The next war?

[Flatlander]

This article from the Globe and Mail, discusses the Iranian nuclear threat. How responsive do you think the international community is going to be to any possible agressive US policy regarding Iran? Is the world ready to face this now, or will this get international lip service only, given the current instablities in the middle east?

 

[Flatlander]

In an August 5th interview by Bernard Gwertzman of the Council of Foreign Relations with Rand Beers, John Kerry's top national security adviser, Beers had this to say:

What is Kerry's position on Iran? It seems that the administration is not doing much.

It looks that way from the outside. And that's what I remember when I was on the "inside." I think that naming Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" does not suffice for a policy. We have a number of issues with Iran that need to be dealt with. They are: the nuclear program, Iranian support for terrorism, and Iran's relations with Iraq. In addition, there are obviously questions of what is going on internally in Iran, in terms of human rights and the development of a democratic government, which are also important issues.

But as we look at all of those issues, it looks as if the administration is not prepared to find ways to engage. It doesn't mean that the Kerry team advocates recognizing Iran or having formal negotiations with Iran. But we have to find a next step, given the impasse that seems to have occurred as a result of Iran's seeming to pull out of the agreement it reached with the Germans, French, and British last year [on nuclear issues]. We have to develop some next steps, which are going to do more than simply allow Iran to continue down the path it is on, unimpeded by the international community.

from this website


From the Washington Post, George Bush had this to say:

"The Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned," Bush told newspaper editors in April. "The development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable."

From the same article:

In an even more dramatic move, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) plans to introduce an Iran liberation act this fall, modeled on the Iraq Liberation Act that mandated government change in Baghdad and provided more than $90 million to the Iraqi opposition. The goals would be the same for Iran, including regime change, congressional officials said.

 

[michaeledward]

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. Although, currently, the Neo-Conservatives in the Bush administration are nowhere to be seen, Cheney & Company are not going away. I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq.

Current support among the citizenry, I think, is quite low. If there were another successful attack using terrorism inside the United States, support might move up. Of course, then the issue becomes finding enough military boots to actually prosecute an invasion.

The United States military's Quadrennial Review is built on the assumption that the United States may have to fight two regional conflicts simultaneously. I have wondered about this policy quite a bit in the past 17 months. We seem to be having difficulty fighting one regional conflict. The stresses on the National Guard are great. A local National Guard unit just returned from serving 16 months in Iraq. I commend those weekend-warriors for their service, but I expect that many will not continue their service in the National Guard.

If there is another criminal activity of the same scope as 9/11, look for conscription service to be seriously discussed in the United States Congress.

If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East. Similarly, it will take patient effort by Europe, Russia and the United States to demonstrate that Iraq's security will not be jeopardized if they are nuclear weapon free.

It has been said before ... this is a very important election.

Mike

 

[Phoenix44]

I can't help but think about the fall of the Roman Empire: corrupt, impulsive, and foolish leaders; inadequate intervention by the representatives of the people; war on multiple fronts; waste of resources; unfair treatment of allies; and generally pissing off the rest of the world.

 

[OULobo]

I can't help but think about the fall of the Roman Empire: corrupt, impulsive, and foolish leaders; inadequate intervention by the representatives of the people; war on multiple fronts; waste of resources; unfair treatment of allies; and generally pissing off the rest of the world.

Except the Roman empire didn't fall, it just crumbled and faded over a very long time. I personally think that the country will be looking at a war with N. Korea before anything else and I also think that is the only war I would support.

 

[shesulsa]

If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East. Similarly, it will take patient effort by Europe, Russia and the United States to demonstrate that Iraq's security will not be jeopardized if they are nuclear weapon free.

It has been said before ... this is a very important election.

Mike

Well put and I agree.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. Although, currently, the Neo-Conservatives in the Bush administration are nowhere to be seen, Cheney & Company are not going away. I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq.

Current support among the citizenry, I think, is quite low. If there were another successful attack using terrorism inside the United States, support might move up. Of course, then the issue becomes finding enough military boots to actually prosecute an invasion.

The United States military's Quadrennial Review is built on the assumption that the United States may have to fight two regional conflicts simultaneously. I have wondered about this policy quite a bit in the past 17 months. We seem to be having difficulty fighting one regional conflict. The stresses on the National Guard are great. A local National Guard unit just returned from serving 16 months in Iraq. I commend those weekend-warriors for their service, but I expect that many will not continue their service in the National Guard.

If there is another criminal activity of the same scope as 9/11, look for conscription service to be seriously discussed in the United States Congress.

If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East. Similarly, it will take patient effort by Europe, Russia and the United States to demonstrate that Iraq's security will not be jeopardized if they are nuclear weapon free.

It has been said before ... this is a very important election.

Mike

Absolutely! KT

 

[shaolinchi]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be faught with, but World War IV will be faught with sticks and stones"---Albert Einstein

Unfortunately, I Have to agree. All this nonsense going on is going to get everyone killed.

 

[TwistofFat]

Mike - I always enjoy your post while I may not agree with them. I had to make some comments here and look forward to your reply.

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.


I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. ..I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq."

Is there any similarity to what is happening in Iraq and Iran? My point being, that even John Kerry feels war with Iraq was inevitable -

"GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."




​

Iran has reason to hate the US, you bet. They have Nukes (this time - no question). Wouldn't we want to divert attention to Iran? The supasition is the US is so thin that a) we can not divert attention and b) if we do we need the draft. If the choice is how to reply to a US enemy (for whatever reason - The Shah as an example) that threatens us - International or US prime. That is a good argument in the making - but if the US had to defend it self against Iran and Korea at the same time - we COULD (emphasis is at least we could if pushed).

If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East.




​

Wow. Where do I begin on this one. I know a little something about what happened to (and in) Lybia after the bombing of Pan Am 103 (ironic that Lybia's defense during the trail was - and some in the world court believed accurate - that Iran was behind it!).


Neither the UK or France had ANY relationship with Libya for 9 years (1992)until October of 2001 and for years before openly avoided Lybia as a "Terrorist State". The offiicial relationship only began DUE to the hightened awareness of state sponsored terror (i.e. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1616266.stm) .

In fact, if the same cynical attitude applied to US Oil concerns were justifibly applied to France, we could say France's only involvement with Libya was through oil companies (Total Oil was in fact singled out in the D'Amato act, that Mr. Clinton had reversed in 1998 - http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980520/1998052034.html). So in fact, it can be said that The US lead the Diplomatic efforts to get relations with Libya re-established. It is open for discussion that the US's military presence alone led to the WMD reversal. But to say the US's foreign policy work coupled with the military was secondary to France/UK's work is simply incorrect.

"It has been said before ... this is a very important election."

Agreed and may the best man win. I will actively support either in this effort.

Regards - Glenn.

 

[Mark Weiser]

The problem is the Middle East is already upset with the US and if we go into IRAN then WW III will start stat.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Twist of, would you please cite your source for the contention that we know Iran actually has nuclear weapons? My understanding was that we know they've been working on something, we believe it's weapon production, but...

I'd also note that the claim of England/France having no ties to Libya--other than oil companies!--seems a little contradictory. Then too, the argument about our leading the way towards relations with the country would seem to be in direct contradiction of an often-expressed policy of getting rid of State-sponsored terrorism....

Or is it all just expediency, profits, and highfalutin' language?

 

[TwistofFat]

Twist of, would you please cite your source for the contention that we know Iran actually has nuclear weapons? My understanding was that we know they've been working on something, we believe it's weapon production, but...

I'd also note that the claim of England/France having no ties to Libya--other than oil companies!--seems a little contradictory. Then too, the argument about our leading the way towards relations with the country would seem to be in direct contradiction of an often-expressed policy of getting rid of State-sponsored terrorism....

Or is it all just expediency, profits, and highfalutin' language?

Robert,

A few items here. On the Iran/Nuke issue I took the summary data from the IAEA..." the IAEA says Iran has admitted to importing technology capable of making weapons-grade uranium. The finding contradicts earlier statements made by Tehran that the parts were made by Iran itself. The IAEA also says fresh traces of highly enriched uranium have been found in the country." (Google on BBC, Iran IAEA, etc..there is a lot there).

On the France/UK relationship - I should have said "ANY official" since the Total Oil company is only partially owned by the Government.

And lastly on State sponsored terrorism...profits, et al...you are correct.

Glenn.

 

[michaeledward]

Glenn, thanks for playing ...


Concerning Iraq ...

President Bush has told us repeatedly that he is a 'WAR PRESIDENT'. I take him at his word. He has also told us the war in Iraq is 'Accomplished'. He has handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Obviously, we are no longer at war, which means he can no longer be a 'War President'. If only someone would tell the soldiers in Iraq.

That Senator Kerry's statements over the last three or four years seemed to indicate that he would have prosecuted the war in the same manner is irrelevant. The US Military is in Iraq now. Halliburton is in Iraq now. Today the question is, how will Kerry administer the war if elected.

Believe me, I wish we weren't there. I wish somebody told President Bush that Hussein did let the inspectors in to inspect and verify that Saddam Hussein had disarmed. I wish the United States did not start an unjust war. But ... we did ... Now what?

I believe President Bush's hubris has alienated many other countries around the world. If Kerry is elected, he will have a difficult time garnering their support. But, I believe Kerry is patient where Bush is 'decisive'.

Concerning Iran ...

President Bush tells us he is a 'War President'. So, he is going to have to fight a war. Where will it be? Well, the oil is in the middle east. Iran is working on refinement processes for Nuclear material. Our military is in the middle east. Our newest military bases are in the middle east.

North Korea is an awful long way to go from there.

I believe Iran will be the next target for US Might, under President Bush.

What I find ironic, is that it seemed US-Iranian relations were improving. A moderate reformer was elected to power in Iran. A large number of Iranians do not have effective memory of the 1978 revolution, embassy seizure and hostage crisis. Our national soccer teams met on the field of play, even if we hadn't normalized political relationship between the two countries.

And then President Bush labeled them as a member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Where did that come from? Personally, I think Bush knew the earlier Axis had three players, and he needed a third to accompany Iraq & N. Korea. Anyhow, once Iran was included on this dubious list, any chance of improving relations was gone ... If I were Iran, I, too, would start working on a nuclear device.

Concerning Libya ...

I think, like most Americans, Libya had become a non-player in international affairs for me. I certianly wasn't hearing about Libya in the news. Well ... except that somewhere along the line, they handed over two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case, and they were being tried in The Hague. Other than that, all quite.

I was quite surprised when I heard that Libya had offered to give up its Weapons of Mass Destruction program. It seemed to come 'out of the blue'. With no instigation. The Bush Administration spun the announcement that because we were successful in over-running the Iraqi military, Libya realized that it too could get run over as easily, especially if Quaddafi remembers that night of B-1B bomb attacks during the Reagan years (86?), so they came to their senses.

Only after the initial reports came out here in the states, did we see reports that Europe negotiated quite hard with Libya over the preceeding 5 or 6 years. Much of these negotiations were about the Lockerbie suspects, granted, but at least it brought the parties to the negotiation table.

I believe England normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in July 1999, after the handover of the lockerbie suspects, and when Libya accepted 'general responsibility' for the murder of a English police officer (Yvonne Fletcher) at the Libyan Embassy in London.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/23/britain.libya/

I don't believe the United States led the diplomatic efforts toward Libya. Your article on the Damato Law seems to point toward Iran rather than Libya as the benefactor of the Clinton and Albright waiving restrictions in the Damato Law.

Thanks for letting me rant. Mike

 

[Flatlander]

Back to Iran. From The White House press releases, I found this recent discussion,which seems to be a town hall type Q&A. Bush had this to say:

Q I'm concerned about the nuclear threat coming out of Iran.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q I was just wondering if you could comment on that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. He's concerned about Iran, as am I. That's why early in my administration I talked about Iran in vivid terms. First of all, you've got to understand that every situation requires a different response when it comes to foreign policy. And so we tailor our responses based upon the reality of the moment. And, first, just to make it clear to the world that Iran must abandon her nuclear ambitions. That's part of the role of the United States, and to work with others to send that same message.

The IAEA is the agency principally responsible for the Iranian nuclear program, we're working closely with them. We're making sure that we ask the hard questions to the IAEA, so they ask the hard questions to the Iranians. We got the Iranians to sign what's called -- not "we," the world got the Iranians to decide -- to sign what's called an additional protocol, which will allow for site inspections that normally would not have been allowed under IAEA. In other words, the groundwork, the ability to inspect, as best as possible, is in place.

Secondly, the tactics of our -- as you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's -- ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions -- you can't -- we're out of sanctions. And so we've relied upon others to send the message for us. And the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Great Britain have gone in as a group to send a message on behalf of the free world that Iran must comply with the demands of the free world. And that's where we sit right now. And my attitude is, we've got to continue to keep pressure on the government, and help others keep pressure on the government, so there's kind of a universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities.

As well, the United States does have an opportunity to speak clearly to those who love freedom inside of Iran, and we are. There is a significant Diaspora here in the United States of Iranian Americans who long for their homeland to be liberated and free. We're working with them to send messages to their loved ones and their relatives, through different methodology. And one method -- and very overt, I might add, we've got radio broadcasts, a new radio broadcast system going into Iran, say, listen, we hear your voice, we know you want to be free, and we stand with you in your desire to be free.

I will tell you a free Iraq is going to send a clear message to people in Iran, as well, that free societies are possible. That's why I say this is an historic moment in our history, and it really is. When you think about it, a free country in the midst of the Middle East will send a very clear signal that freedom is possible. In other words, there are reformers and people who want to be free watching carefully as to whether or not this country, which is the beacon of freedom, is strong enough not to wilt when the pressure gets significant.

I tell this story a lot; I'll share it with you, about my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. And we were having Kobe beef one day and -- it's quite good, I might add, and -- (laughter.) This was in Tokyo. And you know what? We were talking about another subject that I'm sure is a concern of yours, as well, and that's North Korea. And it was an amazing conversation, when you think about it, wasn't it, that I was talking to my friend, 55 years or so after World War II had ended, about how to keep the peace in a troubled part of the world. We made the decision -- I made the decision that, on North Korea, that the kind of bilateral negotiations weren't working. If you might recall, my predecessor thought he had an arrangement with the North Koreans that they did not honor. And it's a lesson that it's important to remember.

So I made the decision to bring other nations in to help send the same message to North Korea. It's a more effective way of doing things if there's more than one voice willing to say the same thing. That's why China is very much involved in the process now, which is helpful. And Japan is, too. And so Prime Minister Koizumi and I were talking about how to make sure the six-party talks sent the same message to Kim Jong-il, which is, get rid of your nuclear weapons program and there will be -- in a verifiable way that gives us all confidence that he has done so, and then perhaps there's a way to help them economically.

And during the course of the conversation, I became very thankful because my predecessors believed that Japan could self-govern. If you read some of the editorials and some of the writings right after World War II, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not a country like Japan could self-govern, could be a democracy. But there was people here who had great faith in the transformation power -- the transformative power of liberty, and stood their ground. And there I was talking to a duly-elected official of Japan about peace.

Some day, an American President is going to be talking to elected officials, an elected official from Iraq, talking about how to keep the peace. Free societies are peaceful societies. And free societies join this fantastic alliance of those of us who long for peace deep in our heart; an alliance of countries willing to work on the tough issues, like Iran and North Korea, all aimed at bringing these difficult solutions to a peaceful conclusion. And, anyway, it's a long answer to an important question, but, nevertheless, it's one -- (applause) -- let me finish, one other thing. It says that good foreign policy works with other countries, and we will. Remember now, one of the dangers of this world is the proliferation of weapons and technologies. And there's over 60 nations involved with the Proliferation Security Initiative, an initiative that we helped put together during my administration. Some 40 nations are involved in Afghanistan. Nearly 30 nations are involved in Iraq. We've got good, strong alliances of people working together. I'm never going to turn over our national security needs to leaders of other countries, however. (Applause.)

And I also found this on an online Kerry - Edwards discussion forum. I was unable to verify the source because all I could find was the Persian website. Though I'm able to speak some Persian, I cannot read it. Sorry about that.

May 28, 2004 From: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 28, 2004.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at Anglo-Saxon Culture… There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the U.S. and the West…'

The London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that "an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening to replace the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Department of Liberation and Revolutionary Movements, which had been in charge of helping and training revolutionary forces across the world." [1] The article went on to report a speech given by an official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, threatening the U.S. with suicide and missile attacks at already-selected sensitive targets, and threatening to "take over" Britain. The following is the report: [2]

Iran Stands Ready to Attack the West
"A source close to [Revolutionary Guards] intelligence confirmed that P.R. has been appointed secretary-general of a new office that has begun registering the names of suicide volunteers to be sent to Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.

"[The newspaper reported that it had obtained] a tape with a speech by H.A., a [Revolutionary] Guards intelligence theoretician, who teaches at the Revolutionary Guards' Al-Hussein University. [In the tape, H.A.] spoke of Tehran's secret strategy aimed at taking over the Arab and Muslim countries by means of helping revolutionary forces and organizations. H.A. is regarded as one of the advisors of a branch in the organization, and has published a number of works on exporting the [Islamic] revolution and the method of the struggle against the world arrogance [i.e., the U.S.].

"In his speech at a secret conference attended by students who are members of the Ansar Hizbullah movement at Al-Hussein University, [H.A. said]: 'Iraqi oil constitutes 11% of the world oil reserves, and it has fallen into the hands of the U.S. and Britain. The value of the intelligence documents that the U.S. obtained because of its takeover of Iraqi intelligence is greater than $1000 billion. Whereas our [Iran's] Foreign Ministry was expressing willingness to reconstruct the statue of the Buddha [destroyed by the Taliban in 2001] in Afghanistan – that is, to build an idol, which is an act that is against the principles of Islam – the U.S. managed to force its rule on Afghanistan.

"'(President Muhammad) Khatami speaks of the dialogue between civilizations, and I have grave doubts about this. It is a dubious idea. We do not want to take over the British Embassy, since they (the British) have already cleared the embassy of documents; we must take over Britain [itself].'

"After [H.A.] harshly attacked Khatami and the reformists, he said in his speech: 'The West sees us as terrorists, and depicts our strategy as terrorism and repression. Had our youth agreed to Khatami's teachings and interpretations, it would never have fought the arrogance, and would never have defended the holy places – because Khatami speaks always of being conciliatory, of patience, and of rejecting terrorism, while we defend [the line of] toughness and war against the enemies of revolutionary Islam. I take pride in my actions that cause anxiety and fear to the Americans.

"'Haven't the Jews and the Christians achieved their progress by means of toughness and repression? We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilizationand for the uprooting of the Americans and the English.

"'Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader ['Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. Our motto during the war (in Iraq) was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are coming. And because of Khatami's policies and dialogue between the civilizations, we have been compelled to freeze our plan to liberate the Islamic cities. And now we are [again] about to carry out the program.'

"In his speech, he added: 'The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front, by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.'

"In another part of his speech, he emphasized, 'If Israel dares attack the [nuclear] installations at Bushehr, our losses will be very low, because [only] one structure will be destroyed – while we [i.e., Iran] have means of attacking Israel's nuclear facilities and arsenals such that no trace of Israel will remain.'"

So, the first article indicates to me that Bush doesn't seem to feel the need for any sort of immediate military campaign in Iran, rather, he figures that he can 'peacefully' facilitate the revolutionary movement, and Iranians will take care of the problem. But the second article indicates that the Iranian government would not allow their feet to be put to the fire without a military response.

Where can this go?

 

[TwistofFat]

Glenn, thanks for playing ...


Concerning Iraq ...

That Senator Kerry's statements over the last three or four years seemed to indicate that he would have prosecuted the war in the same manner is irrelevant. The US Military is in Iraq now. Halliburton is in Iraq now. Today the question is, how will Kerry administer the war if elected.
..."Thanks for letting me rant. Mike

Michael - I disagree. My premise was if he would have behaved in the same manner (end result not personality) on Iraq, what will he do with Iran? Different than Bush? If so how? This is not a criticism, I am not aware of Mr. Kerry's specifics.


Good Rant!

 

[michaeledward]

Glenn,

To think that the Democratic nominee for president would have behaved in the same way as the current President (visa vi Iraq) brings me a great deal of anguish. I don't believe that if Kerry was president for the last 3 and a half years, we would currently be in Iraq with 140,000 troops .. regardless of his public statements. But, truthfully, we will never know, and we never can know.

Senator Kerry's public statements on Iran and North Korea always revolve around building global alliances to control the highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Without these fissile materials, a nuclear weapon can not be detonated.

It seems that President Bush is less interested in mutual security via alliances, and more willing to use force to remove a perceived threat (imaginary threat?).

This Kerry speech discusses Kerry's view on securing nuclear material.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0601.html

Mike

 

[kenpo tiger]

MichaelEdward, you said:

Senator Kerry's public statements on Iran and North Korea always revolve around building global alliances to control the highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Without these fissile materials, a nuclear weapon can not be detonated.

It seems that President Bush is less interested in mutual security via alliances, and more willing to use force to remove a perceived threat (imaginary threat?).

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment:

Do you believe that every country would be honest and aboveboard about their respective caches of those materials, much less some of them consent to some quasi-governmental body controlling their use? I suspect that, especially the two countries named above, not one would submit to complete scrutiny and/or control of their supplies for fear that the others would not, either. And, what about all the small countries no one "worries" about in the Third World? Is it realistic to expect that they do not have access to such things, and, if they do, that they will act in a responsible manner.

I agree with your statement about Dubya concerning his facile use of force versus an implied (imaginary - sic) threat. I abhor his use of our nation's people as "cannon fodder" to satisfy this agenda.

So - do you believe there to be a happy medium out there -- somewhere? Or do we have a sci-fi scenario here, and should I be awaiting St. Lebowitz? KT

 

[michaeledward]

Do you believe that every country would be honest and aboveboard about their respective caches of those materials, much less some of them consent to some quasi-governmental body controlling their use? I suspect that, especially the two countries named above, not one would submit to complete scrutiny and/or control of their supplies for fear that the others would not, either. And, what about all the small countries no one "worries" about in the Third World? Is it realistic to expect that they do not have access to such things, and, if they do, that they will act in a responsible manner.

I agree with your statement about Dubya concerning his facile use of force versus an implied (imaginary - sic) threat. I abhor his use of our nation's people as "cannon fodder" to satisfy this agenda.

So - do you believe there to be a happy medium out there -- somewhere? Or do we have a sci-fi scenario here, and should I be awaiting St. Lebowitz? KT

Well ... I think the Senator's speech puts forth a respectable argument, it is worth reading I think. It is in the interest of all the nations in the world to prevent fissile materials from falling into 'the wrong hands'. Certainly, negotiations would need to take place to get all participants comfortable with IAEA camera's recording activities at nuclear reactors. There is an element of invasion of sovereignty in any inspection plan. But, terrorist had demonstrated that they will strike where ever they can find a target.

As for small countries. First, it appears pretty difficult to actually build the facilities to refine nuclear material. It is, supposedly, an expensive and complicated task. Without 'highly enriched uranium' or 'plutonium', you can't get a nuclear explosion. You can purchase all of the other components required for a weapon ... but that last ingredient, it's a doozie.

I am certian we will never be 100% safe. I do think that with Kerry's inspection, monitoring, and prevention of proliferation plan, we are safer than with President Bush's 'we will strike before the threat can materialize' plan.

Thanks for listening. Mike

 

[Mark Weiser]

In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.

ha ha ha ha ha!Yes. Yes I do.