Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

I personally think this would be the time for a multinational effort of some kind. After all, Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China agreed to bring the matter before the UN Security Council, and the IAEA absolutely endorsed the effort.

This would be an opportunity to act on a truly multinational basis.
But then, who cares about international relationships, right?

Russia followed by France and Germany have now recognized Hamas

Ah, but George, I was commenting on other user's posts here, not on the entire United States, you see? And suggesting something like an unilateral strike prompted me calling for a multinational effort. That's easy to see, n'est-ce pas?

And then, I'm not entirely following your argument that France or Germany aren't willing to go along and take a tough stance. I was, for example, quite surprised when Chirac announced that France would shift its doctrine for use of nuclear weapons. It sounded to me as if that was in direct connection to the Iran situation.

I'm not sure about Germany, even though there are German troops in Afghanistan and, altogether, 10,000 are deployed abroad in numerous missions.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Russia followed by France and Germany have now recognized Hamas

Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Germany is not even going to talk to Hamas. You must be mistaken, OCCOM BILL.

We shall see in the days ahead what the ageing populations and sclerotic governments of Europe are able to sustain in a still harsh and competitive real world. I wouldn't bet on them: would you?

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Russia followed by France and Germany have now recognized Hamas

Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Germany is not even going to talk to Hamas. You must be mistaken, OCCOM BILL.

I sincerely hope so... and it was on a television news channel so I don't have a handy source. They said something like "Russia has agreed to host Hamas leaders in Moscow, and France and Germany quickly followed suit. I'll look around and hope I can't find verification.

Merkel, Rumsfeld Urge World to Act on Iran Threat

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged the world to prevent the Islamic republic from developing a nuclear weapon.

Merkel told the Munich Conference on Security Policy that Iran had "overstepped the mark" with its nuclear program, while Rumsfeld said the world "does not want a nuclear Iran."

"We want to prevent and we must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Merkel said in her speech. "The concerns and fears over Iran's nuclear program are legitimate."

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), voted on Saturday to report Iran to the UN Security Council, paving the way to possible sanctions over its atomic program.

Iran retaliated by saying it would begin full-scale uranium enrichment and limit inspections by IAEA officials.

Merkel said Iran still had a chance to avoid the sanctions by accepting a Russian proposal to allow Iranian uranium enrichment to take place in Russia, which would prevent Tehran from mastering sensitive nuclear technology.

She called on Iran to consider the compromise as a "window of opportunity."



Merkel alludes to Nazi rise in speech on Iran

The German leader had strong words for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has branded the Holocaust a "myth."

"A president who denies the existence of Israel and the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany," Merkel said.

She compared Ahmadinejad's statements to when Adolf Hitler came to power and began threatening to exterminate European Jews. "Remember that in 1933 many people said it was just rhetoric," Merkel said.

The international community "must fight these beginnings now," she said.

[...]

georgeob1 wrote:

We shall see in the days ahead what the ageing populations and sclerotic governments of Europe are able to sustain in a still harsh and competitive real world. I wouldn't bet on them: would you?

<sigh>

I usually enjoy reading your posts, but really do dislike continental Europe, dontya? I agree, we'll see. And we will see what the US are going to do.

But still, it should be noted that Germany, France and Britain were at least the first ones to call for action, and to refer the matter to the Security Council. A first step, IMO. And they did so before the IAEA backed their stance, or before the United States even commented on the whole issue.

Yes, do so. I'd like to know which TV channel that was, too. Sloppy journalism. Bad. Tsktsktsk.

Hamas to clarify stand on issues at Moscow talks
Agencies



Occupied Jerusalem: Hamas leaders on Sunday said they don't expect Russia to impose conditions for their trip to Moscow this month for talks.

Israel's foreign minister cautioned the international community against going down the "slippery slope" of legitimising the militant group.

Russian President Vladimir Putin extended the invitation to Hamas last week, following its sweeping victory in Palestinian elections last month.

The invitation, later supported by France, infuriated Israel, which fears the international resolve to shun the militant group is weakening...

the ageing populations and sclerotic governments of Europe

amanieajad (?)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Yes, if two people are considering killing themselves for a cause, if one of them truly believes that doing so is a ticket to heaven, it will be easier for that person to detonate the vest of dynamite.

Thank you for conceding the obvious… finally.

This obvious argument, however, has an applicability to the overall issue of about 1%. I can appreciate your desire to compel me to state the obvious, but I'm not sure what difference the obvious makes.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The implication of your argument though is that this is some hugely significant advantage for a religious tyrant as opposed to a secular tyrant, and this just isn't the case.

No, the implication remains that the charismatic fanatic that uses religion in his pitch can offer the faithful fool threats and promises the other charismatic fanatics cannot. As I've said all along; it is a matter of likelihood, not necessity. Now all you've left to concede is that an eternity in paradise and getting to skip eternal damnation is a damn sight more compelling than the glory of gun shootin in your honor.

Here again, I must concede that all things being equal, eternity in paradise is preferable to a role in mythos, but all things are not equal.

You are making an enormous assumption that those who blow themselves up for an Islamic related cause are doing so for the promise of paradise.

Some idiots (holy or otherwise) may be doing so, but I would argue that the majority are compelled by a far more complex set of motivations.

It seems you want to win this argument in the most narrow of margins. Fine -- you win.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I don't know how Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse Tung could have been more successful in terms of enthralling nations and influencing citizens to do horrible things.

Sure you do. They could have succeeded. More over, they could have permanently changed the minds of sufficient numbers to have their movements become… a religion.

Well, that just potty. Since when does success mean permanence? What ideology, what charasmatic leader, in all of history, has effected a permanent change?

Bill, I have a heck of a lot of respect for your postings, but here you are trying to force arguments that may, in the abstract have meaning, but in the practcal are just silly.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

God's will is far more compelling than the Furor's or Dear Leader's because He can make promises and threats the others cannot.

This is clearly not the case. First because it is only the rare fanatic who is motivated to action based soley on his perception of God's will, and secondly because both Hitler and Stalin managed to amass an undeniably large and effective support structure not only without the need for promises or threats in the afterlife, but in spite of the spiritual promises and threats of their opponents.

You're circumventing the point… which is a matter of degrees, not absolutes. The religious equivalent to a Hitler or Stalin could amass the same, use all the same arguments of country, family and honor and threats of horrendous proportions right here on earth… AND back it up with promises of paradise and avoidance of hell. This is something the secular charismatic fanatic could never do.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It may be comforting, for some, to think that there is a force outside of human nature that can cause us to engage in or tolerate unspeakable acts, but that is not the case. Not religion, nor nationalism, nor communisim, nor any other ism is responsible for the evil deeds of men. Men are.

No argument here. I wasn't claiming otherwise. I illustrated the advantage the religious charismatic fanatic has over other isms in convincing men to behave their worst. Your continued denial of this obvious point is mind-boggling.

The policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists is the single best way to discourage terrorism. I'd be very against any policy that rewards terrorism with an opportunity to make demands. Slippery slope to appeasement, that.

Israel has in effect "annexed" the Jordan Valley, or eastern strip of the West Bank, by severely restricting the movements of Palestinians inside it, it was claimed yesterday.

The accusation was made by B'tselem, a leading Israeli human rights organisation, following investigations by B'tselem and the newspaper Ha'aretz which showed that some 200,000 Palestinian West Bank residents are systematically prevented from entering the Jordan Valley area, including farmers seeking to cultivate their own land and seasonal farm workers who used to work there regularly.

The Jordan Valley is politically highly sensitive because by remaining under Israeli control it would further substantially restrict the scale of any Palestinian state. Ehud Olmert, the acting Prime Minister, while being careful not to be specific about the fate of Israeli settlements in the area when he foreshadowed further West Bank withdrawals last week, has made it clear that Israel would maintain control of the border with Jordan.