Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 18, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


Yesterday President Bush began banging the war drums again about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and invoking WWIII. That is the last thing we or the world needs.

The key to preventing Iran from developing their own nuclear weapons is to provide for monitoring their uranium enrichment activities. A concentration of 5% uranium is needed for use as fuel in a nuclear reactor like the one the Russians are helping the Iranians build. The concentration needed for a nuclear weapon is 96%. To concentrate uranium from 5% to 96% is no easy task. It requires thousands of centrifuges and even then takes a great deal of time to produce 96% pure uranium. Thus the way to insure Iran is not making bombs is to monitor their uranium processing.

What Bush should be doing is working with the Russians and the IAEA to develop an agreement with Iran to station IAEA and Russian technicians at the uranium processing sights to monitor the concentration of uranium being produced by Iran.

Why would Russia or Iran agree to such a process? For an agreement with the U.S. that we will not attack nor allow Israel to attack their nuclear facilities so long as the monitors certify the uranium being produced by Iran does not exceed 5% concentration levels. That would protect the ongoing Russian interest in doing business with Iran and would allow Iran to complete and operate their nuclear facility to produce electricity.

In order to get Russia, which is the key to this agreement to cooperate with the U.S., Bush must stop threatening to install the missile defense system in former soviet satellites. He must develop an atmosphere between the U.S. and Russia that will allow such an agreement to be established. The Russians hold the cards with the Iranians- Iran needs Russia to complete their reactor and to provide essential maintenance and technical support to operate it in the future. If we or Israel were to attack the reactor the Russians are helping the Iranians build, there is no assurance that would stop the uranium concentration process if that is being conducted deep underground.

Such an agreement does run the risk of the Iranians operating concentration facilities that are not known to the monitors. However by keeping track of all uranium ore that comes into to Iran it should be possible to detect an effort to divert that ore to the production of weapons grade uranium because the amount of uranium ore that would be needed to produce enough 96% pure uranium for weapons should be detectable. At the same time we must work with the Russians to control existing weapons grade materials that were part of the old Soviet Union. Even if we prevent the production of new fissionable material by Iran, we must also prevent Iran or any one else from obtaining existing supplies to prevent the construction of a nuclear weapon by Iran of any other terrorist group!

What ever the risks are in using this approach they are a lot less then risking WWIII like Bush talked about yesterday in his news conference.

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 22, 2007
Israel is breaking more than a fair share of international laws, is wrong about the oppression and colonization of Palestinian territories -


you mean those territories that didn't exist until after Israel had started building towns in them.


you mean those laws that condemn Israel for allowing those Arab rockets to hit them on a daily bases.


and of course the USA vetos all of the condemning that the UN is doing. but the world condemns us for doing it.
on Oct 23, 2007
Again, your point it totally baseless. First, if such laws really were "made on the spot" and simply antisemitic-oriented, the U.S. would veto them - as it is in their power -.

Assuming that all US administrations were always totally perfect and willing to risk that for Israel, yes.

Israel is breaking more than a fair share of international laws, is wrong about the oppression and colonization of Palestinian territories - on both moral and legal ground -.

"Opression"... are you trying to make me laugh? The so-called "opression" is simply the result of Israel having to defend itself against terrorism. Other countries usually expell the population of territories they capture (as happened to 12 million Germans who lived in what is now Poland). "Opression" is a funny term. You can call something "opression" and it is suddenly evil. Do you think there would be any "opression" in the "Palestinian territories" if the "Palestinians" would not insist on attacking Israel and Jews all the time? If so, why do you think that?
And "colonization"... well, a few thousand Jews are living where Jewish communities existed for thousands of years before the Arabs expelled them in 1949. The "Palestinians" call a similar mechanism "right of return". But when Jews (not Israel, these are not government projects) do it, it's "colonization".
And before we forget it, a Jewish town in the West Bank is obviously a "settlement" or "outpost". The UN have similar definitions.

Treating the U.N. as "fascism" simply because they are doing sanctions against Israel is an insult to the victims of the Holocaust - the victim of true Nazi Fascism -.

Israel is also a victim of "true Nazi fascism". Learn about the roots of the PLO and their mentor, the "grand mufti" of Jerusalem (or as Hitler knew him, that Bosnian SS recruiter who wanted to wipe out the Jews in the middle east that Hitler couldn't get).
Tell me, why doesn't Syria have to pay reparations to Israel for attacking and losing? And why is Israel not entitled to keeping land taken in defensive wars?
For some reason the UN, when they were founded by the victors of WW2, saw all these things different when it was Russia winning a war and taking land.
Russia is attacked, invades Prussia, keeps Prussia, expells the people who live there, colonizes it: no problem.
Israel is attacked, invades the Golan, keeps the Golan, does not expell the people who live there, colonies it: breach of international law.
China is not attacked, invades Tibet, keeps Tibet: no problem.
So please don't tell me that this "international law" Israel is breaking is really a "law" that applies to everyone equally, as opposed to applying only or more strictly to the Jewish state.
The fact is that if "Palestinians" shoot rockets at a Jewish school on the other side of the border and Israel responds, the UN react and condemn Israel.
Do you remember the last Lebanon war? A Lebanese militia, part of the Lebanese government no less, shot rockets at Israel for _five years_. Five years. And only when Israel responded (with rockets after dropping leaflets telling civilians to leave the region) did the UN consider it a war. And Israel was condemned for it.
It's not a war when Jews die. It's only a war when the first non-Jew dies. And it's Israel's fault. How often did the UN condemn Lebanon for the five years of rocket attacks? Did anybody in the UN even care?

Criticizing Israel - or any Jew community for that matter - doesn't make you a Nazi, nor an antisemite. Doing so is using a cheap trick to allow these people to act as if they can do no wrong.

If you criticise Israel for what Israel didn't do or for things that you wouldn't criticise other countries for, it does make you an anti-Semite.
You cannot just call "opression" and pretend that that is an argument against Israel. They are in a war. Shooting at the enemy is NOT opression, especially when the enemy demands the war. It's only "opression" when Jews do it.
There are people in Germany who complain that the US opressed Nazi Germany. I call them anti-American. What do you call them?

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Search "refining capacity" in the part of using oil as energy power. Try to look up Iran's: they have absolutely nothing.

And why are they working on a nuclear project instead of building refineries? Did you even think about that? Iran needs petrol, not electricity. Iran has oil. Oil can be used to produce electiricy and petrol. Yet Iran is working on a project that solves a problem Iran doesn't have instead of focusing on a project that would solve one of Iran's biggest problems.
Did you know that petrol is hard to come by in Iran because of the inadequate refining capacity? People are only allowed to buy a certain amount per month.
Gee, people, THINK.
on Oct 23, 2007
Israel being attacked, winning, taking land: breach of international law

Russia being attacked, winning, taking land: not a breach of international law

Israel killing civilians when defending against attack: breach of international law

Russia killing civilians when defending against attack: not a breach of international law

Israel using "disproportionate force" when defending against attack: breach of international law

Syria and Egypt trying to "throw the Jews into the sea": not a breach of international law

International law: everyone is equal, some are more equal, some are less equal.

When the UN founded Israel and the Arabs attacked it. Was that attack a "breach of international law"? What happened to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq, and the others? Where they, for their attempted genocide, condemned as much as Israel is condemned today for possibly having killed an Arab civilian?

BTW, what I list above for Russia happened to my country of birth. And it was my country's fault and I do not blame Russia. Those people who do, back in Germany, are usually Neo-Nazis, often stupid, but always anti-Russian.

on Oct 23, 2007
"Much the same mixture of exhilaration and invective marked the first flush of war in the other Arab capitals. "Kill the Jews!" screamed Radio Baghdad. A Syrian commander offered the rash prediction to radio listeners that "we will destroy Israel in four days.""

Time Magazin, Friday, Jun. 16, 1967.

"Kill the Jews"

Was that a breach of international law? Was Israel winning a breach of international law?

Why don't we forget about "international law"? What is "international law" anyway? Where is is written down? And whom, apart from Israel, does it apply to? Does anybody think "international law" makes attacking Israel illegal? The Arab countries certainly don't think so. Which "international law" did Israel break? Is there an "international law" that says that one must not occupy land one takes in a war? (Why does it not apply to Russia and Poland, or China?) Is there an "international law" that says that settlers must not move into occupied territory? (So why do "Palestinians" demand a right to return that would presumably apply when Israel is beaten and occupied?) Is there any "international law" that applies to both Israel and other countries?

Note that there is an international law (in the Geneva Convention, I believe) that forbids governments from moving population into occupied territory.

However:

1. Russia and Poland did it. (Again, I don't blame them.)

2. Israel does not do it. (The settlers are not moved by the government.)

3. The Geneva Convention only applies if both sides in a conflict subscribe to it, but the "Palestinians" do not.

Nevertheless I have no doubt that this "international law" applies to Israel. It doesn't apply to Russia, or Poland, or the "Palestinians" (who want a "right to return", i.e. a government-sponsored move into an occupied Israel, should Israel lose). Israel does not violate it. And according to its own rules it does not apply. But it still applies to Israel, doesn't it?

on Oct 23, 2007
(The settlers are not moved by the government.)


wrong the government is trying to move them out


what we should do is let isreal loose.


but we are trying to keep some of the arabs on our side while we are in iraq.
on Oct 23, 2007
Danielost,

The Sunnis in Iraq are very much on America's side now. They don't care much about Israel any more, now that they have felt what it is like not to rule a country but to be Al Qaeda's targets.

The Sunnis, Christians, and Druze in Lebanon are on America's side:

“It would be bad for Lebanon and for the Middle East if the US withdraws from the Middle East. Because we will face a different Arab and Muslim world. It is very strange and ironic that even the pro-Iranians in Iraq are asking the Americans to stay. You could write a theater about it. Making the Americans totally withdraw from the Arab world would be a mistake, would be a disaster for the moderates in the Arab world. The radicals and the Iranians would win.”

Walid Jumblatt, Druze leader (Lebanon) (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001383.html)

I have no idea why (western) liberals want us to listen only to the anti-American and anti-Semitic elements in the Arab world. Why not listen to those who don't hate us and give them what they want?

on Oct 23, 2007
It would be bad for Lebanon and for the Middle East if the US withdraws from the Middle East


where did i say we should withdraw.
on Oct 23, 2007
I have no idea why (western) liberals want us to listen only to the anti-American and anti-Semitic elements in the Arab world. Why not listen to those who don't hate us and give them what they want?



because if bush wins they lose
on Oct 23, 2007

where did i say we should withdraw.


I am not sure Walid Jumblatt was strictly replying to one of your comments.




because if bush wins they lose


I think it goes deeper than that. I think the left are caught between their moral relativism and their racism.


They understand Islam and the entire culture associated with it as barbaric but feel that they have to accept it because "all cultures are equal". Hence they support attempts to "defend" that culture against imperialism. They also believe that that particular barbaric culture (the left does not actually support stoning women), is the appropriate culture for the Arab people (and certain others).


In general it seems that today's difference between "right" and "left" is all about culture and race.


The right believes that all races are equally capable of embracing any culture but that some cultures, specifically the Anglo-American western culture, are superior to others.


The left believes that all cultures are equal and do not believe that all cultures are suitable for all races, at least not immediately.


Left-wingers are racists, right-wingers are culturists.



By "racist", I don't mean that the left believes that one race is superior to another (although their allies, the white supremacists and Arab nationalists believe that), I mean that the left thinks race is _relevant_.


That is why they support laws that protect minorities, give special help to people of certain skin colours, and notice that many Republicans are white. And that is why they think that Obama being black is relevant or should be. (The first black president. Who cares what colour the president's skin has? The left does.)



But the left is slow and hasn't noticed yet that things have changed. Pro-business free market right-wingers do no longer support apartheid, racism, and fascism (and actually never have, but that point is also lost on the left). And left-wingers tend not to do much research before they voice their opinions. That is why you get left-wingers supporting the PLO against Israel (thinking that they are fighting fascism by supporting a group that was founded by the protegee of a Nazi who wanted to exterminate the Jews of the middle east) and that is why you get left-wingers comparing George Bush to Hitler while Saddam Hussein, a nationalist dictator with a moustache, is known, to those who read more, as someone who gases minorities.



3 Pages1 2 3