Sunday, November 29, 2009

Nuclear - an economic sanction.

I came across this article while browsing the antiwar.com and it make sense to me that economic sanction on any country for that matter normally do not work. Typical example was Iraq. There was no regime change until US and the Brits invaded Iraq illegally. What is the aftermath? Thousands or not millions of lives are either gone or misplaced. The biggest question in mind, Iraq had no Al Qaeda or Taliban. Sadam had been rid off, in fact hanged to death. So, what the fuck the Americans are still doing in Iraq soil. US had accomplished their objective by eliminating Sadam.

The US and the West insist on occupying Muslim Middle Eastern countries that does not adapt their styles of democracy and for the sake of Israel existence. I quoted Mahathir “ The Israelis ask others to fight for them”.

Quote:

Why Obama believes new sanctions will work where old ones have failed over the last 30 years is the very definition of insanity according to Einstein.

Not only are sanctions not likely to achieve the desired outcome (since successive Iranian regimes have not shown themselves to be Pavlov’s dogs), they are more likely to put at risk the general population rather than affecting the leaders of the government. For example, U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing is prohibited from selling aircraft to Iranian aviation companies. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, that sanction places civilian lives in danger by denying Iranian aviation necessary spare parts for aircraft repair. More importantly, the likely reaction of the ruling regime is to transfer the effects of any sanctions to the civilian population. For example, critics of the sanctions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War argue that the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (largely children) due to disease from lack of clean water from banned manufacture and restricted import of chlorine, lack of medicine, impoverishment, and other factors. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein stayed in power and continued to live in the lap of luxury.

Although Iran continues to claim that it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear power program, it’s naïve to believe that Tehran isn’t also interested in developing a nuclear weapons capability. And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Iranian regime can be punished via sanctions into giving up those nuclear aspirations. Why? Because sanctions don’t address their motivations for wanting nuclear weapons.

To begin, Israel has nuclear weapons (although the Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies whether it has such weapons). Since Iran and Israel aren’t on the best of terms, it’s perfectly logical that the Iranians would want a nuclear capability to offset and deter Israel’s nukes. Indeed, that’s exactly why Pakistan developed nuclear weapons when its neighbor India joined the nuclear club. Another compelling reason for Iran to want nukes is to deter the United States from engaging in regime change. After all, what are the two things that Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein had in common? No nukes. Contrast that with Kim Jong Il in North Korea who has nukes and hasn’t been invaded by the United States. [Note that the above is not an argument that Iran should be able to have nuclear weapons, but that we need to understand their motivations for wanting them.]

There was time – long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away – when it might have been possible to negotiate a security guarantee with the Iranians in exchange for constraining their nuclear program. That moment was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when Iran appeared willing to cooperate with the United States against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And the opportunity was thrown out the window with the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003.

So if sanctions won’t work, what options do the Obama administration have? Not good ones.

One is military action – whether limited or a full-scale invasion. Limited military strikes might be able to set back Iran’s nuclear program, but are not likely to eliminate it. Plus the Iranians would be even more motivated and would probably redouble their efforts. A full-scale invasion (which would be nearly impossible for the U.S. military already stretched thin by Iraq and Afghanistan) would mean another Pottery Barn "you broke it, you bought it" situation for the United States and occupation of yet another Muslim country – which would be just more fuel on the fire of radical Islam.

The other is accepting Iran as a nuclear weapons power (just as we have had to accept North Korea). This is certainly not the ideal or preferred outcome. But it may be one we have to learn to live with. Unless the regime in Tehran is suicidal (and they’ve shown no evidence of being such), Iran can be deterred from using nuclear weapons (either against Israel or the United States). And while we would have to be concerned about the possibility of transfer of nuclear weapons to terrorists, the "good news" is that no regime that has acquired any dreaded WMD capability (chemical or biological) has ever given those weapons to terrorists.

Finally, there’s this to ponder: Maybe we should be more concerned about the nuclear weapons Pakistan has (which have a more realistic chance of falling into the hands of terrorists should the Zardari government fall and be succeeded by a radical Islamist government) than the nuclear weapons Iran doesn’t have.

Unquote.

It is very difficult to eliminate terrorism. Imagine if a member of your family is being killed. Would you just sit down and keep quiet?? No way, Jose’. You would avenge the death and along the way another innocent bystander become a victim and it keep on escalating and escalating beyond control. Doesn’t mean here, I agree on terrorism but solution must be apprehended by talking and listening. The whole world acknowledges that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is illegal. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am saddened by the stream of blood flowing from innocent victim of the Iraqis and the Afghans. Killing is not the solution to solve a solution. If you ask me to revert to 9/11, well sorry to say and I still believe, it was all orchestrated and a conspiracy by the Zionists. Why the Jews stayed away from the Twin Tower on 9/11??? You have the answer.

No comments: