Iran is not affraid because they feel there's nothing left bar open aggression. The fact that Iranians have seen worse, doesn't really mean that they do not know people are dead serious.Originally Posted by muck
As for bowing down...you really don't get do you? People don't like it when you try to tell them what they have to do. Especially if they have been through 33 years of bull****. Maybe the NVA wasn't pressured enough because they never backed down despite being steamrolled to death by the USA. Pride is something you should never underestimate.
As for the politicians...Where is the Junta, where is Thatcher?
Where is Bashir now (hint he can't move in the open for more than 30 minutes)? Where is Saddam now? He won one war too many. Where is Ghadaffi now? 20 wars are raging right now? What is their geopolitical relevance?
.
As for the why of my membership here, well you can't judge a society and claim you are an outsider. But indeed the inherent hoplophilia am Westen finds an echo in MP.net. And like it or not, I'm not against it. As far as we do understand it.
Bottom line, if the ideological posture did not blind the then US administration, how would you explain the discrepancies between the treatment of the IRI and the ROK while the latter was proven in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 7 as well as Two bilateral agreements for 20 years and possession of fissile material, while the former was yet to be proven guilty of violations of Article 3?
I would like to hear that.
I don't like it, but they have the right to their own security same as Israel or the US, Russia, India or whoever. If I were them I would be going for nukes too. That they make some hollow threats to Israel is not really a concern; I'm sure that rhetoric between USSR-US, Pakistan-India, even China-India and China-USSR was worse. The Iranian government is evidently quite rational and not a bunch of fanatics with a deathwish.
Apparently, you are proving the old truism that "where you sit is where you stand."
Really? Didnt know 99 % of the world including Russia agrees with the West.
I wonder why you guys are only hating on the West then.
It's called political myopia. You see what you want to see. You can check the timeline of events here:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
Actually it's already during Bush time when the americans had finally started with the building per se of energy reactors.
Most relevant piece(I recommend to read everything there, it reads as a good english triller):
August 7, 2002: KEDO holds a ceremony to mark the pouring of the concrete foundation for the first LWR that the United States agreed to provide North Korea under the Agreed Framework. Jack Pritchard, the U.S. representative to KEDO and State Department special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, attends the ceremony. Pritchard is the most senior U.S. official to visit North Korea since former Secretary of State Albright in October 2000.
The United States urges North Korea to comply with IAEA safeguarding procedures for all its nuclear facilities as soon as possible, but Pyongyang states that it will not do so for at least three years, the Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun reports August 8. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman also states that delays in completing the reactor project might motivate Pyongyang to pull out of the agreement.
August 16, 2002: The United States imposes sanctions on Changgwang Sinyong Corporation of North Korea and on the North Korean government itself for transferring missile technology to Yemen. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer states August 23 that the sanctions were a “pro forma requirement under the law for the State Department” and that Washington remains willing to “talk with North Korea any time, any place.”
August 31, 2002: Responding to an August 29 speech by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, North Korea says that “if the U.S. has a will to drop its hostile policy toward the DPRK it will have dialogue…the ball is in the court of the U.S. side.” Bolton had criticized Pyongyang’s missile, nuclear, and biological weapons programs.
September 17, 2002: North Korea announces that it will indefinitely extend its moratorium on missile testing as part of the North Korea-Japan Pyongyang Declaration signed during a meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
A portion of the North Korea-Japan declaration references nuclear weapons, saying that the two countries “affirmed the pledge to observe all the international agreements for a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.” It is unclear whether this statement simply affirms a commitment to existing agreements or signals support for additional arms control measures.
October 3-5, 2002: James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, visits North Korea. The highest-ranking administration official to visit Pyongyang, Kelly reiterates U.S. concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, export of missile components, conventional force posture, human rights violations, and humanitarian situation. Kelly informs North Korea that it could improve bilateral relations through a “comprehensive settlement” addressing these issues. No future meetings are announced.
Referring to Kelly’s approach as “high handed and arrogant,” North Korea argues that the U.S. policy “compels the DPRK to take all necessary countermeasures, pursuant to the army-based policy whose validity has been proven.”
October 16, 2002: The United States announces that North Korea admitted to having a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons after James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronted representatives from Pyongyang during an October 3-5 visit. Kelly later explained that the North Korean admission came the day after he informed them that the United States was aware of the program. North Korea has denied several times that it admitted to having this program.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher states that "North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."
Boucher also says that the United States wants North Korea to comply with its nonproliferation commitments and seeks "a peaceful resolution of this situation."
November 5, 2002: North Korea threatens to end its moratorium on ballistic missile tests if North Korea-Japan normalization talks do not achieve progress.
November 14, 2002: KEDO announces that it is suspending heavy-fuel oil deliveries to North Korea in response to Pyongyang's October 4 acknowledgement that it has a uranium-enrichment program. The last shipment reached North Korea November 18.
November 29, 2002: The IAEA adopts a resolution calling upon North Korea to "clarify" its "reported uranium-enrichment program." North Korea rejects the resolution, saying the IAEA's position is biased in favor of the United States.
December 9, 2002: Spanish and U.S. forces intercept and search a ship carrying a shipment of North Korean Scud missiles and related cargo to Yemen. The United States allows the shipment to be delivered because it lacks the necessary legal authority to seize the cargo. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says that Washington had intelligence that the ship was carrying missiles to the Middle East and was concerned that its ultimate destination might have been Iraq.
December 12, 2002: North Korea sends a letter to the IAEA announcing that it is restarting its one functional reactor and is reopening the other nuclear facilities frozen under the Agreed Framework. The letter requests that the IAEA remove the seals and monitoring equipment from its nuclear facilities. A North Korean spokesman blames the United States for violating the Agreed Framework and says that the purpose of restarting the reactor is to generate electricity-an assertion disputed by U.S. officials.
A November 27 Congressional Research Service report states that the reactor could annually produce enough plutonium for one bomb. The CIA states in a 2002 report to Congress that the spent-fuel rods "contain enough plutonium for several more [nuclear] weapons."
U.S. estimates on North Korea's current nuclear status differ. A State Department official said January 3, 2003 that the U.S. intelligence community believes North Korea already possesses one or two nuclear weapons made from plutonium produced before the negotiation of the Agreed Framework. The CIA publicly estimates that Pyongyang "has produced enough plutonium" for one or two weapons.
December 14, 2002: North Korea states in a letter to the IAEA that the status of its nuclear facilities is a matter between the United States and North Korea and "not pursuant to any agreement" with the IAEA. The letter further declares that North Korea will take unilateral action to remove seals and monitoring cameras if the IAEA does not act.
December 22-24, 2002: North Korea cuts all seals and disrupts IAEA surveillance equipment on its nuclear facilities and materials. An IAEA spokesman says December 26 that North Korea started moving fresh fuel rods into the reactor, suggesting that it might be restarted soon.
December 27, 2002: North Korea orders IAEA inspectors out of the country. They leave on December 31.
2003
January 6, 2003: The IAEA Board of Governors adopts a resolution condemning North Korea's decision to restart its nuclear reactor and resume operation of its related facilities. The resolution "deplores" North Korea's action "in the strongest terms" and calls on Pyongyang to meet "immediately, as a first step" with IAEA officials. It also calls on North Korea to re-establish the seals and monitoring equipment it dismantled, comply fully with agency safeguards, clarify details about its reported uranium-enrichment program, and allow the agency to verify that all North Korea’s nuclear material is "declared and…subject to safeguards."
January 10, 2003: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective January 11. Although Article X of the NPT requires that a country give three months’ notice in advance of withdrawing, North Korea argues that it has satisfied that requirement because it originally announced its decision to withdraw March 12, 1993, and suspended the decision one day before it was to become legally binding.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Pride? Bullshit?
It seems to me you want to see the entire people as sworn in to the regime's line. The steamrolled 2009 election protests showed how cordially the regime is appreciated by its subjects - just as the deadlocked situation shows a people can't do anything about the decisions of an autoritarian leadership. It's the Mullahs who want the bomb. They want it as a bargaining chip against the America-backed Sunni nations of the Gulf region and to harass Israel with impunity. You underestimate the religious component. It's the 15th century for them and all about "true Islam" against "corrupted" Sunni brown-nosers. The politico-religious leadership of this country will never forgive the creation of the state of Israel and they'll never forget the backing of the Shah. Teheran does not need any particular reason to fight the Jewish state or the "crusaders". This conflict has grown its very own immanence. It's being fought just because.
If they truly don't mean mischief, why do they not abide by the regulations they pledged themselves to? If they truly don't mean mischief, how come their president may call for the destruction of "the cancer" Israel and walk away unchallenged?
The international community has every right in the world to suspect Iran.
The Junta is gone, but not due to the immediate effects of the Falklands War. As for Thatcher, why would that be a concern?
Is he still the leader of Sudan, or is he not? Have the Sudanese people, should they not agree with his leadership, any chance to remove him from power?Did the Iraqi people have any chance to remove him from power without help?Did the Lybian people have any chance to remove him from power without help?We're either cross-talking here or I'm deliberately being misunderstood. My point is: Dictators and warlords don't have to answer to their people. Even if they may be afraid of them - the main reason why they have to rely on oppression - they know very well how untouchable from within they are once their grip over their sphere of control has become tight enough. Only foreign activities can stop them. Then again foreign pressure is difficult to mobilize - and in the same breath difficult to be made credible - as elected leaders are answerable to their people. And most of the time the people do not want war. Even if military actions are set in motion they may be watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.
In 1994 almost a million people were murdered in Rwanda but nobody stepped in to stop the blodshed. The international community was still chewing on the defeat suffered in Somalia. Clinton and his colleagues refused to intervene as their peoples actively resisted such a policy at that time.
Frankly, I don't know what's to be questioned there.At first I'd like to hear a definition of those discrepancies I'm supposed to see.If Iran doesn't respect the authority of the United Nations and the validity of the treaties it signed, which authority will it respect?
The threats Iran has issued are leagues above the rhetoric between Cold War parties or during other major conflicts. Contrary pretences are just wrong. Russia or the USA never threatened it each other with total annihilation. Russia or the USA never dehumanized their respective counterpart's people. Russia or the USA never claimed to be legitimated to "wipe each other off the map" in the name of divine powers.
Having said this, I'm amazed by your assessment that the government of Iran would not consist of a "bunch of fanatics" and be "evidently quite rational". That's about the utter opposite of my own perception.
Well, there is no accounting for taste I guess.
Do the same people who blame Neocons for the Iran fiasco also blame Bush for North Korea's nuclear situation?
Necons two years ago? Obama was the president then and he is not a neocone...
I can bet you if a country say like..ummm... Georgia, was funding terrorist groups and sprouted the same religious hysteria, you would certainly call them a bunch of fanatics with a death-wish.
You misspelled NeoCon twice in one post....
In the first one i forgot the O in the second it was a spelling mistake...
*Neocons neocon
LOL
I bet that nerf herder Ordie is in the fetal position sinisterly laughing at the Neocon hate right now. Meanwhile, my coffee grows cold.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote