Text 15307, 250 rader
Skriven 2007-06-06 19:46:57 av lizardgirl (1720.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 15297 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (1710.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Jun 6, 1:53 am, "Vorlonagent" <nojts...@otfresno.com> wrote:
> "Josh Hill" <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cl9b6318ej24jaat3i4s1vdntl4rpna4ss@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:56:22 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
>
> <nojts...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill" <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ehqr43tr0jh8a85um0gn5qv0uaqgbu3u0f@4ax.com...
> >> But, in the end, it doesn't make a difference. Even if there were only
> >> a 25% chance that a second North Korean bomb would take out Seoul or
> >> New York, it's more than enough, because we aren't going to take that
> >> risk if we can possibly avoid it.
>
> >Agreed. Unfortunately diplomatic constraints make the simple solutions
> >(bombing the crap out of NK reactors and known fissionables storage)
> >somewhat problematic.  Neither the SKs nor the Chinese are thrilled with
> >the
> >prospect of military force used against the NKs.
>
> The North Koreans would take out Seoul, perhaps Tokyo. China could
> depose the regime without force, but they don't want to deal with the
> resulting mess.
>
> Seoul for sure.
>
> Tokyo, depends on whether their last rocket was destroyed on purpose or
> failed spectacularly.  This kinda stuff is why the Japanese (and Taiwanes=
e)
> are very interested in helping the US develop anti-missile technology.
>
> >On the other hand, the chinese, at least, aren't thrilled at the prospect
> >of
> >a nuclear Japan either and the NK threat pushes Japan in that direction.
> >Japan can have a nuke very very easily if they want one.
>
> >But the fact of the matter is that the NKs DO NOT have a workable bomb.
> >They may have ideas on how to build a workable bomb based on their test.
> >Without another test, they have a halfway nuke and nobody, not even the
> >NKs,
> >will know better until/unless they test.
>
> >They're only probationary members of the nuclear club at this point.  Th=
ey
> >don't get the full prestige of being a nuclear power.  Nor implied the
> >invulnerability that comes with having a bomb.
>
> I don't think the last is true, given that no one wants North Korea to
> hold their next nuclear test in Tokyo. They have their data: the
> probability of a second dud is fairly low.
> -----------------------------
>
> That's overreaching in my view
>
> Obviously we want to play it cautiously, but without a test,
> nobody--NOBODY-- can be sure the NKs can build a working bomb.  You assume
> the NKs know what went wrong with the first test and while they may, it's
> not a sure thing.  I mean it's not like they can examine what's left and
> learn anything useful.
>
> You CAN build a uranium bomb without a test (the South africans did), but=
 a
> uramium bomb is much simpler to construct.
>
> The NKs can drop a dirty bomb on Tokyo and that's the best threat you can=
 be
> sure of.  (but then they could do that in 2003).
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>'In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency"
> >>>and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear
> >>>weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."
> >>>Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian
> >>>opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions
> >>>against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied
> >>>territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a
> >>>"mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi
> >>>initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
> >>>conflict.
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>...and you believe them?
>
> >> I don't think that's the real question. Iran isn't a monolith: they
> >> have doves and hawks, reformers and conservatives just as we do. We're
> >> popular with the Iranian public, and we know that there are voices in
> >> the Iranian elite who have been asking why they're still at odds with
> >> the United States when we've taken care of their worst enemies, Saddam
> >> and the Sunnis and Al Quada and the Taliban. And Iran took /our/ side
> >> after 9/11.
>
> >Who talked about "full transparency"?  The iranian government?  The best
> >use
> >for the paper it's printed on would be either wiping one's butt or
> >firestarter (make sure you know which use you prefer and print on
> >appropriate stock)
>
> We don't know that, and we won't know that if we don't negotiate.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No point.  There is nothing we can gain from this Iranian government.  No
> promise we can extract that we can reasoably expect they'll honor.  Iran =
and
> the mideast have a long enough track record that we don't need to naively
> follow after evey silky-smooth turn of phrase that sounds like moderation
> from our enemies.  They'll say all the right things ("Full transparency")
> but that is worth nothing.  You are being sold a bill of goods.
>
> They want you to do exactly what you're doing: hearing the codewords that
> make you think the guys running Iran can be reasoned with and as a result
> make it harder for the US to act against Iran when and if that time arise=
s=2E
> They can't be reasoned with.  Not under the certain circumstances.  We ha=
ve
> little credibility by which they would either respect an agreement or fear
> to break it.  Before iraq, we had none.  We could have more, but the left=
ist
> news outlets and politicians have done their level best to minimize it by
> opposing and undermining the war at every turn and by any means at their
> disposal.  Bush mistakes in iraq haven't helped things either.
>
> When the US restores a reputation for being strong, resolute and very
> dangerous to cross, THEN we can negotiate with the iranian clerics with s=
ome
> expectation of good faith. Until then, they'll negotaiate to keep action
> against them stalemated and continue to deliver arms and money to
> terrorists, including to those in Iraq.  And continue to seek a nuclear
> weapon.  Such a reputation is not built by running away from Iraq.  If we
> want to negotiate in the mideast credibly, we must destroy organized
> resistance in Iraq.
>
> We may wish to hold talks with opposition leaders in private and see what=
 we
> can do to help topple the clerics fro power but those negotiations would =
be
> highly unofficial.
>
> >The fact that the Iranian took our side after 9/11 means nothing really.
> >We
> >were attacked by sunni extremists who are heretics in shia eyes.  We
> >removed
> >a sunni stronghold from one of their borders.  The fact that iran took in
> >Al-Queda leadership refugees and now appear to be training and funding t=
hem
> >sheds much more light on their true sympathies.
>
> Unfortunately, experience has shown that we can't trust the
> Administration's claims about intelligence or who supports Al Qaeda,
> so we're in the dark as to what's actually happening. Which being
> said, why would Iran support Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is fighting against
> the side they favor in Iraq, the Shites.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Al Queda is fighting for their own side.  Al Queda wants Iraq as a staging
> area, not unlike what Afghanistan was for them.  They aren't anything more
> than allies of convienence with the shiites.  They bombed the Golden Mosq=
ue,
> remember?  They fight for the (radical) shiites because they get their mo=
ney
> from iran.
>
> If they think it suits their interests, Iran may reach this or that
> accommodation with one or another Al Qaeda operative, Middle Eastern
> style (we ever-provincial Americans tend to forget that Middle Eastern
> society is better defined by Scheherazade's scheme than by western
> notions of forthright action). But that's not the same as saying that
> Iran supports Al Qaeda.
> -------------------------------------------------
> They do.  They aren't comitted to Al Queda's cause, no, but Iran does
> support Al-Queda.
>
> Bottom line: I think you're overlooking Iran's self-interest, the
> regime's sensitivity to pressure, and the diversity of opinion within
> the Iranian elite, a diversity that was present even in the days
> following the revolution, when an anti-American course was not a
> given. We have what appears to be a real opening. But as so often the
> Administration chose to overlook the signs of a thaw and set
> unrealistic requirements for opening negotiations, thus undercutting
> the progressive elements within Iran.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We have no "opening" of the sort.  We have Iran spinning neat-sounding li=
es
> for you to latch onto.  It's fodder to earn and reatin your sympathy so as
> to reinforce talks that block action.
>
> This Administration never gets the carrot and stick thing right. They
> bluster rather than applying measured pressure. They refuse to
> compromise, they refuse to talk, and so eliminate the possibility of
> progress. They overplay our hand, turn a position of overwhelming
> strength and strong support into one of weakness and isolation. And as
> the failed consequences of their hubris have become increasingly
> obvious, they've been retreating like Napoleon's troops from Moscow,
> settling in every case for less than we could have had at the start.
> Iran is a good deal less afraid of us than they were a few years ago,
> before we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and
> stretched the army to the breaking point.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> That's strange.  Bush's political foes are those who are calling for a
> retreat.  Bush isn't retreating.  It's more like the Tet offensive, which
> the US media blew up into a US defeat when it was nothing of the sort.
>
> Cut and run from Iraq is the path to failure, with Iran and the mideast.
>
> >Regardless of factins in Iran, the goivernment is in the hands of just o=
ne:
> >shia extremists.  Saying they have doves and hawks like we do would give
> >the
> >very false impression that the presence of these groups makes a differen=
ce
> >in how Iran forms its policy.  By and large it does not.  Iran is a true
> >theocracy and a very authoriatrian one.
>
> But the theocracy isn't monolithic, immune to public pressure, or
> without self-interest.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Yes it is immune.  By and large, yes.  And mostly monolithic for our abil=
ity
> to deal with it. ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

all this back and forth is really beside the point.

they only why to prevent iran (or any one else) from acquiring nuclear
capability is to prevent those you already have it from selling it to
them.  imposing sanctions against iran and iranian oil will not, given
the huge sums of money involved, effect the sale of fuel and equipment
by non-american players.
if the hope is to squeeze, very indirectly i might add, europe into
submission by starving them of oil, we're kidding ourselves.

there is little demand for nuclear fuel outside of the nuclear
industry.  it's very supply side.  you want nuclear fuel?  you need to
buy the power plant that goes with it.  with what the nuclear energy
lobby has been spending of late the real 'solution' is for *us* to
sell the stuff to them, fuel, reactor - the whole thing, right down to
the contract workers used to run it and the guards used to protect
it.

who knows we might even be able to work a side deal for israel to
supply the water used to cool it. but perhaps i'm being sinicle :^)

lg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)