Could the IAEA be anymore toothless?

[Redleg]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm

Any guess what kind of global depression would result if the World's 11th largest economy is shelled back to the Garden of Eden? This isn't black and white, Cube.

You haven't looked much into any likely scenarios about what would happen if we 'be a man,' have you?

Of course he hasn't. Plus he is discounting that North Korea has a major ally in China which will result in a possible World War if the United States attacks North Korea without the approval of China.

Then he forgets that South Korea and Japan have a vested interest in preventing hostilies with North Korea and all 5 countries along with Russia are in off and on again negotations. Where Iran is just thumbing its nose at the world.

[Red Harvest]

Ah yes, Red Harvest, Iran was on it's way to being a Westernized Democracy. If only Bush hadn't called them names and destroyed their blood enemy, Saddam Hussein, freeing the Shi'ites in that country.

One of these days, you're going to have to learn that not everything bad that happens in the world is Bush's fault. I know it's tempting for you, but seriously... Bush didn't cause the Tsunami. Bush didn't cause the locust infestation in Niger. And he didn't cause the Iranians to go hardline religious. They were already there, and despite this nice piece of revisionist history you're offering us, never showed any signs of making strides towards democratic reforms. Oh have you forget what Hizbollah was up to in the 90's?

Don, imagine for a moment that Dubya could make a mistake in international diplomacy. Drop the knee jerk BS, it has gotten really stale in your past ~100 posts and it sounds too ignorant/deluded for your normal approach to issues. Hope all is well for you on a personal note, because you don't sound yourself.

Perhaps Pat Buchanan's 2002 comments might be enlightening and his politics are closer to yours than mine. He was a lousy politician, but I enjoyed watching him before he ran for office. Buchanan's Comments On "Axis of Evil" (Note: I had not read this article until a few minutes ago, yet I had come to the same basic conclusion independent of it. In fact, when I heard the original statements by Dubya I already knew they were a diplomatic blunder of the first order, before waiting for commentary.)

Here is a PBS Frontline article or transcript with several different views on the "Axis of Evil" part buried in it. Frontline Article Axis of Evil

Back to my response:
This is about how people think in their own land and the impact that certain statements can have. Get yourself out of your comfortable U.S. Christian righteous zone, and try to imagine yourself as just an everyday Joe no more than 30 years old in Iran, worried about raising your young kids. The days of the Revolution are over. You were so young that you don't even remember the Shah or the Revolution itself. You do remember the War with Iraq although you were young enough not to be directly involved. You have a single party religious govt. that is oppressive/stale and outliving its usefulness. It resists reform and you are wanting things to change, but that comes slowly. Iran has modernized, become more affluent, but is far from a democracy. The old hatred of the U.S. is still present in official statements, but the younger generations have become more westernized. The old nationalist fervor isn't really holding much sway over these younger folks.

So 9/11 happens. Before long, you have Bush lumping you in with an "axis of evil" and talking about a "crusade" which carries the same religious connotation as Jihad. (Tell me that is not a major BLUNDER.) "Evil" carries the religious connotation as well. So now the guy is telling you your govt. is evil. They are Christian you ar Muslim. How do you think that is going to play? What is the end result of that? It creates fear in you. It makes you almost certain to "rally to the flag" and doubt those opposing the govt. The Great Polarizer strikes again.

By the way, I'm certainly no fan of Hezbollah nor Iran's links to various terror movements. It was right to condemn those aspects (and continue to!) Unfortunatey, that is not what Dubya did, he painted with far too broad a brush, making enemies out of those who might very well have been the internal resistance we needed. He should have kept religious references out of the mix, but for Dubya, that seems to be impossible. Everyone who opposes him, domestic or foreign, is cast as "evil." That is polarizing and not helpful.

[Red Harvest]

Is it worth fighting one of the largest armies in the world? Well, if it's worth attacking Iran over a deterrant, then it's worth attacking North Korea over a weapon.

It makes more sense to take out a developing threat before it becomes reality. The ship has already sailed with respect to Korea. We didn't choose to act when we had the chance. Doing so now would be a nuclear conflict.

The answer to North Korea is China. I recall hearing some sort of chinese proverb to the effect that once you have saved a man's life you are responsible for his actions. China is the direct link to North Korea, so make the Chinese responsible for them. Tell the Chinese, "we aren't going to attack North Korea, but since you have been their protector, if they nuke somebody we will treat it as if China launched the attack." With that, China would have a very strong interest in resolving the situation.

I'm not trying to make a case for attacking Iran. We've already squandered the requisite diplomatic capital for doing something like that. Plus the resulting war looks far less certain than Iraq--with the post war case being entirely unfavorable. Not to mention the potential longterm loss of oil production in the whole region. Nope, this one comes down to diplomacy/sanctions.

[Redleg]

So you believe it is okay to play "World Police", but only when the threat is, well, not really a threat? What kind of message is that for an administration based on supposed morals?

We have been playing at "World Police" for many years now. Kuwait, Somilia, Bosina, Kosovo, Panama, Egypt, and many other countries.

I am well aware of Seoul being within range of Korean artillery. What that article doesn't tell, at least from the snub I saw, is that it is only a small peninsula that artillery could be placed on. A peninsula that is ripe for aerial bombardment, special forces operations, and general fun for US troops. If someone has a map of Korea, it's readily obvious.

From this comment I can safely assume you have never been in South Korea - or along the DMZ for that matter. Nor is it obvious on a map unless you are using 1:100,000 Military Maps.

The land is crowded in the valleys with populations along the three main manuever avenues. The terrain outside of those avenues is Mountainous Not little bitty easy to climb hills, but steep vertical slopes that are killers to walk up when faced with an opposing force. Plus your facing an enemy that has a larger special operations force then you do. The ability to use attack helicopters is limited - because of the mountainous terrian, and the North Koreans have practiced a unique technique to bring down helicopters flying in mountainous terrian, and have an extensive Anti-Aircraft defense system to help defend themselves from Close Air Support.

Then one must understand how artillery ranges and effects work in mountainous terrian - which from your generalized comment - I can safely assume you have absolutely no clue about. For instance how much artillery do you think the United States has compared to what North Korea has. Even when you start counting the South Korean Artillery - there is a huge difference in the amount of artillery. Oh so much to find at fault with this last paragraph of yours - that I will just leave it at these two for now.

I don't think there is any doubt as to who would win in a war against North Korea. The real doubt is in manpower. Is it worth fighting one of the largest armies in the world? Well, if it's worth attacking Iran over a deterrant, then it's worth attacking North Korea over a weapon.

Oh I have serious doubt about who will win in the short term. Then it seems you are negating that a good 60-70 percent of the South Korean population lives in the immediate combat zone.

I spent many years training for the possiblity of a North Korean attack - and spent a tour for the Eigth Army MLRS Battalion - its not as easy as your civilian maps would make you believe - nor is the North Korean Army a paper army. It is a dedicated Army - that has the material and the willpower to fight against the United States. The problem that the North Korean Army has is that it does not have the war material to last for an extended combat operation - but it does have the war material to take South Korea out with them if they so chose to go that route.

[Productivity]

Bush didn't cause the Tsunami.

Yes he did!

[Redleg]

Yes he did!

LOL - and the amazing thing is that the site asks for money from the believers of this.

[Adrian II]

So, Iran is in violation of it's treaties and had been running a covert nuclear program, now they do it flagrantly out in the open and the best the IAEA can do is "We'll let you go to it for another month...

The issue is not that Iran is demonstrably developing a nuclear weapon. Tehran has hidden its uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, but this secrecy has now ostensibly come to an end and enriching uranium for fuel is perfectly legal under any international treaty, all the more so if it takes place under the watchful eye of the IAEA.

An Iranian secret nuclear weapons programme can not be ruled out because the IAEA 'is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran' (quote from yesterday's IAEA-statement).

Iran has now restarted its nuclear fuel development programme openly, not secretly. And for most of the 'world community' this is not a big deal. Many countries are doing the same, and many others are (re)considering the development of a nuclear weapon as a possible outcome of their peaceful atomic programmes. Iran has all the more reason to do so because it is 'surrounded' by nuclear powers (Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel and the United States) and likely future nuclear powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia).

[Del Arroyo]

You do realize that all of this nuclear proliferation is basically a direct result of our jumping the gun on Iraq and getting all of our military and political resources tied up there, right?

In order to credibly act against threats in Iran and North Korea now, we would practically have to mobilize the nation for war. With each threat proved empty our power wanes.

Iraq did not *show* anyone anything, except that our leadership lacked moral courage and PATIENCE. The urgency argument that people use for Iraq is a textbook example of the knee-jerk haste that is likely to get people into trouble.

Since this is a Total War forum, I'll ask you guys to think back to battles you've fought. Have you generally gotten better results rushing straight in at the first hint of an enemy movement, or taking a breath, looking around, and waiting for the right moment?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq, but we needed to wait for a ripening. We picked green peaches and now they don't taste so good.

DA

[Al Khalifah]

The difference between Iran and Germany is that Germany was at the technological forefront of the world. It had one of the best generals, best tanks and airplanes, and best strategy in the world until later in the war. Iran is a comparitively harmless nation halfway around the world that is probably crapping it's pants over US Beligerrance in the region.

Before the start of the war Germany had none of those things. The Treaty of Versailles had crippled Germany militarily. It was only because they were allowed to flaunt the terms of the treaty so blatantly that they were able to build up their armed forces to such an extent. If France and Britain had stood up to Germany soon enough, Germany could have done nothing - but they were still in fear of another Great War and they were too defensive in their strategy once the war began - failing to exploit their advantage.
The reason the Germans were so technologically advanced was that they were able to build their armed forces from almost scratch, bespoke to the conditions of the war, where as the other armies of Europe were not.

[Proletariat]

So you believe it is okay to play "World Police", but only when the threat is, well, not really a threat?

How is a global depression not a threat?

I am well aware of Seoul being within range of Korean artillery. What that article doesn't tell, at least from the snub I saw, is that it is only a small peninsula that artillery could be placed on. A peninsula that is ripe for aerial bombardment, special forces operations, and general fun for US troops. If someone has a map of Korea, it's readily obvious.

You could've read the article, but here you go.

The biggest problem with military options is the difficulty of preventing North Korean military retaliation. Defenses could not protect the South Korean population from North Korean artillery and missile strikes, while U.S. efforts to attack these weapons would escalate the conflict without removing North Korea's retaliatory capability. The United States would be forced to rely upon deterrence--possibly reinforced with explicit nuclear threats--to prevent or limit North Korean counter-attacks. North Korea would have the initiative and the ability to calibrate its response to maximize U.S. political and military problems. This might include threats or the actual use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The most likely result would be North Korean conventional counter-attacks combined with threats to escalate toward a full-scale ground war and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction. If deterrence failed to prevent North Korean counter-attacks, the United States would be faced with a very unappealing military situation, especially at a time when many U.S. forces are deployed in the Persian Gulf.

The political consequences might be even more significant. South Korea and Japan strongly oppose military attacks against North Korean nuclear facilities, largely due to their vulnerability to North Korean retaliatory strikes. Their alliances with the United States are predicated on the belief that the presence of U.S. forces on their territory enhances their security. U.S. military actions that resulted in North Korean counter-attacks against their territory could destroy support for an alliance with the United States and end U.S. access to bases in South Korea and Japan. Military attacks might also fundamentally change the nature of U.S. relations with China and Russia, who strongly oppose resolving the nuclear crisis through military means. There is even some possibility of direct military conflict with China (which still has a security treaty with North Korea). More broadly, a U.S. pre-emptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would arguably violate international law and would convey the message that the United States can use nuclear threats to attack sovereign states with impunity. This would reinforce concerns many countries have about a growing trend towards unilateralism in American foreign policy. The result might only undermine the nuclear nonproliferation regime, but also damage the foundations of the current international order.

I don't think there is any doubt as to who would win in a war against North Korea. The real doubt is in manpower. Is it worth fighting one of the largest armies in the world? Well, if it's worth attacking Iran over a deterrant, then it's worth attacking North Korea over a weapon.

We don't need a full out invasion of Iran.

*jet engine across the sky*
*low-to-high bomb dropping sounds*
*boom*

[Don Corleone]

Don, imagine for a moment that Dubya could make a mistake in international diplomacy. Drop the knee jerk BS, it has gotten really stale in your past ~100 posts and it sounds too ignorant/deluded for your normal approach to issues. Hope all is well for you on a personal note, because you don't sound yourself.

Perhaps Pat Buchanan's 2002 comments might be enlightening and his politics are closer to yours than mine. He was a lousy politician, but I enjoyed watching him before he ran for office. Buchanan's Comments On "Axis of Evil" (Note: I had not read this article until a few minutes ago, yet I had come to the same basic conclusion independent of it. In fact, when I heard the original statements by Dubya I already knew they were a diplomatic blunder of the first order, before waiting for commentary.)

Here is a PBS Frontline article or transcript with several different views on the "Axis of Evil" part buried in it. Frontline Article Axis of Evil

Back to my response:
This is about how people think in their own land and the impact that certain statements can have. Get yourself out of your comfortable U.S. Christian righteous zone, and try to imagine yourself as just an everyday Joe no more than 30 years old in Iran, worried about raising your young kids. The days of the Revolution are over. You were so young that you don't even remember the Shah or the Revolution itself. You do remember the War with Iraq although you were young enough not to be directly involved. You have a single party religious govt. that is oppressive/stale and outliving its usefulness. It resists reform and you are wanting things to change, but that comes slowly. Iran has modernized, become more affluent, but is far from a democracy. The old hatred of the U.S. is still present in official statements, but the younger generations have become more westernized. The old nationalist fervor isn't really holding much sway over these younger folks.

So 9/11 happens. Before long, you have Bush lumping you in with an "axis of evil" and talking about a "crusade" which carries the same religious connotation as Jihad. (Tell me that is not a major BLUNDER.) "Evil" carries the religious connotation as well. So now the guy is telling you your govt. is evil. They are Christian you ar Muslim. How do you think that is going to play? What is the end result of that? It creates fear in you. It makes you almost certain to "rally to the flag" and doubt those opposing the govt. The Great Polarizer strikes again.

By the way, I'm certainly no fan of Hezbollah nor Iran's links to various terror movements. It was right to condemn those aspects (and continue to!) Unfortunatey, that is not what Dubya did, he painted with far too broad a brush, making enemies out of those who might very well have been the internal resistance we needed. He should have kept religious references out of the mix, but for Dubya, that seems to be impossible. Everyone who opposes him, domestic or foreign, is cast as "evil." That is polarizing and not helpful.

Your concern for my welfare is touching, but I'm fine. As for my support for Mr. Buchanan's stated policy, goals, you are mistaken. I was not attempting to offer a blanket apology for the President, and I don't live in a comfortable U.S. Christian righteous zone.

Of course referring to an 'Axis of Evil' was a stupid thing to do. Placing Iran on it wasn't all that smart either. In my mind, it shows your hand way too much, and it implies an almost childlike view of international diplomacy.

But let's not kid ourselves. You can call me all the names you want, and you can compare me to Pat Buchanan if it makes you feel better. But at the end of the day, Iran is not the way it is because Bush referred to them as the Axis of Evil. They were the way they are before Nov 4, 2000. This idea of them as hovering on the verge of Democracy until Bush got elected is a sham.

[Dâriûsh]

Actually Red Harvest, your hypothesis seems quite accurate to me. The actions of a certain contemporary American president have undoubtedly, and I reckon unintentionally, benefited the monsters in Tehran and their ilk.


And I’m not sure of the dogs still support the Hizbullah but I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.

[Red Harvest]

As for my support for Mr. Buchanan's stated policy, goals, you are mistaken.

But let's not kid ourselves. You can call me all the names you want, and you can compare me to Pat Buchanan if it makes you feel better.

You misunderstand. It was not an attempt to say your views were the same, rather I was trying to make the observation that his views on average are closer to yours than mine. That's all. I wasn't trying to belittle him or you when I referred to him. I though it was interesting that the first article I found that backed my view came from a very conservative political figure.

Like I've said, I did find him intersting when he was doing the show. He had good insight and I agreed with many of his points on the programs, even though I might have disagreed with his conclusions (and at times disagreed with him altogether.) So while I couldn't vote for him I did find him worth listening to in the context of his old show.

Of course referring to an 'Axis of Evil' was a stupid thing to do. Placing Iran on it wasn't all that smart either.

That was my point.

In my mind, it shows your hand way too much, and it implies an almost childlike view of international diplomacy.

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to put myself in the other sides shoes and look at it from their perspective, rather than just sitting in my own comfort zone. That is not childlike.

But at the end of the day, Iran is not the way it is because Bush referred to them as the Axis of Evil. They were the way they are before Nov 4, 2000. This idea of them as hovering on the verge of Democracy until Bush got elected is a sham.

Who has the childlike view? I didn't say any of that. You got defensive and came to that conclusion. *You* decided that was where I was going with it, and it is not. I am looking as best I can at the history of Iran, not some single event, or my particular animosity towards the regime and people (I admit--I remember the images of from the Carter era well) for the hostage crisis of several decades ago. What I see is a trend that was building toward gradual long term change in Iran. I also see that trend being reversed by what would appear to be a quite credible and powerful external threat being made by a former enemy, the U.S. (we have afterall invaded two nations bordering Iran.) Doesn't mean I want Iran to have nukes, but to me the link with poorly considered posturing/threats has had an effect that is directly opposite to what I/we want. I hope that the reversal is only short term, but unless some policymakers wise up quick, it is only going to get worse.

EDIT: Received a PM that Proletariat was correct. Don was not referring to me with the childlike part. I apologize for the misinterpretation.

[Proletariat]

Who has the childlike view?

I believe he meant Dubya was displaying the childlike view with this axis comment.

[Red Harvest]

I believe he meant Dubya was displaying the childlike view with this axis comment.

I wish, but he had said, "In my mind, it shows your hand way too much, and it implies an almost childlike view of international diplomacy."

An aside for Don. My expressed concern was genuine, for what it is worth. I had tempered my responses (and didn't respond at all) to most of your recent rants, because they seemed out of character. Everyone needs a good rant now and again, but the long string of them didn't seem normal. My mistake. Next time I'll know not to hold my fire.

[Proletariat]

Ah, a misread. You're both being a little thin-skinned, but it is friday. Let's get drunk and play ping pong.