Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Gennaro · 2004-09-20 21:47:29

Well, I say common sense predicts as much. Sure, North Korea is a dangerous patient and Kim Il Jong a most pathetic figure, but it probably helps to think about how a totalitarian country works.
Everyone will be ready to affirm their undying loyalty to the system in order to guard their backs, even to the extent of believing their own deceptions. Mixed messages will be an inherent matter. So, basically it all boils down to a game of saving face. If it can be made to look as North and South reaches a concord out of free will, then the dismantlement of this last anachronistic Sino-Communist anomaly will have a chance of succeeding.

However I wouldn't be at all surprised if Iran covertly gave small nukes (small=5,000 lbs, not to mean suitcase nukes) to terrorists with the intent of attacking the port cities of Israel and the USA.

I agree it sounds plausible, but then one should remember that the present situation, including minor terrorist acts like Madrid and Bali, have largelly been provoked.
Taking on Iran, not to mention North Korea, while dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time, is something you might barely expect only in the mind of some deranged neocon, in my opinion. Iran is not like Iraq and even that small misadventure is draining US funds. Iran is bigger, has a much larger population and a more diverse geography. Just pick up a map. Dealing with resistance fighters in the Zagros Mountains will make Fallujah look like a Sunday walk in the park.

For clarity's sake it should also be pointed out that North Korea is obviously not connected to the Mid-East drama nor to this "war on terror", in regards to which the Iraq occupation itself was a scam. All in all, from where I sit, a major propaganda stunt pushed on the American public, and in that sense doubtlessly most fascinating.

Palomar · 2004-09-21 05:56:24

Iraq hasn't presented Bush with that decisive victory, but Iran just might, and it would sure take the Left's (rather limited) mind off Iraq and the elusive WMD, wouldn't it?!
In addition, the Iranian attempt at becoming a nuclear power is enough to give even an empty-headed chardonnay-socialist pause for thought, isn't it?
If not, then it looks like the West has forgotten the price of its own freedom.

*It's interesting to note that the Clinton Administration believed Saddam had WMDs. So have other gov't (non-US) entities. I heard a list on the news the other night about who...prior to W...claimed and even insisted Iraq had/has WMDs.

This needs to be reiterated, IMO, because I myself apparently wasn't paying adequate attention to that aspect of it in the post-9/11 confusion.

The trouble for Bush is his repeated use of that phrase in pre-war speeches. He gave the impression it was he and his administration who were first calling attention to the WMD issue (or perhaps "it was just me" who perceived it that way). People tend to pay attention to catch-phrases, which can backfire on the user. :-\

But anyway, IMO it's important to recall who else believed/asserted Saddam was stocking up on WMDs...and it wasn't just W and company.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-21 08:05:39

This is certainly an interesting and very relevant point, Cindy. And I get your drift about the Bush political rhetoric, too. But if, as the Left implies, he was bluffing about WMD, he must surely have known that it would come back to haunt him when no major caches of WMD were discovered.
Either he didn't care about possible recriminations after the war or he was genuinely convinced that weapons illegal under U.N. regulations existed in Iraq.
This leads back to your first point regarding the number of countries, states, political parties, and individuals who seemed quite convinced about WMD before the talk of war began. Most of these people switched quickly from affirmation to denial and condemnation when the circumstances required it!
Here in Australia, the Australian Labor Party (the opposition to the governing Liberal/National Party Coalition, and the broad equivalent of the American Democratic Party) are on record as saying there was no doubt Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, contrary to U.N. Resolution requirements. Since then, of course, they have accused the Prime Minister, John Howard, of taking Australia to war under false pretences!

But still, that's politics; what can you expect? It's in each party's interests to discredit the other side.

It would be very interesting to see a full list of every organisation which acknowledged Iraq's flouting of the U.N. Resolution requirements before the war, with a pertinent quote from each. But I imagine the most embarrassing records of this have been 'lost' or 'misplaced' long since!

Palomar · 2004-09-21 08:21:40

Shaun: This is certainly an interesting and very relevant point, Cindy. And I get your drift about the Bush political rhetoric, too. But if, as the Left implies, he was bluffing about WMD, he must surely have known that it would come back to haunt him when no major caches of WMD were discovered.
Either he didn't care about possible recriminations after the war or he was genuinely convinced that weapons illegal under U.N. regulations existed in Iraq.

*I agree.

Here in Australia, the Australian Labor Party (the opposition to the governing Liberal/National Party Coalition, and the broad equivalent of the American Democratic Party) are on record as saying there was no doubt Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, contrary to U.N. Resolution requirements. Since then, of course, they have accused the Prime Minister, John Howard, of taking Australia to war under false pretences!

But still, that's politics; what can you expect? It's in each party's interests to discredit the other side.

*Yes. But unfortunately (as you know, and might agree) the public gets caught in the middle...then get fed up with the constant backstabbing and bickering, tune out, and then the politicians have the nerve to act outraged and incensed when people don't turn out in large numbers to vote.

Pettiness is the main problem in most human affairs, IMO.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-21 09:22:48

I don't believe that we can militarily go into Iran. World opinion is too far against us as it is. I think we are stuck with them and have to hope that the people there are soon able to remove their religious leaders and instill a real democracy.

Setting world opinion aside, the United States does not have any soldiers (infantry) to go into Iran with.

Especially if the Iraqi Shia choose that moment to rise up.

Sadr has caused plenty of trouble even with Sistani encouraging the Shia to stay calm. If an Iranian invasion caused Sadr to gain popularity the consequence will be chaos in Iraq and Iran, an inability to occupy either country and a major reduction in world oil supplies when Iran and Iraq both stop exporting oil.

Can we get special forces in Tehran? Sure. But then what?

= = =

PS - - the Iraq domino theory was to create a stable Iraq and then use those same soldiers to go into Iran. But until Iraq is stable, going into Iran is beyond foolhardy unless we are ready to draft 500,000 new US soldiers.

= = =

PPS - - Actually John Kerry has articulated the ONLY long term strategy that will allow us to win the War on Terror.

End the dependence of the Western economys on petroleum.

Then we can risk extended chaos in Iran and Iraq and we do not need to kow-tow to the Saudi royal family.

A gas tax where all the money goes to either more soldiers or accelerating the hydrogen economy would be one avenue to explore.

BWhite · 2004-09-21 09:40:38

Here in Australia, the Australian Labor Party (the opposition to the governing Liberal/National Party Coalition, and the broad equivalent of the American Democratic Party) are on record as saying there was no doubt Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, contrary to U.N. Resolution requirements. Since then, of course, they have accused the Prime Minister, John Howard, of taking Australia to war under false pretences!

But still, that's politics; what can you expect? It's in each party's interests to discredit the other side.
*Yes. But unfortunately (as you know, and might agree) the public gets caught in the middle...then get fed up with the constant backstabbing and bickering, tune out, and then the politicians have the nerve to act outraged and incensed when people don't turn out in large numbers to vote.
Pettiness is the main problem in most human affairs, IMO.
--Cindy

Here is America, Karl Rove made it perfectly clear he intended to USE the Iraq war and the attending patriotic fervor to hammer the liberal elements of American society.

George Bush did not invade Iraq for the best interests of America, he made his decision based on what was best for GWB and the GOP.

The Iraq war was undertaken as a tool in the American cultural civil war and when we who are more to the left protest, then people like Shaun call us unpatriotic.

= = =

PS - Back to Iran:

Britain, France, and Germany have already criticized Iran's nuclear program as unacceptable, and were leaders in having the IAEA demand further inspections. But they are aware that a confrontation "could backfire and that incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran" reports the New York Times.
Threatening sanctions - a cutoff in oil purchases, for example - is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support.
The US cannot afford to dismiss European views, especially after the discord over Iraq, administration officals are quoted by the Times as saying.

From this http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/dail … =ent2]link.

Sanctions? What sanctions can we impose?

Stop buying Iranian oil? Where would that drive the price per barrel? Military action? Maybe there will be NO Iranian or Iraqi oil for years. Once again, where is the price per barrel then?

How do we occupy Iraq and Iran?

That leaves carrots. What carrots might Iran want? Any suggestions?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-21 20:04:21

Bill:-

... people like Shaun ..

Uh-oh, looks like I've been snarling at the Left too much lately. I feel as though Bill's faith in me may be wavering.
(Room for one more 'heartless bastard', CC? :;): )

Bill:-

... a tool in the American cultural civil war ..

Gosh .. I didn't even realise such a war existed!
I know the Australian Communist Party (the source of many leading lights in the Australian Labor Party over the years) has cultivated the idea of a two-tier society here in my country - 'the rich' and 'the battlers' - and encouraged the concept of a class struggle between them.
Is the cultural civil war you mention the American version of that?
I'm only superficially curious, Bill, and certainly don't want a lengthy analysis of any perceived class warfare in the U.S., but if you have a moment just to elucidate briefly .. ?

John Creighton · 2004-09-21 20:08:45

Military action? Maybe there will be NO Iranian or Iraqi oil for years.

Interesting.

BWhite · 2004-09-21 20:20:43

Military action? Maybe there will be NO Iranian or Iraqi oil for years.
Interesting.

The idea of an Iranian nuclear bomb fills me with terror. Seriously. But what do we do about it?

= IF = Israel or Israel and the US can accomplish a surgical strike or special forces operation, frankly, I would breathe a sigh of relief. But can we? What if a special ops mission or a JDAM strike misses the target?

Don't you think the Iranians have been studying what happened to Iraq when Israel struck at their bomb facility?

My biggest complaint about Condi Rice and George Bush is their apparent belief that the bad guys are simple minded and stupid.

We CANNOT occupy Iran and Iraq both. Not without more infantry, which we do not have and GWB says we do not need.

On the oil question, IMHO the insurgents have NOT been hitting the oil infrastructure hard with sabotage because they believe they are winning. If we convince them they are losing, oil sabotage will increase substantially and the price of oil will skyrocket from its current level.

= = =

Here is a black question.

If al Qaeda had ONE nuke (Pakistani or whatever) where would be the most effective place to detonate it?

My answer?

Either (1) as close to or insde the "Green Zone" in Baghdad as possible or (2) the Saudi Kharg Island oil terminal.

(1) Would kill thousands of Americans and disrupt command and control over all of Iraq; and

(2) Would likely cause the fall of the House of Saud (no more oil revenue for those princes) and a major depression in the West.

Frankly, I believe al Qaeda using a nuke in the US or UK etc. . . would be a wasteful use of a powerful weapon.

BWhite · 2004-09-21 20:26:08

Bill:-
... people like Shaun ..
Uh-oh, looks like I've been snarling at the Left too much lately. I feel as though Bill's faith in me may be wavering.
(Room for one more 'heartless bastard', CC? :;): )
Bill:-
... a tool in the American cultural civil war ..
Gosh .. I didn't even realise such a war existed!
I know the Australian Communist Party (the source of many leading lights in the Australian Labor Party over the years) has cultivated the idea of a two-tier society here in my country - 'the rich' and 'the battlers' - and encouraged the concept of a class struggle between them.
Is the cultural civil war you mention the American version of that?
I'm only superficially curious, Bill, and certainly don't want a lengthy analysis of any perceived class warfare in the U.S., but if you have a moment just to elucidate briefly .. ?

Shaun, here in America its obvious George W. Bush has been spreading pious platitudes about "staying the course" without any intelligent discourse as to what course he is staying.

During the whole "Mission Accomplished" episode, Karl Rove was crowing about how the Iraq war would be a club to pummel the Democrats with in 2004.

My problem with Bush, Condi Rice, etc. . . is that they woefully UNDERESTIMATE the threat al Qaeda poses and insist on playing chess while bin Laden plays GO.

Thus the GOP gleefully bashed the French and the United Nations and now when we need to reign in Iran, Bush is like the boy who cried "wolf" and the UN credibility is significantly deteriorated from already its low level two years ago.

= = =

PS - - the culture war is between evangelical Christians (who also are creationists) and the secular humanists who believe in such evil doctrines as evolution and public schools.

clark · 2004-09-22 05:54:33

Sanctions? What sanctions can we impose?

Not us, the EU. They have far more clout than we when it comes to the Iranian's, and the EU seems to fear the Islamic bomb as much as we do. Of course there seems little to be gained with sanctions.

How do we occupy Iraq and Iran?

Why would we need to occupy Iran?

I might add that both canadites are planning on increasing the size of the military. Larger armies always lead to larger ambitions.

On a similar note, you mention the fear of the Iranian bomb, well, it should come as no surprise that we have quietly deployed 3 tactical wings to the area, Special forces have been practicing training for a strike, and the Iranian's are reporting that their have been overflights of their airspace by other militaries planes (testing air defense and reaction times).

What does that tell you?

If al Qaeda had ONE nuke (Pakistani or whatever) where would be the most effective place to detonate it?
My answer?
Either (1) as close to or insde the "Green Zone" in Baghdad as possible or (2) the Saudi Kharg Island oil terminal.
(1) Would kill thousands of Americans and disrupt command and control over all of Iraq; and
(2) Would likely cause the fall of the House of Saud (no more oil revenue for those princes) and a major depression in the West.

1 is more likely and 2 is least likely. Those same princes (there are many) help fund the terroist groups and fund the schools that give the terroists their new recruits. I don't think they would so readily slit their own throat.

Killing the americans to make us flinch would be the goal- I don't think it would disable our command and control all that much.

Think about a threat to detonate a bomb in Baghdad- wouldn't we have to evacuate? Think of the loss of control in the streets if we did, or didn't. I think a great many Iraqi's would request we leave at that point, one way or another, no matter how it panned out.

BWhite · 2004-09-22 06:43:53

On a similar note, you mention the fear of the Iranian bomb, well, it should come as no surprise that we have quietly deployed 3 tactical wings to the area, Special forces have been practicing training for a strike, and the Iranian's are reporting that their have been overflights of their airspace by other militaries planes (testing air defense and reaction times).
What does that tell you?

It shows me that a high stakes game of poker is being played.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 07:46:13

Uh-oh, looks like I've been snarling at the Left too much lately. I feel as though Bill's faith in me may be wavering.
(Room for one more 'heartless bastard', CC? )

Always, snarling works better in large groups.

And to Shaun's question re. the "cultural civil war" and Bill's answer of:

PS - - the culture war is between evangelical Christians (who also are creationists) and the secular humanists who believe in such evil doctrines as evolution and public schools.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, focusing on one aspect of it. Essentially it's a growing rift between those who hold conservative views on everything from religion to the Constitution and those who are, essentially, socialists. Class conflict is also a factor, stirred by primarily one side (not sayin' which ) as a tool to tip the balance. Neither side is a monolithic block, but most Americans identify more with one than the other and the divide is getting sharper.

Thus the GOP gleefully bashed the French and the United Nations and now when we need to reign in Iran, Bush is like the boy who cried "wolf" and the UN credibility is significantly deteriorated from already its low level two years ago.

Bush could have played it smoother. He wouldn't have gotten much more help than the 30-some countries that went in, but it could have been done with fewer overt snubs.

But the fact of the matter is that the UN has no credibility itself and if we start worrying about what the UN thinks, it's all over. They won't act and they don't like us. What's the point of pretending they grant some legitimacy from on high? They're a socialists and dictators club, we shouldn't get too worked up about their cries of disapproval. If they applaud us, then we need to seriously examine what we're doing wrong.

Algol · 2004-09-22 08:02:13

is more likely and 2 is least likely. Those same princes (there are many) help fund the terroist groups and fund the schools that give the terroists their new recruits. I don't think they would so readily slit their own throat.

Iran prescribes to a different form of Islam and are unlikely to shed a tear for the decline of wahabism.

I feel it should be pointed out that Iran and Iraq are very different situations (aside from iran having WMDs :;): ). Iran has elections, a democracy of sorts, and by many accounts the theocratic government is barely holding onto power ( unfortunately the invasion of iraq and the ensuing anti-american wave of resentment has played well into the hard-liners hands). There is actually a pro-reform opposition party, student protests, and at last count roughly 15'000 political blogs from disaffected citizens - all of these things were not possible - let alone present - in iraq.

Now, if bush starts gearing up to invade Iran he's going to need to start spitting out the usual 'the war against terrorism' (T.W.A.T) retoric - ironically in many ways easier because of the actual potential development of WMDs. However unlike Iraq there arent that many political exiles, the 'opposition' as it were is already in iran engaged in bringing about change through their own democratic political process are quite likely,frankly, to tell bush to f*ck off if he tries to either ally himself with their cause (the touch of death) or muster support from another coalition fro more 'regime change'.

Question is - how can old bushy invade when the people he is trying to save are telling him to stuff his own mission accomplished banner up his arse and to let them get on with it themselves?

Palomar · 2004-09-22 08:31:26

But the fact of the matter is that the UN has no credibility itself and if we start worrying about what the UN thinks, it's all over. They won't act and they don't like us. What's the point of pretending they grant some legitimacy from on high? They're a socialists and dictators club, we shouldn't get too worked about their cries of disapproval. If they applaud us, then we need to seriously examine what we're doing wrong.

*I'll say.

What's the UN done about the Darfur/Sudan crisis?

I mean beyond merely pointing and saying, "Oh look...genocide!" :angry: How many people slaughtered, raped, displaced, hunted down, starving?

The UN is a joke.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-09-22 08:36:42

The UN is a joke.
--Cindy

I dunno, I think their disease control progam is pretty worthwhile, not to mention their food aid, and perhaps their education outreach to impoverished third world nations, family planning programs, environmental programs to reduce the spread of polution and desertfication of the sub-sharan africa, conservation programs to help endangered animals, and other assorted programs that generaly improve people's lives in impoverished nations.

But yeah, I guess that's all a joke too.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 08:43:49

" to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...

From the UN charter. They have repeatedly and willfully failed in that capacity, everything else is gravy. Not that their aid programs aren't corrupt to the core themselves in most cases. The Oil for Arms.. er, Food program comes to mind.

Let them feed the hungry and distribute vaccines, the few things they're passable at from time to time. When it comes to global security and human rights they are beyond useless, they are part of the problem.

clark · 2004-09-22 09:06:28

Bah, you blame them for a failure we contribute to. Any fault you may name with them is our own, we do have one of those permanent seats on the security council, remember? No resolution may pass unless we allow it by forgoing our own veto.

Oil for Arms you say? Where we when they allowed it? Voting merrily along to keep the crude ah flowin.

Darfur? Yeah, we're up in arms to send our troops over there, aren't we. African genocide was met with mute silence and an apology by our President after millions dead.

The UN cannot achieve it's mandate because it is in our vested self interest that it not be able to. If it were to have that power, our own self interest would be placed subserviant to that of the UN- of the world.

We routinely cry foul when the UN dosen't do as we would like, but routinely look to it to do our bidding- when it dosen't, we come back and say it is corrupt and useless.

America refuses to commit any of it's troops to UN command (unless of course the commander is an American) while expecting every other nation to accept an American commander as their leader on UN missions.

The UN can only do as much as it is allowed, and it is hardly allowed to do much at all due to the constraints placed on it by nations like America.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 09:14:33

Clark, the UN is made up not only of respectable countries who just happen to have different interests than our own but numerous murdering thug-ocracies as well. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the UN has repeatedly failed to act whether or not America took the lead? Do you honestly believe that the United States of America is thwarting the noble aims of a righteous organization dedicated to improving the lot of all mankind despite the fact that those very representatives speak on behalf of corrupt dictatorships and anti-American, anti-Israel socialists?

If it's up to the UN to decide when to use force they have failed miserably, allowing all manner of horrors to proceed under their watch. If it's up to America, then they shouldn't complain when we do somethign about it. They want it both ways, it doesn't fly.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-22 09:22:38

You said it, Cindy!
The double standards exhibited by the U.N., not to mention so many of the world's journalists and the International Socialists, is staggering. In Sudan, we have Muslims deliberately going about the systematic genocide of black people they don't like.
Where are the 100,000-strong protest marches in the streets of New York? Where are the African Americans, demanding intervention and decrying racism? Where are the news clips of screaming Arabs, burning the Sudanese flag?

The liberation of Iraq has probably saved more Iraqis from execution by Saddam than were killed in the war. I've seen various claims that 10,000 or even 20,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the invasion - nobody seems to know for sure. These figures are put forward by way of condemnation of the U.S. in general, or President Bush in particular, and there's been endless rhetoric about them.
The last figure I have for the death-toll in Sudan is 80,000 and counting!

Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if America did anything remotely like what the Islamic militias (read 'terrorists') are doing in Sudan?!!

Why are the ostensibly socially aware and sophisticated people of this world (the self-portrait the Left likes to paint! ) so forgiving of Islamofascists? Why are they so concerned about 10,000 or 20,000 dead Iraqis since the war began (unconcerned about the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam before the war) and yet relatively unfazed by 80,000+ dead Sudanese blacks?

Answer: It depends if America was somehow involved in the killing.
I think it stinks to high heaven of duplicitous hypocrisy, which is why I get so annoyed with the self-righteous Left. Their morality is entirely flexible to suit the occasion.

clark · 2004-09-22 09:25:50

The UN is only able to act with a mandate from the UN Security Council. America, as part of that Security Council bears responsibility for the inaction of the UN in areas where it should act to fufill it's charter.

The UN, or really, the world, complained because the United States acted unilaterally outside of the UN (unlike the previous Gulf War) and chose to invade another country on false pretenses (we made the case before the UN on WMD's, claiming they were there, and there are none).

Remember, we said Saddam was hiding the weapons and was in violation of the UN resolutions and this was the basis for the justification of our invasion with so called "UN consent" since we were enforcing the UN resolution (even though we tried to get a new one). We went in because we didn't believe the inspectors could gain access to the WMD sites (which by the way, we said we knew where they were).

We presented fabricated and forged documents to the world to make our case, and when they didn't buy in, we went in anyway, against the will of the international community, outside of the United Nations established guidelines, on a false pretense.

We didn't go to the UN and say we need to establish a democracy in Iraq for the good of the Iraqi's. We went in there and said they have WMD's and time is ticking away and that the UN inspectors were unable, or unwilling, to do their job. This is why the whole f*cking world hates Bush, and is pissed off at us.

BWhite · 2004-09-22 09:27:04

Back on topic. Without the UN how do we stop the Iranian bomb? Are the Iranians meddling in Iraq today? How much more so after we support special ops to destroy their nucelar facilities?

clark asks why we need to occupy Iran. What if we destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians then send thousands or tens of thousands of fighters into Iraq, openly?

How do we counter that without turning Iran into rubble?

Weakening the UN and the EU weakens our leverage against Tehran. The UN may be ineffectual but what other choice is there?

By the way, what if Iran does withdraw from the IAEA or the non-proliferation treaties? Then its no longer illegal for them to build a bomb.

George Bush showed the way by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto negotiations.

BWhite · 2004-09-22 09:50:04

And to Shaun's question re. the "cultural civil war" and Bill's answer of:
PS - - the culture war is between evangelical Christians (who also are creationists) and the secular humanists who believe in such evil doctrines as evolution and public schools.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, focusing on one aspect of it. Essentially it's a growing rift between those who hold conservative views on everything from religion to the Constitution and those who are, essentially, socialists. Class conflict is also a factor, stirred by primarily one side (not sayin' which ) as a tool to tip the balance. Neither side is a monolithic block, but most Americans identify more with one than the other and the divide is getting sharper.

As a Roman Catholic, I can proudly proclaim there is a world of difference between socialism and social justice.

Being for social justice does not make me a socialist.

:;):

Of course, the evangelicals are usually quick to point out that they do not consider Catholics to really be Christian, a point I refuse to concede.

IMHO, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave at those on the Right who assert that the interlocking perks and competitive advantages given to large corporate donors is properly called "free market" economics.

I assert the current GOP misreads and distorts Adam Smith's theories of political economy beyond recognition. Thus, I am really the true conservative.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-22 10:12:34

The UN is only able to act with a mandate from the UN Security Council. America, as part of that Security Council bears responsibility for the inaction of the UN in areas where it should act to fufill it's charter.

Bears some responsibility in some cases. But there are other countries in there too. Blaming the failures of the UN on America is like, oh, blaming anti-Americanism on George Bush. It willfully overlooks reality in order to focus on the favorite scapegoat of the day.

The WMD issue is blown into another example. The UN believed they were in there, no one can honestly say with a straight face that George Bush made up the whole thing and tried to trick the world.

Weakening the UN and the EU weakens our leverage against Tehran. The UN may be ineffectual but what other choice is there?

The UN is useless. What I would advise is that we acknowledge this and work on an agreement with our closest allies, the ones that actually have similar interests to us and with whom we can stand united, and form an alternative. If the US cut off support for the UN and worked with its allies the UN would shrivel and die. Perhaps it should.

By the way, what if Iran does withdraw from the IAEA or the non-proliferation treaties? Then its no longer illegal for them to build a bomb.
George Bush showed the way by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto negotiations.

C'mon Bill, it's not like no one ever thought of withdrawing from a treaty before. In the end it doesn't matter, they're going to do what they want to do and "legal" or not the UN won't do anything besides issuing meaningless reprimands threatening consequences that no one believes they will ever carry out.

As a Roman Catholic, I can proudly proclaim there is a world of difference between socialism and social justice.
Being for social justice does not make me a socialist.

It wasn't my intent to imply that you're a socialist. You're far too reasonable and intelligent to be a real pinko.

IMHO, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave at those on the Right who assert that the interlocking perks and competitive advantages given to large corporate donors is properly called "free market" economics.

I can't recall anyone making this assertion. Such practices are certainly part of the modern business climate, but no one in their right mind claims that they represent the principles of free markets.

I assert the current GOP misreads and distorts Adam Smith's theories of political economy beyond recognition. Thus, I am really the true conservative.

:laugh: If that suits ya. I'm the recovering fascist with libertarian tendencies after all, I think both sides of our cultural clash are wrong. :;):

Well, I'm not so sure I'm recovering actually, but it's probably just the election.

BWhite · 2004-09-22 10:20:09

I can't recall anyone making this assertion. Such practices are certainly part of the modern business climate, but no one in their right mind claims that they represent the principles of free markets.

Not you, Cobra, only 90% of the right wing talking heads on cable TV.

Larry Kudlow is the guy that pulls my chain the hardest. ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-20 21:47:29

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#27 2004-09-21 05:56:24

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#28 2004-09-21 08:05:39

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#29 2004-09-21 08:21:40

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#30 2004-09-21 09:22:48

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#31 2004-09-21 09:40:38

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#32 2004-09-21 20:04:21

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#33 2004-09-21 20:08:45

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#34 2004-09-21 20:20:43

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#35 2004-09-21 20:26:08

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#36 2004-09-22 05:54:33

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#37 2004-09-22 06:43:53

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#38 2004-09-22 07:46:13

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#39 2004-09-22 08:02:13

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#40 2004-09-22 08:31:26

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#41 2004-09-22 08:36:42

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#42 2004-09-22 08:43:49

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#43 2004-09-22 09:06:28

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#44 2004-09-22 09:14:33

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#45 2004-09-22 09:22:38

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#46 2004-09-22 09:25:50

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#47 2004-09-22 09:27:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#48 2004-09-22 09:50:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#49 2004-09-22 10:12:34

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#50 2004-09-22 10:20:09

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer