Skip to main content

I'll warn you right now.  This is a long article.

Does anyone here remember United Nations Security Resolution 984 (PDF)?  

Let me quote it to you in its entirety since its so short:

The Security Council

Convinced that every effort must be made to avoid and avert the danger of nuclear war, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to facilitate international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with particular emphasis on the needs of developing countries, and reaffirming the crucial importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to these efforts,

Recognizing the legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to receive security assurances,

Welcoming the fact that more than 170 States have become Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and stressing the desirability of universal adherence to it,

Reaffirming the need for all States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to comply fully with all their obligations,

Taking into consideration the legitimate concern of non-nuclear-weapon States that, in conjunction with their adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, further appropriate measures be undertaken to safeguard their security,

Considering that the present resolution constitutes a step in this direction,

Considering further that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, any aggression with the use of nuclear weapons would endanger international peace and security,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the statements made by each of the nuclear-weapon States (S/1995/261, S/1995/262, S/1995/263, S/1995/264, S/1995/265), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States that are Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

2. Recognizes the legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to receive assurances that the Security Council, and above all its nuclear-weapon State permanent members, will act immediately in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event that such States are the victim of an act of, or object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

3. Recognizes further that, in case of aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, any State may bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Security Council to enable the Council to take urgent action to provide assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to the State victim of an act of, or object of a threat of, such aggression; and recognizes also that the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council will bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek Council action to provide, in accordance with the Charter, the necessary assistance to the State victim;

4. Notes the means available to it for assisting such a non-nuclearweapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, including an investigation into the situation and appropriate measures to settle the dispute and restore international peace and security;

5. Invites Member States, individually or collectively, if any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a victim of an act of aggression with nuclear weapons, to take appropriate measures in response to a request from the victim for technical, medical, scientific or humanitarian assistance, and affirms its readiness to consider what measures are needed in this regard in the event of such an act of aggression;

6. Expresses its intention to recommend appropriate procedures, in response to any request from a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is the victim of such an act of aggression, regarding compensation under international law from the aggressor for loss, damage or injury sustained as a result of the aggression;

7. Welcomes the intention expressed by certain States that they will provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

8. Urges all States, as provided for in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control which remains a universal goal;

9. Reaffirms the inherent right, recognized under Article 51 of the Charter, of individual and collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security;

10. Underlines that the issues raised in this resolution remain of continuing concern to the Council.

Signed and approved April 11, 1995.  To sum it up, it says that countries with nuclear weapons promise not to attack countries which don't have them and have signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty (NPT).

When this resolution was being debated, a number of countries added their input.  Here is what Iran had to say at the time:

The Security Council is meeting today to discuss a subject of paramount importance to the security of the entire international community. The continued production, stockpiling and testing of nuclear weapons by nuclear Powers endanger the security of non-nuclear-weapon States, which believe that the only effective security assurance against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons lies in the total elimination of such weapons. It is regrettable to note that not only have the nuclear-weapon States refused to undertake a programme of action for nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework, with a target date, but they have also chosen not to finalize a comprehensive test-ban treaty. It is the considered view of the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that, pending the achievement of universal nuclear disarmament, effective measures should be taken to ensure the security of these States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

The non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT believe that nuclear-weapon States should extend the negative security assurances granted to the States Members of the Tlatelolco Treaty to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT. These assurances must be in the form of a negotiated, legally binding international instrument, with, inter alia, the addition of a protocol embodying legally binding nuclear security assurances to be annexed to the NPT. The Group of non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT in the Conference on Disarmament, including my delegation, have presented a draft protocol on the issue, which is an important step towards strengthening the Treaty. Anything short of that would not allay the concerns of non-nuclear-weapon States regarding the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Bearing in mind that any act of aggression involving the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to take immediate measures under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter in the event of aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the NPT. These measures should include action on the part of the Members of the United Nations, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, individually or collectively, to suppress aggression. In other words, besides providing technical, medical, scientific or humanitarian assistance to the victims of an act of aggression with nuclear weapons, the Security Council should be prepared to use all necessary means in defence of the victims in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Regrettably, following the demise of the cold war, some permanent members of the Security Council continue to refrain from committing themselves not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT.

The non-nuclear-weapon States have renounced the nuclear option in return for the fulfilment of the commitment on the part of the nuclear-weapon States, including the provision of negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States through an international legally binding instrument. The nuclear-weapon States should uphold their commitments so that the NPT and the non-proliferation regime can be strengthened.

Undoubtedly, the present endeavour will help create an atmosphere conducive to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. As an original signatory of the NPT and as a Party that has fully complied with all its obligations under NPT and IAEA safeguards, the Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to acting in tandem with other peaceloving countries in this regard.

Here is a portion of what the Chinese representative said:

The Chinese Government has long unilaterally undertaken not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances.

Here's what the Russians had to say:

The Russian Federation will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the Russian Federation, its territory, its armed forces or other troops, its allies or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."

The United States by the way signed an identical statement except for the fact that "Russian Federation" was replaced by "United States".  Remember that the Security Resolution 948 was passed unanimously with no abstentions.

But wait, there's more:

In December 1994, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the question: "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?" The Court decided that it was competent to render an opinion on the question, and on 8 July 1996 delivered a somewhat complicated opinion. There are six elements to the opinion, decided by different majorities. The crux of the opinion split the court, with the President of the Court deciding a 7-7 tie in favour of the following opinion:

"It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;"

"However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

The whole point of Resolution 984 was to give an incentive to non-nuclear states to remain non-nuclear.  What's the point of agreeing to not have a nuclear weapon if the United States can one day down the road decide to use one against you?

Now let's switch over to North Korea and look at a little timeline I put together:

1994 - North Korea signs a deal in which it promises to forsake nuclear development in exchange for two things - oil shipments from the U.S. and the construction of two nuclear power reactors.

October 2002 - United States says North Korea admits (in secret talks) it is working on a secret nuclear weapons program.  The next day, NK leader Kim "Jiggy" Jong-il says IAEA inspectors can check out sites in the country to prove they're not being used.

Two days later SecState Colin "WMD" Powell says future aid to North Korea is in doubt.  Jiggy says the U.S. promised to build two nuclear power reactors by 2003 but they are years behind schedule.

The two sides continue to bicker until finally North Korea says no IAEA inspectors are welcome.

December 2002 - NK tells the IAEA to remove its surveillance equipment from the Yongbyon power plant.  NK expels two IAEA inspectors after they report up to 1,000 fuel rods are in operation at Yongbyon.

NK says it is planning on re-starting its facility to produce weapons grade plutonium.

January 2003 - The IAEA passes a resolution demanding NK to allow inspectors or face action by the UN Security Council.  To this day, nothing has happened.

On January 10, NK announced it is now withdrawing from the NPT treaty.

January 31, 2003 - White House flak Ari Fleishcer says NK "must not" take any provocative action.

February 24, 2003 - NK fires a missile between South Korea and Japan.

March 10, 2003 - NK fires a second missile.

April 9, 2003 - UN Security Council is "concerned" about NK but imposes neither sanctions nor condemns NK for exiting the NPT treaty

April 23, 2003 - Talks begin with NK, the U.S. and China.

April 25, 2003 - Talks end with finger pointing on all sides.

April 28, 2003 - SecState Colin "WMD" Powell says North Korea made a promise to completely halt its nuclear program and have normalized relations with the U.S. in exchange for "concessions" he does not specify.  Powell says the U.S. is "studying" the issue.

May 5, 2003 - NK says it wants an answer to its proposal.  It doesn't get one.

May 12, 2003 - NK tells South Korea it is abandoning its 1992 agreement to keep the peninsula nuclear-free.

June 9, 2003 - NK says it will continue building weapons unless the U.S. changes its "hostile policy".

August 1, 2003 - Six-way talks begin with NK, Japan, China, Russia, United States and SK.

December 9, 2003 - NK offers to halt it nuclear program in exchange for concessions from the U.S.  These are not specified.  

Bush rejects NK's offer.  

February 25, 2004 - Second round of 6-party talks ends with no progress

June 23, 2004 - Third round of 6-party talks begins.  U.S. offers "fuel aid" if NK freezes and dismantles its nuclear program.

July 24, 2004 - NK tells the U.S. to stop "day dreaming" and refuses to give up its nuclear program.

August 22, 2004 - Bush describes Jiggy as a tyrant.

August 23, 2004 - Jiggy describes Bush as an imbecile and a tyrant that puts Hitler in the shade.

September 28, 2004 - NK says it enriched plutonium enough to make nuclear weapons, saying they are necessary for self-defense against the U.S.

January 14, 2005 - NK says it is willing to re-start talks if the U.S. does not slander it.

January 19, 2005 - SecState (nominee) Condoleezza Rice describes NK as an "outpost of tyranny".

February 10, 2005 - NK says it is indefinitely postponing 6-party talks.

May 1, 2005 - NK fires a missile into the Sea of Japan.

July 9, 2005 - NK says it will resume 6-party talks.

July 12, 2005 - SK offers NK electricity as part of an incentive to end nuclear program.

July 25, 2005 - Fourth round of 6-party talks begins.

August 7, 2005 - 6-party talks are deadlocked.

September 13, 2005 - Talks resume but when NK again demands a light water energy reactor it is warned this demand will result in a "stand-off".

September 19, 2005 - NK says it will give up all nuclear activities and join the NPT if the U.S. promises not to attack it.  Bush rejects this offer.

January 23, 2006 - U.S. says NK is counterfeiting large numbers of U.S. dollars.

February 2, 2006 - SK says that NK was counterfeiting dollars but no longer is.

February 16, 2006 - Banks in Macau stop handling NK accounts after the U.S. says they are laundering money for NK.  Macau was handling nearly all of NK's foreign currency accounts, used to pay to import everything from food to electronics.

March 9, 2006 - NK fires two more missiles.  U.S. warns NK not to do that anymore.

April 10, 2006 - Negotiators trying to negotiate a return to the 6-party negotiation talks fail.

April 13, 2006 - NK offers to return to talks if U.S. unfreezes bank accounts in Macau.

And that's where we are today.

I realize this is one heck of a long article so far but I wanted to assemble all of this in one place so we can look at Iran.

Look to the east of the country.  It is currently occupied by American troops.  Look to the west and southwest (Iraq and Kuwait).  Similarly occupied by American troops.  On the upper northwest border are Turkey, which is a member of NATO and hosts American troops.  Similarly right above Iran is Azerbaijan, which hosts a secret U.S. garrison and a less-secret giant radar facility.

I admit the president of Iran is a firebrand and regularly uses hate speech.  I also know that the president of Iran has far less powers than the president of the United States (or at least powers he assets he has).  Iran is actually run by a council of religious scholars and no major move can be made without their approval.

If you look at Resolution 984 and then you look at how the Bush administration has handled North Korea, what would you do if you were calling the shots in Iran?  What would you do if you saw 130,000 troops on your left flank and 20,000 on your right flank from a country who calls you an "Axis of Evil" and who not only has used nuclear weapons in the past but is threatening to do so right now?  What would you do?

If you look at the case of North Korea, does that look like negotiating in good faith?  Does it look like the U.S. wants the country to return to the NPT and abandon all future weapons development?  Or does it look more like the U.S. is intent on bankrupting the country into collapse?

North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons in five seconds if it could receive economic and humanitarian aid and be able to save face at the same time.  It is a desperately poor country run by a despotic leadership that is driving even the members of the "elite" into grinding poverty and suffering.  A colonel in the North Korean army is lucky if he has an apartment with running water.  Even Hitler was smart enough to know you have to reward the upper echelons who keep you in power.

There is this American fallacy that Iran is some kind of isolated pariah like North Korea is.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Iran sells both oil AND gas to much of the free world, including Europe.  In fact its largest trading partner is Japan, accounting for over 18% of its exports.  Italy is in third place and South Africa fourth.  It also does a lot of business with Germany, Turkey, France, South Korea and Russia.

Cutting off Iran's oil sales is impossible.  If the millions of barrels of Iranian oil stopped flowing to the rest of the planet the world's economy would collapse in a heartbeat.  Unlike North Korea, Iran has both money and friends and except for Israel, no other country is even remotely threatened by Iran.  

People in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and Japan and even Armenia feel absolutely no fear that Iran is going to attack them militarily.  And they are quite right as Iran has not launched an attack against a neighboring country since about 1220.  The only military engagement in that time has been the Iraq-Iran war from 1980-1988, which it could be easily argued was started by Iraq with heavy goading and financing by the United States.

Iran on the other hand has been invaded many times including by Imperial Russia, the British Empire and the Soviet Union (1941).  In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister and replaced him with the Shah, whose human rights abuses were legendary.  That's not a myth or conspiracy theory, that's a proven fact.  

Even Israel's "fear" that Iran will attack it seems unjustified.  Israel has fought four wars, starting with its establishment in 1948, the "six day" war of 1967, the 1973 "October" War and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.  At no time during any of these wars did Iran's military participate.  The militaries of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and yes even Saudi Arabia have fought against Israel but not Iran.

One might argue that Hizb Allah (Hezbollah) has attacked Israel and it is sponsored by Iran.  Hizb Allah did not even exist before the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and was formed out of Shi'ite resistance fighters in southern Lebanon as a direct result of that invasion.  All of Hizb Allah's activities have occurred in Lebanon and not Israel.  And while the west considers this to be a terrorist organization I note that the majority of their actions, including against Americans, were against soldiers.  Even the horrific truck bombing in 1983 was against American soldiers and that's just guerilla warfare not terrorism.  Not that I justify it, mind you.

Israel withdrew from its illegal occupation of Lebanon in 2000 except for the region of Sheba'a Farms, which is claimed by both Israel, Syria and Israel.  Hezb Allah's actions today against Israel occur in this disputed piece of territory and again the targets are Israeli soldiers.  I might add that Israel also regularly attacks Hizb Allah forces inside Lebanon's border as well.

Now there is evidence that Hizb Allah has worked with Palestinian groups such as Tanzim (part of Fatah) in importing weapons.  I have yet however to see any reports of Hizb Allah committing any terrorist or military act inside Israel (other than Sheba'a Farms).  This might make it seem like I support Hizb Allah or something but I don't, not in the slightest.  I also particularly abhor their regular use of hate speech.  I just want to clarify the threat that Iran poses to Israel.

I wish that Iran was a completely democratic country with full freedoms of speech, religion and political expression.  I wish their economy was in better shape and not so reliant on oil and gas exports.  I wish that its laws were free and fair and that abuses of prisoners did not occur.  But regardless of where Iran is, I remember my mother's admonition that "two wrongs do not make a right".

Whatever Iran's ills, it is absolute madness and lunacy for the United States (or Israel) to launch a pre-emptive strike against this country based on the premise that it could, at one day in the future, develop a single nuclear weapon.  The paths to peace are many but the safety of the world is in jeopardy when a nation is pushed into the corner by another, when fiery, hardliner rhetoric is the standard of the day and every option is "still on the table" except the forgotten art of diplomacy and true negotiation.

Cross-posted from the doubleplusungood crimethink website Flogging the Simian


Originally posted to Soj on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:45 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Where's your tip jar, Soj? (0+ / 0-)

    Nice job -- lots of detail.  Thanks.

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:12:24 AM PDT

  •  The goal is a monopoly on nuclear energy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, GreyHawk
    Once you recognize that's the goal, a nuclear monopoly like the oil cartel enjoyed before the oil nations nationalized their installations, it all makes sense.

    Look at what's being suggested.  Countries wanting to develop nuclear energy are supposed to agree to have their fuel produced and supplied by the major players.  They're even supposed to agree to have their spent fuel sent back to where it came from.  Why?  So the nuclear powers can maintain control of the fissionable uranium and the plutonium.  In other words, they want to set up a monopoly of the fuel supply and they're doing it under the guise of preventing the production of nuclear weapons by "rogue" states and enforcing that monopoly by making more nuclear weapons themselves.
    Plutonium, btw, is a waste product of the enrichment process.  It's left behind in what is commonly referred to as depleted uranium.

    The military/industrial complex doesn't refer to the armaments industy or even the predominance of arms production in the industrial sector.  Rather, it refers to the use of military force to promote civilian industy and trade.  In the old days it was called gunboat diplomacy.

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:19:03 AM PDT

  •  If the U.S. were serious (0+ / 0-)
    about non-proliferation, it would endorse the CANWFZ and support its extension to include the norther edge of the Indian Ocean basin and the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt, which has already agreed to participate.

    That would, of course, include the removal of nuclear weapons from Israel.  HA!

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:22:39 AM PDT

  •  informative post! It will be interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    how many people really read it. I have and have posted many times about all these issues and more. Here is my thoughts!
      It seems to me that the nuclear powers must go against us if we were to attack Iran preemptively.
      However, what if it is true that their intentions are not trully peaceful?
      You did a good job pointing out the juxtaposition of American troops in relation to Iran.
      Renenber the UAE and Bush's commitment to it? Look where that is amidst all the turmoil and possible future military action.
       I said before when the UAE port and other issues came up that bush as he always does, has an ulteriot motive. Our Navy  and more would be positioned well.
      You pointed out that Iran is essentially run by the religious scholars. To me that is part of the problem as they sanction Ahmadinedjad.
      Unbridled Religiosity, the deadliest weapon in the world is in control of the U'S.and Iran. That is very dangerous.
      Ahmadinedjad has publicly threatened to use Nukes if they get them. Odd for a country with peaceful nuclear intentions.
      Plus he has publicly announced that Israel will be annihilated.
      I think Israel has a valid concern as to what Iran is really up to.
      With all that said, I still do not know what I think about a preemptive nuclear strike
      I do know we must avoid this somehow! A nuclear strike by anyone, limited or not, would be opening the nuclear pandora's box.
      At a time where the planet is now to fragile environmentally to survive it at this point in its life cycle.
      Also, if it happens it will be the demise of man as we know his life today and the planet!

    James M Joiner or

    by jmsjoin on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:34:51 AM PDT

    •  BushCabal had pre-charted course, long before (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      9/11.  Iraq was the first on the block.  Iran the next, due to strategic control of regional oil.  Tac-nukes are integral to the plan, as the only way to achieve certain objectives in the plan.  The rest of the world is viewed through the filter that all will be controllable and that the plan is achievable.

      They (the BushCabal) will not be deterred.  They are just looking for a way "to get away with it"/ to get around objections and possible retaliations (which they don't take as completely serious in terms of "the opposition won't really have the balls to follow through").

      It's going to be a very bumpy ride if we don't get our Congress and people in gear to head it off at the pass.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:54:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's right! Glad to hear someone else with (0+ / 0-)

        this realization. When I first start trying to get people to see what was going on they called me a communist, Nazi, wing nut, Repug, you name it
          What we need is for someone that matters to wake up and come out against all this bullshit.
          We need someone to go against this cabal and do the right thing for we the people and the world and before it is too late
          We need someone to rallly around. All of us. Not Repugs or Dems. All of us! we know Bush doesn't give a fuck so we have to take it out of his hands.  
          We have to do something! What do you suggest?

        It's going to be a very bumpy ride if we don't get our Congress and people in gear to head it off at the pass.Worse is that it will be a lot bumpier than anyone can imagine. That I can guaranty you!

        James M Joiner or

        by jmsjoin on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 09:42:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Click my name, check my diaries (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          particularly the updated "Danse Macabre" one.

          Essentially, the first step is to get Congress to realize just how dangerous BushCo is, and the immediate second step is to get 'em to yank the AUMFs.  That would weaken him and his claim on "unitary executive" powers, undermining his perceived authority to literally "go it alone" significantly.

          The next step is to get indictments going against him, Cheney, Rice, and a few others -- including obstruction charges and interfering with the duties and oversight of Congress -- against some of the majority leadership in the House and Senate.  Their actions have served to extend the abuse and criminal activity, effectively making them accessories to the crimes.

          Impeachment, indictment, conviction.  No simple stop at censure, and no last minute pardons permitted.  Too much blatantly illegal activity that actively undermined the Constitution, the rights and will of the people and the proper functioning of the government in all three branches has occurred.  It cannot be fixed with a slap on the wrist.

          And it has to happen before Bush launches his Iran strike.  I don't think we have very long.

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ha! I see now. Danse Macabre and GreyHawk! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I didn't look to see who posted this. Now I understand the quality of thought.
            I agree with you 100% but i don't think it is enough. It is too much to expect Congress to do the people's work
              we know whose work they are interested in and it isn't ours. No, what we are going to have to do if we care and if we really want to see things turn out right for us and the world is to get involved ourselves.
              A radical thought I know. If we want the people's work done we are going to have to do it.
              The last time the people came together was to push out the external problem (the British).
              Today the problem is within. What we have to do is as a Nation, as a whole, realize we must take matters into our own hands, find someone to rally around, and take care of this countries best interest and it isn't war or nuclear war.
              We have become too complacent. We have hoped politicians would take care of things for us but they are interested in their parties and selfish interest. They are not concerned with the America of "we the people"
              Watching the demonstrations by and for the illegals and their supporters should have taught us all a lesson.
               That is what we have to do too get our country back on the right track. Let them know we mean business. I don't know if you read Senator Kennedy's book but he has the right idea.
               Trouble is, it is going to take us to get involved and show our concern , Ire, and dedication to seeing that we get this country back on track.
              Until we do that, until we trully get involved, and hold these wayward politicians accountable, nothing will change.
              We are no longer a government of the people for the people by the people. We are in fact a government of the politicians for the wealthy by the legal system. all perpetuated not by society any longer as ben Franklin believed but by the media.
              we must get back on track. You are right , it is going to be a bumpy ride. Bumpier i'm afraid than even you realize my friend. take care!

            James M Joiner or

            by jmsjoin on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:24:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Haven't read Kennedy's book, but (0+ / 0-)

              probably should.  He's the "big guy" from my state.

              ...if we're in for a bumpier ride than I've foreseen, then the tracks don't necessarily go all the way down to the bottom...they get cut somewhere along the ravine.  That ~is~ a scary thought...

              Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
              Tempest even in reason's seat.

              by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's funny! He is the big Guy from my state too (0+ / 0-)

                Born and raised in the boston area. Salem more specifically.
                 I also worked and managed mant New England area farms before college accounting raising a family anf now writing.
                  I don't know if you saw The cycle's of life I wrote 2 years ago and sent to you on the street prophets. Or A Doctrine of Fact/Bush Uncovered that i left on your kos blog but they will blow you away and really alert you as if you werem'tt already.

                James M Joiner or

                by jmsjoin on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:26:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think I have those... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...tho right now, I can't remember much of anything before this morning.  Sounds familiar, tho -- will recheck, when I get a chance to reread the other comment.

                  For a "lazy Sunday", I've sure got a lot going on.


                  Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
                    Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
                  Tempest even in reason's seat.

                  by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Some day when you have a spare second (0+ / 0-)

                    you will have to tell me how you and others get those italicized comments like: Never never brave me, nor my Fury tempt. Or do you just spend a little more time to stick those things in?
                       Anyway, let me know what you think about those two pamphlets. Thomas Paine beat me by 230 years but I am a pamphleteer bent on getting the common man to see reality.
                      The truth so they can understand it and not as it is fed them by any party or selfish interest. Yeah, Thank God for sunday.
                       A day of rest to make you feel guilty, hard to do sometimes.

                    James M Joiner or

                    by jmsjoin on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  This is a great diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Soj, kd texan, GreyHawk

    And addresses great issues. Bush has taken away all the incentives for a state to remain non-nuclear. And worse still, he has REFUSED to rule out a nuclear first strike against Iran, a non-nuclear nation.
    Yes, Bush has ensured that Iran must have nuclear weapons for survival. Non-proliferation, another casualty of this administration.

    We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

    by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:52:26 AM PDT

  •  Portraying North Korea (0+ / 0-)

    I do agree largely with what you have to say about Iran, but I must say I disagree with some of your insights about North Korea.

    The bank in Macau you mention is not simply North Korean gov't accounts, but bank accounts used by North Korean trading companies that often acquire materiel for Pyongyang's weapons programs and sell North Korean weapons (e.g. missiles) overseas. This account is managed by one of North Korea's most active and largest trading companies which has an office in Macau. In addition, North Korea's counterfeit currency is laundered in the many casinos that crowd Macau, which has been going on for many years. This money is in turn placed into North Korea's Macau bank accounts or accounts in China.

    As for the North Korean government's far larger bank accounts that actually store cash earned through more legitimate means, they are mostly in mainland China. The US, I don't believe, has touched those. Those accounts are the so-called life-line of Pyongyang.

    Also, I highly doubt North Korea used the bank account in Macau to import food. If you want to pick on anyone for discouraging North Korean food imports, talk to the World Food Programme. As soon as they began their operations in North Korea, Pyongyang drastically reduced or stopped food imports, diverting cash for use elsewhere. WFP also can't verify to donor countries where majority of the food aid ends up, and former military officials who've defected say they've enjoyed food given by American and South Korean governments.

    Also, you say, "North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons in five seconds if it could receive economic and humanitarian aid and be able to save face at the same time."

    I would disagree with that. Common sense would undoubtedly say Pyongyang would do as you say, because the situation in North Korea is absolutely terrible economically and their "way of life" is pretty much turd-like. But, the intentions of North Korean nukes may not be ultimately related to economic improvement. In other words, North Korea may be milking nukes for concessions for now, but at the end of the day, their nukes may have a greater purpose, such as another layer of deterrence which is crucial for a government that can't trust its neighbors and vice versa. I'm not saying they're looking to attack anyone. They just don't have an easy life squeezed between China and Japan, both of whom are militarizing like no tomorrow.

    I will agree with you in the big picture that the Bush administration would be difficult to trust in the eyes of Pyongyang, and it is questionable whether Washington is negotiating in good faith. But, as much as I think the Bush administration has failed with regards to North Korea, I just can't imagine any administration anywhere in the world that could convince North Korea to change course. The North Korean determination for nukes began since the US bombed the hell out of North Korea during the Korean War. Reversing over 50 years of resolve is no easy task, and I don't think they will give up their nuclear pursuits as long as they can't trust not just the United States, but also China, Japan, and South Korea.

  •  There (0+ / 0-)

    are a few points I have to vent in order to nuance the picture of both Iran and Hezbollah (the party of God)?  

    When you point out that Iran is surrounded by US troops in the east, north and west that is of course true, but in Afghanistan there are troops from other countries in addition to the troops from the US and they are not there first and foremost to threaten Iran there are other reasons for them being there.  And even if they feel threatened by these deployments, that is no excuse for trying to acquire nuclear weapons if that is what you are implying.  

    Iran has been known to and still is supporting terrorist groups and are believed to be directly responsible for assassinating people around the world who are known critics of the regime or have had some association with Salman Rushdie and his book the satanic verses and are even encouraging the assassination of the author till this day.  

    The Hezbollah group is by no means purely a guerrilla group. Both, the UN, the EU and many other countries have branded the organization in its entirety or its militant parts as a terrorist group. The suicide truck bomb attack against the US marine barracks in Beirut 1983 is just one Hezbollah attack that is at best dubious in character.  It was conducted against soldiers yes, but not soldiers in combat mode and thus makes this attack disputed as a guerrilla tactics. Besides this attack was part of a coordinated series of attacks also involving French UN peacekeepers.

    Hezbollah is also believed to have both abducted and killed a number of people, civilian and military alike, in the period between 1982 and 1992, the most famous once being the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Buckley, the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.  

    In an award winning report, 1 and 2, the New Yorker journalist Jeffrey Goldberg writes that;

    "Hezbollah has not been suspected of overt anti-American actions since 1996, when the Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia."

    The single most deadly terrorist attack conducted against Jews or Israeli  civilian targets outside Israel happened in Buenos Aires in 1994 with the bomb attack against the offices of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Aid Association (AJMAA).  It was a follow through attack after a similar attack against the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires two years earlier.  Even if no conclusive evidence has been found there is a number of circumstantial evidence pointing at an n Iranian sponsored Hezbollah attack (the once taking responsibility was officially calling themselves Islamic Jihad a name often used by Hezbollah’s security branch).  Investigations by Argentinean officials have been pointing towards both Iranian and Hezbollah involvement corroborated by a former Iranian intelligence defector called Abdolghassem Mesbahi.  Hezbollah is known to have branches in South-America and the car-bomb signature is almost exclusively used by Hezbollah at the time.  the targets were Jews and Israelis in a country known to have the largest single Jewish community in the whole of South-America in addition to the fact that some of the reasons given by Islamic Jihad for bombing the facilities was that it was a cover for Israeli intelligence in the region.

    All in all I have to say that much of these incidences rather tarnish the picture as Iran being an honest broker and Hezbollah being purely a guerrilla movement.  They don't seem as clean as some people seem to believe after all.

    •  I realize (0+ / 0-)

      I'm responding to you late but I wanted to thank you for your comments.

      I do not support Hizb Allah in any way shape or form.  But even if the attack in Buenos Aires and the rest were really tied to them, they pose a VERY minor military threat to Israel.  Clearly PIJ, Hamas, PFLP-GC and other groups are FAR more active in Israel.

      Going to war with Iran because it finances a group in Lebanon that very rarely attacks Israelis is insanity itself.  Saudi Arabia finances Palestinian groups far more than Iran does, so is Saudi Arabia a military threat to Israel?


      Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian

      by Soj on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:26:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

        there are indications that some of the rocket attacks coming from Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank into Israel can be linked to Iran and Hezballah, so, in my opinion Hezballah has indeed shown itself to be a terrorist threat to Israel.  

        Concerning Iran and it's financing of different groups in lebanon that initself shows the standing of the regime, but I do agree with you that that is no excuse for going to war with Iran.  The nuclear program issue is a whole new ball game and i hope that it can be solved peacefully.  There are signs of hectic diplomacy not only within the UN, but also behind the scenary too between the US and Iran, but the reluctance of the Bush regime to engage in bilateral talks is slowing the process down.

        Still, knowing that the Iranian regime is, most likely, some years away from aquiering nuclear weapons if that is indeed their wish, the UN has got room for some more diplomatic manouvering before deciding more drastic actions.  That said, the thought of a new authorotharian and aggressive regime like the Iranian aquiering nuclear weapons makes me inclined to support the use of force if everything else is tried to no avail and the timetable for diplomatic manouvers are drastically shortened.  Mind you without the use of nuclear weapons.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site