram of uranium. [8] According to article 37 of the official agreement between the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are exempted from the IAEA safeguards. [9] The IAEA accusations made the world believe that Iran had transgressed the rules.
Similar jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was not willing to grant more rights to the UN inspectors, the IAEA had developed additional rules to make controls easier. The new rules also make it easier to discriminate among members: excessive rules for one country, friendly rules for others. In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign the Additional Protocol. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear what they had to propose. This is not so surprising. 30 percent of Iran’s oil goes to Europe and 40 percent of its imports come from Europe. Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it weakens the dollar. During the talks about new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program for uranium enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for extended checking of their nuclear facilities. After repeated Iranian requests it became clear, that the E3 countries did not intend to deliver the promised deals. They just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely, meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. Iran resumed its program and re-established the contractual conditions for the IAEA controls. This resulted in the attempt of the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran.
US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
So, if the so-called proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With its excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, for the UNOCAL pipeline project, also in Afghanistan. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were useful US’ allies, but these days are over. Thanks to Bush we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in Iran a spontaneous arising of a pro-US government is not likely to happen soon.
The second thing that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance against Iran is its part in the weakening dollar. A new Iranian oil bourse, if successful, may even trip up US’ hegemony. [10]
In a glance, this is how it works. World’s oil and gas is traded in US-dollars. Since 1971 the US has had the advantage to be the petrodollar supplier of the world. Supplying dollars to foreign countries means, the US can print money and purchase goods, services and investments with it. Since the foreigners need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international trade outside the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return. Merely supplying money means free shopping. This is how US’ foreign debt grew to 3,200,000,000,000 dollars today. And if some day the world gets tired of the abuse and does not want US-dollars anymore, their massive offers of dollars on the exchange markets would immediately push the exchange rate down, the dollar would become worth next to nothing and the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad.
But with today’s’ sky rocketing debt, the dollar has become vulnerable. When Saddam Hussein switched to the euro on November 6 2000 [11, 12], the exchange markets were temporarily overflowed by dollars. With Iran considering a similar switch since 1999 and maybe more OPEC countries to follow [13], speculations and decreasing trust set in motion a long and continuous descent of the dollar, which risked leading to its collapse. [14] By the end of 2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18 percent. [15] This probably explains, why the US could not wait and on March 20 2003 even overruled the UN Security Council to invade Iraq. The Iraqi oil trade has been switched back to dollars on June 6 2003. [16] From spring 2003, Iran also switched to the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate lost another 12 percent.
The US free shopping advantage only works insofar foreign countries need additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices rise on US controlled International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) of London and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), more dollars are needed in the world. [17] As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place outside the US, for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars are needed outside and result in free shopping. To increase the foreign dollar demand still further, the US Federal Reserve sells Treasury Bonds to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This increases foreign demand for dollars and raises the exchange rate. To stop the exchange rate from rising continually, new dollars have to be “delivered” to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US wants to lower the dollar rate it can just import more. In fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can decide itself about the rate of their currency and enjoy free shopping. For the year 2004, the latter represented an advantage of 3,000 dollar per US’ inhabitant. Recently, foreigners are not so willing anymore to fuel US’ fairy credit carrousel. The US tries to seduce them with higher interests, but foreign demand for bonds stays insufficient. The only remaining way to obtain enough new credit is to increase world’s demand for dollars by making the oil prices rise on IPE and NYMEX. And that is what is happening since mid 2004.
Here, once again, an Iranian initiative endangers US’ credit carrousel. Iran wants to establish an independent non-dollar oil bourse. Assuming it succeeds in creating enough trade to establish a recognized world oil price, and assuming they keep the price stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX cannot rise freely anymore. The credit carrousel may stop. The Iranian Oil Bourse will not only reduce the power of IPE and NYMEX, it will also have its influence on the exchange rate between dollars and euros. If oil gets cheaper in euros, there will be a rush on euros. And vice versa. The US and EU both see this bourse as a risk. The opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse had been scheduled for March 20 2006, the Iranian New Year. It is now announced for the first week of May 2006. [18]
Seeking allies
To take measures against Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for cost sharing of operations and to let them clean up the mess, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to gain allies is to have your enemies condemned by a UN Security Council resolution. That means the US has to convince the other veto-holding countries. Of course, that would not work, if the US disclosed its real reasons. The US had to come up with something better, which could unite and reward all of the veto-countries. Well, veto-countries are the victor states of the Second World War. They happen to have in common to be nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities. So how about a project to reward them with the exclusive rights for uranium enrichment and for the supply of nuclear fuel to the non-nuclear-weapon states? [19]
The strange European delegation
Then, in the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, Bush is joint by the UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3. They would represent the European Union. This strange composition of an EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that these countries are the European countries possessing enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag of the European Union they have their own special interest in enrichment and reprocessing.
How European are these E3 countries? In fact, as European representatives, France and Germany make a strange case in willing to get their trade partner Iran condemned by the UN Security Council. It indicates they are playing p-o-k-e-r [[censored word on this website] for high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting an Iranian oil market priced in euros, either through a direct conflict against Iran or by allowing the US to obtain an embargo.
Bush, if he does not obtain his embargo, would probably not even mind to see the Iranian power plants under construction bombed once again, to make Iran consume its oil, instead of selling it in euros. And what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Well, with its IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis with NYMEX, and its subsequent impossibility to adopt the euro, they serve as the messenger-boy of the White House. As usual.
The tone of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally expect between trade partners who wish to improve their relations. The reports about the discussions are long litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose to Iran. Iran is treated like the naughty schoolboy, who will have to obey one way or the other. [20] In January 2006, French President Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear attack. Of course such an attitude can only be counter-productive.
Russia and China
To reach a Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention against Iran. Russia still bears the scars of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, with hundreds of thousands of irradiated citizens, new generations with genetic deformations, and unsolved plutonium radiation problems for hundreds of centuries to come. It has not build any new reactors since then. Russia has a more shaded view on world’s nuclear future. Besides, it still has fossil energy sources. China has good relations with Iran for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants to let Iran down, it would have to foresee alternatives for their high needs of energy. Besides, China does not seem to share the aggressive stance of the US and the E3.
Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?
Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3 percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing process. Risks in the enrichment process are those of the chemical industries and not so much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent. [21] If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’ contention that enrichment should remain in the hands of world’s nuclear-weapon states.
Birth of a new world order
The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the successful misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had created the ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea appeared in a UN brochure in 2004. [22] Then it was still in the form of a call for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February 2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) [23]. Already in April 2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s mission to the UN put the question, “if the MNA would not not unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear activities in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT obligations.”
On February 6 2006 the US’ Department of Energy announced its version of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea of IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush. [24] And, of course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So, a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows: “Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the world with clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle nations commercially competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling technologies. “
Questionable elements
The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol we should not count on equal rights or fair relations.
Within the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have enrichment facilities today. [25] The rest of the NPT countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren’t these the countries that promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As we know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse, France has even developed a new generation of nuclear weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and progressive. This year, France and the US are still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world. Non-nuclear-weapon states should now give away more rights and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel suppliers?
To seduce non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment facilities would have about twice the capacity the world needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment facilities, a better use could be made of the existing capacities. This would enable lower prices for enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding their production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. They strive for more market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no new competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.
The new plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy construction, since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman in the system. I do not think it is wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and integer government that would be able to guarantee their policemen’s impartiality.
The plans for the distribution system recommend minimal national stocks and joint regional buffers in different host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of minimal stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot produce any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear there is only one plausible answer: to keep the non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of power for our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what is needed for their inspections. Even far beyond the needs of a safe nuclear fuel distribution system. This is pure power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If a nation does anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want, the fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate submission. It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying countries will never be affected. They produce their own fuel.
In theory the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization. But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions and conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s independence from parties’ national interests is constantly under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure Iraq could be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the obligation to keep all sensitive information from their investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly received sensitive information, with which they prepared the invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply overruled the UN’s Security Council…)
Today, we see the same US’ influences in the IAEA’s investigations in Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick. The rules for the new world order are presented as “an idea of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”. I presume that both plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach (NMA) and Bush’ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a final version dictated by the US.
Of course, getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic coup. But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market will be completely regulated. As all of them cooperate in the same organizations and all of them will be interested in the highest possible earnings, together they will set world’s nuclear fuel price. Just like today’s world’s oil prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear fuel prices will be decided by the happy few.
Now comes the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the customers have to pay? These currencies will become the most needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare it to today’s US-dollar.
Apparently these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese Yuan renminbi, Russian Rubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There will probably be some preferential order due to each supplier’s capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these countries will know the advantages of the supply of their currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long run, each of them will also experience the negative effects on their economies and, after decades, let their currency collapse to get rid of the built up debt. In short, this is what can happen with multiple world currencies. However, the fact that the plans mention, that the IAEA should become the intermediary between suppliers and customers, makes it reasonable to suppose that the IAEA will decide in which currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony will be assured for many decades to come.
The UN theatre
With the project for a new world order prepared discretely in the background, we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on the prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium.
Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before a resolution is successfully voted. For if so, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore. Countries outside the Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and Brazil are free to enrich uranium and do what they want.
The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China?
In the event, that such a coup of the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UNO under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave. The result may be opposite to what these organizations were designed for.
[1] NPT members: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf
[2] NPT text: http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See article IV)
[3] Agreement IAEA-Iran:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[4] Iran’s nuclear history: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html
[5] Growing opposition against the shah:
http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm
[6] Mossadeq: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
[7] 60 percent dependency on oil imports: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news
[8] 130 gram of uranium: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html (last line)
[9] article 37 of IAEA’s agreement with Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[10] How can the dollar collapse in Iran? http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html
[11] Fred Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the euro: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html
[12] Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html
[13] Colin Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro: http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
[14] IMF warning over dollar collapse: http://news.xxx.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm
[read b-b-c in place of xxx, content censored on this website]
[15] dollar rates, historical data: http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html
[16] Financial Times, June 5th 2003
[17] Oil markets, exemple: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer200410010726.asp
Speculation and fear can, per definition, be influenced.
[18] Iranian Oil Bourse May 2006: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32
[19] GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
[20] E3 report: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf
[21] Uranium enrichment: http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
[22] UN brochure 2004: http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf
[23] NMA expert group February 2005: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf
[24] ElBaradei’s idea and Bush’ proposal. February 7, 2006: http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf
[25] Map of world’s nuclear fuel stations: http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr
LIST OF ARTICLES:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005)
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450
Killing the dollar in Iran, By Toni Straka, "With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels,"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
America's Foreign Owners, Thursday, September 22, 2005
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1712
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D., January 17, 2006
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Trading oil in euros - does it matter?,
by Cóilín Nunan,
Published on 30 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html
Posted by: Rudo de Ruijter on May 10, 2006 03:51 PM
I can't tell if you are shifting positions or shifting arguments. I do agree with you on the point that Americans were dangerously isolationist during the periods before WWI and WWII (I am fuzzy on specifics, so let's not try to ge in that debate)
But that is not the point so I wonder if you are using that form of logic discussed a week or so ago whose latin name I cannot remember.
Anyway, the point is, Americans generally ARE isolationist, and that point is borne out by the "reaction" of the isolationist left this time around. FDR had to work hard to try and move the public. Took an attack on our soil to help it get done. Same thing with Bush. It appears one has to bloody our nose before we will act on a threat. The difference between then and now is that back then there were not powerful political forces trying to undermine the preseident, the troops and our attempts to get the job done after we finally DID enter the war.
Hitler was appeased because no politician had the stomache to do what was needed and go against public sentiment. Takes courage to do that. Many politicians don't have the courage to stand up and make a move that might be unpopular. It is more likely that the leader who waits for public opinion to lead is not a leader at all but a political coward.
So let's get to the point. Is it better to be proactive or not? Do you let the evil fester until it risks overwhelming you? Or, do you make your stand, state your intentions, state the consequences and then back those statements up with action? 8 or so years of inaction emboldended Hitler. It did the same to Saddam. Bush acted on the threats that were stated. You appear to suggest that threats are all that is needed and we can get them to back down by failing to act. If someone does not believe those threats, then the threats have no value. Saddam did not believe those threats. Now he does, and so does Qadaffi (sp?). Iran may currently be emboldened enough by our political climate that he thinks we cannot act. you and your kind help foster his belief. If he believed otherwise, he would more likely compromise. For NO negotiation with a despot will work without working from a position of strength. If they belive we cannot back up or threats, he will discount that threat and the negotiations will fail. Wait long enough and he WILL have the position of power and WE will have to back down.
In Iran, 10 years might be the number, maybe it is less. You want to gamble on that figure? He is already flaunting world pressure. What makes you think he will do any different than Saddam who strung things out for 10 years before we finally acted. If Iran thinks they can string it out 10 years then they CAN get their nuke and they WILL have a position of power. My question is, we either mean what we say or we don't. We mean for them to stop or we don't. What is so wrong with backing it up with action? Failing to do so will tell him he can continue to "negoitate" his way into nuclear weapons ala North Korea.
Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on May 10, 2006 04:17 PMLet's send others to subjegate Iran!!!
Posted by: Chief ChickenHawk on May 10, 2006 04:54 PMExcellent question.
I am hoping that Guilliani will run in 2008 - he could bring me back to being a Republican. McCain has too many foibles. Can Tony Snow smack some sense into the President ? Someone needs to or his ratings will continue to spiral down. This is sounding borderline disrespectful, but so far Bush's 2nd term has been a big disappointment !
Posted by: KS on May 10, 2006 09:32 PMCome out of your caves people. Read some news. Compare timelines. Get off the oxycontin!
Posted by: ChetBob on May 10, 2006 11:06 PMI don't recall FDR being assailed and tested by Republicans during WW11 for the blunders that were committed. Pearl Harbor was investigated after the war and several field grade officers were disgraced for the tragedy.
It would take days to fully discuss the political climate in Iraq and surrounding countries, that is not the point in this comment area. It is not relevant to Albright position(s) or other Democrats that were responsible for the position the country is in at this time by their total mishandling of affairs in a number of situations to numerous to list. I would suggest that Carter's botched up the situation regarding the Iran affair. He is such a foolish man. It amazes me that this great country can elect and tolerate such fools in high office.
The United States has for a number of years lacked the will to move in a decisive manner. The bombing of the embassies, the attack of the Cole, the Blackhawk Down episode in Africa. Our foolish president at the time basically demonstrated to the world that we would tolerate any actions. Our enemies respect and understand force. Whimpering is for woman. They don't understand that.
The Democrats prevent the country from taking the steps to assure our continued success. And then complain that the Republicans are not succeeding.
Democrats don't allow us to use the resources available in the US. Then complain about importing those very same resources from foreign countries. The D's are against nuclear energy, coal mining and then complain about the price of energy. They shout about price gouging as they sabotage and plans for companies to drill, mine or build refiners or nuclear facilities. They claim the answer is some hybrid energy source for transportation but forget that to manufacture and alternate energy source requires energy, frequently more energy. If the Democrats are not capable of addressing the energy issues, illegal immigrants (they support it) or political and military confrontations in an honest and forthright way, how can one seriously discuss any vital topic with them. I believe that the Washington Governor and her political cohorts typify Democrats, a party taken over the socialist extremist.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 10, 2006 11:25 PMMax Hats argues everything from a position created by those who make-up the news and thus make-up the facts as they go along to suit their fancy. If you wish to believe what Harry Reed or Nancy Pelosi says about the situation in Iraq rather than the Generals on the ground, our Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or President Bush, that is your prerogative. In that case, like Max Hats and Dinesh you are on the side of whatever manipulative forces that wish to cow you into submission.
We have already won decisively in Iraq, we now have a foothold in the region and leverage against Iran and they know it, and that is why they are playing the game. Iran's leadership sees the threat of a Democratic Iraq and they are desperate to hold power. Iran is playing to its strength, i.e. bluff and bluster against weak minded jack-a$$es like Madelyn Albright. The strategic center of gravity re our situation in Iran is on the manipulation of American opinion through fear. Max Hats wants us to surrender the gains we have made in Iraq, buy into the ruses perpetrated on us by partisan liberal louts, and reward a despotic regime in the same way Carter/Clinton rewarded North Korea.
We still have not learned the lessons of Vietnam. Iran knows that America is far too powerful to defeat in a military war of any kind. They know that America can only be beaten through American public opinion. They also know through our MSM that liberal Democrat so-called leaders are willing to help them disseminate false impressions of the situation, dumb down the American public, and weaken their resolve.
Our survival is in the balance and our weakness or strength lays directly in our willingness to kill more of them than they will of us. In order for that power to be credible, every so often we must demonstrate our willingness to kill enemies. This is the way it is, the way it has always been and the way it will always be. Ending war is a liberal fantasy born of secular humanist arrogance akin to the idea that cars cause weather. The pretense that our enemies will just be peaceful if we talk them out of killing us is an idiotic liberal flight of the imagination.
GW Bush knows what the rest of the educated and civilized world knows whether they are willing to admit it or not – if we are not willing to kill our enemies – they will kill us.
Iran knows that we will not allow them to have nukes. If Iran knows that we are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens in order to stop them from killing millions of our allies, they will be less likely to misbehave. When they see our own citizens demonstrate, call the President names, and hear Clinton, Albright and the other coward liberals waiting in the wings, they laugh out loud at us and lick their lips in anticipation. Iran is probing to find out if people like Madelyn Albright will help them turn American public opinion against America, and Max Hats is part of the evidence that Iran is succeeding in the internecine conquest of America.
you seem to know so much about what "iran knows...."
please, look into your fortune ball, and tell me what the dow jones will do.
you "know" so much about what "iran knows", about what the MSM and Dems are doing, why do you limit yourself to the comments section of this blog. surely you should be able to capitalize on your "knowledge".
perhaps you may share with us your source of this "knowledge"?
i fear, however, your bloodthirst for "killing more of them" (who is them?) will only perpetuate an infinite cycle of violence. that may have been tolerable in an age where mobility and scales of destruction were limited, but those days are over. i'd prefer not to live in a police state.
Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions.
My curricula vitae is irrelevant to the issues at question here; all that matters is the reasoning involved. Nothing I say requires a "fortune ball' or any special knowledge, and as you have proven time and again, an expensive education doesn’t mean someone is therefore entitled to say foolish things without being cited as a fool. If you wish to try to make a fool of me, go ahead and try, I'm waiting. Since credentials don't matter here and you cannot make a rational argument, you will understand that I am not too keen on your prospects in this endeavor.
A basic grounding in common sense and human experience, balanced with practical study of history, economics, and law will suffice. Perhaps the fact that you demonstrate a decided lack of training in these areas, accounts for your recognition of the special nature of my knowledge. However, don’t despair, you can get with it if you simply surrender your phony liberal pretenses and nonsensical prejudices for long enough to reflect on practical realities.
I know truck drivers and day-laborers who have a better grasp on reality than you and not one of them has any difficulty using basic common sense. I also work with highly educated people who share your light and careless touch with reality preferring to intellectualize their emotions rather than accept life on its own terms. They too like you refuse to deal directly and honestly with reality. They feeeeel it isn't necessary.
You speak from a basis of fear because you are incapable of coping with reality. Those who threaten to kill you are your enemies, and if you like to live, you must assume that they mean what they say . . . especially when they demonstrate their intent by killing thousands of your neighbors.
Your construction of the “war” problem is preposterous. In effect you are saying that since you believe that war cannot be fought in a way that is distant and isolated from you, (limited mobility and scales of destruction), war is somehow -- now -- less tolerable than it was (when???) Because you feeeeel that war is intolerable, any alternative to war will just have to be better? This is new??
. . . and then you throw in a baseless non-sequitur about a police state. What police state? Where? Dinesh, why not drop the pretense, and act like an adult with some basic common sense?
Only a ding-dong would seriously comment with emotion-hobbled nonsense like this in direct substitution for common sense. Through out history, those who spoke as you do today were called -- cowards.
As usual, thanks for the fun.
Then don't move to one. I'd prefer not to live in one, either. That's why I vote for Republicans, not Dhimmicrats.
(BTW: Dow Jones is at near-record highs, and will continue to do well as long as we keep a Republican in the Big Chair)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 11, 2006 04:25 PMWhy don't you leftists stop using the same old lame, flawed and baseless arguments ? Try a new strategy by backing your talking points up with salient facts.
Posted by: KS on May 11, 2006 10:14 PMMadeline Albright, Bill Clinton, and the rest of the liberal Democrat crowd are about putting a pretty face on weakness, contrition, and stupidity and those who follow them invite disaster under the false rubric of dialogue and diplomacy. There is a time for talk and a time for war and neither will ever supplant the other without dire consequences. A practiced acknowledgement of the difference is what distinguishes dithering from deliberation, and liberal war mongering from “real politick,”
Liberals would sooner cloak their outlook in a fantasy world where war is somehow outmoded by popular academic opinion than deal with the reality of war on its own terms. A common canard repeated by various professors in college is that “all wars are obsolete” as though simply arrogating such a self-satisfied and high minded presumption of sophistication would banish reality. This “whistling by the graveyard” pretense of enforced ignorance is akin to the vapid mentality that says that women’s rights should be constitutionally superior to those of our offspring, governments make good economies, and cars make bad weather.
Dinesh characterizes the truth of the liberal position very well if somewhat inelegantly when he admits that he fears “an infinite cycle of violence . . . that may have been tolerable in an age where mobility and scales of destruction were limited, but those days are over” In reality, an “infinite cycle of violence” exists with or without liberals’ vaunted permission, it always has and it always will; the important part is, who wins and who loses? He wins the fight who knows when to quit talking and when to start punching.
Dinesh – ever the good liberal -- wants a pass from reality, and I don’t blame him, reality is ugly, but grown-ups out grow their fears while liberals rationalize and justify escape. What Dinesh actually means is that -- theoretically speaking -- while war may have been tolerable in the imaginary past, now they are bad because – in reality -- they can be fought where Dinesh might get hurt or killed.
GW Bush knows what the rest of the educated and civilized world knows whether they are willing to admit it or not – if we are not willing to kill our enemies – they will kill us. Those who say what they mean and mean what they say stand with Bush in the real world. Those who play pretend with Madelyn Albright appease the devil, invite disaster and cause wars for others to fight.
While Madelyn Albright talked tough saying the United States would be wise to counter threats with direct talks instead of saber rattling, a 1993 Mogadishu firefight killed 18 U.S. soldiers. Slick Clinton announced a few days later that the U.S. role in Somalia would end by March 31, 1994. Somali warlord Mohammed Faraid Aidid, preparing to surrender, was shocked when Clinton backed down to him. Thousands of innocents starved, and the US received a black eye from a third world punk -- Mohammed Faraid Aidid . . . . and Osama Bin Laden was watching.
While Madelyn Albright talked tough saying the United States would be wise to use diplomacy instead of saber rattling, a 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb killed 5 U.S. military personnel. Slick Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. The FBI sent a team to investigate but complained that the Saudi’s wouldn’t cooperate. The Saudis arrested four Muslim militants, who confessed and were beheaded the following spring. The Clinton Administration fell silent.
In 1996 Madelyn Albright talked tough saying the United States would be wise to counter threats with direct talks instead of saber rattling, while the Khobar Towers were bombed killing 19 U.S. soldiers, and wounding 515. Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," he said angrily. "Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished." The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."
Madelyn Albright and the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators' job more difficult. Slick Clinton ordered Dick Morris to commission a public opinion poll. Nothing else was done.
Again in 1996, while Madelyn Albright talked tough, Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. Not sure that the crash was a terrorist related incident, they (Clinton PR team under Dick Morris) formulated and tested a “Peace maker” or “Toughness”, defense strategy as public mollification. No one really knows for sure who was behind the attack, but they got away scot-free to “fight” another day.
While Madelyn Albright was talking ever tougher, the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000. Clinton said, "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice." Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, but the bombing proved dubious and ineffectual and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.
Clinton approved additional covert action by the CIA and invoked economic powers to freeze assets. Four people were convicted and sentenced to life in prison and others who were indicted including bin laden are still at large. Saudi Arabia offered Bin Laden to the Clinton Administration but Slick was unable to think of a "legal" pretext under which to hold him.
Again in 2000 while Madelyn Albright was doing some more tough talking, the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen killing 17 U.S. sailors, and wounding 39. Clinton called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable. U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime as part of a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by Bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action, and yet . . . he did nothing.
An avowed stalwart champion of women’s rights Madelyn Albright talked tough about women's rights to Middle Eastern kings and potentate's while Saddam Hussein and his sons enjoyed rape rooms snatching women willy-nilly off the street -- often never to be heard from again. In Afghanistan they were murdered for taking off their bhurkhas.
In the end, Madelyn Albright and her boss Bubba “diddle yer interns” Clinton had the opportunity to stave off the bloodshed of Sept. 11 but didn’t, instead preferring to run their mouths with platitudes and absurd “used car sales” style diplomatic nostrums. This FACT will always and forever be their ultimate legacy. After all, if they can blame it on GW Bush by appealing to moron liberal simps, why not?
There have always been cowardly liberal a$$holes like Albright, Clinton, and idiots like Dinesh who support them, and there always will be, and that’s a vital part of why there will always be wars.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 12, 2006 02:29 PMLoved your well written and concise post. Please appreciate that liberals (socialist) do what they do in spite of facts. Socialism (liberalism) assumes all of the motivations of a religion. The number of lives and failures of socialism during the last century should in it self put an end to socialism. Alas, it do does not. It merely fuels the zealots. They just didn't get it right. We can do better. Add the endless things they got wrong. Doesn't matter. The new socialist only wants the cessation of big business, poorness or any other human condition that they may be feeling or challenging at any given time. Although I appreciate your posting(s) to this blog, I assure you that they are wasted on the very people you intend to affect.If you wish, I can direct you to some interesting reading material on this topic.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 14, 2006 10:19 PM