The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

[maineman]

In 2003.

Why do you suppose they did this?

who knows? certainly not you.

I suppose they stopped it because their biggest regional enemy had just been eliminated thanks to Bush.... that's as good a guess as anything you got.

 

[DeadCanDance]

In 2003.

Why do you suppose they did this?

NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.

NIE REPORT: "Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be."

 

[M14 Shooter]

NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.

You highligted the wrong part:

...primarily in response to international pressure...

What pressure, and from whom?
And, what 'costs' wewe associated with contunuing that program?

 

[maineman]

And, what 'costs' wewe associated with contunuing that program?

you can't be serious. Do you honestly think that nuclear weapons programs are operated, free of charge, by mysterious elves in the night while we sleep? What COSTS? If nuclear weapons programs were FREE, everyone would have one, wouldn't they? Shit...if developing a nuclear weapons program didn't cost anything, I'd build one just for the hell of it!

 

[mattskramer]

NIE explains it, if you'd bother to click the link.

That’s a good guess too. Wow. So many possibilities for those who would just put their prejudices and biases on hold and think about it.

 

[bush lover]

Our President promised us that he would eradicate the Evil-Doers in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Now, the liberals are claiming that Iran has no nukes. Our President on Tuesday stood up to these lies and said we must confront Iran. He only has 14 months to eradicate the Evil-Doers in Iran and North Korea. The only solution is military action and he can do this before the leftist Democrat Party takes over. God bless our President Bush, America and our troops!

 

[eots]

God Bless Us All

 

[Shogun]

some people act like this is a frickin superman comic and the US is Clark himself.

this pre-emptive shit based on nothing beyond gut feelings and paranoia has got to stop.

 

[doniston]

Fantasy until the day they unveil one. The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium.
QUOTE]

So are we. are WE gonna bomb someone???

 

[doniston]

Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds. Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense. So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.


QUOTE] You mean like the US, and especially Israel???

 

[M14 Shooter]

You mean like the US, and especially Israel???

The US and Israel are "fanatics"?
In the same context as the Iranians?



It amazes me that some people are SO screwed up that they see the US as the biggest problem facing the world.

 

[Larkinn]

This is a condition inherent to international law, because states will generally refuse to give up enough of their sovereignty to unquestioningly accept extra-national judgements as absolutely binding, such as we do with domestic law.

The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.

That was lame. Reduction is the initial step to elimination. The arms limitations and reduction treaties over the last 40 years are obvious steps along the Article VI path, and so the arguement that the US has violated/ignored article VI is unsupportable.

The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination". 40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.

The point is that the provisions and mechanisms that we have in domestic law do not exit in international law. Glad you agree.
And remember:
ALL Law is meaningless unless it can be enforced.

No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power. It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.

Unless a country agrees accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, and then ICC judgements, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Soverignty, you know.
Never mind that the ICC relies on voluntary compliance.

No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone. Thats why when it was formed the US was busy making bilateral agreements with states not to honor it. Sovreignity is becoming increasingly more limited. And it relies on voluntary compliance, yes, but considering most states around the world honor it and would arrest someone if the ICC demanded it, it does severely limit some individuals.

Only if those countries are members of the UN, who, by being members, agree to be bound by UNSC directives -- that is, they give consent to the UNSC to direct them.
The UNSC has no power whatsoever over a non-member country.

Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact. The only "countries" that are not part of the UN are the Vatican and Taiwan...and its unclear whether Taiwan is its own state.

 

[Annie]

The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.



The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination". 40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.



No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power. It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.



No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone. Thats why when it was formed the US was busy making bilateral agreements with states not to honor it. Sovreignity is becoming increasingly more limited. And it relies on voluntary compliance, yes, but considering most states around the world honor it and would arrest someone if the ICC demanded it, it does severely limit some individuals.



Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact. The only "countries" that are not part of the UN are the Vatican and Taiwan...and its unclear whether Taiwan is its own state.

You've given a very good analysis of why the US should withdraw from the UN. Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

You've given a very good analysis of why the US should withdraw from the UN. Thanks.

Besides being irresponsible, stupidly isolationist, and the biggest setback of HR in the last 40 years, it is wildly against US interests to do this. The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe (which is good for the US if you want the oil to keep flowing).

Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed. Pathetic.

 

[Annie]

Besides being irresponsible, stupidly isolationist, and the biggest setback of HR in the last 40 years, it is wildly against US interests to do this. The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe (which is good for the US if you want the oil to keep flowing).

Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed. Pathetic.

Somehow I think it's a good thing I rep'd you before reading this. Though I'm confused about what the point was here, which for one of your posts, I'll admit is unusual. While I rarely agree with your pov, I can usually understand what you are saying.

 

[Larkinn]

Somehow I think it's a good thing I rep'd you before reading this. Though I'm confused about what the point was here, which for one of your posts, I'll admit is unusual. While I rarely agree with your pov, I can usually understand what you are saying.

The point is that the US withdrawing with the UN is an awful idea, for the reasons elucidated in my above post. However I said why its a bad idea for the US, which is true. It is also true that it will severely curtail the progress of human rights around the globe. The HR argument should be enough for people to get behind the US staying in the UN, but sadly its not.

 

[Annie]

The point is that the US withdrawing with the UN is an awful idea, for the reasons elucidated in my above post. However I said why its a bad idea for the US, which is true. It is also true that it will severely curtail the progress of human rights around the globe. The HR argument should be enough for people to get behind the US staying in the UN, but sadly its not.

Why? What is in it for the US to be in UN? Bottom line, like a corporation, one must ask, why?

 

[Larkinn]

Why? What is in it for the US to be in UN? Bottom line, like a corporation, one must ask, why?

The US is in an organization in which the world holds in great respect, which can't do anything without the US's consent, and can add legitimacy to US actions, can force other states to do the 5 members interest, can facilitate treaties and open a dialogue, and which can help to further Human Rights around the globe

Which is merely a more complicated way of saying the UN allows the US to have greater legitimate influence around the world.

As I said...sad that you compare it to a corporation and that HR isn't even a consideration here. Its not a corporation, its more like the red cross with political power.

 

[Annie]

Which is merely a more complicated way of saying the UN allows the US to have greater legitimate influence around the world.

As I said...sad that you compare it to a corporation and that HR isn't even a consideration here. Its not a corporation, its more like the red cross with political power.

I disagree with your premise or rather what you say is the UN premise. I guess that is why I was missing your point.

It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US.

Do you see a problem here? (I know you think it's a good thing, but like a corporation, the US gov't should be focused on what's 'good for US'.)

 

[Larkinn]

\
It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US.

Costs in which sense? If you mean monetary than you will be surprised to know that the US regularly does not pay its dues and currently owes the UN $1.3 billion.

If you mean non-monetary costs, then what exactly are you referring too? The US can block any and every legally binding UN resolution.

Also I'd like specifics on what actions the UN has kept the US from doing.