The Group of Eight apparently made little progress in their discussions with the mullahs about ending the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
European diplomats, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, called the meeting “useful,” but added neither side changed its view of the issue.
The US is angling to put this in front of the Security Council, a potential embarrassment to some of the Euros. Who knows what’s really going on behind the scenes? But shaking my toy 8-Ball, I can almost guarantee the words “Iranian Nukes” are the first message floating to the top for 2005.
MEANWHILE: The Euros are bringing a little of that old North Korean Strategy to the Iranian front, playing the “inducement” game. That should work about as well with Khamenei & Co as it does with that new screen star Kim Jong Il.
This thought crossed my mind a couple of days ago:
Now that we’re finding out what duplicitous little curs our “historical allies” and that includes Britain every now and then are, I’m really starting to wonder if all these jaw-jaw failures they’ve tried over the years were really because of incompetence and the belief that talking and trusting will work, or it was done w/one eye as to keeping us occupied and spending our money and blood while they went their merry way.
The Iranian nuclear issue is only one part of the threat that the Islamic Republic presents to not only the Iranian people, but the region and the entire world.
Inhibiting Iran from developing nuclear weapons will not solve the greater threat: support of terrorism.
Afterall, it was not nuclear weapons that knocked down our twin towers…
Sandy P,
I the case of Britain it is a little more complex.Tony Blair leads a government and a party which is absolutely opposed to the war in Iraq.His party, the Labour Party, believes that Blair bamboozled them into supporting that war.At the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Geordon Brown, regards the Prime Ministers job his by rights stemmming from an agreement that he and Blair made in the Granita restaurant prior to 1997,Blair would at some point stand down.
Blair himself wishes full British integration into the European Union,a project that is opposed by a majority of the British people.A referendum on the EU Constitution has been promised but Blair hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of getting a Yes vote.
So you have a leader of a party without support for two basic planks of his policies and a pretender to the throne who holds the purse strings.
The only way for Blair to convince the EU that he is a true believer, is for him to support every half arsed innitiative it comes up with.
Blair is a one war premier and there isn’t a ghost of a chance of getting Iran on the table.
“Duplicitous little curs” not us, just stuck in the cleft stick of history,Iran is just a war to far.
“Useful”–that’s diplomacy-speak for “we couldn’t budge ‘em an effin’ inch”.
That should work about as well with Khamenei & Co and it does with that new screen star Kim Jong Il.
It’s inevitable!
Peter, they’ve also been courting the black turbans for deals.
There was an open letter on the Iranian Students for Democracy site – I can’t remember the exact title between June 02 and the end of 03 saying that when the current regime finally goes, they will remember Britain’s (and others) financial ties and not in a good way.
For some odd reason I remember June.
I appreciate Tony’s between a rock and a hard place. He’s next door, but he’s still funding one of our next stops.
I can’t be the only person assuming that on the day after the US election Israel is going to bomb the crap out of Bushehr and whatever other Iranian nuclear facilities they have the planes and bombs to hit. I don’t think we’ll have to worry about Iranian nukes for too much longer.
Sorry, but inducement was working until Bush dropped the ball. N. Korea would threaten to develop nuclear arms, we and the Europeans would buy them off with food,aid, and energy, and a few years later they’d make noises and start to break the agreement.
I’d rather buy N. Korea off and watch them like a hawk rather than have them actually have nuclear arms, which is what Bush allowed on his watch.
Its not like we can attack N. Korea without putting us and a bunch of allies at huge risk. Besides, if anyone is going to sell nukes to terrorists, its Kim Jong Il.
Left in Texas,
How did Bush drop the ball? All of this buying the N. Koreans off with food and aid began in the Clinton years.
You mention the risks of attacking N. Korea. I suppose you were against SDI and anti-ballistic defense intiatives.
The fragmenting of the world order began in Africa at the end of European Colonialism. It accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world is a more dangerous place not because of George Bush. In fact, his willingness to pick up Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick was more than necessary.
The conflict with Islamic radicals and despots like Kim Jong Il will not be finished anytime soon. I just hope it doesn’t take 100 years.
You are quick to criticize. What is your solution?
So we bribe Kim Jong Il and then every tin pot dictator and Third World country in the world comes looking for a handout. Then, if we refuse to pay, they’ll give the crazies nuclear weapons. How secure do you think many of these new weapons programs would be? Los Alamos isn’t even secure and that’s OUR program. “Inducements” provide an incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Developing weapons is not something that should pay. You can try to pin the blame on Bush all you want, but Clinton administration appeasement is the culprit on this one.
Sandy P
An open letter in 2002 and an ally that is getting its arse shot at in Basra is a duplicitous little cur? A sense of proportion wouldn’t go amiss.
Are there currently sanctions against Iran,have you declared war yet? Whilst the Mullahs may be a revolting crew they are on a par with the Chinese regime which the US does deals with.Everybody trades it is a fact of life and oil is what makes the world go round.Plunging Europe into an economic dark age would damage the enormous amount of trade between Europe and the US,further the growing economies in the far East depend on reliable sources of oil,the US economy also depends in turn on them.
Another problem is reforming the regime in Iran without destroying its economy.
Iraq was a basket case and the only place to go was up,Iran may be a corrupt tyranny in desparate need of political reform,but unless you can ensure an alternative oil supply the lights all over the world are going to start going out.
Peter, we are hardwired not to trust our own government, and I trust the others even less.
Bill Gertz’ book on our allies and their business dealings will be an interesting read.
The English version of Die Welt TV had a segment on why the Iranians say they need nuke power. Seems they don’t have enough oil to provide for their citizens’ future needs, they’re trying to diversify. We’re all tainted here, but this entire situation is really beginning to get my goat. Ah, well, a good clearing of the air every 50-odd years is probably healthy. And with this wonderful invention, we can. I do think, tho, some on your side of the pond might not be too happy that it’s coming back at them. I really don’t think they’re used to it. And we must thank our other merry Anglo cousin, Tim Blair, who really started the ball rolling.
You do understand Peter, it’s not you, it’s your government. And I say that w/dancing eyes and a big smile on my face. It might not come across well, but I am teasing you. Some others, tho, if I had the opportunity….
—
Left in TX – China’s moved 30K troops to the NorK border and the NorKs have also moved their elite troops to stop mass escape.
According to an article at Rantburg, seems there might be dissent in the upper ranks.
It seems the NorKs also built fences to keep their people in. There was some discussion on Rantburg because they got the impression the fence was 6 feet high.
At the time of division, N & S were about the same height and weight. After 50 years of Dear Leader and son and their vision of utopia and self-sufficiency, their growth might be stunted, but eating grass and tree bark – and possibly newly dead bodies – might do that to you.
Sandy P
There is also the possibility that what we are seeing is good cop bad cop,carrot and stick routine,after all it is no use Europe threatening Iran and the US being nice to it.May as well stick to type casting.What the world doesn’t need is another failed state with nuclear weapons and oil riches,so whatever works.
North Korea,I didn’t know they got that much protein.
BTW,I can’t stick this government,didn’t trust it before it was elected,pity we can’t get Maggie back.I suppose we could let the old girl go and handbag the Mullahs
To be successful in negotiation, each side must have something that the other side wants, and be willing to give up something in exchange.
In the mullah’s eyes, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Sanctions? Think Iraq, think Cuba. Iran must face the obliteration of their nuke programs before they have anything to concede. The mullahs main problem is keeping their own population under control, and attempting to increase their clout in the Middle East and the world. They are committed to the destruction of Israel and they see the nukes as guarantor of their blackmail.
Kerry’s plan is a replication of Clinton/Carter’s failed solution in North Korea. The tinpots of the world know that nukes guarantee them clout that is unattainable in any other way. Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick and a willingness to use it is the only answer to this negotiation.
To be successful in negotiation, each side must have something that the other side wants, and be willing to give up something in exchange.
In the mullah’s eyes, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Sanctions? Think Iraq, think Cuba. Iran must face the obliteration of their nuke programs before they have anything to concede. The mullahs main problem is keeping their own population under control, and attempting to increase their clout in the Middle East and the world. They are committed to the destruction of Israel and they see the nukes as guarantor of their blackmail.
Kerry’s plan is a replication of Clinton/Carter’s failed solution in North Korea. The tinpots of the world know that nukes guarantee them clout that is unattainable in any other way. Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick and a willingness to use it is the only answer to this negotiation.
Sandy
Calling the Brit’s “duplicitous little curs” has to be one of the most stupid remarks I’ve ever seen posted here. And I’ve seen all John Clayton’s posts.
My apologies to any British readers, and my thanks for your support.
While I do not think “duplicitous” applies England and her government, I do find the word extremely useful in current circumstances.
Every time I see Kerry described in print as “nuanced” I mentally substitute “duplicitous”.
My level of anger at both the stupidity of the writer and the butchery of the language diminishes enormously, and my day becomes much brighter.
Use this tool to your benefit.
Actually, flenser, I was thinking of the other 2, then that letter popped into my head. And for some reason, Jack Straw. But then there’s jettin’ George Galloway….
and the BBC. For a few decades.
——
As to good cop/bad cop, at some point in time it would be a refreshing change of pace that we’re not the last resort.
Does it seem to anyone else we’re stuck in a time loop? Cos I certainly feel I’ve been here before. Sometimes I wish I didn’t have such a good memory.
Well, I knew the mullahs were cracking down on the net, but I thought the Movement for Iranian Students was based in the US. The domain is for sale.
And Peter, I still remember your little jaunt to Argentina.
Wasn’t there a shirt w/Dame Maggie and “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina” for sale at that time?
—
I think I’m moving on from weasels/monkeys and upgrading to duplicitous.
Left in Texas:
North Korea is the most closed society in the world. You can’t “watch them like a hawk” when they won’t let meaningfull inspections into their country.The dear leader would rather have millions of his countrymen die rather then let UN or any international team of inspectors into his country. The Albright plan was built on the need to have access to North Korea to verify compliance.He never has nor never will allow that to happen. He will negotiate and frustrate any verification team that would be required to make the Albright NK policy redux that Kerry- Edwards have planned for that miserable little country succesful. Or after years of haggling and billions of dollars given to one of the most repressive governments in the world the midget devil will copy the Mullahs and tell whatever international inspection that Kerry and the UN has cobbled together to buzz off and Kerry will let the rhetorical thunder reign down while he tucks his tail between his tail between legs and does nothing because he can’t pass the international test for action. Albright I failed! Why do you want to try it all over again. The Dear Leader is laughing his ass off over the prospect of another set of naive Democrats planning to give this corrupt fiend more money.
There is no war on terror, global or otherwise. It’s linguistically impossible, for one thing. And we aren’t making war on terrorists. We’re barely finding them anymore, let alone waging war on them.
The problem with the Bush Administration, and the reason that many thinking Republicans (not a complete oxymoron- yet) have left the Bush camp, is that he has diverted most of our military and much of our intelligence resources to a relatively competent and efficient invasion and a spectacularly incompetent and poorly planned (if at all) occupation of Iraq. By doing so, he has effectively ignored the only real threat to America’s physical security from terrorist acts- nuclear proliferation via Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else.
I’ve seen a lot of criticism of Kerry here- most of it both accurate and deserved as it relates to his record from 2001 to the present- but I’ve seen no criticism of the Bush Administration for completely punting the problems of nuclear arms in North Korea and Iran since 2001.
What is Bush’s fallback plan if hexagonal (as opposed to bilateral) talks with North Korea don’t pan out? Answer: none. And the last I heard, he’s stripping Army strength from the DMZ in Korea to make up shortfalls in Iraq. Exactly what message is that sending to North Korea?
As for Iran, its government has obviously NOT been cowed by Bush’s braggadocio (remember when he was going to get Osama “dead or alive?” remember “bring it on?” Well, they brought it on. And Osama’s still out there somewhere. For those who think that Bush would have been smart enough to kill him quietly and keep it a secret, you have to realize that if a dead or alive Osama isn’t produced by November 2nd by the Bush brain trust, yet can bet your bippy that he wasn’t killed by us and we don’t know where he is. Or do you really think that Bush would risk electoral defeat just to gain an edge in the efforts to track down the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks?
And for those wishful thinkers in the Bush Administration who think that fostering freedom or democracy in Iraq will somehow threaten or positively influence Iran- were there any effects in Iran when Russia became (relatively speaking) a democracy. Does Iran have any problems with a Turkish democracy? Or an Afghan democracy? On my world map, that pretty much covers the major countries in Iran’s neighborhood or on its borders.
In the long run, we will accomplish far more by normalizing relations with Iran and allowing the natural evolution already taking place there (the pendulum is slowing swinging back in the direction of pre 1978 culture). Regardless of the immediate outcome of the Europeans’ negotiations with Iran, it would be a large mistake on our part to treat Iran as simplistically as Bush did with his “Axis of Evil” speech. Linking Iran and Iraq, which had relatively recently fought a bitter war killing hundreds of thousands or milions, with mustard gas used by Iraq, was simply showing how uninformed Bush is or how duplicitous he is- take your pick.
Normalizing relations with Iran will be great. We buy oil, sell them stuff, and there’s no problem until one of their nuclear weapons goes off in Washington, DC after being passed through multiple parties so we don’t know where it came from.
The big nightmare in the world is the possession of WMDs by a large number of countries. It makes anonymous attacks aggainst us possible and for some countries, profitable towards their goals.
Had Saddam still reigned, he would have arranged this himself, given his deep need for revenge and our failure to adequately deal with him. He had a WMD program sitting on the shelf, ready to be triggered as soon as the inspectors were thrown out, which would have happened relatively soon. He had four illegal long range missile programs with, not doubt, intended warheads of flowers. He maintained reference stocks of deadly biological agents. He had dual use facilities capable of quickly producing organophosphate chemical agents, and large quantities of weaponized anthrax (read up on his bacillus thuringensis pesticide plant).
He only accepted the inspectors when we started building a large (and unsustainable over time) invasion force on his border. We couldn’t have left it there long, so the inspectors wouldn’t have been their long either. There was no choice but to liberate Iraq and get it out of the terrorism business.
David Kay, on his return, said that Iraq had been MORE dangerous than we thought pre-war, even though it didn’t have stocks of WMDs. Even so, we have found enough (50s of shells) nerve agent to kill tens of thousands of people, properly deployed in the ventilation systems of large buildings.
Bush has the problem that he can’t mobilize the political support to take care of all the international tasks that need to be done. There are too many people who think the ostrich approach and kissing the rear’s of Europeans will solve our problem – people who desperately want to believe that 9-11 was an isolated event and they don’t have to worry about equivalent attacks (they don’t, the next have to be bigger or Al Qaeda loses its streed cred). The people who imagine (because they cannot emotionally handle the reality) that the problem could be easily reduced to just a nuisance, and the people who hated Bush for other reason greatly reduced his options. Otherwise he might have had more freedom of action, and the war would be further along.
Because Kerry seems to think like you do, the thought of him getting elected is horrifying.
Normalizing relations with the largest backer of terrorism, one of the most likely proliferators in the Middle East (now that we removed that threat in Iraq and Libya) does absolutely nothing about any problem I am aware of.
You show your own lack of understanding of the situation by not understanding the “Axis of Evil.” It is real and he chose the right countries for the most part. Countries run by evil people with intentions to proliferate whatever they can sell, from ICBMs to nuclear weapons to biological weapons.
The fact that you also have no understanding of the strategic value of the Iraq occupation and democratization is not surprising. It fits with the rest of the left’s attempt to take a world war and pretend it’s a bunch of little pieces.
Don’t you realize that Iran is much more vulnerable with 150,000 US troops on its western border? They sure know it. It means we may be able to support a rebellion by the people of Iran, who detest the government and admire the United States by a huge margin. It also demonstrates our resolve, unless appeaser Kerry gets in office and once again contributes to American spinelessness.
As for the “natural evolution” in Iran – it is continued Islamic Fascism, with ever increasing power in nuclear weapons, and true ICBM’s within a few years. It may also include a nuclear war with Israel, if they don’t have their heads in the sand and their asses in the air like you do.
As for simplicity, that’s just the old democrat canard, used twice by you in that one post, that republicans are dumb. Sometimes clear thinking beats the hell our of pondering forever.
The Axis of Evil was a useful formmulation. War on Terror is a tough name, I just use World War IV. You appear not to think about the potential end points of failing to stamp out this strain of Islamic politco-religous movement. And negotiations with Europeans is not going to cut it.
Regarding North Korea, the reason for the 6-way talks was to put on pressure from most interested parties, and not pay blackmail.
We already know that buying off North Korea doesn’t work. Clinton tried it and NK simply kept on making nukes, just using different facilities than the ones they agreed to shut down. They have 16000 underground facilities. Which ones have which capabilities or storage? North Korea is a very different situation than either Iraq or Iran.
In fact, unlike the Democrats who attack Bush for not using the same tactic on all the bad guys, Bush has a nuanced strategy – treating each situation according to its own merits.
For example, the sort of operation we mounted in Iraq would have led to tens of millions of deaths in Korea (Seoul especially) and Japan. It would have led to a major confrontation between the US and China, including possibly direct war. It is Bush’s approach to pressure North Korea from those who stand to lose the most. It is possible that China views their potential losses differently than we do. That’s why we hinted to them that we would allow Taiwan and Japan to become nuclear powers if China continues to be unhelpful.
China is a major player in the war on terror – it’s on both sides, mostly supporting weapons proliferation to hostile countries. But it has many other complex issues (like its cultural imperative to absorb Taiwan ) China is a country that might gain a lot from a terrorist use of a nuclear weapon in the United States.
How about if we invaded Iran? That would have stopped the threat there, although it is a much harder target than Iraq, especially if Saddam was still in power in Iraq. But Iranians I know say it would have converted anti-regime people to nationalists. In fact, it is likely that Iran is making sure we all know where *some* of his facilities are so we or Israel will attack them. This would solve for a while their biggest problem – domestic unrest.
Talking to Iran is like talking to North Korea. A joke. Those who suggest it don’t understand the place of power and the willingness to use it in a war or diplomacy.
In this situation, countries really only have two choices: join us in the antiproliferation effort (as Libya did rapidly after Saddam was pulled from the septic tank), or quickly build up some sort of deterrent against us.
Iran has one deterrent – its ability to launch many terrorist attacks in the US with Hezbollah, who are already here. Those attacks could use biological weapons (easy to do for certain agents – Cuba has lots of them).
North Korea has several: the ability to kill huge numbers of South Koreans, especially in Seoul, even with mere conventional weapons; killing many Japanese; activating its own agents in the US for terror or sabotage attacks – most likely using biological agents (they and France are the two countries that almost certainly maintain illegal smallpox stockcs).
Are you starting to understand why the Bush administration is playing a very complex game? The stakes are enormous. Right now, if we went to war with China, we could lose a bunch of cities. How would you like Iran to be in the same position as China, except willing to accept those losses (see Rafsanjani’s comments, Dec 2002).
We are at war and Democrats are actively encouraging the enemy by sowing confusion, uncertainty, promises that they would give in to the enemies (not couched that way, of course). They are attacking with lies during wartime. They are despicable.
They also managed to simultaneously run the most liberal Senator in Congress, and a literal traitor (while in the Navy in 1970 and 1971) as their presidential candidate. On top of that, their candidate has a pathetic voting record, no significant legislation to his name, a record of consorting with enemies (North Vietnames and Nicaraguan communists), and a reputation (well placed) of being a lying opportunist. The choice of this candidate has resulted (so far) in a military that is 3 to 1 against him. What do you think will happen to that military if he takes over? There are already many soldiers holding up their re-enlistment based on the outcome of the election.
BTW, one ally he would have would be the tyranny of Vietnam. You know, that government that absolutel controlled all the “sources” ABC used when trying to substantiate Kerry’s silver star event, and used by the Detroit Blade on the Tiger Force investigations (talk about propaganda in place of journalism – just pick witnesses who are agents – willing or otherwise – for the enemy).
But the Vietnamese like Kerry. They have a picture of him hanging in the hall to honor foreigners who helpted them defeat America in their War Remnant’s Museum in SaigonHo Chi Minh City. THey used his characterization of Amerifcan routine use of atrocities (one of his many lies) in a propaganda attack on the US in June of this year. He’s a great guy for those dictators. Personally, I wish he had been more interested in America’s interest in 1970-1971, and less interested in spreading Vietnamese propaganda and spreading vicious slanders against Vietnam Veterans (incuding yours truly).
You noted that Bush isn’t criticized that much. He is criticized a lot here. Many of the regular commenters dislike just about everything about him and/or his politics except his leadership and determination in this exceedingly dangerous war. But not in every thread, because there’s a lot more going on, and there are plenty of moonbat caves on the net full of the chittering of Bush haters.
The problem with the Bush Administration, and the reason that many thinking Republicans (not a complete oxymoron- yet) have left the Bush camp, is that he has diverted most of our military and much of our intelligence resources to a relatively competent and efficient invasion and a spectacularly incompetent and poorly planned (if at all) occupation of Iraq. By doing so, he has effectively ignored the only real threat to America’s physical security from terrorist acts- nuclear proliferation via Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else.
John, there are several of us on here professionally concerned with intelligence, and who keep up with what the Government spends money on. Jerry is a professional intel officer, I’m a computer security researcher on contract to the Navy, and several others I know have similar backgrounds. (I’ll leave it to them to say who they are because I’m not positive I know who I’ve heard it from openly or more privately.)
I don’t think any of us wouldn’t love to see more money spent on intelligence, but I can say with great confidence and some authority that you are poorly informed and misinformed if you believe this. I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt, and not suggest that you’re actively and knowingly duplicitous.
It just ain’t true.
I’ve been a proud voter for democratic candidates in the past. But time tends to open one’s eyes.
Bill Clinton was an enabler to North Korea’s Kim. So North Korea enriched uranium under Clinton’s “watchful eye”, and worked with Pakistani and Chinese scientists to perfect its weapons designs.
John Kerry adopts the same enabling style as Clinton, except Kerry will enable Iran, North Korea, and the Sunni terrorists, all at the same time.
I have long argued that Iraq is the first domino to fall. Libya was the second, and the others will eventually fall one by one. This could not happen unless we got rid of Saddam Hussein. We are pressuring the Iranian mullahs by being next door to them. A democratic Iraq will force them to relinquish power. John Kerry is instinctively an appeaser. Such a man must not become our commander in chief.
Barrett,
Left in Texas is right. Bush should have continued to buy off the N. Koreans, because its a darn sight better than them having nuclear weapons. Now that they do, we have whatever talks we need to get Kim to give them up and stop producing new ones. I’m agnostic over whether Bush’s multilateral talks are better, but he already screwed the pooch.
Kevin P.,
I was following you until the midget mullah and the Dear Leader section. Bush found out that Kim was breaking the agreement through satellite photos and intelligence sources. We could have continued doing that.
Legion,
Kim Jong Il stopped enriching uranium under Clinton because of the “inducements” and restarted when inducements lapsed under Bush.
“Left in Texas is right. Bush should have continued to buy off the N. Koreans, because its a darn sight better than them having nuclear weapons. Now that they do, we have whatever talks we need to get Kim to give them up and stop producing new ones. I’m agnostic over whether Bush’s multilateral talks are better, but he already screwed the pooch”
“Kim Jong Il stopped enriching uranium under Clinton because of the “inducements” and restarted when inducements lapsed under Bush.”
He stopped using his reactors to enrich uranium under Clinton, but simply switched to his parallel program (not sure if it is centrifuges or something else). The material for his current three or so bombs was produced under Clinton. Was Bush supposed to keep paying the bribes, knowing that the NK’s were still building weapons under their parallel program? That’s just retanrded – a perfect Democrat position.
Also, look at what the other interested parties say – Japan prefers the Bush approach (viewing it as the least bad option) and has already denounced Kerry’s promise of open-wallet bilateral talks.
Kerry is an empty-headed fool with only two answers – do the opposite of what Bush did (Iraq, North Korea etc) or do exactly what Bush did but spend twice as much money (AIDS, Education). Oh yeah, and he would have supported the PATRIOT Act, he just would have appointed Janet Reno as AG so that only white religious etremists and small Cuban children were brutalized.
flenser, you don’t have to apologize for me. I’m looking at this from a different angle and I hope I can explain it (and typekey doesn’t eat it).
I am an Anglophile. While my ties are tenuous after almost 400 years of being in America, she is Mother and I will support protecting her to the end.
While the south of France is beautiful, I am in no way, shape or form a Francophile. If in the course of negotiations Tony could de-nuke them, not just get rid of that floating rustbucket of nuclear radiation, I’d sleep a little easier.
I was raised with the idea — however odd to you and others reading this — that when the end came, there would be 5 kings – the king of hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades, and the king of England.
I think Tony doesn’t have England’s best interests at heart. Since I surf around using this invention of Al Gore’s and have chosen not to spend all my time at recipies.com and other such fun sites, I have read some things which give me pause.
I’m keeping a wary eye on EUtopia, cos I don’t think it’s going to work and will make our job even more difficult. We can’t have the continent collapse economically, and while they’re talking a good game, making overtures to the American way of doing things with a European flavor, of course, it’s shaky.
My 4 main sources of info are Samizdata, EU Referendum, EURSOC and Rantburg. I actually waded into the bane of forests, the EU document itself, to discuss secession.
Some of the info I base this on is admittedly 2 years old. I’m not exactly wonkish enough to want to learn about the EU Fisheries Agreement – seriously, after reading a posting on that deal and how it affected Scotland at freedomandwhisky.com, my red flag went up.
I understand why the closer ties to the continent. I understand one currency and coordinating (not the original word I had) trade and other economic ties.
But Tony went further. Britain does have a constitution, unfortunately for them, it’s not written. So, some of what made Britain Britain for centuries is gone. And a piece of us is gone, too.
And for what?
They have a 1000 years of bloody history among them. France tried to pull a fast one in the defense portion of the treaty, but the Brit negotiator was one smart cookie. A draft showed up in the wee hours in French, nothing to worry about, mon cherie. But she waited for the English translation. All references to NATO were missing.
While we don’t have a chair at the EU negotiations, we are there and I don’t mind whatsoever Tony using US to torque the frogs and others.
To Roger’s British readers, I can understand why some might not like US because we took your birthright away. We never intended it, I personally don’t want it, but that’s the way it is. I can also appreciate that some might be annoyed w/our being late a couple of times last century, but — we’re also told to mind our own business.
I also want to point out that I never even considered the birthright aspect until I was a regular visitor to The Independent’s now-defunct chatroom. And let me tell you, I felt the love. One Brit told another why his father never liked US.I don’t know whether Roger’s foreign readers realize it or not, but we have a quirk (no jokes) that I don’t think any other country has.
When most are inside America and are asked, Where are you from? The answer is a foreign country, even if they’ve never been and have been here 100 or more years. But outside the country and it’s safe, America.
Maybe the Brits are going thru something like that. Location, trade and history makes you part of the continent, but history, background, vision, language, law and belief make us part of yours. At least between us we’ve shed less blood than you and your neighbors.
I know it’s going to be up to the Anglosphere to defeat islamofascism. And no matter what rot the BBC’s spreading, at some point in time, it’s going to get very, very nasty.
Tony’s jumping into the EU w/both feet, while polls show Brits are becoming hesistant. We just won’t know for awhile if Tony’s belief is a bug or a feature. If it’s a bug, it’s going to be one nasty bug. I don’t want to lose what makes you YOU or subsume it to the french. They’re doing by agreement what couldn’t be done for 1000 years. Your lucky Tony allowed you to have a say.
Sorry for the length, Roger.
JOHN MOORE: “You show your own lack of understanding of the situation by not understanding the “Axis of Evil.” It is real and he chose the right countries for the most part. Countries run by evil people with intentions to proliferate whatever they can sell, from ICBMs to nuclear weapons to biological weapons.
The fact that you also have no understanding of the strategic value of the Iraq occupation and democratization is not surprising. It fits with the rest of the left’s attempt to take a world war and pretend it’s a bunch of little pieces.”
_____________
Mr. Moore: Iran and Iraq weren’t an axis. That word comes to us via WWII from Japan and Germany, when you could draw a straight line through the earth connecting the countries and it would come close to being an axis (denoting a connection through the center point). In their context, it meant active military and diplomataic cooperation against common enemies, including the U.S. and U.K. (but not the U.S.S.R. until after Germany fell). No such condition existed between Iraq and Iran, which fought the longest, bloodiest, and costliest war in the modern history of the Middle East, from 1981 through 1988.
And how is having 150,000 troops in Iraq any more value than having them in another country bordering Iran- Kuwait- where they were since 1991? Or in Turkey, which also borders Iran.
As for your contention that we are in a world war- don’t you think that someone would have noticed? Drive around the U.S. and look for any sign that we are in a war, global or otherwise, against terror (an impossibility unless we have marshalled legions of psychiatrists and psychologists) or terrorists. Name a battle against terrorists anywhere since early 2002. Are we capturing or killing one or two here or there? Maybe. Pakistan got one, so did the U.K. and so did Germany. That sounds more like an Interpol action than a war.
Would some terrorists hit us with a nuke if they could get their hands on one? Probably so. Has President Bush been actively attempting to support efforts to obtain nuclear materials from the remnants of the U.S.S.R.? No. Has he made it a priority to protect power plants in the U.S., chemical plants, our ports, our borders, or likely terrorist targets? No. Three years after 9-11, Mr. Bush has made his attack on gay marriage a higher priority than scanning cargo on commercial airliners, safeguarding airliners from Stinger attacks, or inspecting cargo on unloading ships. He spent more time this year railing against “activist judges” who defined marriage in their states than on any of the foregoing.
Cynodon:
North Korea didn’t stop production, they just changed locations and methods. As we found out in Iraq spying from the air has it’s limitations. And you don’t face the main point. North Korea played us for a fool and has no intention of stopping their nuclear production.
I don’t understand the logic of continuing a diplomatic strategy that says to North Korea that no matter how often you break agreements we will continue to go back to the table and offer you money to stop something that you have no intention of stopping. “Oh, but we caught him this time” So what! What is the use of detection when their is no punishment to getting caught.There might have been some logic in trying the Albright gambit the first time but to repeat the same process after the Dear Leader has given you the diplomatic middle finger is insane. It would be like Monica deciding to give Bill another try.