Article

2003-08-26 International

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-08-26 4:33:16 PM|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yes, Mo, we will just unilitarally disarm and rely on the good faith of Iran and North Korea to not arm and/or sell nuclear weapons and components to others. And by the way, why don't you take a trip to Moscow and Bejiing and see if you can sell your hairbrained scheme to them, too. After you get the memoranda of understanding from them, we will have a global lovefest, buy the world a Coke or Mecca Cola, and sing Kumbaya, old sport.

Jeeze Louise!

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-8-26 4:41:32 PM|| 2003-8-26 4:41:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Criticizing President Bushâs plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

Tough.

The IAEA director, who has overseen failed inspections of nuclear sites in Iraq, North Korea and Iran over the past year for half a decade said the worldâs five original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- should send a clear message to the world that they were disarming.

So just HOW does this induce others not to seek nuclear capability? There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Kim Jong Ils, Saddam Husseins, or the Hashemi Rafsanjanis of the world would be content to walk away from their nuclear aspirations simply because the 800 lb. nuclear gorillas decided to dismantle their atomic arsenals. El Baradei seems to think that these rogue types can be trusted to do the right thing, when there has been plenty of reason to believe otherwise.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-8-26 4:48:46 PM|| 2003-8-26 4:48:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 How freaking typical. Yes, just focus on the United States and nevermind that dozens of rogue nations would continue to pursue nuclear ability REGARDLESS of what the U.S. does.

How do these freaking losers ever get a paying job with mushy thinking like that???

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-8-26 5:06:40 PM|| 2003-8-26 5:06:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why won't we disarm? Because we're the good guys. And we don't trust the bad guys not to pursue secret programs after we have disarmed. We've also had bad experiences with disarmament in the past, first after WWI, then after WWII, and finally, after Vietnam. It is that simple.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-8-26 5:41:19 PM|| 2003-8-26 5:41:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 An Arab talking about double standards, how laughable.

I don't have a lot of faith these days in the administration but that is nothing compared to the lack of faith I have in these morons.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-8-26 5:42:30 PM|| 2003-8-26 5:42:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Were any of you really surprised by the failure of anything that was spawned by the u.n. Mr. El Baradei probably couldn't find real work so he became a u.n. duplomat. Just another reason why we should tell the whole organization to pack up and leave town. Turn the building into low-income housing (kind of what it is now).

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-8-26 5:45:00 PM|| 2003-8-26 5:45:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Typical communist propaganda. It is long a goal of the left here and abroad ( very little distinction, were you to ask me) to disarm the United States. Baradai is just repeating the same tired Soviet line popular when Leonid and Konstantin was running the show.

There's no communist like an old communist...

Posted by badanov 2003-8-26 6:03:51 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-8-26 6:03:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I know just what Mo, Blix, and the rest of the UN really needs. A nice cool jug of Jim Jones Juice.

Posted by Paul 2003-8-26 6:10:33 PM|| 2003-8-26 6:10:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The only people in the UN with real jobs are the poor unfortunate secrataries you have to do all the paperwork, the translators( of course just how do you say blah blah blah in Swahili? )and the janitors who have to shovel all the horseshit.

Posted by Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-8-26 8:14:39 PM|| 2003-8-26 8:14:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

And your point is?

Posted by Matt 2003-8-26 8:55:29 PM|| 2003-8-26 8:55:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 This is a proposal that should be considered.

First, we are totally superior in personnel and weapons to any foe.

Second, it is difficult to imagine first or second use of nuclear weapons by POTUS other than in response to a multi-target attack by an organized potitical entity, also an unlikely event.

Third, the amount of money spent to keep our nuclear arsenal operational is enormous. That money would make the country much more secure if spent on conventional systems instead.

We could agree to disarm ourselves subject to UN inspection if every other country did the same and the condition that if any country renegged on the agreement, we would consider it an act of war to which we could respond in any way, including the development of a new nuclear arsenal.

Have at it.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2003-8-26 9:16:07 PM|| 2003-8-26 9:16:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Mr. Davis - that nuke capability, and the uncertainty when it would be used - is what keeps Taiwan democratic...small price to pay (for the Taiwanese, not you) - you seem willing to let others pay the price for your moral superiority on weapons...got any buddies in North Korea? Didn't think so...ssoooo STFU

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-26 9:27:09 PM|| 2003-8-26 9:27:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 If Baradei wasn't such an abject failure in his line of work, I'd say he was working for the US government. Think about it: the more these sorry asses rave against anything with an American label on it, the more I think America should stay the course. Baradei's comments actually work against his cause. Sucker.

Posted by Raphael 2003-8-26 9:34:47 PM|| 2003-8-26 9:34:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 How do these freaking losers ever get a paying job with mushy thinking like that???
They hate the United States. No other qualifications are required. Certainly, intelligent thought, weighing of pros and cons, and gaming the effectiveness (and potential disasters) of decisions are not only not necessary, they are actively frowned upon.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-8-26 9:36:40 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-8-26 9:36:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Excellent response, Frank G. My experience has been that attacking liberals by questioning their qualifications to be "moral superior", or comparing their moral principles to religious ones, gets the best results.

Posted by Ptah 2003-8-26 10:44:15 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-8-26 10:44:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons.

Yes there are. Some (let's call them The Good) are owned by countries with strong chains of command and control over them, hopefully preventing their use by some random whacko. Some (The Ugly?) are owned by countries that use them as a last-ditch defense against psychoticly agressive neighbors.

And some are reputedly owned by countries that, for all intents and purposes, *are* random whackos. I'd call that "Bad", myself.

Posted by mojo 2003-8-26 11:52:42 PM|| 2003-8-26 11:52:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mr. G

Do you really believe the only way to keep Taiwan democratic is with Nukes? What about enhancing its defence with four times the current number of Patriot batteries, an additional Carrier Battle Group and a new fleet of short range attack subs, all of which could be afforded with the money saved by ditching nukes.

Also, don't forget the Chinese had to de-nuke also under my proposal. How will they threaten Taiwan with conventional weapons? Theirs aren't good enough for anything other than domestic repression and they won't catch up for at least 50 years.

I have no moral position on weapons, only economic. Nukes are now a bad buy because they won't be used and there are no credible threats for them to deter that can't be more cheaply detered with conventional weapons.

Mr. Patriot,

I am not a liberal and I resent your implication that I am. I am a skin flint conservative who doesn't like the government throwing money down ratholes.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2003-8-27 12:16:24 PM|| 2003-8-27 12:16:24 PM|| Front Page Top

12:16 Mr. Davis
00:43 Slappy
00:23 Anonymous
00:17 Anonymous
23:55 Katherine
23:52 mojo
23:39 Katherine
23:05 Steve White
22:44 Ptah
22:38 Ptah
21:36 Old Patriot
21:34 Raphael
21:27 Frank G
21:26 Greg
21:25 Old Patriot
21:22 Steve D
21:16 Mr. Davis
20:55 Matt
20:39 Steve D
20:31 Steve D
20:14 Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire
19:51 Frank G
19:40 Frank G
19:35 SteveS