Utopia Talk / Politics / Iran-Jergul

Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 09:30:50 "That the IAEA never recieved written notification that Iran's constitutional obligations were met" Really? I don´t think even the Iranians are claiming that. The treaty specifically states it can not come into force until such written notification is provided, and the IAEA seems to believe they have such a letter, so on what basis are you disputing this? "Iran clearly does not want nuclear weapons at this time." I struggle to see how that can be inferred: they have a series of facilities that do not add up to a fuel cycle (or even the logical embryo of one, and hardened, hidden facilities run by the military that duplicate civilian ones. They want a nuclear weapon. "Why are you suprised about the second plant?" I´m not surprised by it at all: I have always suspected they wanted a bomb, not a civilian fuel cycle. "I am one of Russia and Iran's harshest critics." No you´re not. As for the philosophy of letting unilateralism burn itself out, there comes a point where the fireman standing watching the entire street burn down in order to teach a man a lesson about putting our cigarettes ceases to be helpful. America is in retreat, it will be isolationist thereafter. We are not looking at a swing back to multilateralism within a UN framework, unilateralism will not burn itself out, rather you are going to be moving towards a situation more similar to Europe pre WWI, with an unstable nuclear situation, on top of the worlds energy supplies. Rather than letting the Yanks learn the error of their ways (they already have, look at the standing of Cheney et al) we should be looking for a managed exit. As for Europe, at the current rate Europe isn´t going to get a look in. "A nuclear arsenal will be required if the minimum conventional deterrent cannot be deployed in a timely manner." Deterring what though? Israel can barely scratch Iran (and only cares insomuch as they don't trust Iran not to nuke them), and America is preparing a pullout of the region and is busy bending over backwards to accomodate the Iranian regime. This is where I think you are being soft. Those nukes are not a deterrent (convenient excuse that it is for the poor little Ayatollahs), they are regional leverage for those technocratic fascists, which translates into global leverage. Frankly, I´d have thought it obvious that nuclear armed fascists on the worlds energy supplies with no containing power ought to strike you as a lot, lot worse (for multilateralism, human rights and the whole gammut of Liberal ideals) than almost any other alterntaive.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 09:47:49 http://www...ew&id=23884&prog=zgp&proj=znpp "Iranâ??s basic safeguards obligations are set out in its Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214). This agreement was ratified by the Iranian parliament and entered into force in May 1974." Could be you are confusing this with the additional protocol (which Iran said it would provisionally follow without ratification)?
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 10:16:29 The basis is pretty clear seb. Non-ratification is the constitutional criteria not met according to Iran. Also its participation on a voluntary basis as it is termed. Participation is not voluntary once a letter of confirmation has been sent. I think you will find the Iranian wording in any correspondence opens for this interpretation. The agreement's mechanisms for dealing with disagreements is arbitration and the ICJ. Right now you have two parties in disagreement, so they should take the next step to resolving their differences. This would be the move of the IAEA of course as Iran disputes it is party to the agreement. We both know why Iranian nuclear facilities are hardened just as we both know that new generation centrifuges would require their own facilities. Iran will not be replacing the 1.5 generation centrifuges until it has surplus capacity to do so. I have no idea who will be operating the new facility. I doubt it will be the military. It does not fit in with the organization scheme of things. You are making too much of a deal out of a perhaps belated report - though not belated at all under Iran's interpretation of its commitments. I am their harshest critic viewing them for what they are instead of what most pretend them to be. No seb, they are not Satan incarnate, though yah, they do have the capability to contain western ambitions and visions for a new world order. Of course Iran is maturing into a regional power and of course that will result in expanded political clout and limit the horizon of realistic military actions by both the US and Israel. And yepp, they need a minimum deterrent to pin it down. Busher is now producing electricity. You think that would have been the case without Iran's deterrent? Right now the country is constitutionally barred from getting nukes and has a missile program that can provide the deterrent it needs to support its regional ambitions. They can go nuclear of course and the stage is being set for that to be a viable and easy option of the constitutional ruling changes. But they don't need more leverage beyond a significant conventional missile force along with a mature nuclear industry (which is of course a deterrent. You bomb it and all hell will break loose in terms of proliferation). Iran's course towards becoming a regional powerhouse was set by the Iraqi failure. The USA played its hand (and yepp, Iran would have been next if Iraq played out properly) and lost. Right now we are looking at the hope the EU will get its act together and the likelihood that the liberal humanist democratic tradition will survive in isolated outposts until such a time when it can regain relevance. My personal belief (with one caveat - Iranians are generally racist pigs) is that the nature of the Iranian regime will profoundly improve over the next decade if we stop feeding the hawks. Too much education and too much economic growth decently divided (particularly along gender lines) for that not to happen IF the west can accept Iran's position as the main regional power. There will be a coloured revolution yet - with the full support of their constitutional institutions. If we let it happen. Thing is, we need Iran. And we need an Iranian population on speaking terms with humanist liberal traditions. As a buffer if nothing else from the true hell holes that surround it. I would not force the nuclear issue. Let them have their missiles and act as if that is deterrent enough. Take all options off the table.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 10:20:00 Seb Yepp, was confusing the two. Sorry. Correct step now is still arbitration and/or a ICJ ruling. But the breach was not really significant as it stands. They were tardy in reporting a facility under construction is all. The main thing is what happens once production begins.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 11:10:26 The correct method would be the IAEA to demand full inspection and work from there I think. The US is playing good cop at the moment (which is the better mode for them as they have a lot to offer in terms of dropping sanctions), I think Europe has a lot more to offer in terms of stick, so them and the IAEA playing bad cop is more likely to produce results. I rather like Fordens idea on ACW... http://www...aradox-now-is-the-time-to-deal As for critics, I´ve seen far harsher, and I believe the curreng Govt.s agenda is far beyond "contianing" Israel (which only cares about Iran in so far as Iran gives the impression it would like to wipe them out and sends arms and training to their enemies). America doesn´t need containing, it´s in retreat. What we should be worried about is their agenda, not Americas. Their constitution? Doesn´t count for much in my eyes right now. Looking for unilateralism to burn itself out, you may have become a bit of a pyromaniac. It already has. What is burning now is the post war order, which is not the global default, but a carefully constructed edifice that required bloodletting and destruction on a scale that is impossible. If we lose the humanist international order now, it will not be rebuilt. Nukes prevent it, forcing regional powers (which are nearly all autocrats) to maintain the status quo than gamble for it all. And autocratic regimes tend not to allow rivals to emerge. Humanistic liberalism will survive, but most likely in America, which is demographically in a much better shape than Europe and is changing (as it is good at doing) into something different while maintaining the better bits of itself. Europe on the other hand is disunited, introverted, and does not grasp that the international norms it takes as granted require defending. Europe can´t stand up to a relatively feeble beast like Russia, let alone embrace china in a way that locks it into the post war Liberal order. As for colour revolutions, education does not seem to have helped Russia metamorphose into a liberal order. In a world of competing autocrats, I think Iran is far more likely to opt for an autocratic model. A colour revolution requires their containment, a power vacuum on the other hand is just a great opportunity for cementing nationalistic autoccrats by short victorious struggles. With Israel "contained" as you put it they have their Eurasia for Big Brother to defend against. So, I really wouldn´t be looking for continued burning. The best way to have a humanist world is to help America extract itself in a way that maintains it´s engagement with the world. Ultimately, they can retreat to their hemisphere and deal with China as an equal. Europe on the other hand will be left with an older population, dependent on Russian energy, and without continued American support may not even be able to hold together against Russian political disruption. And god knows what kind of mess will be in the middle east.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 12:42:17 Seb You mean the IAEA should be used as a tool to contain Iran from maturing into a regional power? Ultimately ending in a military action I take it. Well, that will certainly create a mess in the ME and given the number of Iranians abroad, will create a perfect state of paranoia in the west. The actual secret facilities would be found in built up areas. My best guess would be in connection to subway expansion as construction is concealable. Re link. Also re link. The fellow seems convinced (as am I) that nuclear enrichment is organized under civilian umbrellas. He is watching the wrong ball btw. A university degree graduate does not need much time to learn how to work in a highly automated production line. Now the producers and developers of the actual centrifuges are a different matter... Iran is in the process of containing Israel. In a few more years, daily military overflights into Lebanon and Syria will no longer be possible. Its a bit vexing because they are doing it with chump change in the 100ds of millions of dollars range. With a significant part of that funding from civilian donations. Gaza and the West Bank open for IDF business still for a while yet, but not forever. We know their agenda more or less. The promotion and protection of shia in countries where that is an issue. So you can draw a line around Iran's natural areas of influence. The main problem in regards to the Palestinians is that Iran bolsters their resolve. They will likely hold out for a much better deal than what is currently on the table. At some point they will end up getting it one way or the other. It need not be a zero-sum game though. As I have indicated in other threads. Iranian influence in the Palestinian areas will be significant and counterbalance Israeli Bantustanian visions for the Palestinian State. I would trust their constitutional interpretations. It can change, but for now, Iran is constitutionally committed to not having nuclear weapons. The international order is not really based on democratic principles. Which is one of the reasons for why recreating them along more humanist principles is likely. The stumbling blocks here would be countries democratic internally, but with a vested interest in maintaining non-democratic institutions. Regimes that are authoritarian internally on the other hand would support a democratization process in terms of global interactions as it serves their interests. So I would not fear in that sense unless you feel that democratic states will block democratic trends in international mechanisms. I am sure the democratic tradition will survive in educational institutions in the US and indeed a number of states have a profound democratic tradition. But the US faces severe demographic and economic challenges in the future in addition to reinventing its identity. We will see what emerges. Iran is key to an honourable withdrawal from Afghanistan. They can do things the west cannot. Among the more interesting - someone is eventually going to have to start buying up the poppy production. But still. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia are going to be in a huge mess in not too long. Russia sort of screwed up the income division aspect and its school system imploded. The current system they have is a lot better than anything Gorbi was coming up with. For reference. You should have more faith in the Iranian people (though their timing sucked this time - and is why the SC equivalent ruled as it did). Locking Russia and China into a global order actually based on liberal democratic principles is easier than you think. It enhances their ability to get things done. I do not think the EU is a failed experiment, not that it is the sick man in Europe so to speak. But it takes time coming into its own. Things should improve once that idiotic Afghanistan affair ends. The US is a good friend to have. But a friend among equals. Not this divide and conquer client state system we are running now.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 12:57:20 Incidentally, I have really bought into infrastructure projects. The damned channel-road-railway tying Gaza to the red sea would actually work in terms of rendering peace viable.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 13:35:33 jergul: IAEA should be used for what it is meant to be used for: preventing the spread of military nuclear technology (which is precisely what Iran is up to). Ending in a military action? No, that´s never been a credible response. Hence it being far better for IAEA and Europe to play bad cop as they have more that can be threatened that is not military, and America the good cop, who has more to offer Iran by way of reward which it currently witholds. "Maturing into a regional power" as you so benignly put it (or rather engaging in proxy conflict under protection of nuclear weaponry...) does not require nuclear weapons. Iran is not exactly going down the course as Turkey or Egypt, both substantial regional powers, nor South Africa which actively gave them up. "A university degree graduate does not need much time to learn how to work in a highly automated production line." You ever worked in a nuclear facility? University graduates (at least if they want to not get cancer) spend the best part of a year pratting around with procedural stuff. Certainly, pressing the button to turn the machine on is pretty simple. "Iran is in the process of containing Israel." Iran is in the process of keeping the Arab-Israeli conflict going for political theatre and capital building. Their supply of missiles is what keeps IDF circling over Lebanon. "I would trust their constitutional interpretations." Ho ho ho, that´s a good one. The constitution is now whatever Khameni and the IRGC say it is. "Which is one of the reasons for why recreating them along more humanist principles is likely." Hardly, there are one and a half powers with humanist principles in operation: The EU which is introverted, disunited, weak and dependent on Russia. America, which is in full scale retreat. India and Brazil do not seem much interested in humanism and are quite content to operate through bilateral deals shorn of any global humanist agenda. The ascendant autocracies are not going to be interested in forging a humanist world order, America is not going to care about the world outside their continent, and Europe hasn´t seemed to grasp the idea that a world order other than a rigorous legal framework is possible, let alone that such a regime need active maintenance. "democratization process in terms of global interactions as it serves their interests" How? China loves bilateral deals (it´s foreign policy in Africa seems to be taken from the British Empire circa 1750-1850), Russia has dreams of spheres of influence which is hardly democratic. They simply do not need democratic framework or legal ones, with no single global power they can just jostle against each other locally. The succesful regional powers are hardly going to be keen to surrender their clout to a democratic legal system just because they recognise expanding into another power is impossible. They well have more to lose than gain. A democratic system might be the optimal one, but just like Europe prior to WWI, it´s not going to happen until after a bloody conflict takes down the then existing structure. Such a conflict (were it to happen) would have a good chance of taking down human civilisation. Nuclear weapons will stabalise the local minimum. "But the US faces severe demographic and economic challenges" Less severe than China (which is aging more rapidly) or Europe (which can´t seem to get it´s head around the need for immigration to ballance demographics). Economically, in the medium term they are not as bad off as all of that. Sure, no hyperpower, but they will be able to stand eye to eye with China and keep order in their neck of the woods. Without massive and painful structural reforms, Europe is in no position to do that when countries as vital to the Eurozones economy as Germany are waiting for a strong cyclical bounce of growth from their export led economy (while expanding it with lots of shiny new green technology) that isn´t going to come. The implications of the necessary reballancing of the consumer nations current accounts doesn´t seem to have fully dawned on them yet. Europe is not likely to develop the military and political requirements to hold off Russian meddling in the next ten years. That´s even if the big European governments register the idea that they need such capabilities. Europe´s future, absent American security gaurantees for at least the next decade or more, is disintegration and dependency. So we´ve got until the end of the Afghanistan campaign to bind America into a permanent partnership with Europe within a multinational framework. Hoping they get fucked up and come begging back to Europe to learn the enlightened values of multilateralism is pissing in the wind. It´s not going to happen: Rather, the international law concept is going to look like a failed experiment in the medium term, Europe will be strugling to hold itself together and maintain good relations with it´s energy sponsor while Russia does it´s best to pull the EU to bits and stymie organisation and integration. Now why would anyone look at that and cconclude that reliance on international law based systems is a good idea? "Iran is key to an honourable withdrawal from Afghanistan." Absolutely, but that isn´t going to happen while Iran has "contained" everyone. The best time for a grand deal was "mission accomplished", we are well passed that but you seem to be chearleading moving ever further away from such a situation. "But it takes time coming into its own" Time´s nearly up. Ten to fifteen years to establish it´s own miltiary and political capability, secure it´s fuel supplies, establish the tools to negotiate externally with one voice and be able to act to enforce any legal framework on it´s own. Yet Europe can´t even draft a constitution the public can get behind. Once Afghanistan ends, America is going to retire from foreign adventures, NATO is almost certianly going to look toothless even if the yanks remain committed in anything more than paper (which they probably won´t) dependency on Russian gas will be at it´s height and the infrastructure to selecctively deny energy to invidual countries will be in place. If Russia want´s to break appart Europe, it will have almost no oposition. Heh, you think America devides and conquers... If we want to be treated as equals by the US, it would help enormously if we actually developed the strength to act as equals rather than hoping for the worlds nastiest regimes to knock them down to our distinctly under-performing level.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 14:38:57 Really? We know Iran was the recipient of proliferation - which is not supposed to do and is under sanction for having done it. Beyond that there is nothing in breach of the NPT. You mean the US is all sanctioned out, right? So can reward Iran by what? Taking all options off the table is my suggestion. Israel is quite capable of keeping the conflict alive without help. Will be that way until the conditions for peace exist and Israel is certainly not going to put them into place. And no, it does not require nuclear weapons for as long as a conventional deterrent plays the same role. Egypt and Pakistan combined have the same nominal Gdp as Iran for reference. A ratio that continues to improve in Irans favour. Everyone else in the ME is sort of two-bit players Seb. So, the EU favours ending the UNSC veto, transferring enforcing powers to the GA and basing voting powers in other institutions on a weighted per capita voting system? Which is an actual democratic approach. It would certainly resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue in short order. A humanist democratic world order is in the interests of most countries globally seb. It does not directly impact on internal affairs. International law is generally a good idea and everyone agrees. The enforcing part is a bit more tricky and lacks a democratic fundament. I disagree re Europe. But certainly developing the institutions should be job number one. A core Europe is the default of fail. Which is more than enough to contain Russia. And not particularly energy dependent on it either (12% of its energy requirements met by Russian NG). And of course - Afghanistan is a doomed venture. Seems a rather weak basis to build an alliance on. Our blood now will have US commit later seems rather unlikely a theory. We need Iran for better or for worse. Most of its neighbours are about to go batshit crazy. I don't see how your plan is going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The key is accepting that conventional measures are enough for it to anchor its regional ambitions on. Basically, would you prefer Iran reaching its regional ambitions with a nuclear arsenal and entrenched hardliners in power? Or would you prefer Iran reaching regional ambitions with a conventional arsenal and a moderate policy?
Seb Member	Wed Sep 30 15:08:18 jergul: Dropping sanctions, naturally. You know why the term P-1 is used for their first generation centrifuges, and what came bundled free with them... "Israel is quite capable of keeping the conflict alive without help." Not suitably critical though. That requires Palestinian missiles. "And no, it does not require nuclear weapons for as long as a conventional deterrent plays the same role." Nuclera weapons allows them to up the conventional ante, which is precisely what will happen. Ah, democratic principle as in "totally unworkable". Lets have unanimous global referrenda too while we are at it. "It would certainly resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue in short order." And Taiwan no doubt... "Egypt and Pakistan combined have the same nominal Gdp as Iran" Ah, so that must mean Russia is less powerful than either Italy or Spain? "A humanist democratic world order is in the interests of most countries globally seb." Deeply wishful thinking. Even if it were true, it was true in Europe prior to WWI, yet the LoN, flawed as it was, did not appear until after the war. Prisoners dilema... even if it is the optimal system, it only boils down there if people feel they have something to lose. Powerful autocratic countries with the bomb don´t have to worry about much. "A core Europe is the default of fail." Not really, because a core Europe is embeded in relationships with a sea of states that will be dancing to a Russian tune. "12% of its energy requirements met by Russian NG" Not in fifteen years. "Most of its neighbours are about to go batshit crazy." And of course Iran remains a sea of internal stability wedded to the strict adherance to the rule of law and peaceful transition of elected figureheads. I belive Iran can be suitably contained. Key is getting Israel out of the West Bank, a suitable mix of carrots and sticks re the nuclear industry to ensure robust international supervision, and a grand bargin that offers reputation and raproachment. Don´t leave a vacuum. Afghanistan is all about withdrawl and realistic objectives: draw the posion out of Pakistan and into Afghanistan and contain it there. Brutally, we don´t need it to be stable in order to prevent serious terrorist threats from there.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 30 23:11:56 Seb Have you seen demographic projections for the area? There are no realistic objectives without Iran playing a major role. There is no peace plan for the ME that will work until energy and water requirements are met. And you still need Iran to avoid a Bantustanian solution that is anything but the basis for peace. Iran has to support the Palestinian State if you want peace. I still think my peace plan for the ME is the best thing going. The west avec accepting culpability for the situation and playing an active economic, political and demographic safety valve role in resolving the issue. Who knows, the raising the blistering stepchild of the holocaust might be the rallying call of the European revolution if done right. Heads were cracked and the transfer of power was according to the rule of law. Iran has its own crazies to deal with (and they are not in power centrally. Its the batshits in the provinces that keep on trying to pull the revolution into a tribal Islamic mould). I would bet on Iran ahead of any Arab State. They all have their looming problems (excluding a few of the emirates that are ok). In 15 years the baseline energy cost is going to be at least 250 USD today dollars an oil equivalent (barrel). Its hard to imagine what impact that will have (energy costs approaching a threshold were it no longer is virtually free). What we do know is that Russia will be an important export market for EU products if global balances are to play a role. For lessened dependency - review thoughts on a Gaza to Red Sea infrastructure project. The worst thing about Russia from a European perspective is Poland. They really don't like that country and probably never will. I trust you don't really see the point of EU/NATO expansion into the Ukraine and Georgia? International institutions have a huge democratic deficit. It serves the interests of the developing world to see democratic reform of those institutions. That the west will fight it beak and claw is a different issue that simply underlines the lack of a humanist democratic tradition in international affairs. The rule of law on the other hand functions quite well internationally. IF a conventional deterrent is sufficient, then there is not basis for upping the anty. In fact a nuclear arsenal would render conventional missiles unusable. In effect lowering the conventional ante as neither nukes nor conventional inter theatre missile could be used. Israel did not attack Gaza because of the missiles (if the point was to avoid missile attacks, then easing the blockade would have been sufficient. That is all Hamas wanted), it bombed Gaza because 4000 illegal pumps were draining the coastal aquifer by way of the Gaza aquifer. No peace without water and energy seb. Vestiges of highly concentrated uranium you mean? Yah, but the centrifuges were not a proliferation issue. The Khan network supplied other things that were. Dropping sanctions is not a reward. It simply ends punishment. I don't think its politically possible or even very relevant. Sanctions have helped Iran develop its industrial base in a significant way. In effect giving it protectionist barriers allowing it to build up its technological and industrial base.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 01 01:12:24 "then easing the blockade would have been sufficient. That is all Hamas wanted" fucking appeasement. Israel at least has some balls and bombed the shit out of them. Irans main threat is not its nukes but its anti-ship missiles aimed at the oil trade routes. It is better and cheaper to act now than to wait and act later. Destroy the rockets, occupy the missile coast. Use their nuclear program as a way to scare hippies into behaving. The west gives rich muslim princes 100s of billions of dollars per year. Wouldnt it be way fucking easier just to kill those people?
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 01:17:16 Sammy The ships are useless without loading terminals. Which are incredibly vulnerable. "Two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's crude oil is exported from the Gulf via the Abqaiq processing facility. Saudi Arabia's two primary oil export terminals are located at Ras Tanura (the world's largest offshore oil transfer facility) and Ras al-Ju'aymah, both in the Gulf, as well. Another terminal lies in Yanbu, a port city on the Red Sea."
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 01 01:53:36 those targets are significantly further away... out of range of most of irans missiles... and also less vulnerable and harder to hit. regardless, having muslims in control of oil that the west needs is senseless. Agree??
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 01 02:05:11 Where were you with your humanist world order when Russia unilaterally pulled the plug on the USSR?
Mavl Member	Thu Oct 01 02:05:31 The above was for Seb.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 05:38:02 oil terminals are incredibly vulnerable sammy. And easy to hit seeing as they are huge and complex. And in easy range of Iran's Gadr systems.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 01 08:50:17 Mavl: Cheering. The consequences of the breakup of the USSR largely stem from Russian bungling. West could have done more to smooth the way, tis true. But Russians need to come to terms with their own mistakes.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 01 09:43:49 jergul: What role do you seriously think Iran can play in peace between Palestine and Israelis (other than to cease arming and empowering palestinian factions that have a defacto veto on any peace)? Israel isn´t going to be permited to make Bantustans, but Iran isn´t going to have much to do with that. "I trust you don't really see the point of EU/NATO expansion into the Ukraine and Georgia?" Georgia less so, though in the long run I don´t have any problems letting any stable country able to make a positive contribution in. Ukraine in the EU would probably be a useful addition in the longer run, if they want it, and when the EU is capeable of standing up to any Russian meddling. I´d even be happy to see Russia in if it made the grade. "International institutions have a huge democratic deficit." Yup. So often do most countries judiciaries. A robustly democratic international framework would require what? Hard line Westphalian principles with each Government viewed as representing the state. Great for avoiding conflict (as long as the whole thing is not subject to bribery), shit at protecting human rights, halting genocides and other matters that would be contained internally. While a large fraction of the worlds governments are explicitly not humanist, no democratic international order would be humanist. One Government one vote would be intractable for running any kind of security regime. "IF a conventional deterrent is sufficient, then there is not basis for upping the anty." Ah, because the Iranian government are nice people, and will not forment trouble in more overt ways than they currently do. Iran´s intentions are more than securing themselves against America. Indeed the only reason they need to secure themselves against Israel is because of the destabalising role they are playing. "Vestiges of highly concentrated uranium you mean?" Nuclear bomb schematics and other associated materials and equipment. Khan was not exporting (and is avowedly explicit about this) civil industry, but bomb industry kits and know-how. Every other client of his who has come clean has talked about this. The centrifuges are a proliforation issue when Iran reguses to abide by safeguards arrangements. "It simply ends punishment." Relations with a foreign state are still considered a priveledge, not a right. America is not after all blocading Iran.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 09:44:55 Mavl hrhr, that answer probably has you wanting to send Iglas (igli) to afghanistan :-)
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 12:27:29 I would imagine Iran playing the same kind of productive role for Palestine that the US plays for Israel. You may want to read up on what Israeli political parties think is an appropriate dependency status for the Palestinian State. Bantulands. I have seen no international challenges of Israeli visions for that relationship. The stable criteria would thus not include the Ukraine. Though the agrarian rump state that remained could certainly join after Russian dominated areas enact their right to self-determination and leave that particular entity. Would not require much really. One nation one vote. Plurality of votes determining actions and setting legislative standards. Based on Westphilia of course - that disconnects internal affair from the international order (with certain exceptions). More in line with democratic humanism. The Iranian government would cause less trouble with nukes than without was the point. The country is growing into regional dominance seb. Question is - do you want it to do so with or without nukes? Yes, I mentioned it was the recipient of transfers in breach of the NPT. A while ago and they are under sanction still for that. The centrifuges are a proliferation issue if Iran uses them in nuclear weapons production. A trust issue before that point. Belated reporting a facility under construction is not a huge deal. That was never intended to be a secret facility and we both knew they were going to build new plants for new generation centrifuges. The convert ones would actually be hard to find. The sanctions are punitive seb. You don't call it a reward when you stop punching someone.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 12:32:09 As an added note. The regime likely wants sanctions to be slapped on gasoline imports limiting availability. It would solve a number of domestic issues and be useful in terms of solidifying energy policy.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Oct 01 12:32:23 "oil terminals are incredibly vulnerable sammy." but they dont have to float.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 12:39:03 But they have to work. Or there is no need for tankers in the Persian gulf beyond those exporting Iranian oil.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 01 13:07:13 Bantustan policy has had many objections, and does not form an acceptable basis for Palestinians. It's not going to be a viable part of a peace programme. Iran on the other hand has no vested interest in peace, but gains significant political capital out of the conflict perpetuating. Fondly hoping it will serve your ideals is unrealisitic. "More in line with democratic humanism." Really, so what happens when China's various clients decide to vote along with it for the re-integration of Taiwan? Block voting in the UNGC is even more notorious for producing perversities than the SC. Was the worlds reaction to Rwanada, say, in line with Humanism? I think not. "The Iranian government would cause less trouble with nukes than without was the point." I think that is an absurd statement. "Question is - do you want it to do so with or without nukes?" Without. I think I have mentioned my position on nukes before: the fewer nuclear states with fewer nuclear weapons the better. If Iran has the bomb, then the inevitable consequences is several Arab bombs. Then we have a chain of nuclear states from the mediterranian to the pacific with all sorts of unstable configurations, crappy C&C, wobbly political situations and all that entails. Thinking a nuclear Iran is a good thing misses the wood for the trees. "The sanctions are punitive seb. You don't call it a reward when you stop punching someone." America has no obligation to trade with Iran, or trade with anyone who trades with Iran. How does the idea of trade as an unconidtional right square with your Westphalian principles? If America wants to make Trade a priveledge extended to only those countries which are in accordance with it's foreign policy objectives... In any case, it's semantics. I'm going to assume the quibbling is rhetorical rather than philosophical. The point is Americas leverage over Iran in threatening more dammage is limited, it has things to offer that Iran does not currently have (namely, trade relations). Europe on the other hand has limited things it can offer Iran that it does not already have, but is in a position to deny things that Iran already has (namely trade relations). The dynamic range of sanctions is much larger the other way around. "That was never intended to be a secret facility" Really? Funny sized facility isn't it.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 01 14:09:42 Of course its not a viable option for the Palestinians - just as being under a blockade is not viable for them. So who is going to step up to the bat with patronage assuring them a deal they can live with? Of course Iran benefits enormously by demarcating its sphere of influence by the Mediterranean and of course it can play a extremely productive role. Most of its aid to clients has always gone to humanitarian measures anyway. Too bad we cannot say the same about Iraq and Afghanistan - where funding has been dominated by military expenditures. They have a different and probably better approach than we do. What happens if China gets 140 odd votes in favour of reintegration? Taiwan falls under sanctions most likely. At worst Iraq happens with a semblance of legality from the start instead of gradually getting one. Not likely. And we would be no worse off than today's order even if the worst case came about. Rwanda was the fault of the current system, not a future one. And genocide is one of Westphalia exceptions. I think the way to keep Iran non-nuclear is to accept its emerging status and focus instead on weaponization exclusively. This involves accepting that Iran can build nukes if it wants to, but using sticks and carrots to avoid that inclination. About the same size as the facility outside of Esfahan. Hardened have limitations
Seb Member	Thu Oct 01 14:38:33 jergul: "So who is going to step up to the bat with patronage assuring them a deal they can live with?" Not Iran. Keeping Palestine/Israel conflict going keeps the west from realy dialogue with the Arabs and Israel from partnership with Arab countries, both key for maximising Iran's regional clout. Also ensures that the EU doesn't extend to Israel and bring Europe into the region. The last thing Iran want's is an actual solution to the crisis. Europe and America are perfectly capeable of enforcing something on Israel if they put the effort in if we are wishing for fishes. Also a lot more likely as a solution actually is in both the US and the EU's interests. "And we would be no worse off than today's order even if the worst case came about." The idea of a majority voting body of 160 actually doing anything productive about a crisis (e.g. invasion of Quwait, say) is laughable. What I can expect is such an institution to last until the first resolution tabled by the upgraded GA under a binding chapter demands reparations from the developed world. "Rwanda was the fault of the current system" No. The failing of Rwanda was the lack of a robust principle of "responsibility to Protect" a lack of will to act, fully enabled by Westphalian principles of total sovereignty and a high requirement for consensus. Since then, developments have been made, and what you are proposing seems to me to reverse them: you would require more consensus, there would still lack the will to act by parties able to do so, and the fact that so many of the worlds countries fall very short of human rights likely indicates that responsibility to protect would be done away with completely. "This involves accepting that Iran can build nukes if it wants to, but using sticks and carrots to avoid that inclination." Which is exactly the policy. By "can" I do not mean "may: the fact they can is, well, a fact. Whta is necessary is a system that gives the rest confidence that they are not doing so. Sticks and carrots being necessary.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 02 02:22:21 Iran certainly. Most of their aid already goes to humanitarian and infrastructure stuff in Lebanon and Palestine anyway. Seb, regional dominance is not about destabilizing for the hell of it, its about access and establishing institutions and investment programs. This in particular to fundamental and required infrastructure programs. Partnership with Arab nations beyond collusion similar to the UK and France's position during the Spanish Civil war would ignore the fact that most Arab countries have strong and growing domestic radical issues to deal with. A problem only going to become worse and those crazies won't stop until Al Qud is solely in Arab hands. If then. You think the Arab regimes are going to implode? Besides which, shia are considered Apostates by the hardline crew and are not really comitted to the holy this or that symbolism important to the sunni as they have their own holy cities. Deradicalization is in Irans regional interests as much as it is Israel's. EU expansion to included Israel. Yah, I have suggested that earlier. But sort of a pipedream as Eastern European vetowelding countries were let in instead. They hate Jews Seb, though its not much of an issue any more as post war pogroms sort of cleared the region quite nicely. Even suggesting Israeli membership will turn eastern politics into a very ugly affair. Developing world consensus generally favours UN mandated actions on the duty to protect principles. Just review who is actually supplying UN peacekeepers these days. They are not as rigidly committed to the Westphalia regime as we are. Domestic issues not withstanding as the threshold for intervention is in any case far above what any developing country would consider acceptable. Though you will have world order issues of course. Structurally caused genocide by way of patent rights or unfair trade practices. The IAEA does not think Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That development will beyond doubt decrease the time they need to militarise if they want is beyond doubt. But that does not a weapon program make. They can do anything but build the nukes within the framework of the NPT seb, as you know. There is no requirement for handing over plutonium, nor a commitment to not having contingency plans for rushed weaponization. The bar is set to not building them and being transparent enough so that others know nuclear weapons do not currently exist (with an understanding that actual deployment should take at least 3 months).
Seb Member	Fri Oct 02 10:10:41 jergul: "Deradicalization is in Irans regional interests as much as it is Israel's." Or the alternative strategy, which they have been persuing with gusto: brush over the shia/sunni divide by uniting against a common Jewish/Crusader enemy. Which is exactly why they will keep peace on the boil. Peaceful prosperous palestine means no nice photo-opertunities of humanitarian aid and kudos for supporting armed resistance. "Even suggesting Israeli membership will turn eastern politics into a very ugly affair." Things change. Look how far people have come RE homophobia in western Europe in the last 30 years, from multiple countries having criminal laws against it to gay pride parades. "Developing world consensus generally favours UN mandated actions on the duty to protect principles." Really, look at the statements made in the last meeting on R2P... R2P basiccally to be reduced to an internal obligation, and any coersive activity to remain purely at the SC level (where people can be assured it will not happen). "Just review who is actually supplying UN peacekeepers these days." Interesting point, given that the UN pays them to do so, and they often go dispatched stripped of a great deal of their weapons and ammunition, and the soldiers then go and subsidise their wages with less than legal activities. One would suggest that the motivation is less about contribution to humanitarian goals, and more about defraying costs of armament and employment and securing a revenue stream. Kind of like saying Blackwater was in in Iraq because of it´s deep rooted conviction in a democratic Iraq. "The IAEA does not think Iran has a nuclear weapons program." Bits of them (safeguards) do. Diplomatically, they don´t, officially at least. Blistering arguments rage, lots of leaks etc. "The bar is set to not building them and being transparent enough so that others know nuclear weapons do not currently exist (with an understanding that actual deployment should take at least 3 months)." Does you genuinely believe repeating something the last person just said in a different form is a contribution, or do you just want to get the last word in? The framework of the NPT, incientally, is caveated with the requirement for safeguards. They are entitled to do whatever they like while providing adequate reassurances (to be agreed mutually) that the technology is not applied to a weapons programme. The IAEA have found them breaking the safeguards procedures on numerous occasions, which is not really within the NPT framework and safeguards, even as mutually agreed.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 02 13:34:47 Seb The only policy they have been following with a gusto once assurances that their natural role will be respected is very supportive of stabilization efforts. The two places where Iran could cause real trouble to the crusaders lack any form of such commitments. Also, in both Lebanon and Gaza, Iranian clients have been extra-ordinarily frank in their wish to avoid open conflict with Israel. The soldier kidnapping being repeatedly termed a mistake that did not gauge the Israeli response. Hamas being outright in saying that the only reason limited missile launches began again was Israeli refusal to honour its commitment to lessening the strangle-hold on Gaza. Leaving expression of the right to exist in a very controlled manner the only option Hamas had at the time. The crack down serving Hamas interests as well as Israels as the cost of resisting in that way is too high. Discrediting those wanting to take that option and allowing Hamas to solidify control further. Photo-ops connected to hospitals, schools and infrastructure projects are much more important than pictures of a pile of weapons and a few masked men. Perhaps the EU can offer Brandenburg as a new homeland then seeing as things change. Because adopting Israel assumes a number of things you have suggested are quite beyond the EUs reach. And getting rid of eastern anti-semitism...Well, good luck with that :-) You should try suggesting warring and whoring for profit under the UN banner to some Nepalese people you might know. Or is it unseemly for a man of your standing to get his teeth punched in? In a most polite way of course. The Nepalese are nothing if not polite. Domestically produced technology and know how can be used in a weapons program. What they cannot do is start to make bombs or do anything in secret. The point of the NPT is not to stop nuclear capability. The point is the give assurances that the weapons do not exist now and that it will be at least 3 months from any point in time before nuclear weapons can be deployed. I am not repeating you I trust. Who believes Iran is less than 3 months away from the bomb because it has a full production line sonewhere that the IAEA does not know about?
Seb Member	Fri Oct 02 13:56:01 jergul: " Hamas being outright in saying that the only reason limited missile launches began" They also blamed a lot of them on Islamic Jihad... wonder where they get them from. If a peace deal becomes likely, want to bet that suddenly such groups start to get shiny new weapons. Stolen from their arms depots of course... Also a big difference between open conflict and merely a lack of peace agreement. Irans objective will be to keep the situation simmering, with occasional outbursts. Gives them much better PR opportunities in both fronts. It´s funny, isn´t it, that if Iran is so avowedly promoting deradicalisation, that they give their support so consistently to the more avowedly religious groups? "You should try suggesting warring and whoring for profit under the UN banner to some Nepalese people you might know." Ooh, so the fact that we (and several other armies) have quasi-mercanary elements, that means that we can pretend that de-facto mercanary behaviour by Governments shows commitment to peacekeeping objectives? Does that pass as clever rhetoric? Jergul, your being disingenious and you know it. An individual soldiers commitment to the cause isn´t relevant. What does matter is the intention of the Government that issues the order and dispatches the troops and the outcome that has. A government willing to send troops that are totally ineffective and close to disarmed and without much supervision taking payment above cost of the operation does not show the kind of commitment to a multilateral security regime that you seem to be claiming it does. Yes India, Bangladesh etc. provide lots and lots of peacekeepers. But are they very effective? Not really. Is India and Bangladesh really interested in intervention? The fact they go out without bullets in some occasiosn, that pay is so heavily delayed the soldier turn to criminal actions, and that the whole thing for is paid for above cost suggests the motivation is to subsidise their armed forces and they have no actual interest in peacekeeping beyond that. "and that it will be at least 3 months from any point in time before nuclear weapons can be deployed." The fact that the treaty has provisions for withdrawl within three months does not mean the treaty supposes that any safeguards be that limited. Contradictory as that may sound. A safeguards violation discovered that will not yield a bomb for four months does not only suddenly become a safeguards violation when after a month elapses.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 02 14:35:46 Seb Iran systematically supports groups able to provide quality services to the populations in question. And tends to avoid corrupt organizations. There are nation-building lessons to be learned here. Iraq and Afghanistan would be different places if Iranian development principles had been followed. Lebanon was the place with actual Iranian weapons (not the home made fertilizer based pipes in other words). A rigid escalation ladder was followed and nothing approaching the full arsenal was used. The defence plan was limited to getting Israel to go away. Development thereafter towards automation and decentralized fire control. Limiting launch crew exposure. A focus almost western would you not say? Iran's objective is of course to establish institutional organizations and a regional presence along the Med. They are not playing a defensive destabilization game seb, nor do they need to. The fact is that Nepal makes major UN peace keeping contributions. I was not commenting on the Gurkhas in British and Indian employ. There are other nations doing an admirable job and you are going way to far in suggesting ulterior motives are the reason for participation. I could just as well suggest that the only reason Afghanistan is useful is that it provides wargames for nato interaction under semi-realistic conditions. The NPT is meant to stop proliferation and the actual production of nuclear weapons. A country is free to set up production lines, design bombs and stockpile material. It just cannot slap it together under its treaty obligations, nor can it supply stuff to non-nuclear powers. Interestingly, according to NATO interpretations, sharing technology and launch systems is not a proliferation issue if both parties already have the capability on their own. So technically, the khan network would no longer amount to proliferation in bilateral exchanges between Iran and Pakistan. Or more realistically, domestic Iranian development opens for bilateral agreements with Russia and China on both missile and nuclear proliferation areas. Iran can do it anyway, so its no longer proliferation. Our world order interpretations sort of suck when other people start using them, don't they?
Seb Member	Fri Oct 02 15:47:41 "They are not playing a defensive destabilization game seb" If you squint through rose tinted glasses. "There are other nations doing an admirable job and you are going way to far in suggesting ulterior motives are the reason for participation." Not really, it is true that such operations are profitable, and it is also true that almost every UN peacekeeing operation run by developing world nations tends to be characterised by a higher incidence of crimes, that their weaponry tends to be signficiantly less than the order of battle would maintain. "country is free to set up production lines, design bombs and stockpile material." Are the additional protocols NOT under the NPT framework? "So technically, the khan network would no longer amount to proliferation in bilateral exchanges between Iran and Pakistan." Except of course, the capability was not there prior to exchange in most cases. That was why significant money changed hands in one direction only and significant information changed hands in the other. If Pakistan had been an NPT member, it would have amounted to proliforation (III.2). You appear to be mixing the missile export treaties in with the NPT. Careful not to muddy the water too much.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 02 16:33:07 Rose-tinted glasses depends on if you want Iranian regional dominance to stretch to the Med I suppose. Peacekeepers are always stripped down compared to regular forces. And your claim that they fight for profit is deeply insulting. The west is much more vulnerable to claims that its actions are to further its interests. The additional protocols are indeed under the NPT framework. Iran may very well be in breach of those while honouring the NPT treaty. Just be clear on what you think they are breaching. Not that it really matters - there is no mechanism for kicking someone out of the NPT anyway. Yepp, Iran has been sanctioned for being the recipient of proliferation. It still is proliferation as it involved a NPT signee. Any exchange or cooperative deal would no longer be proliferation however, as both have the capabilities. This being the NATO interpretation of how the treaty works. Missile limitations are founded on similar form of proliferation concerns and are no longer relevant. The same is the case for dual use technologies, resources, materials and tooling machines.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 02 17:08:26 jergul: "Peacekeepers are always stripped down compared to regular forces." Hmm, so stripped down that when you are confronted with a bunch of rebels in Sierra Leone they take your vehicles away from you because you have not been equipped with ammunition? Outgunned by irregulars? Come on. "And your claim that they fight for profit is deeply insulting." Yet often true. Look at the debacale in Congo, with the UN forces selling what ammo and guns they had to the rebels, allowing smugglers to use their facilities, and engaging in trade of raw materials. The fact that there is a net financial benefit for many developing world peacekeepers is a simple matter of statistics, as much as 3.5 times more than the cost in some cases, and allows several to maintain larger armies than would be possible. "The west is much more vulnerable to claims that its actions are to further its interests." Mhmm, but that wasn´t exactly the point now was it. I maintain the only viable security arangement reflects ballance of power. You are the one arguing that a security regime consisting of hundreds of members with equal votes, a large minority of which are human rights abusers at home, will support an interventionist responsibility to protect regime. The problem with a "democratic" regime with no veto, where the individual govermments are not all democratic, is the block voting. Would any of the major powers be content to accept a resolution dammaging to it´s vital interests just becuase another power can rent enough votes one way or another? Does Pakistans willingness to get paid 3.5 times the cost of deployment menn that it would accept the idea of Europe getting together and voting for it to leave Kashmir? Such a regime would implode rapidly, and there is no way a system with a host of non-humanist members would act in a humanist way collectively.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 02 17:13:34 jergul: "Iran may very well be in breach of those while honouring the NPT treaty." Requirement to honor safeguards (and it hasn't honoured it´s safeguards agreement) is part of the NPT is it not? "Not that it really matters - there is no mechanism for kicking someone out of the NPT anyway." No, but what would be the point? The rights to co-operation afforded in it are conditional. "It still is proliferation as it involved a NPT signee." That is actually not so clear. Iran´s offence is not to recieve stuff from Pakistan, but to do so in a manner in violation of it´s safeguards agreement.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 02 17:56:33 We are going to have to recap. "The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility" Seems to be the relevant paragraph. Where exactly is Iran in breech in terms of the new facility?
Seb Member	Sat Oct 03 12:07:15 jergul: The subsiduary agreement which specified time limits.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 03 12:40:22 "The subsiduary agreement which specified time limits." translation: we need to whack iran so that our economic woes will be overlooked by the sheeple and we need to appease the zio-nazis in consolidating their reign in the middle-east.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 03 12:43:05 I'm pretty sure that the United States doesn't have the military ability to occupy a country as large as Iran. Fuck it up, maybe, but not conquer.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 03 12:52:51 Seb The subsidiary agreement of what date? We should find the text before citing breech.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 03 14:54:29 Swordtail found it.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 03 16:39:06 Swordtail: "we need to whack iran" Military response to Irans programme, as I have always stated, is not viable and enormously counter productive. A nuclear Iran would make getting Israel to disarm it's nukes and get out of Palestine in a civilised fashion far more difficult. That and having more nuclear powers (particularly when we have the exiting powers discussing arms cuts) ought to be obviously a bad thing. As for hiding our economic woes, I doubt traders in UK government bonds are looking at Iran nuke headlines, and the UK sheeple are far more excited about that then Iran.
Mavl Member	Sun Oct 04 15:07:38 Seb. "Cheering. The consequences of the breakup of the USSR largely stem from Russian bungling. West could have done more to smooth the way, tis true. But Russians need to come to terms with their own mistakes." It's irrelevant what you did personally, I mean the general western oh so humanist attitude. Gorbachev's dream was a humanist world order without a threat of a global war, that is why he did what he did - cooperate with the greatest threat. But what you did? Instead of shaking that hand you made all that was possible to exploit the situation. You aided the separatist forces within the russian republic itself, cultivated nationalist anti-russian movements and did all you could to enlarge your "sphere of influence"(ohmygosh!). So now when your ass is on fire and that hand has turned into a fist don't whine about lack of humanism. "Mavl hrhr, that answer probably has you wanting to send Iglas (igli) to afghanistan :-)" Nah, they are one foot in their grave anyway. Just look at the casualty progression. Though maybe the afghans themselves would be a better source of control for the drug trafficking. That is the main problem for Russia and NATO has done zilch in that area.
Mavl Member	Sun Oct 04 15:15:40 Though I admit, sending some "needles" to A-stan would make for the final nail :-)
Seb Member	Sun Oct 04 18:21:11 Mavl: "You aided the separatist forces within the russian republic itself" Self determination is a good thing. I can't see how you could have a humanist agenda when it takes violence and/or surpression of political freedoms to keep a country together. And before you bang on about Ireland and Scotland, they have recourse to the ballot box to leave whenever they want to. As for needles to A-Stan for self defeating moves, how about Javlins etc. to Dagistan and Chechnya. That way we could all ensure everyone loses.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 05 00:06:54 Well, you did have the stingers to Afghanistan as a self-defeating move. The Russians learned from that one. They are not really depending on helicopters to defeat insurrections. Chechnya and Dagestan are not threats. Seb, you know both Iran and Russia could force a retreat in Afghanistan - just as both of them have major issues with drugs that Nato is doing little to solve. But there is no need. It would however be a mistake to posture Nato into a position were either country discerned a need. Iran and Russia are both in a modernization process that leaves them with tons of surplus 2nd line equipment. Including 1000nds of MANPADs.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 05 09:28:39 jergul: "Well, you did have the stingers to Afghanistan as a self-defeating move" I don't think that was the self defeating move actually. I think it was the failure to support Gorbachevs withdrawl from Afghanistan (which roughly conformed to the Inkblot strategy coupled with Afghanisation) as Gorbachev had assumed that an arc of Islamic instability would not be in the US´s interests. The US ditched the diplomacy/aid side of things and backed only a half arsed military solution (and the USSR imploded) and then withdrew any kind of contact with the region. The person heavily involved in those decisions was Robert Gates, who is now currently in the pentagon. And he has been scathing about the (his) mistakes in Afghanistan previously. So, the question is only whether Russia has come to the conclusion that an unstable Afghanistan is in it´s benefits, or whether it has remembered the conclusions Gorbachev came to. "They are not really depending on helicopters to defeat insurrections." Javlins etc. are for tanks and armoured vehicles, are they not?
jergul Member	Mon Oct 05 10:01:17 "Javelin's fire-and-forget technology allows the gunner to fire and immediately take cover, to move to another fighting position, or to reload. The Javelin provides enhanced lethality over the M47 Dragon through the use of a tandem warhead which will defeat all known armor threats. It is effective against both stationary and moving targets. The Javelin is capable of operating over 2.5 times the range of the M47 Dragon with a day/night integrated sight, capable of target acquisition in adverse weather and through battlefield obscurant conditions. This system has a secondary mission of destroying bunkers and provides defensive capability against attacking/hovering helicopters. The CLU also has been used in a stand-alone mode for battlefield surveillance and target selection in recent conflicts" Its not really a good tool for insurgents. It has design features that require strong logistics. By design I think. So as not to be useful in the wrong hands.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 05 10:06:51 jergul: Let the Afghanis sort out that part. They are good enough at it.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 05 10:37:43 It uses non-rechargeable proprietary batteries with a 4 minute lifespan after activation. The limitations are so rigid as to suggest a design approach to address wayward weapons concerns including Stingers and shelf-life. The Taliban is not a threat to Russia in any meaningful sense - even with a modernized domino theory perspective. It lacks the pan-sunni perspective of more volatile competitors and has interests linked to specific geographical areas. A Russian decision to aid them defeat Nato would have to be based on an aggressive self-image. That the federation is under such threat from the US and EU that it need actively engage in castrating those nations. Which is not the current Russian perspective. Nor is it a likely future perspective unless it comes under serious western pressure. There are fault lines like Poland, the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Afghanistan included if it seemed remotely likely an enduring western presence could be maintained.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 05 10:57:40 Ah, but you know the Afghani based groups are quite happy to go elsewhere. I am sure the battery issue can be circumvented.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 05 11:19:18 OBL was sort of a special case. I think you can assume that future Taliban hospitality for help rendered will not extend to humouring attackers of that type. Dunno that it can be jury-rigged easily. Another issue is that discarded targeting units can be used independently for observation. It really depends on what safeguards have been put in. Still, while other weapons may be more appropriate, I don't think Nato has the same harm potential Russia has.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 05 11:24:53 Well, ideally you would want to wait for Putin to get back in before getting armed jihadists into Dagestan and Chechnya for maximum dammage. A flare up under Medvedev would just be an argument for getting Putin back ASAP.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 05 17:20:03 And a flare up under putin would just be an argument supporting managed democracy.
Mavl Member	Tue Oct 06 15:42:56 Seb. "Self determination is a good thing. I can't see how you could have a humanist agenda when it takes violence and/or surpression of political freedoms to keep a country together." Self determination is one thing, islamic fundamentalism and crime is another. I suggest you restate your claim on self-determination in a separate thread for Transnistria. "And before you bang on about Ireland and Scotland, they have recourse to the ballot box to leave whenever they want to." Why should I bring up Ireland or Scotland when you have Miliband and South Ossetia? "As for needles to A-Stan for self defeating moves, how about Javlins etc. to Dagistan and Chechnya. That way we could all ensure everyone loses." Sending your weapons into Russia would mean an act of war once they are uncovered. It is easy to imagine where will all that surplus weaponry go after that. However I do find the idea of an unwashed militant in dirty pants trying to use Javelins rather funny.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 06 17:09:07 Mavl: "Self determination is one thing, islamic fundamentalism and crime is another." Ahh, yes, so Chechnyas independence was purely and solely about Islamic fundementalism. "Why should I bring up Ireland or Scotland when you have Miliband and South Ossetia?" I think Milibands point on South Ossetia is pretty much that while Georgia was wrong to attack, Russian and South Ossetian actions were far from white. Besides, I belive this dicussion was about "where were my Humanist ideals"... if you recall I was not exactly offering ringing endorsements of Shakishvalli. "Sending your weapons into Russia would mean an act of war once they are uncovered." And what would be sending Iglas to Afghanistan be? Oooh, watchagonnado, start WWIII? "However I do find the idea of an unwashed militant in dirty pants trying to use Javelins rather funny." Hind pilots found it funny when they were using Stingers... OK Javelins may not be the best, I'm sure we can find something on the market. Point is if you think the breakup of the soviet union and all those republics ditching rule from Moscow was anti-humanist, you don't understand what humanism is. Russians got a bum deal, but Russian poverty after the collapse of the USSR was not because Ukraine, Georgia and the central asian republics left. It was because Russian institutions were rotten to the core from 70 years of endemic corruption. The tragedy of Russia is that in its desparation to continue to "stand up to the USA", you've basically turned yourselves into a juniour partner to China, who is so disinterested in fighting a new cold war that they won't even indulge Russias desire for a new Warsaw Pact with the SCO (and wouldn't even allow the SCO to endorse the Russian account of the war in Georgia).
Mavl Member	Wed Oct 07 02:29:44 Seb: "Ahh, yes, so Chechnyas independence was purely and solely about Islamic fundementalism." You have two choices: Support self determination of relatively peaceful functioning governments, or support self determination of a Taliban like quas-state who's objective is to create an islamic "Caucasus Emirate" in Caucasus and parts of Russia. You support the fundies. That says it all. "I think Milibands point on South Ossetia is pretty much that while Georgia was wrong to attack, Russian and South Ossetian actions were far from white. " Your government supported Georgia's microimperialist policy against the "self-determination" of S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. That's the basic position no matter how you twist it. "Besides, I belive this dicussion was about "where were my Humanist ideals"... if you recall I was not exactly offering ringing endorsements of Shakishvalli." Not surprising, the whole of the "west" started to quietly dump their friend because of all the embarrassment. That doesn't mean you don't support his ideas of "standing up to those evil russians". "And what would be sending Iglas to Afghanistan be? Oooh, watchagonnado, start WWIII? " One thing is Afghanistan, the other sending weapons to aid IRA, one has to understand that. War not in WW3 kind of sense, but in "we'll arm everyone who is fighting you" kind of sense, and considering the amount of hate you attracted as of late finding such people would not be too hard. Great powers never fight each other in the XXIst century - politics ABC. "Hind pilots found it funny when they were using Stingers... OK Javelins may not be the best, I'm sure we can find something on the market. " When "they" were using stingers their usual immediate objective wasn't to survive in a blocked and surrounded apartment building. But why not tanks while you're at it? "Point is if you think the breakup of the soviet union and all those republics ditching rule from Moscow was anti-humanist, you don't understand what humanism is. " Are you sure you can read correctly and all? because I just went through what I said and found nothing similar. "Russians got a bum deal, but Russian poverty after the collapse of the USSR was not because Ukraine, Georgia and the central asian republics left. It was because Russian institutions were rotten to the core from 70 years of endemic corruption. " No, it was because of the whole lot of factors about which you don't have any idea or are delusional just like you are about the so called free and democratic state of Chechnya. "The tragedy of Russia is that in its desparation to continue to "stand up to the USA"" Since we do that in our own back yard and get refugees on our soil you may just drop the quotation marks. "you've basically turned yourselves into a juniour partner to China, who is so disinterested in fighting a new cold war that they won't even indulge Russias desire for a new Warsaw Pact with the SCO (and wouldn't even allow the SCO to endorse the Russian account of the war in Georgia). " China is a partner, they can do whatever they want. They are however in need of an American market to keep their economy afloat and it's no secret that the west is engaged in political blackmail to keep countries from recognizing the pro-Russian republics seeking international recognition, so this is all in a matter of things.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 07 09:26:49 Mavl, mavl mavl, I honestly don´t know where to begin... "The fact that I don't support Shakishvalli doesn't alter the fact that I do suppot him"? I'm not sure how I could respond to that even if Could. I see that you think it is necessary to prove your anti-fundamentalist credentials by supporting vacuum bombing grannies in basements. "Since we do that in our own back yard and get refugees on our soil you may just drop the quotation marks." Your problem is you consider other countries your back yard, which is kind of the problem: microimperialist policy I think is the term you used. As for your relations with China, it's no coincidence that they now insist on buying the factory lines for weapons rather than the weapons themselves. How long is that one going to last? Russia is in danger of becoming as much a partner to China as Angola is.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 07 10:03:25 Seb China is sort of playing with a different time line than the rest of us. One wink to the wise. Define absolutely balanced trade as ideal. Surplus being as bad as a deficit (or as good). What kind of relationship makes sense for Russia and China? Licence fees and raw material revenue to Russia Goods and hardware to Russia Would seem an ok balance. It seems rather clear that commodity input will continue to increase its portion of the final price. A resource based economy may not be a bad thing, particularly if supplemented with limited high tech output and intellectual property development.
Mavl Member	Wed Oct 07 16:51:27 "Mavl, mavl mavl, I honestly don�´t know where to begin..." Countering my arguments instead of dodging them can be a good start. "I see that you think it is necessary to prove your anti-fundamentalist credentials by supporting vacuum bombing grannies in basements." Oh, so then following your genius logic i see that you think it is necessary to prove your anti-fundamentalist humanist "war on terror" credentials by supporting the launching of missiles at weddings and funerals. (fun, i can do it too) "Your problem is you consider other countries your back yard, which is kind of the problem: microimperialist policy I think is the term you used." I was talking about North Ossetia when I mentioned refugees. You should get your facts straight first. It doesn't matter how they are called. You may may call them "new Europe" or "bulwark against baby eating Russians", it doesn't change the fact that you are fucking things up on Russian border, and it will always be a major national security issue no matter how you call your attempts to expand your sphere your influence. Especially if you are causing refugee camps to pop up all around. "Microimperialism" is when one state gets it's "freedom" and at the same time refuses to grant this "freedom" to others on the basis that others occupy "their territory". And yes, that becomes a kind of a problem. "As for your relations with China, it's no coincidence that they now insist on buying the factory lines for weapons rather than the weapons themselves. How long is that one going to last? Russia is in danger of becoming as much a partner to China as Angola is." Last I heard there were no refugees flooding into Russia because Chinese decided to shell someone with western support, no Russians are being killed by Chinese weapons, so how exactly are they a "danger"? Naturally they've grown up now and want to produce their weapons themselves, you can't rely on outside sources in an era of arms embargoes if you want to be independent. Nothing is threatening the relations because they are balanced and not tainted by politics. The Chinese are smart, unlike some other blocks.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 07 17:01:30 Mavl: "Microimperialism" is when one state gets it's "freedom" and at the same time refuses to grant this "freedom" to others on the basis that others occupy "their territory". And isn't that precisely Russian policy regarding the "near abroad" or "our backyard" as you put it. The idea that it is about Europes spehre of influence when there is no Imperial European command to operate from: Eastern Europes desire to join the EU is far stronger than Western Europes desire for them to enter... hell, a good name for the Lisbon treaty would be "stop more dirty Easterners from getting into Europe". Until Russia comes to grips with the fact that all those little countries on it's fringe are shit scared of Russia and justifiably angry after 70 odd years of Russian occupation, you are going to end up with this warped view. "e with western support" Still keeping up with that hoary old myth? Shakishvalli had no support for his operation, look at the EU response. Russias over the top reaction on the other hand was not wildly enthusiastic. As for Chinese migration Dmitry Rogozin once put it that they were crossing the border in small groups of 5 million. An exadgeration, but not insignificant numbers.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: