Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[seycyrus]

You're just being silly now.

Am I? Just following the logical path.

What is the current aim of the sanctions? You claim that they are not working, which means that aims are not being addressed.

 

[seycyrus]

That the same treaty Iran is in compliance with but was criticised for not signing the additional protocol?

Claiming that Iran is in compliance directly contradicts recent statements by the IAEA.

The same one Israel wouldn't sign at all?

Are we casting stones for not signing? or for not following the obligations of being a signatory?

The same one under which America signed up to scrap all of it's nuclear arsenal??

That condition is not so easily stated.

Please cite any statements and/or resolutions by IAEA directed against the US for it's noncompliance with its obligations.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

There's not a shred of misrepresentation there, intentional or not. McCain was talking about a peacetime occupation along the lines of South Korea and Japan, and has explained this position repeatedly. Obama can make this perfectly clear - it would still not make the Iraqis any less pissed off. But the point I was making is that such a speech in foreign land (where he need have done nothing more than replay the audio from the town hall meeting where McCain made the statement) would surely incense Republican sensitivities, as events in the past have. That's a double standard.

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement.

Bush: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Ergo, in Bush's own words, negotiating with terrorists and radicals is nothing more than providing the false comfort of appeasement.

So does that mean that Ahmedinejad is a radical but Kim Jong Il isn't?

The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

And I quote Gates from an interview he gave last week:

I think that the one area where the Iraq Study Group recommendations have not been followed up is in terms of reaching out the Iranians. And I would just tell you I've gone through kind of an evolution on this myself. I co-chaired with Zbig a Council on Foreign Relations study on U.S. policy toward Iran, in 2004. But we were looking at a different Iran in many respects. We were looking at an Iran where Khatami was the president. We were looking at an Iran where their behavior in Iraq actually was fairly ambivalent in 2004. They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful.

And one of the questions that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time. But with the election of Ahmadinejad and the very unambiguous role that Iran is playing in a negative sense in Iraq today, you know, I sort of sign up with Tom Friedman's column today. We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. If there's going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander with them not feeling that they need anything from us.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4230

It would be so easy for Bush to label Gates an appeaser, were it not for the fact that he hasn't yet fired him for this appeasement.

 

[Art]

Am I? Just following the logical path.

What is the current aim of the sanctions? You claim that they are not working, which means that aims are not being addressed.

sigh... Okay I'll explain it to you.

Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1967 with American help. IIRC the plan was to build something like 23 reactors by 2000. Now the US argue why would Iran with it's oil possibly need nuclear reactors unless for weapons. Well I'd say whatever the answer to that question was then is the same now.

In 1976 President Ford offered Iran a reprocessing facility to allow extraction of plutonium to give them the full nuclear cycle which is perfectly within the terms of the NPT which Iran ratified in 1970. All of this despite the fact western intelligence at the time suspected Iran was secretly conducting experiments with weaponising nuclear materials. But as the Shah was 'their' man the US didn't care.

After the revolution Iran's nuclear program fell into disrepair but was revived later with Iran informing the IAEA it intended to develop a full nuclear cycle including the enrichment of nuclear fuel as they were perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. Initially the IAEA agreed, as they were bound to, to assist Iran but backed off under US pressure and the US refused to supply Iran with the fuel they had contracted for or to return the billions of $s paid for it. The countries contracted to build the reactors which were only partially complete also pulled out under US pressure. This coupled with the Iraq-Iran war led to a shutdown of the program.

In 1992 following media allegations of undeclared nuclear activity the Iranian's invited the IAEA to investigate any site they wished to see following which the DG Blix declared that 'all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.'

In 1996 Iran obtained an agreement with Russia to restart it's program.

In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control which did not trouble the US in the slightest at the time so one can understand Iran's frustration now that the new gov't is in effect being punished for what the American puppet leader did before he was deposed.

The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

If the US want Iran to forgo their legal right to enrich uranium then IMO the way to do it is to talk to them and see if there is something they can offer in return or to see if they can agree safeguards to everyones' satisfaction.

Bullying has certainly not been an effective policy so far.

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Art. You've got a lot more patience than I do. the Bush/Cheney sound-bites take Iran's nuclear program and their rights to pursue this program entirely out of context. They make it sound as though Iran is going to wheel out a functioning bomb later this year and drop it on Tel Aviv. The presence of multiple carrier groups in the region and the constant saber-rattling are disconcerting, at best.

 

[mheslep]

sigh... Okay I'll explain it to you.

Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1967 with American help. IIRC the plan was to build something like 23 reactors by 2000. Now the US argue why would Iran with it's oil possibly need nuclear reactors unless for weapons. Well I'd say whatever the answer to that question was then is the same now.
...
After the revolution Iran's nuclear program fell into disrepair but was revived later with Iran informing the IAEA it intended to develop a full nuclear cycle including the enrichment of nuclear fuel as they were perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. Initially the IAEA agreed, as they were bound to, to assist Iran but backed off under US pressure and the US refused to supply Iran with the fuel they had contracted for or to return the billions of $s paid for it. The countries contracted to build the reactors which were only partially complete also pulled out under US pressure. This coupled with the Iraq-Iran war led to a shutdown of the program.

In 1992 following media allegations of undeclared nuclear activity the Iranian's invited the IAEA to investigate any site they wished to see following which the DG Blix declared that 'all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.'

In 1996 Iran obtained an agreement with Russia to restart it's program.

In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control which did not trouble the US in the slightest at the time so one can understand Iran's frustration now that the new gov't is in effect being punished for what the American puppet leader did before he was deposed.

The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

If the US want Iran to forgo their legal right to enrich uranium then IMO the way to do it is to talk to them and see if there is something they can offer in return or to see if they can agree safeguards to everyones' satisfaction.

Since a good portion of the above contradicts the statements of the IAEA and the United Nations could please provide a source?

 

[Art]

Since a good portion of the above contradicts the statements of the IAEA and the United Nations could please provide a source?

As the above is my own composition gleaned from numerous sources you will need to tell me specifically which point/s you wish to contest and I'll provide a source to support my contention.

For example

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.
snip
The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Atomic Team Reports on Iran Probe; No Weapons Research Found by Inspectors

From:
The Washington Post
Date:
February 15, 1992
Author:
Michael Z. Wise | Copyright information Copyright 1992 The Washington Post. This material is published under license from the Washington Post. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post.

International Atomic Energy Agency officials returning from a seven-day visit to Iran said the country's activities appeared consistent with a peaceful nuclear energy program, a finding that Iranian officials said should clear the way for greater technical assistance from abroad.

But Western delegates to the agency, a United Nations group charged with halting illicit production of nuclear weapons as well as promoting civilian nuclear power, said Iranian nuclear ambitions warrant continued vigilance and Western retention of an informal embargo on shipments of sensitive materials to Iran.

Iran invited the IAEA visit to dispel reports of undeclared nuclear facilities on its territory

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-990775.html

 

[Art]

And to prove my contention that Iran was not in breach of the NPT for not informing the IAEA of it's new facilities under construction

Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran

snip
15. The Subsidiary Arrangements General Part in force with Iran from 1976 to 26 February 2003
included what was, until 1992, standard text which called for provision to the Agency of design
information on a new facility no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility,

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf

Iran never signed the Additional Protocol which would have required her to inform the IAEA at the design phase. They did however from 1993 agree to voluntarily accept safeguards over and above those in the Additional Protocol but withdrew their cooperation following the implementation of sanctions since which the IAEA have noted on all of their reports that this has limited their ability to investigate fully. Thus so far the only effect of sanctions has been to reduce the visibility of Iran's program.

This is the sort of tripe the clamor for war with Iran is being built on

BBC NEWS
US Iran report branded dishonest
The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading".

In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.
snip
The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

The letter, sent to Peter Hoekstra, head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, was aimed at setting "the record straight on the facts", the IAEA said.

"This is a matter of the integrity of the IAEA and its inspectors," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.

A Western diplomat called it "deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period".

The IAEA and the US clashed over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war in Iraq in March 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm

 

[mheslep]

Most specifically this

...In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf
which states in part

1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of
the Agency’s Statute;
2. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities referred to in the Director General’s report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

Iran first signed a safeguards agreement in '92 and an http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html" which principally specifies the inspections regime used by the IAEA. The IAEA found Iran in violation of the its safeguards agreement in '05, the exact findings of which are linked above. Absent a safeguards agreement an NPT signatory does not have a legal right to enrich. In turn the IAEA referred the matter to the UN security council which required Iran to cease all enrichment activities and imposed some sanctions. Though Iran has cooperated in some regards, it still continues to enrich and hence the latest UN round of sanctions, drafted by France and the UK. The vote was 14-0.

 

[Art]

Most specifically this

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf
which states in partIran first signed a safeguards agreement in '92 and an http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html" which principally specifies the inspections regime used by the IAEA. The IAEA found Iran in violation of the its safeguards agreement in '05, the exact findings of which are linked above. Absent a safeguards agreement an NPT signatory does not have a legal right to enrich. In turn the IAEA referred the matter to the UN security council which required Iran to cease all enrichment activities and imposed some sanctions. Though Iran has cooperated in some regards, it still continues to enrich and hence the latest UN round of sanctions, drafted by France and the UK. The vote was 14-0.

Your timing is a little out. The sites became an issue in 2002, as I have already pointed out Iran did not sign the new safeguards agreement until 2003.

note They still have not formally ratified the Additional Protocol agreement and so the charge they were in breach of the NPT which they did sign was incorrect. As I said from 2003 they worked to the provisions of the Additional Protocol on a voluntary basis until they were shafted at the UN. They are accused of being in breach of something they never signed up to.

 

[mheslep]

Your timing is a little out. The sites became an issue in 2002, as I have already pointed out Iran did not sign the new safeguards agreement until 2003.

note They still have not formally signed the Additional Protocol agreement and so the charge they were in breach of the NPT which they did sign was incorrect.

??
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html
Iran Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards

 

[Art]

??
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html
Iran Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards

I meant ratified.

IRAN CONFIRMS STOPPING ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF THE NPT

Iran accepted the Protocols on October 2003 and suspended on a voluntary basis all nuclear activities, but the government of former president Mohammad Khatami did not presented it to the Majles, or the Parliament for final approval.

The present parliament, controlled by the ruling conservatives has urged the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad to consider getting out of the Additional Protocol and has said that it would not approve it if the Government submit it for acceptance.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2005/october-2005/Iran_nuclear_91005.shtml

 

[mheslep]

I meant ratified.

I assume you refer to some internal parliamentary Iranian action? How is that relevant in terms of what they are bound to do under the NPT and its derivatives? Iran sent its representative to sign that Protocols agreement, the IAEA found that they violated it in numerous ways; Iran is then in violation of the NPT and has no legal right to enrich.

 

[Art]

I assume you refer to some internal parliamentary Iranian action? How is that relevant in terms of what they are bound to do under the NPT and its derivatives? Iran sent its representative to sign that Protocols agreement, the IAEA found that they violated it in numerous ways; Iran is then in violation of the NPT and has no legal right to enrich.

lol Think Kyoto Agreement! But in any case it is irrelevant, my point remains, the 'secret' plants which caused such consternation predated any of this.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess we'll know more in a week when the next IAEA report comes out. But for now...

Iran is still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a restricted report.

The nine-page report, obtained by CNN on Monday, detailed a number of recent meetings with Iranian officials who deny conducting weapons research and continue to stymie the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

"The agency is continuing to assess the information and explanations provided by Iran," the report said. "However, at this stage, Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to support Iran's statements."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

I don't really trust most of the mainstream news outlets to even read the report correctly, so I'm not putting much weight on the news today. Also, it's not clear to me if any of this is actually in violation of the NPT. If FAS or Globalsecurity had anything to say about this, I'd listen...but I don't see anything there yet.

 

[mheslep]

lol Think Kyoto Agreement! But in any case it is irrelevant, my point remains, the 'secret' plants which caused such consternation predated any of this.

That is not my point. It is indeed irrelevant because of NPT III:

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

That is, non-NWS NPTs don't have a choice, they must reach an agreement for safeguards (i.e. inspections). Absent this agreement there are logically only two options: one, forego any nuclear processing or two, process and violate the NPT. Iran has unquestionably chosen the latter.

Thus this

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control...
The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

is incorrect, Iran has no such legal right.

 

[Art]

That is not my point. It is irrelevant because of NPT III:

That is, NWS NWTs don't have a choice, they must reach an agreement for safeguards (i.e. inspections). Absent this agreement there are logically only two options: one, forego any nuclear processing or two, process and violate the NPT. Iran has unquestionably chosen the latter.

Thus this
is incorrect, Iran has no such legal right.

Read this again

Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran

snip
15. The Subsidiary Arrangements General Part in force with Iran from 1976 to 26 February 2003 included what was, until 1992, standard text which called for provision to the Agency of design information on a new facility no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility,

Iran is still working under the provisions of the original safeguards it agreed under the NPT it signed and ratified. If they weren't you wouldn't be getting any IAEA reports

They have not withdrawn from the old safeguards agreement only the new one.

This is a case of flog the willing horse. Iran has signed the NPT fulfilled it's obligations under it by allowing unrestricted access to the IAEA in accordance with the Safeguard Protocols, has accounted for every scrap of fissile material to the satisfaction of the IAEA which are what the safeguards are all about. From 2004 (which also covers previous years) to today the IAEA has signed off every year that Iran has not diverted any material to a military or unknown program and so is in compliance with it's obligations under the NPT and yet are still being pummeled by the US who are themselves in breach of the NPT by,

1) Not dismantling their nuclear arsenal as required to under the NPT
2) Has traded nuclear materials and know how with non-signatory nations such as India.
3) Secret weapon sharing with other NATO countries.

Whilst also of course never once criticising Israel and it's nuclear arsenal

Even the fuss about the Additional Protocol is nonsense as 30% of the signatories of the NPT have yet to ratify it so Iran is hardly an exception. Of the 61 with nuclear programs who have ratified it only 20 have been given a pass by the IAEA so far. So countries such as Canada, South Africa and the Czech Republic who signed the additional protocol years ago still get a comment each year that the IAEA cannot confirm there is not a secret weapons program. Whereas the same comment on Iran's report is touted as proof they are up to something whilst in truth it is simply standard notation.

Ultimately Iran would be within it's rights to drop out of the NPT completely by giving 3 months notice which I suspect is what the Bush administration is trying to push them to do so they can declare it a causa bella.

For a lawyer's take on Iran's compliance / non-compliance and a full overview of all of the issues see here http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/undeclared.htm

 

[Art]

The latest report which has not been made public yet was issued in response to this

The report is being circulated at the request of the UN Security Council, which on 3 March 2008 asked for "a further report within 90 days from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of resolution 1737 (2006), resolution 1747 (2007) and [resolution 1803 (2008)], to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0508.html

As Iran has said it is ignoring the SC resolutions against her then obviously they are not going to get a glowing report

However as the report is likely to conclude Iran remains in compliance with it's obligations under the NPT (a separate issue to it's non-conformance with UNSC resolutions) the US representative to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, is getting in a preemptory strike by briefing everyone who will listen on only the negative aspects of the report in a continuation of the US propaganda effort to paint Iran in as black a light as possible.

 

[Gokul43201]

Getting back on topic...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24833156/

Appeasement? Bush straddles line with Sudan
WASHINGTON - Sometime in the next few weeks, a special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths.

Bashir's government has been accused by Bush of participating in a "genocide" in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson's visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputies, and several special presidential envoys.

Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators.

Really, that was a brilliant speech Bush gave to the Knesset!

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the administration has been willing to talk with both Sudan and Iran -- though in the case of Iran, only if it halts uranium enrichment. "We enter into discussions with countries where we have leverage to achieve results," he said.

Strange! No mention of radicals or terrorists!

Meanwhile, Bashir defends his #1 spot in Parade Magazine's annual list of the World's Worst Dictators - the spot he won in 2005, by ousting Kim Jong Il from the top.

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2...gabe-is-not-the-worlds-worst-dictator-nr-one/

 

[mheslep]

...the US who are themselves in breach of the NPT by,

1) Not dismantling their nuclear arsenal as required to under the NPT
...

Quick browse here and the first point is a misstatement of NPT VI. Please quote the treaty.

...undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Clearly the nuclear arms race has ceased and US weapons stockpiles have been greatly reduced.

 

[Art]

Quick browse here and the first point is a misstatement of NPT VI. Please quote the treaty.
Clearly the nuclear arms race has ceased and US weapons stockpiles have been greatly reduced.

Read your own quotes! Where does the treaty call for the nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals? You accuse me of misstating the treaty calling for complete nuclear disarmament and then proceed to quote where it calls for "general and complete disarmament." Has that happened? No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? No, especially as Bush has stated officially he intends to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent! (no good faith negotiations there!) Has the US continued to develop new nuclear weapons? Yes!

Face it the US are in material breach of the NPT in several instances but in this world of 'might is right' there's nothing anybody can do about it which is fine if the US gov't doesn't then pretend shock and horror that somebody else might have marginally infringed the NPT. It's that attitude of 'do as I say don't do as I do' where treaties and international bodies such as the UN are used to beat up America's opponents but dismissed as irrelevant when they will not support the US gov'ts pov that comes across as pure bullying. An attitude epitomised by Bush's speech to the Knesset.

 

[mheslep]

Read your own quotes! Where does the treaty call for the nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals? You accuse me of misstating the treaty calling for complete nuclear disarmament

You do so blatantly. Please stop.

...and then proceed to quote where it calls for "general and complete disarmament." Has that happened?

The treaty clearly says "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation" ... comma "and on ...". What part of 'pursue negotiations' don't you understand? What you are suggesting doesn't even make sense. The NPT demands signatories just disarm by a date unspecified in the treaty or they are in material breach of the treaty? All signers were then in breach the day they signed by that logic. No responsible IAEA member is going around saying the weapons states are in breach because they are weapons states.

... No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? No, especially as Bush has stated ...

Bush-isms? This discussion has descended into a resuscitation of articles of faith; it is not a discussion. I'm done.

 

[Art]

You do so blatantly. Please stop.The treaty clearly says "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation" ... comma "and on ...". What part of 'pursue negotiations' don't you understand? What you are suggesting doesn't even make sense. The NPT demands signatories just disarm by a date unspecified in the treaty or they are in material breach of the treaty? All signers were then in breach the day they signed by that logic. No responsible IAEA member is going around saying the weapons states are in breach because they are weapons states.

Bush-isms? This discussion has descended into a resuscitation of articles of faith; it is not a discussion. I'm done.

Articles of faith, Bush-isms! :rofl: That's not a kindly way to refer to official Whitehouse communiques.

The President's decision further advances policies that he has advocated since assuming office. We are reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile to the lowest level consistent with America's national security and our commitments to friends and allies. A credible deterrent remains an essential part of U.S. national security, and nuclear forces remain key to meeting emerging security challenges

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071218-3.html
Nothing in this release dated Dec 2007 to suggest good faith negotiations towards complete nuclear disarmament. In fact it clearly states the US has no intention of fully disarming it's nuclear arsenal. This despite the fact as recently as 2000 at a month long review of the NPT the world's five main nuclear powers including of course the US pledged to make "an unequivocal undertaking ... to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

So what part of this do you not understand?

I note you have deftly avoided commenting on the other 2 serious breaches of the NPT by the US namely providing nuclear materials and know how to a non signatory power and weapon sharing with NATO allies.

 

[quadraphonics]

Has that happened? No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening?

Well, the US arsenal has been reduced by more than half since the signing of the NPT, and is expected to be reduced even further in the next few years. Nuclear disarmament is not the sort of thing that can be accomplished overnight, or unilaterally. In fact, it's probably not the kind of thing that can ever be fully accomplished at all.

No, especially as Bush has stated officially he intends to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent! (no good faith negotiations there!)

You do understand that, within a year, Bush will not be in any position to decide the status of the American nuclear arsenal, right?

Anyway, the NPT has been deceased as a general framework for world disarmament for about a decade, since India and Pakistan developed arsenals. The NPT nuclear weapons states are never going to go for complete disarmament so long as there are nuclear weapons states outside the NPT. It not simply a matter how how much or how little America wants disarmament.

 

[BobG]

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia:

Gad, what a chance Hitler has! If he only moderates his religious and racial intolerance, he would take his place beside Charlemagne. He has taken Europe without firing a shot.

I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

I think they should have thrown him in the same cage with Ezra Pound.

You'll love Pat Buchanan's new book, then. I haven't read it, but I was listening to him talk about it this morning. Buchanan has a history of being really way out there, but woah!

 

[mheslep]

You'll love Pat Buchanan's new book, then.

How so?

I haven't read it, but I was listening to him talk about it this morning. Buchanan has a history of being really way out there, but woah!

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"? Read a review; Buchanan is apparently after antagonizers esp. Churchill, not appeasers. His thesis is (in part) the harsh Versailles settlement was a vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise; Churchill and the like were culpable for that. Yes, and? Sounds like grade school history. How does he get a book out of that?

Buchanan is always more trouble than he is worth: he's smart, he's seen government up close, but he is not a historian, he lacks that discipline; and likewise with his economic commentaries. So he comes up with some good insights here, there; commanding a 'well he's probably right about that one isn't he' but then misses the larger context because he lacks the historian's perspective. In this case he appears to ridiculously elevate the bad above the good. I think Nazism, murderous anti-antisemitism in 19th/early 20th century Europe, and a war to stop it all were coming sooner or later, Versailles or no. Churchill recognized the threat Hitler posed, and then never flinched in guiding Britain through a war it might well have lost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess it's time for Bush to fire the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, for his suggesting that we should appease the radicals in Tehran by engaging in dialogue with them.

I will say this, however: My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilizing factor in the region, and that's evident and actually more evident when one visits. But I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.

What does the admiral think - "that some ingenious argument will persuade them that they've been wrong all along"?

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4256

 

[WarPhalange]

Hey, remember that time Bush went to N. Korea to talk to Kim Jong Il and persuade him to stop his nuclear program by having talks? Like 2 weeks ago?

 

[Gokul43201]

Naturally, I don't expect Bush to quit. That would be so "old school". Besides, it's not appeasement if the bad guy actually has a small chance of landing a nuke on your @$$.

 

[wildman]

How so? Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"? Read a review; Buchanan is apparently after antagonizers esp. Churchill, not appeasers. His thesis is (in part) the harsh Versailles settlement was a vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise; Churchill and the like were culpable for that. Yes, and? Sounds like grade school history. How does he get a book out of that?

Buchanan is always more trouble than he is worth: he's smart, he's seen government up close, but he is not a historian, he lacks that discipline; and likewise with his economic commentaries. So he comes up with some good insights here, there; commanding a 'well he's probably right about that one isn't he' but then misses the larger context because he lacks the historian's perspective. In this case he appears to ridiculously elevate the bad above the good. I think Nazism, murderous anti-antisemitism in 19th/early 20th century Europe, and a war to stop it all were coming sooner or later, Versailles or no. Churchill recognized the threat Hitler posed, and then never flinched in guiding Britain through a war it might well have lost.

Buchanan's book is kind of silly. However the Versailles settlement WAS the vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise. The UK and France WERE culpable for that. They were warned by President Wilson that it was a dumb thing to do, but they did it anyway. If France and the UK had done as the US did in Europe after WW II, WW II would have never happened. Fortunately the UK and France were so weakened after WW II, they were not able to make their stupid mistakes twice. Basically after WW II, the US told France and the UK to shut up and go along with the plan.

There is always murderous anti something going around. The point is to not let it get out of hand. France and the UK let it get out of hand by oppressing Germany after WW I. Churchill did an excellent job during WW II and his warnings before the war showed great prescience, but I don't think you can let him off completely free.