The whole "be scared, be very scared" tall story started about a couple of weeks ago when Hortefeux warned about an impending terrible terrorist attack in France. Following suite, Japan, the U.K and the US. have issued warnings to their respective citizens if they were bound to travel to Europe.
Be careful, be very aware, keep your eyes open, the alert flag is waving blood-scarlet in Europe.
And S. Hussein possesses WMDs ready to be deployed and reach the U.K within 45 minutes. Iran is about to manufacture a nuclear bomb that it intends to launch against America. And Julien Coupat is heading an ultra-leftist plot aiming at destroying the foundations of the Republique.
Now come on, give me a break...
At least most Americans seem not to be that impressed...
25 commentaires:
I think Americans are sick and tired of these terror alerts. We got tired of them during the GWB administration days because of the Homeland Security Advisory System which became a joke.
The lack of disclosure makes the system vulnerable to manipulation by government officials. These attributes have been criticized by cartoonists,[6] journalists,[7] entertainers,[8] civil libertarians,[9] and security experts.[10]
Poll finds Americans not trigger-happy on Iran
I was listening to the news this morning. They were interviewing Zbigniew Brzezinski who said that he was certain that the Obama administration had no desire to attack Iran on behalf of Israel or because of nuclear weapons. He said that the U.S. had no reason to fear Iran having nuclear weapons and that it is neighboring countries who have something to fear.
Pretty much everything he said this morning is in this article
Flocon, you scared me so much that I thought of moving back to the U.S. Then I remembered that I had more of a chance of being killed in an auto accident there than by a "terrorist".
Actually, I have more of a chance of dying in an auto accident here also.
Not to mention the danger of airplanes which the FAA has allowed airlines to outsource maintenance to uncontrolled contractors in third world countries.
Anijo, I disagree with Zbig Brzez about a threat to Iran's neighbors. Iran hasn't attacked neighbors for, well a very long time, and it is surrounded by nuclear powers.
Sanctions weren't imposed on Pakistan which is probably more dangerous than Iran. The U.S. made an illegal deal with India, which probably is mostly worried about Pakistan.
Israel with around 200 nuclear weapons would give any Iranian leader pause for thought and I don't think they are suicidal.
I'm firmly against any formal or informal agreement for a U.S. umbrella, which would just be an excuse for more wars.
I'm firmly against any formal or informal agreement for a U.S. umbrella, which would just be an excuse for more wars.
The umbrella only applies to an actual nuclear attack on another country.
Ned, ZB does not say that he feels that an attack on neighboring countries is iminent, but that they are potentially more vulnerable to an attack. He actually has a lot of praise for Iran and its society in general
Anijo,
I've read your links and I found this in ZB's one.
"...that America would see itself engaged if Iran threatened..."
Didn't you teach me that America is a she?
Also there were interesting comments about the poll you linked to.
I believe that it was SemperFi who first referred to "America" as "she"... this lead to an ensuing discussion and where it lead i forget.. so many discussions and exchanges of thought in the days..
Also there were interesting comments about the poll you linked to.
Yes, Flocon, they were indeed interesting. Politico is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing blog. Most of the responses sound like something Ned would say re Iran and Israel.
Most Americans are finally weary of war. Even many Republicans have had enough of all of this.
A little humor from a few years past by an Australian tv show.
"Americans are not stupid".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
Anijo,
Les commentaires dans les journaux américains en ligne sont 10² plus intelligents que ceux des journaux français which are a pathetic joke.
C'est un lecteur du New York Times qui m' appris l'existence de Abdu-l-Ala al Maari et dans le Politico, un des commentateurs a évoqué l'affaire Lavon dont je n'avais jamais entendu parler.
Maybe Ned knew and she's not surprised...
And also there was this "incident"
Ned,
This video is a well known one (over 25 million views on youTube!!!).
It may seem funny in the first place but in the end I think those who put up the video abused the sincerity and ingenuity of these poor "victims".
For example, printing the names of Iran or France on the map of Australia is bound to give the expected answers.
The same video could be made in any part of the world with the same result.
All the more so since it's obvious the Autralian team deleted all the good answers people interviewed gave.
But if it comes from Australia I'll take it as another example of British humor, although making fun (fraudulously) of people's ignorance is offensive and smacks a tad of self-serving superiority feeling.
Et justement dans la réponse à Anijo je remarquais combien les commentaires dans les journaux américains sont infiniment plus intelligents et informés qu'ils ne le sont dans les journaux français whichever they are.
Flocon, I know it is edited and biased for comic reasons. This same show has made fun of Australians.
As to the U.S.S. Liberty event, it is well known among certain Americans and survivors have web pages to explain that it could not have been mistaken identity.
I don't believe much what the Anti-Defamation League says, originally about 100 years ago it had a good purpose in fighting discrimination. Today it is just propaganda for Israel and zionism.
It even publishes a guide for adepts on how to respond to anti-Israelis and anti-zionists.
Better information comes from the Jewish National Congress which started as a zionist organization and probably still is. But it regularly publishes polls about Jewish opinions in the U.S. and comments fairly, I think, on the results.
Ned,
Your mention of the Anti-Diffamation League led me to Wiki which in turn led me to the story of Leo Franck.
And yes I'm scared, very, very scared and not by islamist terrorists but ordinary people on the street.
re the ADL, in the French Wiki article Noam Chomsky is quoted as saying:
"cette organisation, comme d'autres, ne se préoccupe pas d'antisémitisme mais seulement « de l'opposition aux politiques d'Israël, ou plus exactement l'opposition à leur propre vision belliqueuse des politiques d'Israël"
SemperFidelis here: Mr. Ludd's comments call for some clarification. Pakistan is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. She also is not a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Therefore, she is under no legal obligation to refrain from possessing and testing nuclear weapons. However, the United States, under the Clinton administration, as a strong sign of disapproval, imposed economic sanctions on both Pakistan and India for testing nuclear weapons in 1998. President Bush later removed the sanctions, as not in the security interests of the US. Note that the US was under no international legal obligation to impose sanctions on either state in the first place.
Iran, on the other hand, IS a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. She has a legal obligation NOT to develop and possess nuclear weapons. The sanctions imposed on Pakistan by the US and others are firmly founded on the legal obligations of states signatory to the Non-Proliferation treaty.
Re Israel: She is NOT a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Therefore, she has no legal obligation to refrain from developing and possessing nuclear weapons.
Re the use of the feminine article to refer to states: This is a long-standing English convention. A similar convention requires English-speaking sailors to refer to boats or ships as "she." For example, it would be correct for me to say, referring to a sailboat: "She rounded the point on broad reach, coming on fast with a bone in her teeth." (Get an English-speaking sailor to translate that one for you!" The convention is probably an archaism now when applied to states. But I am confident that if you look in the archives at any New York Times foreign policy article before the Fist World War you will find the convention honored. In any case, I am sticking to it. It is the task of conservatives to conserve these things.
Hi JoAnn
Semperfidelis,
Sorry your comment landed in the spam box while I'm on vacation. I've just noticed it from a cybercafe.
I hope your comment will catch Mr. Ludd's attention although you posted it 10 days ago :-(
Thanks for passing by and leaving a message which eventually didn't peter out in the ethernet.
Peut-être Anijo ou Nedd peuvent-elles contacter Semper via SF's forum et lui faire savoir he's not given the cold shoulder on Shall We talk?
It is the task of conservatives to conserve these things.
lol
Hi SemperFi!
Peut-être Anijo ou Nedd peuvent-elles contacter Semper via SF's forum et lui faire savoir he's not given the cold shoulder on Shall We talk?
Done!
Semper Fi, nice to hear from you.
As I understand the non-proliferation treaty, a state is not supposed to help a non-signatory state on the nuclear level. But the U.S. has signed nuclear agreements with India.
Then there is the question of where did Israel get its nuclear material once France stopped its aid in the fifties. Most likely it got it from the U.S., secretly of course.
The U.S. at least indirectly still helps the Israeli nuclear program by giving it 3 billion dollars in conventional military aid every year. So Israel can spend other money on its nuclear program.
So far, no one has explained to me how Iran has broken the treaty, though I think the treaty is a joke because it rewards non-signers. There were no U.S. complaints when the Shah was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Finally, I think a nuclear Iran would be good as it would aid a balance of power in the region.
//a state is not supposed to help a non-signatory state on the nuclear level. But the U.S. has signed nuclear agreements with India.//
Article IV provides that nothing in the treaty limits states from exercising their "inalienable right" to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The US has cooperative research agreements with India for the peaceful development of nuclear energy.
//Most likely it got it from the U.S., secretly of course.//
Or maybe all they needed was what France supplied.
//So Israel can spend other money on its nuclear program//
As an economic argument, unassailable. But I think it proves too much as argument for moral responsibility. After all, France gives lots of aid to Gaza, which permits Hamas to spend more money on rockets which they shoot into Israeli towns, in clear violation of international law, according to Mr. Goldstone. Is France responsible? I think not.
//So far, no one has explained to me how Iran has broken the treaty//
In Article II, non-nuclear States Parties (that's Iran) undertake no to acquire nuclear weapons. In Article III, they undertake to accept IAEA verification of their fulfillment of their obligations in Article II. We suspect Iran is violating its obligations under Article II not to acquire nuclear weapons. The IAEA informs the UN that Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA as it is required to do under Article III. That is why the UN has voted for sanctions on Iran.
//the treaty is a joke because it rewards non-signers.//
Non-nuclear SIGNERS get special treatment from all other signers in developing peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Iran could simply withdraw from the treaty. But that would mean they would lose this special non-nuclear signer status. It is best for them to remain a State Party, but cheat.
//I think a nuclear Iran would be good as it would aid a balance of power in the region.//
You are a minority of two. You and Iran.
All the best,
SemperFidelis
Blogger being as reliable as you get, SemperFidelis's last comment didn't appear on the comments list.
Semper, I can't remember how good your French reading skills are but if you're interested there's a post here about iran and the bomb that may interest you.
Semper Fi, I doubt if there is only Iran and me. Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. Pakistan on the east, Russia on the north, Israel on the west, the U.S. ships on the south. It is normal that they see the need to defend themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWGa9ViY7G8
Non-nuclear Saudi Arabia has signed to buy 30 billion dollars to buy American military goods(or rather bads). What for? SA is not going to attack Israel, or Egypt, or Iraq, or Syria. Who is left? Iran, which is composed of heretical shiites and not orthodox sunnis.
Since sanctions prevent Iran from developing its conventional military, what choice does it have but to get the bomb? Anyway, Pakistan is a more fanatic and dangerous state than Iran.
Here is the link to the Iran bomb post.
I apologize fot the thousands who were disappointed when they first tried.
Ned: You have captured the Iranian government calculation accurately. They want the bomb.
It appears that we have a tacit agreement that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb. But I doubt that we will agree on the West's proper reaction to the Iranian effort.
I also agree with you that the effectiveness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime is is in inexorable decline. But I doubt that we will agree on the reasons for it.
There is a possible line of discussion, however. I am interested in your views of the boldfaced Iranian lies about their nuclear weapons program. Are you a member of the "All is fair..." school? When the President of Iran lies to the UN about Iran's nuclear weapons program, is it the same as when he lies about there being no homosexuals in Iran (while simultaneously hanging men in Tehran for sodomy), or is it different?
I have to ask a question about your online name, because I really have no clue. The significance of you name is obvious to anglophones. Is it lost on the French, or are they in on the joke as well?
Cheers, SemperFidelis
Semper Fi, what government doesn't lie about import things and sometimes unimportant things. I looked up a few things and the case is more complicated than I had thought.
Some think that Iran is developing nukes, others think that it just wants to reach the threshold point where it could if the situation demanded, and others think not at all.
When the Shah was in power, Western countries sold him plutonium and helped him develop an enrichment program, and that doesn't seem to different than today. I would guess that, though a signer of the NPT, the Shah intended to build a bomb.
Who knows how many treaties or its own laws the U.S. has violated?
As to my pseudo, I chose as sort of protest about in defense of the Luddites whom I think have gotten a bad rap in history. But that is a long story.
The French equivalent to the Luddites would be the Canuts of Lyon in the 19th century. They were textile workers who battled the powers that be in a similar fashion and for similar reasons.
Cheers to you.
Semperfi,
"I am interested in your views of the boldfaced Iranian lies about their nuclear weapons program."
I have another example of boldface lies (with some consequences) in front of the whole General Assembly of the UNO.
Granted, Powell wore a tie which made the lies probably more acceptable...
(sorry for that one but you had it coming)
Regarding Ned's pseudo, I had no clue whatsoever like probably 99,9% of the French or Europeans for that matter.
Although I came across the name Luddite once or twice I didn't take the opportunity to make the sligtest research about them.
Will be done as soon as I quit.
Thanks for your input.
//what government doesn't lie//
Ned: Exactly. I agree.
My profession has required regular study of international law. The more I learn, the more I align myself with those who insist that international "law" is not law at all. At least not in the sense that a citizen of the West would understand.
There is no international legislature to make laws binding on all states. There is no executive with the police power to enforce international law on states. There is no court with the power to compel states to appear and be subject to judgment.
States are subject only to treaties to which they agree. And even after they agree, states are subject only to their own interpretation of the meaning of the treaty terms.
The only other source of international law, custom, is held by the most powerful states not binding on a "persistent objector" state. Even though this is a minority position among scholars, it is the position of states too powerful to be coerced to change. So their position holds.
So I agree that a determined state, like Iran, can never be restrained by international treaty law from any action she deems in her vital national interest. That is the way states behave.
The only way a state can be restrained from an action she deems in her vital national interest is through the Ultima Ratio Regum...Force.
Not so cheery, but cheers anyway,
SemperFidelis
Today a buiding collapsed in India and a tower went ablaze in China.
120 dead.
The terrorists scare the hell out of me!
Enregistrer un commentaire