absolutely Look, I don’t have the answers. Just trying to put myself in another person’s shoes and seeing another perspective. To answer my own question, I hope the hell we aren’t heading to another world war.
No, they don't. There is pretty much a consensus on this one. The EU, China, Russia, Japan, the US - no one thinks as you do - that any sovereign nation can proliferate. Your position, which is that any country that wants has a right to build nukes is sheer folly. Saying its extremely dangerous would be the understatement of all time. I assume, from your stance, that you also think its good news North Korea has nukes, and that it would have been fine for Saddam to have nukes. Or Milosevic in Serbia, or maybe the Taliban and his good buddy Osama? I'm pretty sure you stand fairly alone on that one.
A little folly now and then, Is cherished by the wisest men. I guess you missed the post where I said I thought no one one should have them?
So you're in favor of the US signing Koyoto and agreeing to join the International Criminal Court because of world opinion right? Historically the way the world has operated people have done whatever the damn hell they wanted to as long as they were sovreign nations, and if anybody didn't like that they could try and stop them. The League of Nations and it's follow-up the United Nations have done a little bit to ameliorate this, but only a little and even then many hard-core right-wingers chaffe at the idea. It works both ways. If you want other countries to pay attention to do listen to consensus on major public opinion, then you have to accept the same strictures yourself. In following the law, you don't get to choose which ones are good or bad, the basis of the law is that it's strictures apply to everybody, even when it benefits the bad people. I agree that the idea of Iran with nukes is bad, but I also understand how if I was Iran I might think the idea was pretty damn good since of the two other Axis of Evil members, the one that had nukes didn't get invaded while the one without did. If you choose to go braying with righteous indignation about the horrors of Iran defying public opinion you only sound like the pompous moronic Nuremburg defendants who protested about how unfair the trials were after all of the expontentially worse unfairness they distributed under the guise of the law. One thing that is important to remember is that the nonproliferation treaty in a large way codifies and freezes in place the political power structure in place after World War II. By this I mean that the countries on top then were given a position of primacy. Historically, most of these sorts of agreements that I can think of were subject to massive pressure as the reality evolved. They almost all end up with the people on top getting kicked in the @ss because they were so happy being the big dog that they willfully ignored the new reality.
I think the problem with this discussion is that people are interpreting it two ways. From IRAN's perspective, yes they probably deserve nuclear weapons. North Korea has them and they wont get invaded. Plus it gives them a big bargaining chip and greater power projection in the region. For a country that's totally shunned by the US already, there isnt much downside to getting nuclear weapons. From the world's perspective, Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. They forfeited that right the moment they acceded to the Non-proliferation treaty. Like it or not, they dont have a RIGHT to nuclear weapons. I agree the NPT is outdated and needs revision but that doesn't all of a sudden make it non-binding. Iran is violating international law that it acceded to in every which way with this program and is openly flouting IAEA rules and international law that it originally agreed to. At the very least, Iran should just withdraw from the NPT and then start its program. Of course if it did that, then it would be a dead giveaway that this isn't some peaceful nuclear energy program.
I love it how everyone here just keeps talking as if Iran were some respectable nation with a shred of diplomatic dignity. Never mind that their "president" is a madman, they want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, and have professed jihad against the west as the sole purpose of their very existence. You people think "treaties" and "accords" actually matter to these guys?
I saw the multiple posts where you said Iran has a 'right' to have them. You'll have to excuse me if your contradictory posts draw a response. No, I'm in favor of the US signing Koyoto and joining the ICC because its the right thing to do. I'm not 'braying' about anything, thank you. My opinions do not revolve around 'world opinion,' so there is not even a whiff of a contradiction for me personally. However, many who've opposed the intervention in Iraq did start with that criteria. In this case there is a consensus against Iran proliferating. So if that was a block in your anti-Iraq intervention opinion then it IS a contradiction to now say 'any sovereign nation can have nukes.' With the issue of Iran there is, indeed, a consensus against said proliferation. It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that for one who uses 'world opinion' as a indicator of the propriety of an action, stopping Iran from proliferating is such an action - despite the fact that I, myself do not use 'world opinion' as such an indicator.
Clearly, then I misunderstood you. A consensus among the nations of the world is IMHO another way of saying world opinion. A consensus can always be achieved if you remove anybody who doesn't agree from the group. Under those circumstances, I find it hard to give much validity to that type of "consensus". [rquoter] Definition of consensus: 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” 2.General agreement or accord: government by consensus. [/rquoter] I apologise if the tone of my response was overly combative. I get started writing and soon become immersed in the words flowing out and don't dedicate as much effort to editing them for content as I might. I would very much be interested in hearing whom it is in your consensus, and any response to the above.
That maybe true but they look at us as not just threatening but actually invading their neighbors, professing a crusade against them and violating treaties too. We've got our biases and they've got theirs.
Honestly I'm confused by your post. Yes, you could substitute consensus for 'world opinion.' I base my policy advocacy on neither - meaning I have advocated some policies that did not have 'world opinion' or a 'consensus' of world actors behind it (such as the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo). However, as per my previous post - many here use that as an main evaluative variable in deciding whether to support or oppose an action - ala Iraq. In response I thought it relevant to point out that using it to oppose Iraq but then claiming the opposite with Iran is at least somewhat (if not directly) contradictory. Consensus does not mean 100% of people/countries/whatever agree. It means the large portion of whatever body you are talking about agrees. For example, there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening. 1500 Nobel laureates in science agree on this. However, there are still scientists (most paid by big oil) that deny that global warming is happening. Does that mean there is not a consensus? No. I am not aware, as of this post, of any major actor that is in favor of Iranian proliferation (possibly excepting North Korea and Iran itself). The world's major powers (the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, Japan et al) are either vehemently opposed to Iranian proliferation or at least willing to join the 'consensus' so far as to take action in an attempt to prevent said proliferation. More horizontal proliferation in general is opposed by almost every country on the planet and every multilateral organization (the OAS, UN, ASEAN, et al) with an security function in existence. So other than Iranians, North Korea's government, and people who are silly enough to say any country should have nukes if they want them - I feel pretty confident there IS a consensus against Iranian proliferation.
Again I must have misunderstood. I read your response to say I don't believe in world opinion, but I do believe in consensus. I am fundamentally opposed to the Warren Berger/p*rnography judgment criteria (I know it when I see it) for judging the rightness of actions on anything more than personal or national opinion, but it is a consistent argument with which I can find no logical flaws. I agree, but at the same time that Russia is against Iran having nuclear arms, they are still helping them build the reactors and equipment that are so in question. So they at least don't necessarily think Iran is proliferating. I also get the impression that China and India aren't pursuing this with the fervor of the US and recently the EU. IMHO, the idea of assuming someone is doing something bad because they are unsavory characters may be effective, but it is not appropriate for true fairness unless you are the final arbiter of fairness. Everything that Iran has done is within the bounds of what they are allowed to do under the NPT. Everything they are proposing to do is within bounds of their rights of the NPT. If the treaty is flawed or has loopholes, that is not Iran's fault. I find it hard to prevent Iran from doing what they are allowed to under the US written NPT because they are bad people, or even on the basis of some laptop with information smuggled out of Iran. I think there is a sizeable body of information that when the US Government says to trust their information we should all be very concerned. There are negative consequences which will occur if we routinely harass and accuse countries without absolute proof that they are guilty if they turn out to be innocent. I don't think that is the case here, but I don't have the evidence to prove it and apparently nobody else does either.
OK, I understand now. No, I was saying I don't believe in world opinion/consensus as the final arbiter of 'rightness' but I do believe there is world opinion/consensus on this issue. In this case we (meaning the US) are not routinely harassing Iran. The existence of the EU's pressure and declaration that the issue needs to be referred to the UNSC shows that we are not alone in our opinion or in our conclusion that they are not following the path allowed by the NPT. Whatever skepticism you may have of US unilateral declarations should be put at ease by the existence of the actions of these other actors. Personally I think the Cold War security apparatus for nonproliferation is untenable for the future. While it didn't STOP proliferation during the Cold War, it did slow it down considerably. Now that seems to be falling apart. As such I don't have much problem changing strategy, including enforcing/changing the rules for non-nuclear countries.
No. They don't. The UN has in its "infinite wisdom" decided that Iran with nukes is not a good idea. Now that Iran is stopping UN inspections, they are blatantly in violation of international law. This would justify a multinational attack.
Well we have Israel an enemy of Iran, that has gotten nuclear weapons. so why not blockade them till they give them up? Oh, I guess it is ok since Israel never signed the Nuclear Prolif Treaty cause they intended to acquire them. I know. Israeli settler types so nicee, Iranis so crazy. Well then Israel should be blockaded since they have acquired land and are intending to do so permanently through war when they signed treaties that prohibit that in just as binding a manner as Iran signing the NPT. There is no exception even if you were attacked first, but in Israel's case they attacked first. Also, of course, the Iranian leader, could decide ala Bush that he can abrogate any treaty. What's more he can claim to do so to protect his national security ala Bush. Anyway you cut it, it is a question of force with the stronger powers wishing to maintain nuclear blackmail ability over Iran. It is frightening having Iran with nuclear weapons. Of course it is frightening for Iran and for manyu of us in the US when nutty neocons around Bush game play tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. Friedman wrote an article today syndicated in the Chronicle where he said the Iranian issue is all up to Russia, China and India who have the power to decide what happens. The US power is tapped out. A US and Euro blockade would be ineffective. Interesitng. I don't know, but Is it possible that it might be for the best if Iran gets nukes, it might bring the neocons and other militaristis in the US and Israel back to the family of nations and regular diplomacy? They might just have to accept that Iran has the oil and can't be pushed around so easily.
The Bush Who Cried Wolf Robert Dreyfuss January 12, 2006 The deteriorating international crisis over Iran is a direct result of the Bush’s administration’s ham-handed and mendacious Iraq policy. Under normal circumstances—that is, under any previous U.S. administration—the battle over Iran’s pugnacious effort in pursuit of nuclear technology would be amenable to a diplomatic solution. But, by insisting on a national security strategy of pre-emptive war, by illegally and unilaterally invading Iraq on false pretenses, and by hinting that the White House would tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear plants, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made a successful diplomatic resolution of the Iran crisis nearly impossible. Speaking yesterday at the Council for National Policy, Larry Wilkerson—the former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell who caused a stir last fall when he accused Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of operating a “cabal” —said that it is likely that Pentagon officials are polishing contingency plans for a strike against Iran. Iran, said Wilkerson, is the “principal winner” from the war in Iraq. As a result of the power of the Shiite religious forces in Iraq, he said, the Iranians “own the south” of Iraq. Wilkerson insisted that the United States ought to “talk to the people who really matter in Iran”—i.e., to the ayatollahs. But he said that U.S. policy has failed so utterly that the door to negotiations with Iran is virtually closed. “When you close the door to diplomacy, you have no other option but to rely on military power,” he said. “I hope to hell we don’t have to use it.” Without diplomatic tools, the looming showdown with Iran is potentially even more dangerous than the Iraq war. Iran is a far larger and more complex country, with the capability of retaliating against a U.S./Israeli attack by fomenting civil war in Iraq, by creating regional chaos in the Gulf, and by mobilizing its significant international terrorist capability against Western targets. As it did in the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration—along with Israel—is content to exaggerate the threat from Iran. The ayatollahs appear to be at least five years or more away from a serious nuclear capacity, according to U.S. intelligence reports. Iran’s recent decision to restart one part of its nuclear research is indeed a serious threat to diplomatic talks aimed at resolving the matter peacefully. But the issue is nowhere near an end-game stage. There is plenty of time, years in fact, for a back-and-forth effort to secure Iran's compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. By crying wolf over Iraq, through claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime had an active nuclear arms program, the United States lacks credibility when it now asserts that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And by its illegal, unilateral invasion of Iraq, without allowing the U.N. and the IAEA to proceed with inspections there, the United States has made other countries extremely wary of taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council, out of fear that it might give the United States or Israel a pretext to attack Iran unilaterally. But the international community’s justified fear that the United States is controlled by a war party seeking to attack Iran makes other states’ diplomacy even harder. Normally, the five U.N. Security Council powers would take up the matter with some urgency, adopt a resolution demanding Iran compliance, and threaten political and economic sanctions against Iran for non-compliance. But Moscow, Beijing and Paris remember what happened in Iraq. That matter was taken to the UNSC, a resolution passed—and then Washington declared unilaterally that Iraq had violated it, and went to war. So the world’s capitals may be forgiven for being reluctant to drag Iran into the UNSC in 2006. The fact that John Bolton, the belligerent, war-mongering neoconservative who serves as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., takes over as president of the Security Council in February doesn’t help. Bolton, Cheney and their allies are pushing for a showdown in the UNSC, even though it is highly unlikely that either Russia or China would support anti-Iran sanctions. India, the Arab League and other countries would strongly oppose such measures. And even Western Europe, furious over Iran for its latest effrontery, doesn’t view sanctions on Iran as a happy outcome. Their resistance to anti-Iran measures comes despite a string of outrageous provocations from Iranian President Ahmadinejad, from demanding that Israel be “wiped off the map” to pooh-poohing the Holocaust to haughtily restarting Iran's nuclear research. It is impossible to deny that Iran is a dangerous, out-of-control regime—yes, a “rogue” regime. But, had the Bush administration maintained a consistent policy of seeking a dialogue with Iran, had the neocons refrained from demanding regime change and military action, had President Bush not referred to Iran as part of a mythical “axis of evil,” and had the United States not immensely strengthened Iran’s position by handing it Iraq on a silver platter, diplomacy would stand a better chance. A package deal, giving Iran political acceptance and economic incentives, combined with a regulated nuclear technology regime, in exchange for Iran’s backing down from its hardline stance, could likely have been reached over time. It may still, but it seems highly unlikely now. So we are left with persistent reports that both the United States and Israel are planning to strike Iran, and soon. Not only would such an attack result in a vastly wider conflict in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, but it would also probably push oil prices well over $100 a barrel, making $5-a-gallon gas a reality. Perhaps, because the international community wants to avoid such a catastrophe, and because the United States is exerting enormous pressure on Russia, China and other world powers, first the IAEA and then the UNSC might vote to sanction Iran. If so, Iran will certainly not back down. And as a result, the United States will have the pretext it seeks to go to war once again. Some Democrats—and even a fair number of moderate and libertarian Republicans—expect the November 2006 elections to take place against the backdrop of a failed occupation of Iraq. Instead, those same elections might take place in the midst of yet another crisis manufactured by the Bush administration.
here's how the axis will turn out. Us: US, Mexico, Germany, UK, India, Japan, S. Korea, Spain, Israel, Australia, Turkey(maybe) Them: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Pakistan, N. Korea not really sure where France, and Canada fit in.... any other ideas?
