Mneh. I don't like cheap point-scoring by the cartoonist. It all goes to a nasty political culture. There are lots of politicians I don't like, but I'd hope I didn't allow that to cloud my judgement enough that I criticize their reasonable actions along with the bad ones. I'm finding that the previously excellent Bremner, Bird and Fortune has gone down the same path, leaving proper satire that makes a point in favour of mocking that takes for granted that the audience already agree and hence that no point need be made.
However, as Bush has had the implcit threat of violence hanging over them for some time, to now deny it seems a tad silly, so I can see the point of what the cartoon is saying. Especially as yes, violence in this case would probably make things worse, not better.
Bush has painted Iran into a corner where they have to develop nukes as quickly as possible or be obliterated - what are they going to do? I don't like the Iranian regime, but you can't expect them to just commit group suicide for America's convenience.
The only mediating body which might have restrained both sides is the UN, but Bush has undermined their influence, by invading Iraq. Iran know they are next. They have to get nukes or be destroyed.
Plus, if I was Pakistan, I'd be providing Iran with covert aid to that end. Nobody wants the next country along to be nuked either.
The only mediating body which might have restrained both sides is the UN, but Bush has undermined their influence
The UN has influence now? I could have sworn that they were known primarily for standing by and watching genocide happen, with a worried look on their face.
And I'm not even slightly happy about Iran having nukes. Not when its leader has stated that Israel should be destroyed.
The UN are worse at intervening inside a nation than mediating between nations. And now, thanks to the US, their weight in mediating is weakened too.
And their significance was not really because of what power they had, but that they were a barometer of world opinion. So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
And if that insurance hadn't been in place, every country would have had to put all its resources into developing bombs, or be wiped out.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
The checks and balances were there for a reason. they protected Israel as much as Iran. Now Bush has swept that aside for short term gain, and now he's reaping the results.
So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
The point I was making was that the UN hasn't been terribly good at stopping people developing nuclear weapons. The fact that three countries openly said they weren't going to forgo them doesn't really change that.
What's the difference between Iran and any other state - they all say jingoistic things that play well to their population but don't necessarily mean. Realpolitik will usually triumph, for better or worse.
I just think it's rhetoric - any Islamic/Islamist state *has* to say something against Israel. Were the US to kill them with kindness and throw billions of aid $ their way I'm sure they would soon change their tune unless they were really hardline/intractable.
IMO what's needed is to get the 99% on both/all sides to gang up on the minorities in their own countries who cannot/will not compromise and/or for the US to bankroll peaceful nuclear power for anyone who wants it (not sure if this is possible, though I'm sure I read something about pebble bed reactors which suggested they might be viable as a power source but not for weapons). Yes, I'm an idealist...
Except that it seems to be a majority in many of these countries that would happily see Israel destroyed and would rather that people were governed by religious laws.
Yes. But - and very big bit - if they were presented with the choice of live and let live versus being martryrs which would they go for? I guess you could ask the same of religious fantatics in Israel. The irony is that the extremists are closer than they would think. I just wish the moderates on all sides would be extreme with regard to them...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The only mediating body which might have restrained both sides is the UN, but Bush has undermined their influence, by invading Iraq. Iran know they are next. They have to get nukes or be destroyed.
Plus, if I was Pakistan, I'd be providing Iran with covert aid to that end. Nobody wants the next country along to be nuked either.
no subject
The UN has influence now? I could have sworn that they were known primarily for standing by and watching genocide happen, with a worried look on their face.
And I'm not even slightly happy about Iran having nukes. Not when its leader has stated that Israel should be destroyed.
no subject
And their significance was not really because of what power they had, but that they were a barometer of world opinion. So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
And if that insurance hadn't been in place, every country would have had to put all its resources into developing bombs, or be wiped out.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
The checks and balances were there for a reason. they protected Israel as much as Iran. Now Bush has swept that aside for short term gain, and now he's reaping the results.
no subject
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
no subject
are all non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Iran *is* a signatory.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm still not terribly comfortable with countries having nuclear capability while declaring their neighbours should be destroyed.
no subject
IMO what's needed is to get the 99% on both/all sides to gang up on the minorities in their own countries who cannot/will not compromise and/or for the US to bankroll peaceful nuclear power for anyone who wants it (not sure if this is possible, though I'm sure I read something about pebble bed reactors which suggested they might be viable as a power source but not for weapons). Yes, I'm an idealist...
no subject
no subject
no subject
You don't see fanatical Buddhists...
no subject
At least according to the Sting song...
Ditto Reagan's jokey "we start bombing..."