About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 15, 2006 9:47am by David Farrar

More on Iran

Whale Oil has helpfully posted Google Earth maps of Iran

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment42

Uncategorised
Middle East

Comments (42)

Login to comment or vote

Murray

We should get wolves to host a summit on why the rabbits are the real threat.

Not really sure the IDF really needs the help, they seem to have managed quite well without any support for over 60 years so far.
0 0
Report
January 15, 2006 10:39am
tim barclay

Not pratcical to eliminate Israel. More like any attempt down that path will result in Israel turning Iran into glass.
0 0
Report
January 15, 2006 1:13pm
Ben Wilson

Not very likely either, unless the West just keeps pushing. But I suspect we’ll all be backing off when they do get nukes, something we’re now almost powerless to stop. But they’ll never nuke Israel because they don’t want a nuclear war, and the only safety against it in this mad, mad world is Mutual Assured Destruction.

I notice all the rhetoric against North Korea has died down ever since they openly proclaimed they had nukes. Funny, that. They were public enemy number one only 5 years ago.
0 0
Report
January 15, 2006 10:29pm
neil morrison

“unless the West just keeps pushing”. You might want to brush up on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Ben.

That treaty sets out the basis for the supply of nuclear technology for peaceful means (power, medicine etc), from the nuclear powers to other countries with the condition that they do not develop nuclear weapons. It’s an exchange, not the bullying that you think the evil West is doing.

But Iran and North Korea have reneged on the deal. It’s interesting that you like to portray these dictatorships as victims.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 7:52am
Lance

Ben
You need to understand the president of Iran believes the Islamic messiah will prevent any harm coming to Iran if hey nuke Israel.
He’s really that far gone.
At least the USA and USSR knew the shit storm that would happen was real and would hurt them.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 8:30am
maksimovich

Ben the North Korea problem is already resolved.Electricity is to be supplied from the south.

In addition a gas pipeline is to be constructed from Russia that will supply all of N Korea and with additional capacity going to the south.

The funding is from SK.

The Iran issue is to go to the security council and if sanctions are implaced the technology transfer from Russia and China will cease.The funding from Switzerland for the Reactor will also cease.

The US and Israel are constrained from military intervention due to the serious economic situation of the US.They will run out od money in March!.

America’s foreign debt currently standing at $8,184 trillion will hit the debt ceiling as early as February-March 2006

The United States is heading to financial crisis at top speed. That is correct, America will default on its foreign debt sooner or later if the actual trends remain unchanged. Consequently, the whole dollar-based world (including savings in U.S. currency) may crumble.

Several factors will have an extremely detrimental effect on the dollar, according to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John Snow who forwarded a letter full of ominous predictions to 21 members of U.S. Congress. The letter was made public over the New Year.

In his letter, Snow predicts a crisis in February this year. Citing U.S. government forecasts, Snow believes that America’s foreign debt currently standing at $8,184 trillion will hit the debt ceiling as early as February-March 2006.

“We will run out of funds for financing the government operations by mid-March at the latest even if the U.S. Department of the Treasury takes all possible legal measures to keep the foreign debt ceiling from going up,” says Snow. Under his scenario, the government will have to take “emergency measures” to pay the bills. The measures mostly boil down to cutting the spending in all areas from social sector to national security.

If congress does not act the US will be in technical default.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 9:00am
Ben Wilson

Neil, the NNPT explicitly allows for the development of nuclear technology for peaceful means. It explicitly denies states the right to continue nuclear arms development. Unless it can be actually proved that Iran is developing nuclear arms technology, they are not in violation. The US has made no secret that they are expanding their nuclear weapons technology, trying to make smaller bombs and means to deploy missiles from outer space.

Therefore technically Iran has not violated this treaty, but the US has.

The pressure on Iran is all around SPECULATION that they are working on a nuclear arms program, due to the fact they are already energy rich. This is plausible but it is not proof. They have passed many weapons inspections, but if they are not allowed to continue with peaceful nuclear technology development anyway because everyone is scared of them and talking about sanctions and invasions, then they will withdraw from the NNPT and do it anyway. This appears to be what is happening.

Lance, do you know the guy personally? Or are you basing all of your statements about his sanity on his warlike posturing? If so, you must also think Bush and Blair are insane. You may have a point – people can be driven insane by power. But so far noone but the US has taken it so far as to actually drop a nuclear bomb on a city, and that was in an all-out war in which millions had already died. I see no reason to think Iran will be any different to all the other leaders, drunk with power, who have successfully pursued nuclear weaponry but never used them, out of fear of nuclear retaliation.

Maksimovich, North Korea still openly claims to have developed nuclear weapons in defiance of the US, the world, the NNPT. The fact that this is a credible threat is the reason all the interest has cooled off, and everyone’s now being conciliatory towards them.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 11:11am
maksimovich

Ben The disestablishment of NK nuclear complex is to commenced in parallel with the gas energy projects.Russia is to remove the Reactor rods firstly and replace with low grade uranium.

As an intersting aside the NK president is reported as missing in China at present.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 11:21am
neil morrison

Ben, your view that once NK got nuclear weapons then suddenly everyone got all concilliatory is just not true.

Bush has quite often been criticised for being far too belligerent towards NK.

What has happened is that following the break-down of the agreement with NK Clinton brokered, Bush has held a very hard line on NK at the same time is invloving NK’s neighbours in the negotiation process. The US line has not changed – stop nulcear weapons development and in return you will get help with energy supply and peaceful nuclear development. This seems to be working at the moment which is why there is less rhetoric.

You’ve missed my point abut the NNPT – it’s an agreement that provides for the (cheap) transfer of nuclear technology to countries as long as they don’t develop nulcear weapson. It’s an agreement where both sides get something, its not Western bullying.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 11:36am
Ben Wilson

Neil, you’re trying to tell me that NK doesnt claim to have nukes? Is that what you mean by ‘stopping weapons development? To have already succeeded in making them? No wonder everyone is so confused.

You missed my point about Western bullying which had nothing to do with the NNPT, which the nuclear superpowers powers have consistently laughed off. The bullying is entirely outside of the jurisdiction of that treaty, which is no doubt a source of bitterness in Iran. They are held up as being in violation of an agreement that they are not in violation of, by countries which are in violation of it. And they are threatened, seriously threatened, by these superpowers, the US in particular, so they actually have every reason to seek nukes.

Then they might get concilliatory offers of help like NK, rather than constant threats for doing what many others have already done, particularly the threateners.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 11:50am
neil morrison

Ben, Iran has already had “concilliatory offers of help”. Plenty of them over many years. From the US, from Europe and from Russia. The deal being offered is stop weapons development and in return get econmic assistance and nuclear tecnolgy for peaceful purposes.

And i’ll restate this – your view that once NK got nuclear weapons then suddenly everyone got all concilliatory is just not true.

The offers to help NK go back many years. The deal with Clinton was – stop nulcear weapons development and in return get econmic assistance and nuclear tecnolgy as well as cheap oil. Once they got nuclear weapons nothing – changed the US are offering the same deal.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 12:03pm
Michael

The Iranian nuclear programme is a serious threat to world peace. It is aggravated by the criminal stupidity of Russia, China, France and Germany, all of whom have provided assistance in varying degrees.
What to do about this danger is an issue requring considerable thought and collective action. I think the Security Council needs to pass a resolution asap totally quarantining Iran from all economic, social and cultural exchanges – just wall it off until the Iranian people come to their senses and end their theocracy. Containment plus, I think it should be called. I don’t think military strikes are likely to prove successful, although there may be a window open briefly where Iran’s nuclear facilities can be destroyed before they have the ability to retaliate. I think this is an issue that transcends the left/right debate – if Iran takes out the Middle Eastern oil fields, we’ll all have far more basic problems to deal with.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 12:13pm
Ben Wilson

Neil, restating it doesn’t make it any more true. It’s a bit late to say nothing’s changed now that they have nukes. *That* has changed and is very serious. But the rhetoric has died down to a whisper, as though these actual nukes are somehow less scary than the ones that were ‘under development’. And I put it to you that they were developed for exactly the same reason that Iran would be seeking them – to protect against serious military threats from superpowers. It worked.

This carrot and stick thing just doesn’t work, because even if you can’t remember the details of decades of vilification and threats, the people being threatened definitely can.

I would even go so far as to say the leaders using carrot-and-stick don’t care if it doesn’t work. It’s just their standard formula for ‘acting tough’ when they are being perceived to be weak. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t scare the people it’s directed at, though. Think how scared we were in NZ just for taking the stance that nuclear proliferation was wrong and we wouldn’t stand for it on our own turf. That was just a threat of losing the US’s friendship. Imagine what it’s like to be labelled an enemy of the US. Since the US has killed millions of people in wars since WW2, this isn’t a minor threat.

And it’s definitely not a minor threat when you see two of your neighbors destroyed rapidly by your self-proclaimed enemy.

Michael, why do you not think that the threat of Iranian nukes is not also aggravated by the criminal stupidity of constantly threatening them?
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 1:03pm
neil morrison

not just restate but also provide facts in support – The offers to help NK go back many years. The deal with Clinton was – stop nulcear weapons development and in return get econmic assistance and nuclear tecnolgy as well as cheap oil. Once they got nuclear weapons nothing – changed the US are offering the same deal.

but if you disagree with these facts, that show there has been no great rush to a more concillatory attittude towards NK since they got the bomb, then provide a counter argument. But you clearly don’t know what’s been going on – “the rhetoric has died down to a whisper” because at present US policy is working and NK is in negotiation mode – the carrot and stick approach you disdain is working.

But if you don’t like carrots and sticks what do you suggest?
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 2:07pm
Ben Wilson

I consider a NK getting the bomb to be a big loss for the approach. I suggest bilateral disarmament. That would be negotiating in good faith.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 2:52pm
neil morrison

NK is the biggest prison camp on the planet run by a bunch of psychopaths and Ben reckons it’s all the fault of the US for not negotiating in good faith.

So when the US under Clinton agreed to provide nulcear reactors for peaceful purposes and aslo to provide cheap energy and NK reneged on the deal, continuing a secret weapons programme, – that was all the US’s fault because of bad faith?

Ben, NK embarked on it’s latest weapons development programme at a time when they were being given lots and lots of carrots. That’s certainly a failure – but the responsibilty for that lies completely with the NK leadership. The current engagement of NK in negotaition even you surely would consider a sucess.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 3:12pm
Spirit Of 76

Ben, can you tell us all exactly what the world should to in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb ?
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 3:20pm
dim

Ben, can you tell us all exactly what the world should to in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb ?

Realistically, the only option is for the US to demand Iran provides access to it’s nuclear sites for European and American weapons inspectors – the alternative being that the US will launch an air attack against Irans nuclear infrastructure.

The Bush Administration probably won’t do this however – it would doom the adventure in Iraq to certain failure (Iran would send thousands of suicide bombers flooding across the border in revenge).

I don’t think the Isrealis are capable of a decisive strike against Iran and I don’t think diplomatic measures can succeed. A US strike is the only solution and it’s unlikely to happen. Five years from now Iran will have nuclear weapons.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 4:11pm
Kimble

Hey, do we still have a couple of skyhawks? Just wondering?
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 4:32pm
Ben Wilson

Neil, when you have had a war with a country in which over a million people lost their lives, and the whole thing ended in stalemate, you might lack trust in the country you were fighting, and wish to arm up to prevent the same thing or worse happening again. The US does not have exclusive rights to the power to destroy other countries. It can practically negotiate with those countries to reduce the risk of confrontation by reducing it’s own ENORMOUS armament stockpile and active military establishment and support for proxy militaries.

The carrots you refer to are insignificant next to the threat of complete annihilation which the US presents to North Korea, and indeed even tried. They have every reason to be paranoid and distrust the US.

None of this is to say that there is anything good at all about the North Korean regime. I’m merely pointing out that these confrontations arise from violence and are perpetuated by the continual threat of violence. Since they have nukes (they say), that threat is now lessened, and surprise surprise, negotiations are more cordial.

Does that answer your question, Spirit of 76? You can read above that I think it’s almost inevitable that Iran will get nukes now, so your question is academic. A more important question is how we will deal with a nuclear Iran. My suggestion is to normalize relations, and seek to address some of the issues that give them twitchy trigger fingers. Constant talk of sanctions and violence will only make them make more and more nukes, especially since they have plenty of oil to pay their way through any sanctions.

5 years, dim? I don’t think it will take that long. It took the Russians that long, and that was 50 years ago. There is surely a lot more information, a lot more specialists, a lot more access to the technology now. Inspections surely would slow the process down, but if they are finished, then it could come very rapidly. An A-bomb at least. We really have no idea how far along they already are – all is speculation, including my guesses. They might have detailed plans and blueprints already, and just need to assemble it all.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 5:56pm
neil morrison

Ben, heaven forbid that the tyrants in control of NK should feel threaten by Western democracies. You show such concern for the feelings of the Dear Leader.

Yes, the NK will leadership will feel threatened by the US. But what the hell are democracies for if we can’t stand up to facism? Should we not be putting pressure on the regime in Myanmar? Mugabe dribbles exactly the same line – the evil Western bullies. Maybe we should stop giving him a hard time as well. Otherwise the poor bloke might feel compelled to develop nulcear weapons. And if he did, it would be All Our Fault.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 6:55pm
Kimble

Heh, want to soil you drawers?

Iran develops small tactical nukes. Within the next six months Iran is graced with diplomatic visits from Hugo Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Jong-Il, ETA, Osama, half the posters at Democratic Underground, Howard Dean, Mark Latham, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Cindy Sheehan.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 7:18pm
Ms Marple

Kimble, you don’t need to worry about Cindy Sheehan, I think the tactical nukes shop is on the other side of the road from the ladies’ footpath.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 9:26pm
tim barclay

Howard Dean??? You fundi’s are a laugh. I like they way you wind up all the lefties with THAT.
0 0
Report
January 16, 2006 9:52pm
Simon

NK has enough chemical & bio weapons to wipe out its common border enemy SK and in a conventional war millions would die. NK doesn
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 8:41am
err..

“One positive from all this is that it should help clear the way for Taiwan to get nukes which will go some way to help stabilize our sort of region of the world.”

Hang on… you think that Taiwan having nukes is going to make the world a more stable place? Good lord. I’m all in favour of Taiwan, but I’m not sure having another two south-east Asian countries with nuclear weapons and long-standing problems with each other is going to help. Isn’t India and Pakistan enough already?
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 8:56am
Ben Wilson

Neil, your comments are getting pretty snaky. You can read that I don’t think there’s anything good about NK.

You have a funny idea about the purpose of democracy if you think it is to bully smaller countries for not having the same system as us. I think the purpose of a democracy is to make a place where it is good to live, and the battle to convince others to become democratic should be fought there. Wars should only be fought in self defence, not to push our views, however right we may think they are, onto other countries violently.

That is both immoral and impractical, as constant examples around the world show. Everytime the drums of war (which include sanctions and blockades) begin to beat against a country, it becomes more repressive, more militaristic, and starts thinking seriously about WMDs. Then the only option left becomes to actually wage war, or give up.

Interestingly, the drums of war beating has a very negative impact within the country which is being belligerent. It erodes it’s own democracy and makes it a less attractive place to live and thus a worse example to the supposed enemy, as we have seen in the US. Democracy and rights there have suffered immensely from this war on terror and the self proclaimed right to be the world’s cop. The enormous expenditure on the military has hurt their economy badly, making it far less attractive as a place to emulate than it was ten years ago. There is no other country on the planet that squanders as much of it’s taxpayers money on zero return endeavours.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 9:59am
neil morrison

But Ben occasionally, as is the case with the current leadership of Zimbabwe, Iran and NK, we have to deal with people who have no interest in moving towards democracy and are quite prepared to hold the people of their country to ransom. They have already decided that their own positions of power are more important.

In these cases it is the duty of democracies to come to the assistance of those suffering repression. And in the worst instances sanctions and force are the most appropriate means – South Africa and Bosnia being two relatively uncontroversial examples.

But that is one end of the democracy-promotion spectrum. In most cases softer persuasion is indeed used – take recent events in Eastern Europe. A whole range of techniques is used to promote democracy not just those that you have a problem with and those are reserved for the most intractable cases. Your view that Western countries just somehow arbitrarily bully smaller countries “for not having the same system as us” is not accurate. We apply pressure commensurate with the nature of the regime.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 10:40am
Ben Wilson

Neil, we have quite enough problems reigning in people who want their power to go too far in our own countries, without needing to get all high and mighty on others. I speculate that one follows the other, in fact. Those who wish to advance their own personal power within our democracy do so by pointing away from themselves as worse examples abroad.

You will note that no force was ever used on South Africa to end apartheid. It was quite enough that the world turned away from them, and the US doing so last was the deal clincher. They could ignore everyone else, but when the US finally accepted the immorality of apartheid and withdrew support it came crashing down very quickly.

Bosnia is an extremely bad example for you to use. The place was completely messed up by Western meddling which did nothing but escalate the crisis to the point where genocide occurred.

The best persuasion is by example. The example of the US could be an incredibly rich and open society full of happy rich people getting on with their thing and following the rule of law. But the example they have recently chosen is a country that attacks other countries and cuts back on it’s own civil liberties. They chose to follow the example of the 9/11 bombers. This was an incredibly weak response, showing the fragility of their system, how easily it could be dragged towards an irrationally violent response. And they have hurt themselves badly by doing it, financially, politically, socially. Bin Laden could not have asked for more.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 10:57am
Simon

Iran considers the fact the EU socialist are engaging them in these talks to end Iran’s nuke program an act of belligerence. They describe it as teamwork between the US & Europe. Bad cop good cop.

Err…. Since partition Indian & Pakistan have fought 3 limited border hot wars. It was all go for another in the late 1990s when Indian tested a nuke weapon. Suddenly the stakes shot up and good ole Bill Clinton stepped in to dampen things down. Something the Americans were not always willing to do elsewhere in the 1990s.

(When Clark visited India a few years ago and presumed to lecture the Indians on nuke disarmament she was openly laughed at.)

China can shoot its mouth off about dissolving Taiwan and can build up massive military forces in the area but it all becomes somewhat sobering when coming to grips with the practical realties of destroying a country that has got nukes. Taiwan needs to hang in there, nukes and American support will help for sure, and wait until democracy takes hold in China.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 11:05am
neil morrison

well yes Ben I had noticed that force (by Western democracies, the ANC certainly did) was not use against SA – that’s maybe why i used it as an example of the application of sanctions and not force. The point being that you had stated your opposition to such measures (“Everytime the drums of war (which include sanctions and blockades) begin…”).

I see you are one of a section of the Left who place the blame for events in Bosnia on NATO intevention rather than on Melosevic. I thought the example would be a rather uncontroversial one (compared to Iraq, say) but I know there is a section of the left that think as you do and, really, they are beyond the reach of reason.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 2:00pm
waymad

For a little more realism about Iran, try Victor Davis Hanson in NRO at present. Thing that this thread, such as it is, hasn’t spelt out is the messianic (Mahdi) element in Iran’s theocracy, remarks, and Shia history. Good ol’ V S Naipaul spotted this way back in ’81, just after the Revolution, closing the book with these words:

“And increasingly now in Islamic countries there would be the Behzads who, in an inversion of Islamic passion, would have a vision of a society cleansed and purified, a society of believers.”

Quarter century later, that’s what we have, and no amount of discussion, UN resolutions, or anything short of physical actions (and their repercussions) will alter their declared aim. Which is, quite simply, to ‘rule the world’.

As the old ship’s biscuit quip goes, we are looking at weevils everywhere, no matter what we do or don’t do. Any action must be the lesser of two weevils.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 3:29pm
Ben Wilson

Neil, yes I did include sanctions as part of the drums of war. That is because, in this case, war is being offered as a serious follow up, with sanctions being the foreplay. I don’t know if any western country seriously proposed going to war with SA.

No, I’m not one of the “section of the Left who place the blame for events in Bosnia on NATO intevention rather than on Melosevic”. I blame Milosevic too. The fact that you think this example is uncontroversial doesn’t make it so. NATO bombing sharply increased the tragedy that was unfolding in the Balkans. You can’t bomb people into peace.

Waymad, the idea that Iran wants to rule the world is pretty ridiculous, since they have trouble ruling their own country. I don’t believe they are that mad, frankly. There is only one country that could possibly rule the world, and despite them having a damn good go, I don’t think they will succeed either, although many will die from them trying.
0 0
Report
January 17, 2006 5:46pm
neil morrison

Ben, I’ll quote back to you what you said – “The place [Bosnia] was completely messed up by Western meddling which did nothing but escalate the crisis to the point where genocide occurred.”

Are you actually familiar at all with the events that occurred?

A brief history lesson. Milosevic spent 3 years butchering Bosnian Muslims. By the end of that time it was very clear to Clinton, Blair and other Europe leaders that military intervention was the only way to stop Milosevic. Far from being the bullies you allege Ben, it took 3 years for the Western democracies to reach this conclusion. This is the exact reverse of your rather bizarre view. But a view that is very popular amongst Milosevic
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 8:00am
Ben Wilson

Neil, you have found one ‘slip’, where I include sanctions as part of the drums of war against Iran, but not against SA. Yeah, OK, well done. In the case of Iran, they are being talked about as a precursor to military action, so I don’t see this as a mistake, just not especially clear either. Is this some major point you’ve won, or just something you could have sought clarification on? It hardly comes to bear on the argument at hand at all.

Wrt Bosnia, I didn’t say that there was not a war before NATO got involved, I said they *escalated* it. Do you deny this?

I know it’s nice to pin things like loving Milosevic onto the ‘Left’, thus justifying ignoring all our crimes, but in this case it just doesn’t stick.

What you call slipping and sliding is simply not seeing the world in black and white, good vs evil. There is evil everywhere, and definitely a lot of incompetence.
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 9:51am
neil morrison

These are your words Ben – “The place [Bosnia] was completely messed up by Western meddling which did nothing but escalate the crisis to the point where genocide occurred.”

This is just not what happened. No, NATO did not “escalate the crisis to the point where genocide occurred”. The facts are very different from your claims.

It was you claimed “Everytime the drums of war (which include sanctions and blockades) begin to beat against a country, it becomes more repressive…” as part of your general argument that Western democracies are a bunch of bullys doing more harm than good. By pointing out the instance of SA I was giving a counter-example. It’s sort of how debates go. But if you don’t say what you mean then there’s not much point.
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 10:13am
Ben Wilson

I didn’t claim “Western democracies are a bunch of bullys doing more harm than good”. This is your misinterpretation of my words. You have picked on a tiny lack of clarity on an unimportant part of my argument. This is nitpicking to the extreme and you are making anything you have to say look more and more ridiculous by doing it. I do consider the proposed sanctions against Iran to be part of the drums of war they are beating but there was never any consideration of military action against SA so sanctions there were not part of the drums of war. This clarification was given to you immediately that you raised the lack of clarity. Do you have anywhere further to go in this argument or are we both just wasting our time on pointless nitpicking which adds nothing to what was a bit of a debate before?

As for Bosnia, perhaps you should say in what way the facts differ from my claim. Perhaps you want to say that genocide was already happening, and that the war didn’t escalate in brutality immediately after the NATO bombing campaign? What is your evidence?
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 11:54am
neil morrison

Your words again Ben – “You have a funny idea about the purpose of democracy if you think it is to bully smaller countries for not having the same system as us.” “Bully” is the expression you used, but are you now saying yet again that this is not what you meant?

OK, you now appear to be be saying that sanctions do not necessarily have the results you initially claimed. But as that was part of your argument it’s odd to call calling it into question “nitpicking”.

With Bosnia the facts do indeed differ from what you claim which is – “The place [Bosnia] was completely messed up by Western meddling which did nothing but escalate the crisis to the point where genocide occurred.”

It just did not happen that way.

1. Bosnia was not “completely messed up by Western meddling”. Didn’t happen. It was messed up by Melosevic – remember the litle history lesson – it took 3 years for NATO to intervene, in those 3 years Bosnia messed up by Melosevic.

2. The genocide was occuring BEFORE the NATO intervention, that’s why they intervened. The NATO intervention didn’t cause the genocide, it STOPPED it.

It’s hard to see how much further the facts could differ from your claims. Or is this just further nitpicking?
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 12:18pm
Ben Wilson

Neil, you are nitpicking and this argument is becoming a waste of time. We were talking about the dangers and approaches to a nuclear Iran, but now you’re into parse mode on my every sentence about completely different cases. Since you have not offered any new *evidence* (as distinct from assertions) nor added any new arguments, I’ll leave it to someone else to judge the truth of your statements about the Balkan conflict. I merely hold that it is far less *uncontroversial* than you assert, which was how it was raised in the first place. There are differing opinions on what the effect of NATO’s involvement was, and I hold that their violence made matters worse.

To say “you now appear to be be saying that sanctions do not necessarily have the results you initially claimed” doesn’t follow in any way from anything I’ve said. Sanctions on SA *may* have helped end apartheid. I think removal of support was actually the crucial factor, and that is quite distinct from sanctions. And I even think us refusing to play rugby with them had an effect, since they love rugby too. Not just NZ, but the eventually the entire world were refusing to play with them, and that often brings it home what bastards you are being. But it really wasn’t until the US very belated joined the chorus that they realized the game was up. I think a similar thing would happen if US support for Israel went the same way. And the same could happen with Iran. The world needs to be *convinced* that they have gone beyond the pale.

And the world isn’t convinced, since the very crime they are being accused of is something that many countries have done, particularly their loudest accusers. It would be like the US getting bitter on SA for apartheid whilst still having slavery themselves. They have to drop the slavery first, or seem like the hypocritical bullies that they are being now.

If it’s a choice between sanctions and actual war, I’d go for the sanctions any day. Is that what you’re trying to squeeze out of me? That doesn’t mean that sanctions aren’t a very serious matter which could lead to more belligerence – they very clearly did in the case of Japan during the 30s and 40s. It also doesn’t mean they are the only alternative. That is hegemonic discourse taking hold, and I have my intellectual kungfu defending against it. There are other possible courses, like bilateral disarmament and increased trade with conditions, etc. It is a sign of how far gone we are in subservience to power that we can’t even imagine the US offering to disarm itself a little, or stop bullying. This would be both sane and practical, but it’s held as some kind of heresy in mainstream discourse.

Since we are not in the mainstream on this forum, we’re free to think about it, and I will continue to do so as long as I’m allowed, and beyond.
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 1:06pm
neil morrison

if the fact that the genocide was happening before NATO’s intervention is not enough evidence for that intervention not being the cause then you are indeed beyound reason. (An effect has to after before a cause).

But as you say there are “differing opinions on what the effect of NATO’s involvement was” and the extreme left – http://www.zmag.org/balkanwatch/balkanwatch.htm – and the extreme right – http://antiwar.com/malic/ – share your view that NATO intervention “made matters worse”.
0 0
Report
January 18, 2006 1:55pm
Ben Wilson

It’s quite possible that crimes were already happening AND that they got worse after the intervention.
0 0
Report
January 19, 2006 10:03am
Logix

Ben, Neil…

It’s been a pleasure reading you both.
0 0
Report
January 19, 2006 10:20am

« Union over-stepping the mark

ACT on Campus »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 05 November 2024
The Pākehā Project
General Debate 06 November 2024
A shameful execution
Vision for Wellington
Why not do airport security, as we do seaport security?
Taxpayers pay $575 per e-mail
Milk, lego and cookies for university students in case Trump wins
The left hate grassroots organisations that they don't own
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win

Recent Posts

Guest Post: Why Kamala will win 6 November 2024
The impact of alcohol monopolies 6 November 2024
General Debate 06 November 2024 6 November 2024
Milk, lego and cookies for university students in case Trump wins 6 November 2024
Why not do airport security, as we do seaport security? 5 November 2024
Taxpayers pay $575 per e-mail 5 November 2024
Vision for Wellington 5 November 2024
The Pākehā Project 5 November 2024
General Debate 05 November 2024 5 November 2024
A shameful execution 5 November 2024
The left hate grassroots organisations that they don’t own 4 November 2024
Does the TPM Secretary know he could face jail time? 4 November 2024

Recent Comments

Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Cassandra
General Debate 06 November 2024
Ghost
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Colinxy
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Sean Rush
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Colville
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
NothingLeft
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Don Beckett
General Debate 06 November 2024
imalwaysright
General Debate 06 November 2024
Mark Hanley
Guest Post: Why Kamala will win
Philview
General Debate 06 November 2024
Swifty
General Debate 06 November 2024
kowtow
General Debate 06 November 2024
kowtow
General Debate 06 November 2024
kowtow
Milk, lego and cookies for university students in case Trump wins
imalwaysright

Links

The price to pay for a better heritage
Point of Order
Transforming Our Future
NZCPR
The Government’s cynical manipulation of the Treaty Principles Bill
The Standard
Biden administration lets Medicaid pay for Native American “traditional medicines”
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Who is Kemi Badenoch?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
The 2024 US Presidential Election
No Minister
So is David Seymour’s new food provider involved in the Christchurch Uni food poisoning?
The Daily Blog
National's privatised child-abuse camps
No Right Turn
THE BIG DAY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What would Sumner say about Trump and Vance’s pro-tariff rhetoric?
Not PC
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d