Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (121581)	12/15/2003 7:49:48 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Mullahs' Nukes The U.N. is inviting an attack on Iran. Sunday, December 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST opinionjournal.com Iraq was a failure of the United Nations arms-control system, but Iran could very easily be its last hurrah. If the mullahs follow North Korea in going nuclear under the not-so-watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that body will have breathed its last. Yet IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei--who sees 18 years of deception as "no evidence" of a weapons program--has given no indication he understands what's at stake. Neither have the vast majority of IAEA member states--especially those most committed to the concept of "multilateralism." The IAEA board recently voted to respond to Iran's lies (and lies about prior lies) with barely a slap on the wrist. Now Tehran appears to be stalling even on the recent European-brokered inspections deal. Recall that last year Iran was found to harbor two previously undeclared nuclear sites--an underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, and a heavy-water facility at Arak. Iran then called that enrichment program indigenous, only to blame foreign suppliers when traces of weapons-grade material were detected. Yet the IAEA has decided not to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. At the behest of America's ostensible allies in Europe, including Britain (only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan supported strong language), no referral was even threatened. If this is as far as the agency is prepared to go following inarguable violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, then it might as well close up shop. A large part of the problem here is the European Union, which has long pursued a petroleum-driven policy euphemistically known as "constructive engagement" with Iran. The mullahs, in turn, have made it clear that European appeasement will be rewarded. "Iran will not treat countries that stood beside America and others equally . . . in big economic projects," a senior Iranian official said recently. He added that any suspension of uranium enrichment would be "voluntary and temporary." We recognize that there's no easy solution here. It would be one thing if the cautious EU "multilateral" approach was simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation, and based on a sober appreciation of the aims of the Iranian atomic program. But the U.N. conclusion that there is "no evidence" of an arms program--which Russia has taken as a green light to continue assistance with Iran's reactors--beggars belief. There is, after all, the matter of the deception. There is also the fact that oil- and gas-rich Iran has little need for peaceful atomic energy. And there is the fact that Iran continues to extend the range of its Shahab missile, which is little threat if not armed with an unconventional warhead. There are also the mullahs' own words. "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," the powerful former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, said just two years ago. Notice that he's talking about thwarting "colonialism," not just Israel, and recall that Iran regards the U.S. as the "Great Satan." The Iranian nuclear program is intended most directly as a deterrent to the U.S. ability to deploy forces to protect its friends and interests in the Middle East. Yet this is no reason for European complacency either. Any hopes they have of influencing future developments in the Middle East and beyond would also likewise be subject to the veto of a nuclear-armed Iran. The Bush Administration has, if anything, been remarkably restrained on all of this, bowing to European desires. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton put things with his usual clarity earlier this month when he said that "the United States believes that the longstanding, massive and covert Iranian effort to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities makes sense only as part of a nuclear weapons program." But so far it has accepted the U.N. refusal to act. For starters, the Administration could do more to convince the Europeans that their entire multilateral edifice is at stake. Plans should be made now for an appropriate response if IAEA inspectors cannot give Iran a clean bill of health in several months time. More important, the U.S. could get serious in its rhetoric about regime change for Iran, as well as about covert aid to Iranian dissidents. The ultimate problem in Iran is the current radical and anti-American regime. None of this may stop a determined government in Iran. Its nuclear program appears to be both well developed and well concealed. But only the threat of Security Council or Western action has any chance of keeping the mullahs tethered to a serious inspections system. If the U.N. and Europe fail in Iran as they failed in Iraq, they have to understand that the only other recourse for the U.S. or Israel will be the use of force.

To: greenspirit who wrote (121581)	12/16/2003 12:43:45 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Michael D. Cummings; Re: "Hi Bilow, are these latest predictions going to be filed next to your prediction the U.S. would never invade Iraq?" If Bush had understood the consequences of invading Iraq, he wouldn't have gone in. I knew the consequences, and I thought he did too. In fact, plenty of people who worked for him knew what would happen, but their voices were ignored. Here's what I was saying before the war: Bilow, December 6, 2002 As far as resistance goes, there are two different things to calculate / estimate. The first is the degree of military opposition (will the Iraqi military fight back). The second is the degree of civilian opposition (will the Iraqi population support Iraqi "freedom fighters" against an occupying force). I believe that the Iraqi military would fight back, to a certain extent, but the US has more than enough power to crush them fairly quickly anyway. The problem is in the civilian support for "freedom fighters". As far as whether this will happen or not, I don't think it is even necessary to argue it. Our troops are already getting shot up regularly in Kuwait, where our relations are the best in all of the Arab, if not Moslem world. In the face of these incidents, to expect that our troops will not face an Iraqi intifada is optimistic at best. #reply-18310807 Bilow, March 5, 2003 Hi Sig; It's all fantasy. Everyone knows, Saddam included, that his forces are no match for ours. That's why he's so willing to destroy those missiles. The dangerous part of Iraq is their civilians, not their military. The problem weapons, as far as a US occupation goes, are rifles, grenades and pistols. #reply-18657990 Bilow, March 6, 2003 That was a hell of an article. Here's some selected quotes for those who think that occupying a hostile nation where the civilians follow a nutcase religion and are armed to the teeth is child's play: ... #reply-18667372 Bilow, March 7, 2003 ... I've noted before that the belief that the residents of Baghdad will come out with flowers for us is a delusion. Also note that I predicted within a few days of 9/11 that the Afghans would greet us with flowers. The difference is simple. ... #reply-18671309 Bilow, March 24, 2003 ... Back in WW1, it was possible to kill large numbers of soldiers by grinding them up at a stationary war front. But the Iraqis do not have a sufficiently strong military to create a front that would last the years required. Instead, we'll be in Baghdad in days, if not weeks. And faced with a sullen, unbeaten, unbowed population that will shoot the shit out of us, just like Vietnam. ... #reply-18743807 And now I say that the resistance will continue unabated, and that it will continue until we leave, and that if we leave Iraq with a regime that is compatible with our national interests, the resistance will continue against that regime, and eventually overturn it. -- Carl P.S. Maybe you believe differently. Okay, tell me what month of the war will see fewer coalition (i.e. foreign CPA troop) casualties than, for example, the 31 deaths December 2003? My reason for specifying coalition troops is that these numbers are conveniently available on MSNBC. And here's what you were saying about the Iraq war before we went in: Michael D. Cummings, March 2, 2003 Here's my timeline. Within 3 months America defeats Saddams army, kills him and we march into Baghdad among cheering crowds and flags a waving. Within 5 months we instill an Iraqi leader and a form of representative government. There are set-backs, rivalries and such for another 7 months. Then agreements are made to form a new government around the principles of this Iraqi Constitution. Actual elections will be more than a year away, but the framework and principles of democratic governance will be in place. Will that suffice to constitute a "democracy" John? Ahhh, if only I were King. :) #reply-18647023 March 24, 2003 Carl, you're so fixated on Vietnam it has blinded you. This will be no Vietnam. This is not the Vietnam military, it's far better trained, better equipped and better led. Those who fixate on one event in history, and fail to see the changing circumstances will look foolish when this is all over. #reply-18744494 So what's the "one event" that you fixated on? The liberation of Kuwait, perhaps?