There are currently 2 users and 254 guests online.
Iranian Crisis Requires Diplomacy, Not Force
Submitted by Chris Lugo for ... on Sun, 2008/03/16 - 2:37pm.
The United States has no justification for a first strike on Iran. With the recent revelations that Iran has not been engaged in active nuclear weapons development in the past four years it is imperative that the United States engage in international diplomacy with respect to the Iranian Government rather than pursuing a US generated international crisis. Our relationship with Iran is a situation which requires diplomacy and international cooperation, and not, as the Bush administration and the Republican Party seems to be speculating on, the use of unilateral force.
The international landscape has changed dramatically in the past five years, since September 11th of 2001. At the time, the United States had the empathy and compassion of the world. People around the world grieved with us as they saw our own innocent civilians die in the face of tragedy and unspeakable evil acts of aggression. Now the world community scowls as they see innocent Iraqi women and children die in the face of tragedy and acts of aggression. The global community has shifted its perspective and the United States has walked itself to the edge with the current foreign policy, rooted in unilateral aggression.
We have our own heroes and fallen dead to honor as thousands of Americans have died in service to this country in Iraq, but it is time to bring the remaining soldiers home and to refuse to take one step further down the myopic and misguided path that the "war on terror" has taken. The international community has spoken clearly on the subject of Iran, and the message is diplomacy. This is a message the current administration should heed. Americans are not ready for yet another Middle East war, especially with a country that will fight back with ten times the agression that the Iraqi insurgency has displayed.
The events of 9/11 proved that expensive weapons do not provide security; cheap boxcutters and a bit of ingenuity can wreak terrible damage. True security cannot come from weapons; true security can only come from diplomacy and peace. The U.S. government's present foreign policy, of unilateral aggression, is creating new enemies faster than the U.S. government can kill old ones. Evidently it is not a method for increasing our security. If we want security, we'll have to try doing something different.
The United Nations is the best institution to monitor and implement the Safeguards Agreement with Iran, unilateral force will not work in this situation. It has not worked in Iraq and it will not work in Iran. Whether Iran does have a more extensive centrifuge enrichment than it currently admits is a matter for international diplomacy to resolve. The United States is on the edge, once again, and international opinion says to stay the course. Whether the current administration will allow international bodies to work as they are intended to remains to be seen. Americans have learned from Iraq, where there were no weapons of mass destruction and there was no support for Osama Bin Laden. Americans are tired of war, and talk of war. Americans want peace and security and the current administration's policies offer none.
Submitted by ~ART~ (not verified) on Sun, 2008/03/16 - 4:25pm.
The American people may not be interested in the War on Our Solvency...Uh, I mean...The War on Terror but the American People who matter, you know, people who run companies like Bechtel, Parsons, The Carlyle Group, Blackwater, CACI, L3 TITAN, USPI, CSC Dyncorp, oh, and those little ol' teetsuckers, Haliburton.
Yeah, yeah, good ol' American Companies who give good jobs to good Americans with the money that these good ol' American Companies suck out of our good ol' American public coffers. The neat thing is that you don't have to suffer from it since deficits don't matter jes' ask ol' Dick Cheney ;~)
Submitted by ANGRYWOLF on Mon, 2008/03/17 - 11:12am.
to:
A) Cloak Repubs in the American flag and help McCain get elected Prez.
B) Prevent Iran from ever having nukes by destroying their facilities.I've watched enough episodes of superweapons to know we have the bunker busters that can destroy what they have no matter how deep it is or how well fortified it is.
C) Prevent al-Maliki and the Shiite wing of the Iraqi government from becoming Iranian surrogates.Maliki kissing the Iranina Prez probably left a bitter taste in Bush and Cheney. So they have to keep Maliki in line and blasting Iran would help do it.
Some of our scientists after detonation of first nuclear bomb had suggested an international management agency to control mining and milling of uranium, enrichment process, fuel fabrication, and waste management of spent fuel. They suggested that the procedure for management and inspection must not be subject to veto power by any nation. An international management of fuel production, they indicated would stop future nuclear arm competition.
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower did not appreciate the concept of an international management for nuclear fuel cycle. Stalin shortly after the first nuclear bomb test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, started the Soviet Union nuclear bomb development. We and Soviet Russia both developed shortly after enhanced nuclear bombs (hydrogen bomb). Both nations recognized that a nuclear war would destroy both nations unlike all the other wars.
The United States feared Hitler may first develop nuclear bomb during the World War II; this fear lead to creation of Manhattan Project and development of nuclear bombs. The bombs and use on Japan changed the balance of power. The power, US did not want to share with anyone including her own allies.
Russia (US threat), China (Russia and US threat), India (Chinese threat) and Pakistan (Indian threat) developed their nuclear bomb to reduce the threat of nuclear bomb by their adversaries. Israel developed nuclear bomb to decrease threats from her Arabic neighbors.
To limit further spread of nuclear bombs, the United Nations non-proliferation treaty (NPT), July 1, 1968 was started; 189 nations are member if this treaty. NPT is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
The objective of non-proliferation act is to stop diversion of nuclear materials for making bomb. However; United States, Russia, England, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan already have nuclear bombs. India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, have not joined the non-proliferation treaty, thus they are not subject to the requirements. The procedure for non-proliferation management was not intended to interfere with the rights of nations to develop fuel cycle for non-military purposes. IAEA has the authority to inspect fuel cycle activities of each nation to show compliance with the non-proliferation requirements.
Iran has been developing nuclear fuel cycle for electric power generation. Israel and the United States had indicated that the knowledge of the nuclear fuel cycle will allow Iran in the future to develop nuclear bomb. They demanded Iran must stop further development of her fuel cycle activities. Iran has already acquired the knowledge.
Iran justifiably would not intend to abrogate her rights for development of nuclear fuel cycle. Iran had suggested an international joint operation of her nuclear fuel cycle to allay the fear of Israel and the United States. Iran is open to other nations joining her nuclear fuel cycle program. By participation of other nations and unannounced IAEA inspection, Iran would be unable to divert nuclear materials. It is imperative we accept the invitation; it is face saving for Iran, the United States and Israel.
This consortium mode of nuclear fuel production could be emulated by other aggregate of nations. The Iranian consortium would be a first step to a full international management of all fuel production. This is a practical approach to non-proliferation treaty, stopping further proliferation of nuclear bombs and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
Submitted by ~ART~ (not verified) on Tue, 2008/03/18 - 6:34am.
How the H-E-Double-Toothpicks would some punk-assed "international joint operation" of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle advance the Republican Party's election chances?
We need sabre rattling by Gawd! And if that don't git Mick Hain elected then we need ta' strap them Demo'rats with an unwinable war b'fore they take office.
The American people may not be interested in the War on Our Solvency...Uh, I mean...The War on Terror but the American People who matter, you know, people who run companies like Bechtel, Parsons, The Carlyle Group, Blackwater, CACI, L3 TITAN, USPI, CSC Dyncorp, oh, and those little ol' teetsuckers, Haliburton.
Yeah, yeah, good ol' American Companies who give good jobs to good Americans with the money that these good ol' American Companies suck out of our good ol' American public coffers. The neat thing is that you don't have to suffer from it since deficits don't matter jes' ask ol' Dick Cheney ;~)
to:
A) Cloak Repubs in the American flag and help McCain get elected Prez.
B) Prevent Iran from ever having nukes by destroying their facilities.I've watched enough episodes of superweapons to know we have the bunker busters that can destroy what they have no matter how deep it is or how well fortified it is.
C) Prevent al-Maliki and the Shiite wing of the Iraqi government from becoming Iranian surrogates.Maliki kissing the Iranina Prez probably left a bitter taste in Bush and Cheney. So they have to keep Maliki in line and blasting Iran would help do it.
Nuclear: Iran
Some of our scientists after detonation of first nuclear bomb had suggested an international management agency to control mining and milling of uranium, enrichment process, fuel fabrication, and waste management of spent fuel. They suggested that the procedure for management and inspection must not be subject to veto power by any nation. An international management of fuel production, they indicated would stop future nuclear arm competition.
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower did not appreciate the concept of an international management for nuclear fuel cycle. Stalin shortly after the first nuclear bomb test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, started the Soviet Union nuclear bomb development. We and Soviet Russia both developed shortly after enhanced nuclear bombs (hydrogen bomb). Both nations recognized that a nuclear war would destroy both nations unlike all the other wars.
The United States feared Hitler may first develop nuclear bomb during the World War II; this fear lead to creation of Manhattan Project and development of nuclear bombs. The bombs and use on Japan changed the balance of power. The power, US did not want to share with anyone including her own allies.
Russia (US threat), China (Russia and US threat), India (Chinese threat) and Pakistan (Indian threat) developed their nuclear bomb to reduce the threat of nuclear bomb by their adversaries. Israel developed nuclear bomb to decrease threats from her Arabic neighbors.
To limit further spread of nuclear bombs, the United Nations non-proliferation treaty (NPT), July 1, 1968 was started; 189 nations are member if this treaty. NPT is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
The objective of non-proliferation act is to stop diversion of nuclear materials for making bomb. However; United States, Russia, England, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan already have nuclear bombs. India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, have not joined the non-proliferation treaty, thus they are not subject to the requirements. The procedure for non-proliferation management was not intended to interfere with the rights of nations to develop fuel cycle for non-military purposes. IAEA has the authority to inspect fuel cycle activities of each nation to show compliance with the non-proliferation requirements.
Iran has been developing nuclear fuel cycle for electric power generation. Israel and the United States had indicated that the knowledge of the nuclear fuel cycle will allow Iran in the future to develop nuclear bomb. They demanded Iran must stop further development of her fuel cycle activities. Iran has already acquired the knowledge.
Iran justifiably would not intend to abrogate her rights for development of nuclear fuel cycle. Iran had suggested an international joint operation of her nuclear fuel cycle to allay the fear of Israel and the United States. Iran is open to other nations joining her nuclear fuel cycle program. By participation of other nations and unannounced IAEA inspection, Iran would be unable to divert nuclear materials. It is imperative we accept the invitation; it is face saving for Iran, the United States and Israel.
This consortium mode of nuclear fuel production could be emulated by other aggregate of nations. The Iranian consortium would be a first step to a full international management of all fuel production. This is a practical approach to non-proliferation treaty, stopping further proliferation of nuclear bombs and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
How the H-E-Double-Toothpicks would some punk-assed "international joint operation" of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle advance the Republican Party's election chances?
We need sabre rattling by Gawd! And if that don't git Mick Hain elected then we need ta' strap them Demo'rats with an unwinable war b'fore they take office.
Post new comment