Mike the Usurper wrote:

Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran's nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

This is getting ridiculous. Not that I have any special love for Iran, but from everything identifiable, they are holding up their end of non-proliferation. If we're that damn worried about it, we can set something up for standing watchdogs from IAEA at the Iranian nuclear sites. Of course, that's not the plan, the plan is to blow the crap out of Iran and start a holy war.

I think the rattling over Iran's nuclear ambitions has more to do with their support for Hezbollah and now the Iraqi insurgency... I think you are somewhat falling for their ruse by accepting their argument that they are complying with non-proliferation requirements. The whole purpose of the program is the fuck with the geopolitics of the middle east. This has nothing to do with energy or science.

They are playing a game with the U.S. wherein the best bet (which for some reason Saddam didn't get) is to constitute a totally civilian program, allow all inspections and pass all inspections. Obviously they don't need this program; we don't need a space program - it serves political purposes, not energy purposes, and the west knows this. Iran can build it, and discredit the west by passing inspections, and it does actually get them closer to obtaining weapons capability, but they can argue that it is innocent and they have a right as a nation to do it, and they'll win. The west cannot let up pressure, for if they do they'll create a window through which a bomb could be obtained, but they'll find it increasingly difficult to justify the pressure over time.

Iranian operatives helped coax the United States into war in Iraq, they maintain the insurgency there, they support hezbollah, who drew Israel into a deeply myopic and failed military action recently, which, combined with a policy of domestic assasination politics, has whittled the democratic government of Lebanon to the point where it may fail.

All of this is performed with the implicit support of Russia and China, who are basically engaged in a long term bid to control access to energy resources. There are some people in the US who would like nothing better than to march into Tehran and blast the people responsible for this game to kingdom come. There are many problems with that idea, including what precisely what was announced here: That Russia and China will retaliate and you've got WWIII. Thats been obvious for a long time.

Unfortunately, I think Iran has shrewdly played the west like a fiddle for the past few years and we're loosing at every turn. I don't think playing these military games with them is the path to success. I think we need broader cooperation in economic sanctions against Iran because of their support for terrorism. The people of Iran are well educated and worldly and the people of the world ought to be showing them that they do not tolerate financial support for murderers. Furthermore, I think we need to invest more in international energy research projects.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran's nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

This is getting ridiculous. Not that I have any special love for Iran, but from everything identifiable, they are holding up their end of non-proliferation. If we're that damn worried about it, we can set something up for standing watchdogs from IAEA at the Iranian nuclear sites. Of course, that's not the plan, the plan is to blow the crap out of Iran and start a holy war.

I think the rattling over Iran's nuclear ambitions has more to do with their support for Hezbollah and now the Iraqi insurgency... I think you are somewhat falling for their ruse by accepting their argument that they are complying with non-proliferation requirements. The whole purpose of the program is the fuck with the geopolitics of the middle east. This has nothing to do with energy or science.

They are playing a game with the U.S. wherein the best bet (which for some reason Saddam didn't get) is to constitute a totally civilian program, allow all inspections and pass all inspections. Obviously they don't need this program; we don't need a space program - it serves political purposes, not energy purposes, and the west knows this. Iran can build it, and discredit the west by passing inspections, and it does actually get them closer to obtaining weapons capability, but they can argue that it is innocent and they have a right as a nation to do it, and they'll win. The west cannot let up pressure, for if they do they'll create a window through which a bomb could be obtained, but they'll find it increasingly difficult to justify the pressure over time.

Iranian operatives helped coax the United States into war in Iraq, they maintain the insurgency there, they support hezbollah, who drew Israel into a deeply myopic and failed military action recently, which, combined with a policy of domestic assasination politics, has whittled the democratic government of Lebanon to the point where it may fail.

All of this is performed with the implicit support of Russia and China, who are basically engaged in a long term bid to control access to energy resources. There are some people in the US who would like nothing better than to march into Tehran and blast the people responsible for this game to kingdom come. There are many problems with that idea, including what precisely what was announced here: That Russia and China will retaliate and you've got WWIII. Thats been obvious for a long time.

Unfortunately, I think Iran has shrewdly played the west like a fiddle for the past few years and we're loosing at every turn. I don't think playing these military games with them is the path to success. I think w... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Their "ruse" may be to create a nuclear program by going through all the legitimate steps under NPT, but if they're following the rules under NPT then we need to change NPT.

We can't build that kind of consensus. We can't even convince the Germans to stop selling Mercedes into Iran much less redefine the NPT to include power.

What is fundamentally wrong here goes in multiple directions. We care about NPT when it comes to Iraq, but not India.

Oh, we care about it in regard to India. I've personally worked with sanctions that were put in place against India in reaction to their test. The Bush admin has used those sanctions as a bargaining chip with them recently.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Their "ruse" may be to create a nuclear program by going through all the legitimate steps under NPT, but if they're following the rules under NPT then we need to change NPT.

We can't build that kind of consensus. We can't even convince the Germans to stop selling Mercedes into Iran much less redefine the NPT to include power.

What is fundamentally wrong here goes in multiple directions. We care about NPT when it comes to Iraq, but not India.

Oh, we care about it in regard to India. I've personally worked with sanctions that were put in place against India in reaction to their test. The Bush admin has used those sanctions as a bargaining chip with them recently.

No, Bush had removed the sanctions Clinton put in place before 2001 was out (see here), and then provided them with more goodies on his little tour last year to India and Pakistan.

You're right about rebuilding NPT, though. The current administration couldn't get someone to stop selling Uzi's at grade schools, much less rebuild NPT in a meaningful way (and I don't think that needs to include limiting nuclear power, although I have two specific issues with it called, not in my backyard, and you want to dump what where?). Bush could never get that done, and has no interest in doing so.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
No, Bush had removed the sanctions Clinton put in place before 2001 was out (see here), and then provided them with more goodies on his little tour last year to India and Pakistan.

The reality is far more complicated than you think.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
No, Bush had removed the sanctions Clinton put in place before 2001 was out (see here), and then provided them with more goodies on his little tour last year to India and Pakistan.

The reality is far more complicated than you think.

Toss in the non-signatory status of India, and you have all sorts of complications, but the Clinton measures added after the 1998 test were gone, with the new relationship cited being a redefinition which some other countries are looking at as the US being in violation of NPT for supplying things to India.

No, it's not more complicated. It's a giant game of pick-up-sticks and these are the ones that are really ugly.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The Clinton measures added after the 1998 test were gone.

I just sent you a link to the removal of a "Clinton measure" in 2005. If all of the "Clinton measures" were removed in 2001, how is it possible that some were removed in 2005? It simply is more complicated then you are implying. Furthermore, it is misleading to call them "Clinton measures" as they were required by various international treaties not all of which he personally signed. There were a complex set of sanctions that were removed at various points over a period of years as the result of negotiations by the Indian government and various concessions that they made to the United States. Some of the sanctions are still in place today. Its not like Bush showed up in office and said "woo hoo lets get rid of all the sanctions!" for no other reason than he is "bat shit crazy." A detailed timeline up to 2005 is here with some more current information here.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
The Clinton measures added after the 1998 test were gone.

I just sent you a link to the removal of a "Clinton measure" in 2005. If all of the "Clinton measures" were removed in 2001, how is it possible that some were removed in 2005? It simply is more complicated then you are implying. Furthermore, it is misleading to call them "Clinton measures" as they were required by various international treaties not all of which he personally signed. There were a complex set of sanctions that were removed at various points over a period of years as the result of negotiations by the Indian government and various concessions that they made to the United States. Some of the sanctions are still in place today. Its not like Bush showed up in office and said "woo hoo lets get rid of all the sanctions!" for no other reason than he is "bat shit crazy." A detailed timeline up to 2005 is here with some more current information here.

Tom, those aren't what we're talking about. That's a side issue with NPT, not the sanctions put in place in response to the 1998 test. Under NPT, aid to some locations is going to be flat out barred because of dual-use issues. What your link is about is the reclassifying of some Indian nuclear facilities as non-dual use and thus cleared for assistance. The Russians are taking the exact same approach in their work with the Iranians.

This is apples and oranges. Equating them is like equating the technology restrictions on trade with the Soviet Union and the grain embargo and Olympic boycott Carter did after the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Just because it deals with the same country, they do not exist for the same reasons, which you would be aware of if you'd read the link I provided on this. Or maybe, if you'd read your own link you would have seen this.

September 2001: U.S. President George W. Bush waives U.S. economic sanctions against India and Pakistan originally imposed as a penalty for their nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1998. The New York Times suggests that the United States undertook this measure to reward those nations assisting in the "war on terrorism."

Are there more complications? Sure. Is my assessment of the intent of the Bush Administration overly simplistic? Vaguely, in the sense that I don't get into the motives of people like the folks who put together PNAC but the bottom line is, they want to start another war, this one with Iran, and they're using the nuclear issue as the wedge just as they used WMDs five years ago.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Tom, those aren't what we're talking about. That's a side issue with NPT, not the sanctions put in place in response to the 1998 test.

Mike, those organizations were added to the entity list in 1998 in response to the test. As I said, I personally worked with these sanctions.

Just because it deals with the same country, they do not exist for the same reasons, which you would be aware of if you'd read the link I provided on this. Or maybe, if you'd read your own link you would have seen this.

They do exist for the same reasons. Here is BXA's summary from the rule change made in November of 1998 that added those entities to the entity list:

The Bureau of Export Administration ("BXA") is taking a number of sanctions measures consistent with the President’s directives of May 13th and May 30th. Consistent with the provisions of section 102(b)(2)(G) of the Arms Export Control Act, BXA is revising the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") to codify sanctions against India and Pakistan by setting forth a licensing policy of denial for exports and reexports of items controlled for nuclear nonproliferation and missile technology reasons to India and Pakistan, with limited exceptions. This licensing policy was adopted in practice in existing regulations in June 1998. This rule also contains certain discretionary measures that are being taken. BXA is adding to the Entities List set forth in the EAR certain Indian and Pakistani government, parastatal, and private entities determined to be involved in nuclear or missile activities. In addition, Indian and Pakistani military entities are added to the Entity List in order to supplement the sanctions. BXA is adopting a licensing policy of a presumption of denial with respect to items specifically listed on the Commerce Control List to listed Indian and Pakistani military entities, with limited exceptions.

This rule will increase the number of license applications submitted for India and Pakistan. This rule is effective November 19, 1998. Comments on this rule must be received on or before January 19, 1999.

...

September 2001: U.S. President George W. Bush waives U.S. economic sanctions against India and Pakistan originally imposed as a penalty for their nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1998. The New York Times suggests that the United States undertook this measure to reward those nations assisting in the "war on terrorism."

Yes, it does say that. Yes, that is an oversimplification.

Are there more complications? Sure. Is my assessment of the intent of the Bush Administration overly simplistic? Vaguely, in the sense that I don't get into the motives of people like the folks who put together PNAC.

What you said was "We c... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]