Will Iran Be Next?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow Those who are in power do not ask for others' approval. That is un-written rule, and has been lasting as long as Mankind exists. The "Powers" - China, England, France, Russia, U.S. - have neglected the control over WMD development around the globe. As the result, we have problems with WMD, today.

They didn't neglect it at all. The abovementioned countries SOLD all these WMD to anyone with a checkbook. A teensy lack of foresight, wouldn't you say?

[rmnunez]

Who is responsible for WMD proliferation? With the nukes there are just a few countries to track down; Israel, Pakistan, India, DPRK, Iran, Iraq and South Africa. I suspect the US and France gave Israel some technology which they passed on to South Africa pre-Mandela. China seems a likely source of DPRK technology, which was passed on to Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, with some help from the French. I think India likely got technology from the Russians.

[giuliano]

why are those countries allowed to sell nukes while iraq is not?

[tinybear]

Iraq has nukes?

[giuliano]

well they were able to whip something up in the kitchen, given 45 mins or so, apparently :)

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez Who is responsible for WMD proliferation? With the nukes there are just a few countries to track down; Israel, Pakistan, India, DPRK, Iran, Iraq and South Africa. I suspect the US and France gave Israel some technology which they passed on to South Africa pre-Mandela. China seems a likely source of DPRK technology, which was passed on to Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, with some help from the French. I think India likely got technology from the Russians.

You SUSPECT the U.S. gave SOME technology? For some time the United States was the number one arms supplier in the world. We were selling weaponry to almost anyone. You don't our number one standing was from sales of guns ONLY, do you?

[bishop]

we helped apartheid develop nukes, but then we insisted that they be dismantled and they agreed. aside from that and north korea, i don't know any other places where we've helped them develop nukes. nuclear proliferation has happened largely thanks to the russians, and to a lesser extent the french (whose record is slightly worse than our own).

[giuliano]

the US is rumoured to have helped out israel, iirc

[bishop]

i'm not so sure of that one.. france was the one who gave them their nuclear reactor. plus, at the time that israel began developing its nukes, they weren't the "ally" that they are considered to be today - from an american perspective.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Who is responsible for WMD proliferation? With the nukes there are just a few countries to track down; Israel, Pakistan, India, DPRK, Iran, Iraq and South Africa. I suspect the US and France gave Israel some technology which they passed on to South Africa pre-Mandela. China seems a likely source of DPRK technology, which was passed on to Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, with some help from the French. I think India likely got technology from the Russians.

Got a clue who set up the Iranian nuclear program? Surprise, surprise. The first Irananian nuclear reactors were from the US, gifts to the Shah. And guess who gave Saddam Hussien a complete set of plans for a nuclear weapon? Why the US under the "Atoms for Peace" program, of course. India's nuclear program also recieved considerable support from the US. The first nuclear plant was a joint venture between Inda, the US and Canada.

Sure the Russians were involved, and the Germans, French and Argentines all supplied components, but the US was at the lead.

And guess where Saddam got his strain on anthrax? Yup, good old Uncle Sam.

Pogo was right.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 They didn't neglect it at all. The abovementioned countries SOLD all these WMD to anyone with a checkbook. A teensy lack of foresight, wouldn't you say?

The negligence was the result of "ideological wars". Politicians were ("busy") involved into ideology over the crucial issues like WMD development and alike.
We can see the politicians' activities outcomes, today. Morons.
The worst part is, the we pay for their mistakes today.

[Scribbler1]

To tell you the truth, I can acvcept mistakes. I don't hold my leaders to any higher standard of perfection than I hold anyone else. What I object to is the lack of accountability. In Bush's case, for example, he can go and make all the mistakes and GROSS errors in judgement he wants. He HAS to know he will never be held accountable for his actions. I believe this knowledge leads to more mistakes due to this protection.
This holds true for a lot of other presidents as well.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 To tell you the truth, I can acvcept mistakes.

Didn't you get the memo? This bunch doesn't make mistakes. And we already had out "accountability moment" in November. That is what Bush said. Must be true.

I think the American people are beginning to figure out just how big a mistake they made electing this bunch of thugs and thieves.

[rmnunez]

In Bush's case, for example, he can go and make all the mistakes and GROSS errors in judgement he wants. He HAS to know he will never be held accountable for his actions. I believe this knowledge leads to more mistakes due to this protection.

You must be mistaken, nobody is held more accountable than presidents, heads of state are historical figures, their judgement becomes the subject of research and study. You likely mean you think Bush acts like he is immune from judgement. The responsibility an individual holds for the errors of his judgment is personal, liability therefor is limited (and usually less than the victim thinks fair).

[giuliano]

no i don't think bush is held accountable.

i think it was NBC who did a story on how utterly penetrable america's ports were after sep.11. it wan't until about 1 or 2 years later that a few $million were allocated to upgrading them.

i remember being shocked reading about this online. it doesn't seem to get much public interest tho. watching missiles fly over baghdad catches people's attention!

i agree that people just don't hold leaders properly accountable, and are easily manipulated.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez You must be mistaken, nobody is held more accountable than presidents, heads of state are historical figures, their judgement becomes the subject of research and study. You likely mean you think Bush acts like he is immune from judgement. The responsibility an individual holds for the errors of his judgment is personal, liability therefor is limited (and usually less than the victim thinks fair).

Accountable in the public eye or in the history books, maybe. I'm talking about criminally culpable in that a president's actions under certain circumstances can result in a trial and imprisonment. While that's possible in theory, it does NOT happen in real life and presidents know this.
I agree with your point about personal liability, but we both know this will never be applied to an American president.
In Bush's case, impeachment is the ONLY threat to him there is, and with Clinton we know how completely meaningless THAT can be. With a Republican Congress, the possibility of impeachment is a little far fetched, wouldn't you say?

[rmnunez]

Sovereign immunity is necessary for heads of state, otherwise nobody would take on the job since no matter what decision the executive may make, it is bound to cause actionable harm to someone, merely advocating policy would be criminal. No government holds their head of state criminally accountable for decisions of government unless there is some extreme showing and usually this is long after the fact, often under new laws enacted specifically for that purpose. What is sought from a head of state is his judgment, if this is constrained by the possibility he could be personally liable for any decision, given the need for judgment in controversial matters it would result in no decisions ever being made.

[RickSp]

Interesting that Rumsfeld decided not to go to a NATO conference in Germany that US Secretaries of Defense for the last several administrations have all attended. The Defense Department claims that it has nothing to do with the ongoing criminal investigation of torture and war crimes naming Rumsfeld in German court. Of course not.

I'll bet this administration's officials may find themselves limited in their ability to travel in the years ahead, sort of like the situation Henry Kissenger finds himself in, with criminal charges pending against him in multiple venues around the world.

[rmnunez]

Rick, this problem with foreign dignataries avoiding international forums for fear of arrest can only get worse. I know the critical left regards this gleefully as they tally the hated political leaders indicted, but when leading powers are absent the forii they are invited to tend to accomplish less. Additionally, there are all sorts of academic venues where the experience and knowledge of important international figures is valued for the insight they offer into major historical developments, but this will be denied for fear of prosecution too.

Not acting in a way that gets one criminally charged is only part of the answer, another part is not antagonizing those who would make the charges. This last bit is a problem since the novel procedure lacks sanctions for the equivalents of malicious prosecution or abuse of process (one of the reasons the US withdrew its ratification of the ICC).

Then there's the problem of who is affected by the practice. Reasonably one would expect these would be those who perpetrate international crimes, unreasonably we'd figure its just Bush cabineteers. However, if political figures from Rwanda or Burma shun international forii it makes little difference, but when its Bush or Blair's cabineteers their absence has impact.

I'd anticipate the upshot will be for international forii to move from places like Brussels to remote third world locales that haven't subscribed to the ICC, otherwise hosts will have to immunize the charged so they can attend or do without them. While good riddance might be a great answer, its not as good when you need to involve the major powers.

[giuliano]

Quote by: rmnunez Not acting in a way that gets one criminally charged is only part of the answer, another part is not antagonizing those who would make the charges. This last bit is a problem since the novel procedure lacks sanctions for the equivalents of malicious prosecution or abuse of process (one of the reasons the US withdrew its ratification of the ICC).

eh? the ICC has stated it would only prosecute where the individual nation has failed to take action.

what kind of checks and balances can you put in to prevent abuse of process? either they conduct prosecutions genuinely or they don't.

the only way US was going to ratify the ICC was if its citizens were completely immune from prosecution, a demand that is hilarious if it wasn't so sad.