FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities





ommusic
edit by mOrpheuS : please use the quote tags when posting text copied from elsewhere.

Quote:
While you are reading this, the Iranian reactor produces enriched bomb-grade uranium. Terrorists can deliver that bomb to your city, and it can kill you and your children. Yet the government does nothing.

Do we demand violence? Not in any common sense. Similarly, police use force to arrest criminals in order to stop violence.

But Iran is not a criminal? Wrong. Iran has proven malicious intent. Iran, under the current regime, conducted many terrorist bombings in the West, and sponsors deadly terrorists. Iranian leaders repeatedly called for fight against the United States and annihilation of Israel.

Perhaps Iran needs nuclear weapons for self-defense? No. Iran already bullies the Middle East with its huge conventional army. No country threatens Iran.

Since the eighth-century jihad and the Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna, the West has never been exposed to such threat. Iran’s several nuclear bombs can inflict more damage on America than the World War II. Never before the Islamic fundamentalists who hate the West and dream of attacking it had military might of apocalyptic dimensions. Are you crazy to doubt they will use the bomb?

We call on the United States: Do not hesitate. Protect your people. Protect your allies. Destroy the Iranian reactor!


To sign the petition, visit http://terrorismisrael.com/nuclear_iran.htm
ahamed
ommusic wrote:


But Iran is not a criminal? Wrong. Iran has proven malicious intent. Iran, under the current regime, conducted many terrorist bombings in the West, and sponsors deadly terrorists. Iranian leaders repeatedly called for fight against the United States and annihilation of Israel.



we know IRAN is threat to US .. but u can't say iran conducted terrorist attack in west .. is ther any single edidance do u have on behalf of ur statement ? If u have pls let us know .. otherwise keep ur mouth close. For ur information, US is the first country in the world who blasts necleur bomb in this world .... that makes millions of people to die ....
Bikerman
ommusic wrote:
While you are reading this, the Iranian reactor produces enriched bomb-grade uranium. Terrorists can deliver that bomb to your city, and it can kill you and your children. Yet the government does nothing.

OK...firstly let's get some facts into this diatribe. It is also bad form to lift an entire posting without crediting it as you have done here. The original is here http://discussions.ghanaweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=306875&sid=e1b7722be6eac9c2068e8cc79cd07ad3
It will not suprise people to find that this was posted by 'Sheila_Israel' and appears to be the work of controversial Zionist group 'SamsonBlinded'.

1) Plutoniun and/or enriched uranium, is normally used for weapons as stated. Normally about 25kg of enriched U238 or/and about 8kg of plutonium would be the sort of amounts needed for a bomb.
Scientific consensus would seem to indicate that at the moment Iran is probably a minimum of 2 and probably more like 3-4 years away from being able to produce that quantity of suitable material. Then it will have to develop the weaponising techniques and technologies which will probably take another 12-24 months minimum.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ToLbO4GDXYMJ:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/72449.pdf+iran+nuclear+programme+how+close+to+a+bomb&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6#
http://camres.frih.net/resources/iraniannukes.pdf
Quote:

Do we demand violence? Not in any common sense. Similarly, police use force to arrest criminals in order to stop violence.
But Iran is not a criminal? Wrong. Iran has proven malicious intent. Iran, under the current regime, conducted many terrorist bombings in the West, and sponsors deadly terrorists. Iranian leaders repeatedly called for fight against the United States and annihilation of Israel.

So, in short, yes, you do demand violence. Iran is the chief sponsor of Hizbullah and other Palestinian resistance movements and I think you will find that the vast majority of 'terrorist' support has been in this area. The bombs that I know have been linked to Iran are (all I think) related to this issue. Hence we have documented support for the following:
1. The suicide bombing of the American embassy in Beirut (18 April. 83), which killed 61 people and left more than 120 wounded.
2. The suicide bombing of the Marines headquarters in Beirut (23 Oct.83), which killed 39 and wounded 40 people.
3. The suicide bombing of the French army barracks in Beirut (23 Oct. 83), which killed 74 and wounded about 15.

Evidence for arttacks directly on western countries is not so available. Perhaps you would be good enough to post links to such attacks so I can check them out. The only reference I have so far come across that seems at all credible is the Lockerbie Plane bombing but even in that case it seems almost certainly that Libya was the chief sponsor and Iran had a very minor role (if any)..
Quote:

Perhaps Iran needs nuclear weapons for self-defense? No. Iran already bullies the Middle East with its huge conventional army. No country threatens Iran.

Is that a joke ? OK....let's take both parts of that.
1) Bullying the ME. What is your evidence for this ? What I see is the recent Iran-Syria pledge of mutual support against US aggression, the support for palestinian resistance movements and the terrorist attacks that these groups carry out mainly in the ME. What country did Iran last invade or threaten with invasion ? Iraq I think....In reality Iran is now very influential and very popular with other states in the ME and, rather than bullying, it has assumed the role of leader in the region.
2) No country threatens Iran. Apart from the US and other western powers of course. Perhaps we should also consider the role of the other regional nuclear power...Israel.

What Iran is doing is attempting to get some insurance quickly against US invasion. This is both predictable, logical and, from an Iranian viewpoint, sensible. We know that the US has a history of invasion and intervention in the region and we also know that the US will not attempt such activities against a country with it's own nuclear weapons (North Korea being the obvious example). At the moment the nuclear balance of power favours the Israel/US axis exclusively and Iran is seeking to rectify that. I find that neither suprising nor particularly threatening (for reasons I will elaborate on later).
http://revcom.us/a/033/us-threats-against-iran.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060328/2006032823.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4270859.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_pf.html
Quote:

Since the eighth-century jihad and the Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna, the West has never been exposed to such threat. Iran’s several nuclear bombs can inflict more damage on America than the World War II. Never before the Islamic fundamentalists who hate the West and dream of attacking it had military might of apocalyptic dimensions. Are you crazy to doubt they will use the bomb?

This is complete claptrap.
1) Iran has no nuclear bombs, certainly not several.
2) WWII saw only 2 bombs used.....by...
3) Ottoman army Jihad 8th century. The dates are completely screwed up. Jihad was indeed started around 8th century but the Ottomans didn't have it's army at the gates of vienna until the 17th Century.
4) Do I doubt that Iran would use a bomb. Yes, of course. It is well aware of the consequences, both in terms of military retribution and social/economic isolation. Iran has been making fairly strenuous efforts to rehabilitate it's image in the west over the last decade and it is inconceivable that it would throw a nuke at the US or Israel unless it was forced to defend against a US invasion - and even then I doubr that Iran would use any nuclear weapons.
Quote:

We call on the United States: Do not hesitate. Protect your people. Protect your allies. Destroy the Iranian reactor!

Calm down, take a break, have a kit-kat and a cup of tea. Stop churning out this desperate sounding prose because as well as being completely inaccurate, misleading and just plain invented in parts, it actually portrays YOU as the militant here with the hysterical, immoderate and illogical language.
palavra
ommusic wrote:

To sign the petition, visit http://terrorismisrael.com/nuclear_iran.htm


interesting

why japans couldn't think about this petition Wink


if they could, they would be able to save 200,000 ( and more)

people.
Moonspider
palavra wrote:
ommusic wrote:

To sign the petition, visit http://terrorismisrael.com/nuclear_iran.htm

why japans couldn't think about this petition Wink


As you may recall, The Empire of Japan did launch a preemptive strike againsts the United States. It was called Pearl Harbor. (And I don't think Hirohito circulated a petition first.)

Don't blame the United States for winnnig a war it did not start. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki arguably saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, the majority of them Japanese (especially if you take into consideration the people born since then whose parents may very well have been killed otherwise). A U.S. invasion of Japan would have been a blood bath unlike any other conventional military campaign in history. D-Day and the defeat of Germany would have looked like picking daises compared to Operation Downfall and the conquering of Japan.
palavra
Moonspider wrote:


As you may recall, The Empire of Japan did launch a preemptive strike againsts the United States. It was called Pearl Harbor. (And I don't think Hirohito circulated a petition first.)

yes
and this give you right to kill every japan! Laughing
Moonspider wrote:

Don't blame the United States for winnnig a war it did not start. .)



there are wars usa started and couldn't win like vietnam
but i don't blame usa starting-ending war
i blame only for killing of civilians

Moonspider wrote:


The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki arguably saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, .)

personally i don't believe this
deliberately you killed the civilians
this was a big crime

i want to ask only one question
if you could have a chance to stop the war in 1945
only you supposed to burn or kill a japan baby
-how many japan baby died in bombings-
could you do this or not?
Moonspider
The moral decision to kill civilians during World War II was made years prior to 1945. There is no moral difference between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden. The only difference was the means by which it was executed. The destruction of Hamburg and Dresden (the casualties of which were comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was accomplished by round the clock bombing raids by U.S. and British bombers for a solid week.

This was a total war, with national survival at stake. I am not going to judge that generation's actions based on my moral views today. Civilian deaths are inevitable in any war, especially those of such magnitude. Twice as many allied civilians died than allied forces in the war, for example. Here is a brief breakdown of casualties (for more detail visit the following site or any other numerous sources: http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html

About 60 million people died during World War II. Almost 70% of those deaths were civilian. Of those, more than 50% were allied countries (mostly the USSR, China, and Poland). Japan's casualties were 83% military and only 17% civilian. And yes, the majority of that 17% was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, Japan's civilian casualties were less than Britain's military casualties, and less than Germany's civilian casualties by a factor of ten (Germany: 3.8 million, Japan: 300,000.)

Why were Japan's civilian casualties so small? It is because we never invaded their home country. If we had, the breakdown would have been closer to the USSR's or Germanys. (USSR: 66% Civilian, 34% Military, Germany: 54% Civilian, 46% Military).

Thus, I will argue that far more civilians would have died in Japan had we invaded rather than dropping two atomic bombs, which thankfully, but only barely, caused them to surrender. (There were some Japanese leaders who would have preferred the entire country go up in a full-scale nuclear holocaust than surrender. Furthermore, there was an attempt at a coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing the surrender.) Japanese civilians were being trained to use farm tools to attack U.S. soldiers. Japanese children were being trained to strap explosives to their backs and run under U.S. tanks and blow themselves and the tank up.

The death toll on both sides would have been catastrophic. Many people I've known in my life, both Japanese and American, may not even be here today for their fathers (or both parents in the case of the Japanese) may have been killed in the ensuing carnage.

And as to your moral question, would I kill an infant if I knew it would save at least 200,000 lives? Yes. I would. Does that make it an easy decision? No, it does not. But it is the logical one.
doomz
palavra wrote:


Moonspider wrote:

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki arguably saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, .)

personally i don't believe this
deliberately you killed the civilians
this was a big crime

i want to ask only one question
if you could have a chance to stop the war in 1945
only you supposed to burn or kill a japan baby
-how many japan baby died in bombings-
could you do this or not?


I wish you have to believe this.
the casualities of Japanese Civiilian by the Atomic Bomb is nothing compare with the suffering or torturing that the japanese army 'treat' to the Asians civilians (from China to South East Asia). that's no different at all with the holocaust in europe.

if you asking the older people who survived in WWII from Japan, they maybe said two bombs are not enough. the japanese already lucky enough at that time while the US still let them have their own country to live.

what will you do if they have killed your baby,son,daughter,wife,father,mother and you have a chance to kill his baby of the man who did that to you?


just give you 1 or 2 information what the japanese did during wwII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_%28book%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
mephisto73
From a rational analysis it would be more logical to neutralize the US first since it has the largest arsenal of nuclear war heads and is argubly the only nation that has actually used its nuclear weapons against humans, twice (civilian targets at that). The outspoken US policy is to use nuclear weapons again as it sees fit, and to appear and act apparently irrational to deter disobedience from the rest of the world.

It is only natural that Iran and North Korea is trying to procure NW in a desperate attempt to deter US agression.
mephisto73
Quote:
Thus, I will argue that far more civilians would have died in Japan had we invaded rather than dropping two atomic bombs, which thankfully, but only barely, caused them to surrender. (There were some Japanese leaders who would have preferred the entire country go up in a full-scale nuclear holocaust than surrender. Furthermore, there was an attempt at a coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing the surrender.) Japanese civilians were being trained to use farm tools to attack U.S. soldiers. Japanese children were being trained to strap explosives to their backs and run under U.S. tanks and blow themselves and the tank up.


It is well known (outside the US anyway) that Japan was prepared and sought to negotiate a surrender well before the A and H bombs were dropped. The war was all but lost after the US invasion of Luzon. However, US decided to proceed with the bombings mostly out of political reasons since there were no military reason to bomb.

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
doomz
mephisto73 wrote:

It is well known (outside the US anyway) that Japan was prepared and sought to negotiate a surrender well before the A and H bombs were dropped. The war was all but lost after the US invasion of Luzon. However, US decided to proceed with the bombings mostly out of political reasons since there were no military reason to bomb.

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan


you're right,
but if the japan surrender earlier the US will don't have any reason to use the Bomb even at the politic term at that time. the demand of surredner have been given to Japan. but the Japan is still try to win the war in field with the hope of changing the issue 'surrender without condition' to 'surrender with condition' but they never make it. and the war still go on.

the decision of using the Bomb also have many factors beside the as 'testing' for battle proven also to reduce the casualities of US army.
many predict that the landing to Japan Island will cause more causilities than the landing on D-Day. because though in diplomacy/politic the japan almost lost the war but in the field the army of japan fight bravery.

if the Atomic bomb had not been chose,
you will watch the 'Saving Private Ryan' scene not on Omaha beach, I guess. and maybe Tom Hank will never make it to save Ryan back there.
palavra
doomz wrote:

I wish you have to believe this.
the casualities of Japanese Civiilian by the Atomic Bomb is nothing compare with the suffering or torturing that the japanese army 'treat' to the Asians civilians (from China to South East Asia). that's no different at all with the holocaust in europe.



OK you are right , they did
i don't defend them
i only critise what usa did.

if japan killed asian civilians ,this does not give usa right to kill japanese civilians.

is japan teacher of the usa?
mephisto73
Quote:
but if the japan surrender earlier the US will don't have any reason to use the Bomb even at the politic term at that time. the demand of surredner have been given to Japan. but the Japan is still try to win the war in field with the hope of changing the issue 'surrender without condition' to 'surrender with condition' but they never make it. and the war still go on.


I was merely pointing out that Japan was willing to discuss peace conditions and even sought to discuss them, to establish that there were an alternative.

Quote:
the decision of using the Bomb also have many factors beside the as 'testing' for battle proven also to reduce the casualities of US army.
many predict that the landing to Japan Island will cause more causilities than the landing on D-Day. because though in diplomacy/politic the japan almost lost the war but in the field the army of japan fight bravery.


"Many" predicted 1 million casualties if US was to land on Japan mainland, but this is pure speculation and military strategists have admitted that this number is way overestimated. It could be argued that saving even 1 american soldier would justify using nuclear weapons, but I find that morally offensive and also politically naive. Sparing lives of US soldiers may have been a convenient excuse but hardly the main reason for deploying nuclear weapons. US wanted to set a precedent and demonstrate that it wouldn't balk at using this newly developed weapons of mass destruction.

Quote:
if the Atomic bomb had not been chose,
you will watch the 'Saving Private Ryan' scene not on Omaha beach, I guess. and maybe Tom Hank will never make it to save Ryan back there.


Well there is no comparison. The choice is not only between invasion and nuclear weapons...there is also the option of negotiating peace.
Moonspider
This post has strayed off the subject dramatically, now becoming a philosophical debate on the morality of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'll end my discussion in this thread with a few points:

1. As I said earlier, the moral decision was crossed years prior in the fire bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. There is no moral difference between these and the Japanese bombings. Technology simply changed.

2. Conditional surrender was not an option. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrors in China, Korea, the Phillippines and elsewhere, the United States was not going to consider allowing the Japanese Empire to live on. Once again, do not judge a previous generation's actions based upon your modern sense of morality. It is unfair and illogical.

3. Even if you read the Wikipedia article, Japanese leaders sought to inflict enough casualties to force the U.S. to the negotiating table. This supports the idea of using the atomic bombs to reduce both U.S. and Japanese casualties.

BTW, you referred to an "A" and an "H" bomb. I assume by this you meant Atomic and Hyrdogen. For clarification, they were both Atomic bombs. One was a uranium device using the gun method (Little Boy) and the other was a plutonium device using the implosive method (Fat Boy). The first Hyrdogen bomb was not successfully tested until 1952.
Soulfire
Nope, U.S. intervention in the issue will only further ruin our world reputation. Let us allow Iran and North Korea to go unrestricted with their nuclear weapons program, that way we make everyone happy (until we're vaporized).
evandb
I'm not going to get into Japan, but I do have some thoughts on the Iran/NK issues...

As seen with Iraq, invasion isnt really the best option in the ME at the moment. The US has little to know public support in the region and another invasion would put the US even deeper in a hole.

That's not to say that NK and Iran should go on unconfronted. Diplomatically, in both cases, a lot of good can be done by China, and in part Russia. China holds a large amount of influence over both states (although the NK tests this week despite China's direct statement condemning it was a bit of a slap in the face) and, if they can be persuaded it's in their interests to do so, help to bring both states around to an amenable comprimise.

Military intervention in NK is an even worse option than Iran, as Soeul, pop ~10m, is situated right below the border of NK/SK and the NK army is clustered miles to the north of it. Not to mention that they claim they can use the nuclear weapons they tested.

Rather important are the reasonings of the governments that are challenging the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the US mandates. It seems both are interested in deterrents, rather than use of the weapons (duh) and in Iran's case they have been having such good fortune as of late they aren't even sure what to do with it. The ruling clergy is split on whether nuclear weapons in the region is a good idea, and many believe it is merely a power play to get much more influence in the region after the downfall of their nearby power and the sudden unipolarity of the region.

What it comes down to is the fact that the US (and its partners) and the EU need to practice some excellent diplomacy, something that has been deteriorating since Bush took the White House. The UN has been marginalized and many of the international treaties and guidelines look like hypocritical jokes when the main proponants of them refuse to follow them. NK's situation requires more care than the Iranians, as Mr Kim is fairly unpredictable and NK in general is an extremely closed society and difficult to read. Unilateral international pressure is really the only option at this point. The Iranians want power and status, and that is something they need to be given. Many will point to the gross inequalities of their society and how we should not award them for their power play by recognizing it, but at this point, what choice do we have? First, the Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved, and the West needs to show it has interests in the region other than supremacy and control. Once that is accomplished, Iran's conservatives can be confronted and the radical base subdued.

The US especially needs a dramatic policy shift and I, for one, am hoping that the next election brings this about.
S3nd K3ys
evandb wrote:

What it comes down to is the fact that the US (and its partners) and the EU need to practice some excellent diplomacy, something that has been deteriorating since Bush took the White House. The UN has been marginalized and many of the international treaties and guidelines look like hypocritical jokes when the main proponants of them refuse to follow them. NK's situation requires more care than the Iranians, as Mr Kim is fairly unpredictable and NK in general is an extremely closed society and difficult to read. Unilateral international pressure is really the only option at this point. The Iranians want power and status, and that is something they need to be given. Many will point to the gross inequalities of their society and how we should not award them for their power play by recognizing it, but at this point, what choice do we have? First, the Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved, and the West needs to show it has interests in the region other than supremacy and control. Once that is accomplished, Iran's conservatives can be confronted and the radical base subdued.

The US especially needs a dramatic policy shift and I, for one, am hoping that the next election brings this about.


I knew some ill-informed Bush-hating bomb thrower would come in trying
to blame this on Bush. Just like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the left wing
nutjobs.

This has been going on for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. The US
has continually paid off NK in the hopes of stopping their nuclear
ambition and have been lied to every single time. I think we're done
talking. Either leave them to their ambitions, or stop them in their tracks.
Now.

Oh, and great idea, give Iran power and status they so rightly deserve...
Rolling Eyes
evandb
S3nd K3ys wrote:
evandb wrote:

What it comes down to is the fact that the US (and its partners) and the EU need to practice some excellent diplomacy, something that has been deteriorating since Bush took the White House. The UN has been marginalized and many of the international treaties and guidelines look like hypocritical jokes when the main proponants of them refuse to follow them. NK's situation requires more care than the Iranians, as Mr Kim is fairly unpredictable and NK in general is an extremely closed society and difficult to read. Unilateral international pressure is really the only option at this point. The Iranians want power and status, and that is something they need to be given. Many will point to the gross inequalities of their society and how we should not award them for their power play by recognizing it, but at this point, what choice do we have? First, the Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved, and the West needs to show it has interests in the region other than supremacy and control. Once that is accomplished, Iran's conservatives can be confronted and the radical base subdued.

The US especially needs a dramatic policy shift and I, for one, am hoping that the next election brings this about.


I knew some ill-informed Bush-hating bomb thrower would come in trying
to blame this on Bush. Just like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the left wing
nutjobs.

This has been going on for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. The US
has continually paid off NK in the hopes of stopping their nuclear
ambition and have been lied to every single time. I think we're done
talking. Either leave them to their ambitions, or stop them in their tracks.
Now.

Oh, and great idea, give Iran power and status they so rightly deserve...
Rolling Eyes



I'm actually not much of a Bush hater. And I agree US foreign policy has been deteriorating for some time. But diplomacy has taken a backseat over the past few years.

And I agree NK hasnt been dealt with correctly, but force simply won't work. It's easy to say they need to be stoped in their tracks or left alone, but really, are those viable resolutions? These issues are not black and white. One is never "done talking." Talking is the way disputes get resolved, not fighting. There have been very few positive resolutions involving force post-WWII and this certainly wont be one of them.

On Iran, what other choice do you see? They are a developing economy and are bound to emerge as a power in the ME. Isnt it better to try to start out on somewhat of a good foot rather than a terrible one? While it does not set terribly good precedent to let them get what they want, sometimes one has to make the best of a bad situation.
S3nd K3ys
evandb wrote:

I'm actually not much of a Bush hater. And I agree US foreign policy has been deteriorating for some time. But diplomacy has taken a backseat over the past few years.

And I agree NK hasnt been dealt with correctly, but force simply won't work. It's easy to say they need to be stoped in their tracks or left alone, but really, are those viable resolutions? These issues are not black and white. One is never "done talking." Talking is the way disputes get resolved, not fighting. There have been very few positive resolutions involving force post-WWII and this certainly wont be one of them.

On Iran, what other choice do you see? They are a developing economy and are bound to emerge as a power in the ME. Isnt it better to try to start out on somewhat of a good foot rather than a terrible one? While it does not set terribly good precedent to let them get what they want, sometimes one has to make the best of a bad situation.


Diplomacy HAS NOT WORKED is the reason it's taking a back seat lately.

If the US steps in, the US will be made out to be the bad guy for butting in.
That's the way it always works. We get shit on for helping, and we get shit
on for not helping. It's pathitic.

It's time to put up or shut up IMNSHO. Perhaps a good asskicking by a
thug will make the rest of the world a little more understanding about
where the US is coming from and where they're going. Unless you think
you'll be better off with a country like NK or China or SA as the world's
super power.
evandb
S3nd K3ys wrote:
evandb wrote:

I'm actually not much of a Bush hater. And I agree US foreign policy has been deteriorating for some time. But diplomacy has taken a backseat over the past few years.

And I agree NK hasnt been dealt with correctly, but force simply won't work. It's easy to say they need to be stoped in their tracks or left alone, but really, are those viable resolutions? These issues are not black and white. One is never "done talking." Talking is the way disputes get resolved, not fighting. There have been very few positive resolutions involving force post-WWII and this certainly wont be one of them.

On Iran, what other choice do you see? They are a developing economy and are bound to emerge as a power in the ME. Isnt it better to try to start out on somewhat of a good foot rather than a terrible one? While it does not set terribly good precedent to let them get what they want, sometimes one has to make the best of a bad situation.


Diplomacy HAS NOT WORKED is the reason it's taking a back seat lately.

If the US steps in, the US will be made out to be the bad guy for butting in.
That's the way it always works. We get **** on for helping, and we get ****
on for not helping. It's pathitic.

It's time to put up or shut up IMNSHO. Perhaps a good asskicking by a
thug will make the rest of the world a little more understanding about
where the US is coming from and where they're going. Unless you think
you'll be better off with a country like NK or China or SA as the world's
super power.


Yeah, clearly "a good asskicking" is what the US needs to do. Go show those small countries what its all about.

Diplomacy CAN WORK, despite the fact that it hasn't.

You'd think people would pick up on this after all the wonderful "successes" the US had with bombs and guns diplomacy in the second half of the 20th century.

And do you really think the US exerting more dominance over the world will maintain its unipolar superpower status? What we are seeing are the results of that strategy in the past. Clearly force is not the way to keep the world in a peaceful state. It may have worked with the Soviet Union, but its pretty well accepted that it isn't going to work anymore. Deterrence and containment don't work with Iran, SK, China, etc.
S3nd K3ys
evandb wrote:


Yeah, clearly "a good asskicking" is what the US needs to do. Go show those small countries what its all about.


Way to comprehend. Not.

Go back and re-read my post. I said that the ass kicking should come from
the thugs. i.e. people like that NK twit, that Iranian phsychopathic mobster

and others of that ilk, and that the US should STAY OUT OF IT.

Please pay attention. Wink
Bikerman
S3nd K3ys wrote:

This has been going on for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. The US
has continually paid off NK in the hopes of stopping their nuclear
ambition and have been lied to every single time. I think we're done
talking. Either leave them to their ambitions, or stop them in their tracks.
Now.

I think you are referring the the KEDO ( Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization) program which, as far as I can see, the US stopped contributing to in 2002. KEDO was setup in order to provide 2 light-water reactors for Korean Peninsula and to ship heavy oil so that the energy requirements in NK could be met. Under this the NKs promised not to embark on military research in nuclear areas and not to develop it's own heavy water technology. Unfortunately, as so often, the policy of the US under Bush was largely responsible for destabilising the issue.
Quote:
The U.S. took a tough stance at the meeting of the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group in Tokyo on November 9-10, 2002, pressing for the ship carrying the November allotment of heavy oil to North Korea to be turned around. South Korea and Japan opposed this demand, arguing that the program to ship heavy oil should continue "because its cancellation will only aggravate the situation." Washington took an aggressive stance, advocating not only a halt to oil shipments but also to construction of the light water reactors. The U.S. also called for a readjustment to the Agreed Framework. Unable to come to agreement, the three nations decided to defer a decision until they met again on November 14 at the executive board meeting of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). KEDO is the consortium responsible for construction of the light water reactors in North Korea. (25)
The night before the KEDO meeting was to open, President Bush met with his national security advisors and made a unilateral decision that oil shipments to North Korea would cease starting in December, thereby excluding the involvement of South Korea and Japan from the decision. Allowing the November shipment to proceed was his only concession to their concerns. South Korea had argued that shipments should continue at least through to the final shipment for the year, in January. Presented with a fait accompli by Washington, South Korea and Japan felt they had no other option than to fall in line. The executive board meeting of KEDO issued a statement announcing the suspension of oil deliveries. "Future shipments will depend on North Korea's concrete and credible actions to dismantle completely its highly enriched program," it said. "In this light other KEDO activities with North Korea will be reviewed." An official from South Korea's Unification Ministry admitted afterwards that by acquiescing to the "U.S. hard-line position," KEDO's position would hurt North-South relations. "We had hoped for more moderate measures," he said. The decision by KEDO drew a sharp response from North Korea. "We believe it is time to make clear who is truly responsible for breaking the Geneva Pact. KEDO by ending its oil supply has cheated against its earlier pledge to provide substitute energy for production and heat. It was the only provision among the four that was being implemented accordingly." For the U.S., halting oil deliveries in December would have the merit of inflicting hardship on the North Korean people when the oil was needed most ­ during the cold winter months. American officials regarded the decision as only an opening move in a campaign to squeeze North Korea. The U.S. also planned to tighten sanctions against North Korea by pressuring other nations to withhold trade credits from North Korea. "We are going to contain and isolate them," a senior U.S. official announced with relish.


Regards
Chris
Moonspider
From where did the quote come?

I ask first because it is simply proper etiquette to disclose one's sources.

Secondly, the closing statement seemed to intentionally paint an emotional picture of the administration's attitude, rather than simply reporting the facts. Furthermore even the facts seem to contradict my recollections. The article, at least the portion you quoted, implies that the United States acted unilaterrally and without provocation. Reading it one would think the United States simply wanted to strangle North Korea and act with hostility towards them.

However, a reprt from Reuters (November 19, 2002 "Oil Runs Dry for North Korea") stated, "The United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union agreed to suspend the fuel oil shipments to North Korea from December." Not quite a unilateral action. According to the article, this was in response to the discovery that North Korea had a nuclear weapons programme, in violation of the 1994 accord (the "Agreed Framework').
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
From where did the quote come?

I ask first because it is simply proper etiquette to disclose one's sources.

Secondly, the closing statement seemed to intentionally paint an emotional picture of the administration's attitude, rather than simply reporting the facts. Furthermore even the facts seem to contradict my recollections. The article, at least the portion you quoted, implies that the United States acted unilaterrally and without provocation. Reading it one would think the United States simply wanted to strangle North Korea and act with hostility towards them.

If I had the source I would have quoted it, I normally do. This was from another essay I wrote on a related issue and I lost the attribution unfortunately. Not to worry...I'll support it with other refs...
Quote:

However, a reprt from Reuters (November 19, 2002 "Oil Runs Dry for North Korea") stated, "The United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union agreed to suspend the fuel oil shipments to North Korea from December." Not quite a unilateral action. According to the article, this was in response to the discovery that North Korea had a nuclear weapons programme, in violation of the 1994 accord (the "Agreed Framework').

Yes...The US urged the action and the rest agreed. This is confirmed in the following congressional document:
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/korea.pdf
The relevant paragraph is :
Quote:
The Agreed Framework Unravels
After the confrontation became public, the Agreed Framework quickly unraveled. At U.S. urging, KEDO’s executive board decided to halt the heavy fuel oil shipments in November 2002. This prompted a series of angry and consequential responses from the North Koreans: shrill denouncements of the U.S. failure to live up to its obligations under the agreement, the removal of IAEA monitors from the Yongbyon plant, the expelling of IAEA inspectors from the country, the removal of fuel rods from the storage pond, and withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

(source: CRS Report for Congress)

OK...let's then examine the details from a variety of sources:-
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_04-05/nkam99.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604437.stm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/006.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/KEDO.asp
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3101&l=1

Regards
Chris
Moonspider
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it.

I think both policies (those pursued by the Clinton and Bush administrations respectively) failed to bring about the desired behavior in Kim Jung-Il. Obviously so considering where we are, and where we were in 1998.

I've been involved in a discussion along similar lines in the "North Korea tests a nuclear weapon" thread, and encourage you to join in there if you'd like to continue our conversations along this topic.
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it.

I think both policies (those pursued by the Clinton and Bush administrations respectively) failed to bring about the desired behavior in Kim Jung-Il. Obviously so considering where we are, and where we were in 1998.

I've been involved in a discussion along similar lines in the "North Korea tests a nuclear weapon" thread, and encourage you to join in there if you'd like to continue our conversations along this topic.


Thanks Moonspider,
I've got more US threads than I would like going at the moment. I only jump in if I see some (what i regard to be) blatant misrepresentation, factual distortions/error or (sometimes) if someone is holding a sensible line against a concerted onslaught from several other posters. There are a few posters who have an axe to grind (which is fine) and post very misleading stuff (which is not) and I will normally respond in those cases.
I don't enjoy slagging off people, let alone countries, but the US foreign policy issue is one I know quite a bit about and have written on in several arenas/forums, so I have quite a lot of links and library sources close to hand which makes the attribution easier than normal.

Best wishes

Chris
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:

Thanks Moonspider,


Anytime. I look forward to "seeing" you around the forums.

Regards
Soulfire
The U.N. has already tried, and failed, and given in. So they keep trying, kudos to them, but if the U.N. isn't convincing Iran, do you think an internet petition will?

At any rate I'll sign it, it gives me peace of mind knowing that I at least spoke out against it - slightly. But North Korea seems to be increasingly more of a threat to the U.S. and the world than Iran.
Bikerman
Soulfire wrote:
The U.N. has already tried, and failed, and given in. So they keep trying, kudos to them, but if the U.N. isn't convincing Iran, do you think an internet petition will?

At any rate I'll sign it, it gives me peace of mind knowing that I at least spoke out against it - slightly. But North Korea seems to be increasingly more of a threat to the U.S. and the world than Iran.


Iran would be rather badly advised to abandon the project since the US has repeatedly threatened military action and hinted at it even fairly recently. In that scenario what Iran needs, surely, is a nuclear threat in the same way that North Korea is now immune to US invasion.....
It is not rocket science (hehehe).....I bet that the US wishes it had now built the two light water reactors it had promised in the Kedo plan....it is doubtful whether things would have got to this impasse so quickly had that project been kept going....
Chris
X3 Talk
Of course, like in North Korea's condition, we have to do our best to cease this from happening.

But for a start, you and me are powerless. I am no government offcial with thousands of troops at the ready- and even if I was, is a 'WAR ON IRAN' justified?

Obviously what is more hurtful, is, how many more countries have things to hide?

And, is this world turning against itself?
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
The U.N. has already tried, and failed, and given in. So they keep trying, kudos to them, but if the U.N. isn't convincing Iran, do you think an internet petition will?

At any rate I'll sign it, it gives me peace of mind knowing that I at least spoke out against it - slightly. But North Korea seems to be increasingly more of a threat to the U.S. and the world than Iran.


Iran would be rather badly advised to abandon the project since the US has repeatedly threatened military action and hinted at it even fairly recently. In that scenario what Iran needs, surely, is a nuclear threat in the same way that North Korea is now immune to US invasion.....
It is not rocket science (hehehe).....I bet that the US wishes it had now built the two light water reactors it had promised in the Kedo plan....it is doubtful whether things would have got to this impasse so quickly had that project been kept going....
Chris


I must disagree with the your premise that North Korea is immune to U.S. attack because of nuclear weapons.

My belief is that North Korea has for many years been immune to U.S. attack. Their conventional military is far too powerful for the United States and her allies to consider a strike. We are greatly outnumbered and outgunned. Furthermore, the DPRK has a first-strike chemical policy.

Although a U.S. led alliance could secure sea and air superiority in short order (provided China does not come to the DPRK's defense again), the situation on the ground is untenable. I know commanders, both American and Korean have claimed they could hold the line at Seoul in the event of an invasion, but I doubt it.

No U.S. administration would start a war on the Korean peninsula, whether they have nuclear weapons or not.
Related topics
Justification for War in Iraq
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Sanctions or not Sanctions
US & Iran
Iran...war looming ?
U.K. Sunday Times: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Tony Blair
Iran's nuclear programme peaceful?
5 myths about getting rid of the bomb
Did Iran help plan Sept11?
Iranian oil revenues fell by 45%
Iran’s Invulnerable Bunkers? Israel cannot destroy them
Imp: Why Israel not attacked Iranian Nuclear Installations?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.