The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Apparently, or so I've read today, the Bush adminstration is getting ready to give Iran nuke power tech if they will stop enriching uranium on their own.

I thought it was dumb and criminal (though legal) when the Clinton administration did the same with North Korea. Yet the North Koreans now have nukes.

Why on earth does Bush think that giving Iranians nuke power tech will stop them from pursuing nuke weapons? Why does anyone think a ruthless dictator will do what he says?

I wish to vomit.

[Alex]

Why do we feel we have the a authority to dictate what scientific, technological, and warmongering advances another sovereign nation should be allowed to make?

[scaeagles]

I would suppose it is because of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. While I am no expert on the treaty itself, I do believe that there are restrictions within that treaty that the Iranians are violating with respect to their nuclear advancements and inspections by the IAEA.

Does your post mean, Alex, that you oppose things such as economic sanctions to apply pressure to a sovereign state to abide by certain guidelines that they have agreed to? If a sovereign state violates a treaty such as the nuclear non-pro treaty, should we or the rest of the world stand idly by?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would suppose it is because of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. While I am no expert on the treaty itself, I do believe that there are restrictions within that treaty that the Iranians are violating with respect to their nuclear advancements and inspections by the IAEA.

Does your post mean, Alex, that you oppose things such as economic sanctions to apply pressure to a sovereign state to abide by certain guidelines that they have agreed to? If a sovereign state violates a treaty such as the nuclear non-pro treaty, should we or the rest of the world stand idly by?

Since I don't think you'd suddenly feel we should stand by if Iran would just go through the formal process of making a statement that they were withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty I assume you derive authority from somewhere else.

While I would prefer that Iran not develop nuclear weapons (but then I would prefer that Canada not do so either) I think they have every right, as a sovereign nation, to do so if they so choose. Of course, since they are signatory to an agreement to not do so, I think they should officially withdraw from that agreement.

No, I don't support economic sanctions and incentives as a tool of societal reform. But then, for the most par, neither do you; at least when it is our government doing it internally. You're just ok with doing it to other people.

I'm a free trade kind of guy and that has uncomfortable repercussions. I would certainly support the government refusing to do governmental business with Iran and any private efforts to cut off ties to Iran, but no the government should not regulate private trade with nations unless we are actually at war with them. To extend this, if I want to open a doughnut shop in Cuba or North Korea, that is my business, not George Bush's.

And if Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons despite world pressure otherwise, that is their prerogative. I also have no problem with taking a position that the United States will act unilaterally to defend sovereign international borders no matter where they are. So if Iran wants to blow up Israel once they have the bomb they will hopefully understand the potential repercussions.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

No, I don't support economic sanctions and incentives as a tool of societal reform. But then, for the most par, neither do you; at least when it is our government doing it internally. You're just ok with doing it to other people.

If you would show me where I said I support economic sanctions against other countries, I'd appreciate it. I don't support them, because economic sanctions don't hurt the governments of the countries that are sanctioned, they hurt the already poor and starving masses while the dictators stay in power and suffer no ill effect. As the UN oil-for-food program showed, even humanitarian efforts to overcome economic sanctions are corrupted to the benefit of the dictator.

In the little reading I've done on the NPT, and specifically North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty, there is a great deal of international debate over the legality and their withdrawal. I guess I don't know why that should be so hard to determine, but that's another story.

So we come to the conundrum.....Iran wants nukes and has said that Israel does not have the right to exist and that they should be destroyed. One great thing about the cold war was dealing with the Soviets who didn't want to die either. The leadership of Iran? I would figure they don't necessarily fall under that same category and would embrace the chance to be remembered as the destroyers of Israel. So....do we (and the international community) allow Iran to have the chance to give nukes to terrorists or use them on Israel?

I respect sovereignty.

I believe your question earlier about the right of outside influences to dictate what a sovereign country does was misreading my post about my disgust with the Bush administration thinking, in the same way that the Clinton administration thought, that giving Iran nuclear power technology as a bribe to stop the enrichment of uranium will work. In North Korea, Clinton sped up the process of them acquiring nuclear weapons. In Iran, I believe the same thing will take place.

It makes no sense to do it.

[Alex]

Ok, I took the second paragraph of the post I was responding to you as taking a defensive position of a view you felt I opposed. If not then cool.

No, the government shouldn't give nuclear technology to Iran. They should just let Iran buy it from the lowest bidding company able to provide it.

The statement that Israel should not exist is not relevant, in my opinion, to whether they should be allowed to develop a bomb if they so choose.

As for whether Iran can legally withdraw, about the only punishment I can see the United Nations being able to exact on a sovereign nation is either invasion, which wouldn't happen, and expulsion from the United Nations, which also wouldn't happen as it would be an acknowledgement that membership isn't paricularly vital to a countries existence.

[Nephythys]

yeah- let's stand by and let a country that has vowed to exterminate another country build nukes...

Squeeeeee- what fun

[wendybeth]

If Iran is violating a treaty, then they should be dealt with accordingly. However, if a nation that has not signed such a treaty should wish to pursue such a program. I don't see where we have the right to intervene. We just need to be ready to kick their asses should they decide to use them in any way that threatens us or countries we have agreed to helped defend.

[scaeagles]

So does this mean if Iran nukes Isreal you support us nuking Iran? Because I fear that is a real, real possiblity.

[wendybeth]

Is Iran part of the non-proliferation treaty? If so, then no- we have every right to stop them however possible. I'm just saying that we can't possibly police the whole world- if there are rogue nations out there that have not signed on, then we have no choice but to watch them closely and then sic Mossad on them.

We are Israel's allies, and we should defend them. Iran has stated that they want to erase Israel fromthe map, so it's a fair assumption that if they have the means, they will probably try. I'm not clear as to whether they signed any non-prolif treaties in the past- if so, then we need to stop them, and we have the right. None of this handing them technology in the hopes that they will cease their pursuits, because let's face it- they aren't looking for cheap energy alternatives.

However....We simply cannot just barge into another country because they are engaging in behavior that makes us nervous, at least if they are not breaking any treaties, etc. We can make things uncomfortable for them, but this pre-emptive strike business is dangerous and contrary to who and what we, as a nation, are supposed to represent. Tread on us or our friends and your ass is grass. But we are in danger of becoming the neighborhood bully, beating up anyone who we see is a threat, and one day those other kids are gonna grow up and come back at us.