|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DrunkenMaster
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: What will Assad do now? |
 |
|
"Assad caught red-handed may now go for revenge
US and Israel intelligence experts upgrade the chances of president Bashar Assad retaliating for the Israeli attack, which irreparably damaged the secret nuclear North Korea built for him in eastern Syria - now that the episode is out in the open.
Assad will find it hard to avoid avenging his humiliation Thursday, April 24, when America�s top intelligence officials briefing congressional committees laid bare detail after detail of Syria�s nuclear program. They all agreed that it was incumbent on the United States to take further steps against Iran as well as Syria to avert any more developments which endanger the world.
The briefing brought out key data hidden from the public in the eight months since the Israeli raid.
1. It confirmed that North Korean personnel had built a reactor for the production of plutonium in a remote part of Syria.
2. Israel managed to plant a mole or moles inside the reactor compound capable of producing professional photos from inside the reactor. US lawmakers where shown, for instances, images of a concrete floor with rows of holes ready for the nuclear fuel rods to power the plant.
Assad must have been irked beyond endurance when his most coveted secrets and security were shown to the world as having been blown wide open, when the regime he heads depends for its survival on a battery of secret police and undercover agencies with eyes and ears everywhere.
3. The Israeli raid demonstrated too that Syria�s military establishment has been penetrated as fatally as his clandestine agencies.
4. The congressional briefing will have done more to mar the relations of trust between Tehran and Damascus than any diplomatic or military action. Cracks are inevitable in their strategic pact. It will be hard for Iran to continue to pose as the No. 1 Middle East power after Syria, its foremost ally and military mainstay, exposed its extreme vulnerability.
5. Tehran�s precise role in the Syrian nuclear program is not known, but it was obvious to the American lawmakers listening to the intelligence briefing that Syria would not have built a nuclear reactor with Iran�s knowledge and consent, and that the Syrian plant was designed to be an integral part of Iran�s own nuclear program.
Iran will no doubt have inferred from the disclosures about the Israeli attack on the Syrian reactor and its painful fallout for the Assad regime that its own projects may be subjected to the same fate.
It is a matter of record now that Israel is the only country in the world to have ever destroyed two nuclear reactors in successful go-it-alone, intelligence-backed military operations." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
"America's top intelligence officials" means the CIA.
Question: were the CIA spokesman's lips moving? Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
El Baradei criticizes US, Israel
| Quote: |
"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime," the statement said.
The IAEA did not directly criticize North Korea or Syria, but said "Syria has an obligation ... to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the Agency." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
El Baradei criticizes US, Israel
| Quote: |
"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime," the statement said.
The IAEA did not directly criticize North Korea or Syria, but said "Syria has an obligation ... to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the Agency." |
|
He's absolutely correct. The Bush Administration has treated the IAEA like dirt; grudges are being held over ElBaradei's refusal to play ball on Iraq (and, later, Iran). He's a man of great principle and competence, and the agency itself needs to be supported, not constantly shut out of the loop.
America and Israel both behaved idiotically, whether Syria had a nuclear facility or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
El Baradei criticizes US, Israel
| Quote: |
"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime," the statement said.
The IAEA did not directly criticize North Korea or Syria, but said "Syria has an obligation ... to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the Agency." |
|
He's absolutely correct. The Bush Administration has treated the IAEA like dirt; grudges are being held over ElBaradei's refusal to play ball on Iraq (and, later, Iran). He's a man of great principle and competence, and the agency itself needs to be supported, not constantly shut out of the loop.
America and Israel both behaved idiotically, whether Syria had a nuclear facility or not. |
No.
If North Korea is ferrying nuclear supplies to Syria, then you don't call the IAEA to take 3 years of inspections and processing to figure it out. You bomb the facility.
When the Israelis take out a nuclear facility in the Middle East, thats not behaving idiotically at all. Its effective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
If North Korea is ferrying nuclear supplies to Syria, then you don't call the IAEA to take 3 years of inspections and processing to figure it out. You bomb the facility.
When the Israelis take out a nuclear facility in the Middle East, thats not behaving idiotically at all. Its effective. |
Your comment suggests to me that you know very little of the relative track records of the CIA and the IAEA. The CIA saying something does not make it so.
If American intelligence gets a report that Syria is working on nuclear program, we should turn that over to the IAEA for evaluation and inspections, which do not take three years. The IAEA can have an inspection team onsite within days. If Syria refuses access to the inspectors, then the UN Security Council can determine whether that is a casus belli. If the IAEA clears the site, it's clean.
The alternative is total disregard for sovereignty and international law, which, as presumably you have noticed, isn't working out so well. Every time Israel carries out an attack like this with US blessing, we are supporting the actions of a rogue state, sowing hatred of the US and distrust for international bodies, and making our condemnations of other countries' aggression hypocritical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The IAEC compeletly missed Saddam's nuclear program in the late 80's and international organizations are corrupt and selective.
| Quote: |
| The alternative is total disregard for sovereignty and international law, which, as presumably you have noticed |
following the UN and international organizations doesn't work either because not only is the UN corrupt and selective it usually requires the US to do most of the work.
The UN is a dicators club , and China and Russia and whatever creepy authoritarian nations that sit on the UN security council with protect states Tre are hositlle to the US.
It is not a place you go if you are looking for justice.
Better to have justice than to follow international law.
when is the UN going to deal with the questiion of Tibet?
the UN human rights organziation is worse than a joke. Libya , Zimbabwe and Iran are on it.
If there are any questions.
Tthe UN missed Saddam's nuclear program in the late 1980's.
The UN allowed North Korea to gain nuclear capabilty.
The UN allowed has allowed Iran to come close to having nuclear capablity.
The UN is not an organziation that anyone can count on to protect its security- unless of course you are anti US totalitarian dictator.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:56 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
If North Korea is ferrying nuclear supplies to Syria, then you don't call the IAEA to take 3 years of inspections and processing to figure it out. You bomb the facility.
When the Israelis take out a nuclear facility in the Middle East, thats not behaving idiotically at all. Its effective. |
Your comment suggests to me that you know very little of the relative track records of the CIA and the IAEA. The CIA saying something does not make it so.
If American intelligence gets a report that Syria is working on nuclear program, we should turn that over to the IAEA for evaluation and inspections, which do not take three years. The IAEA can have an inspection team onsite within days. If Syria refuses access to the inspectors, then the UN Security Council can determine whether that is a casus belli. If the IAEA clears the site, it's clean.
The alternative is total disregard for sovereignty and international law, which, as presumably you have noticed, isn't working out so well. Every time Israel carries out an attack like this with US blessing, we are supporting the actions of a rogue state, sowing hatred of the US and distrust for international bodies, and making our condemnations of other countries' aggression hypocritical. |
Syria was mum about the bombing when it happened, as was every other Arab government. I don't recall there being any mass movement complaining about this bombing. Do you?
I'd say this was a rather nice move on the part of Israel. It does happen occasionally. In regards to the IAEA, do you really think the UN Security Council would have acted quickly? That would have been a first. I think you're being just a TAD idealistic here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
If North Korea is ferrying nuclear supplies to Syria, then you don't call the IAEA to take 3 years of inspections and processing to figure it out. You bomb the facility.
When the Israelis take out a nuclear facility in the Middle East, thats not behaving idiotically at all. Its effective. |
Your comment suggests to me that you know very little of the relative track records of the CIA and the IAEA. The CIA saying something does not make it so. |
'If, then' is a conditional construction. Therefore, your comment about what you think my comment suggests goes very little to what I actually know about the track records of the CIA and IAEA.
| Quote: |
| The alternative is total disregard for sovereignty and international law, which, as presumably you have noticed, isn't working out so well. |
I don't see lack of compliance with cumbersome international protocols as being our problem in the Middle East. Ditto what BB said. The correct precedent in terms of effectiveness is Israel's handling of the Osirik crisis.
Again, I find it odd that ElBaradei's immediate concern seems to be Israel's unilateral enforcement as opposed to Syria and North Korea's breach of compliance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't see lack of compliance with cumbersome international protocols as being our problem in the Middle East. Ditto what BB said. The correct precedent in terms of effectiveness is Israel's handling of the Osirik crisis.
Again, I find it odd that ElBaradei's immediate concern seems to be Israel's unilateral enforcement as opposed to Syria and North Korea's breach of compliance. |
See, the problem here is that I'm arguing forest and you're arguing trees. I don't deny that unilateral ops like Osirik can be effective at doing what they're supposed to do in the short term. I deny that they're in anyone's long-term best interest.
On ElBaradei's concern, well, there's an evidentiary question here. The CIA says Syria was importing nuclear material from North Korea. We know that Israel bombed Syria. If you walk into your neighbor's home and shoot him, is the cops' immediate concern going to center around your claim that he was a terrorist? I think that'll come after they take you on a nice cruise downtown and give you some shiny new bracelets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
[The UN] requires the US to do most of the work.
...
The UN is not an organziation that anyone can count on to protect its security- unless of course you are anti US totalitarian dictator. |
Hmm. 
There is some truth to both allegations, oddly enough. I think the UN is lacking as an international organization, and I'd prefer it be replaced or supplemented by something like McCain's League of Democracies. The main reason for this is that democracies are better and more stable guarantors of international law.
Not that I expect American conservatives to really get behind such an effort, because they see international bodies as limits on the American ability to run the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't see lack of compliance with cumbersome international protocols as being our problem in the Middle East. Ditto what BB said. The correct precedent in terms of effectiveness is Israel's handling of the Osirik crisis.
Again, I find it odd that ElBaradei's immediate concern seems to be Israel's unilateral enforcement as opposed to Syria and North Korea's breach of compliance. |
See, the problem here is that I'm arguing forest and you're arguing trees. I don't deny that unilateral ops like Osirik can be effective at doing what they're supposed to do in the short term. I deny that they're in anyone's long-term best interest.
On ElBaradei's concern, well, there's an evidentiary question here. The CIA says Syria was importing nuclear material from North Korea. We know that Israel bombed Syria. If you walk into your neighbor's home and shoot him, is the cops' immediate concern going to center around your claim that he was a terrorist? I think that'll come after they take you on a nice cruise downtown and give you some shiny new bracelets. |
That's precisely the problem I have: I do not think the police analogy works across nation-states.
Treaties are not laws and never will be. Not if nation-states are to be independent and autonomous actors. The kind of situation you describe might be applied in confederacies or republics, like between states in the US or between countries in the EU (even the latter seems a stretch to me). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
That's precisely the problem I have: I do not think the police analogy works across nation-states.
Treaties are not laws and never will be. Not if nation-states are to be independent and autonomous actors. The kind of situation you describe might be applied in confederacies or republics, like between states in the US or between countries in the EU (even the latter seems a stretch to me). |
The exact same arguments have been leveled against every expansion of the rule of law. History is full of examples of warring individuals, tribes, clans, cities, etc. submitting to a single law, and not necessarily in the wake of conquest, either.
All I can really say is that I hope you're wrong. I'm personally convinced that human nature will lead us to annihilate ourselves unless we can establish a viable framework of international law. Since the prospect of a single country literally conquering and uniting the world is remote, it's the only other chance we've got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
That's precisely the problem I have: I do not think the police analogy works across nation-states.
Treaties are not laws and never will be. Not if nation-states are to be independent and autonomous actors. The kind of situation you describe might be applied in confederacies or republics, like between states in the US or between countries in the EU (even the latter seems a stretch to me). |
The exact same arguments have been leveled against every expansion of the rule of law. History is full of examples of warring individuals, tribes, clans, cities, etc. submitting to a single law, and not necessarily in the wake of conquest, either.
All I can really say is that I hope you're wrong. I'm personally convinced that human nature will lead us to annihilate ourselves unless we can establish a viable framework of international law. Since the prospect of a single country literally conquering and uniting the world is remote, it's the only other chance we've got. |
That's fine as an aspiration. But recognize the current obstacles and the political realities in the way.
Right now the international organizations have no armies, no mechanisms for enforcement. If the IAEA has to beg Iran and North Korea to enter their facilities, can the analogy to police really be made with a straight face?
Look at the US. Fortune, dedication, and gratitude have built us a large society united under one banner, with administrative state autonomy combined with governmental federal unity. It really is a masterpiece. But you do not have such a system with the UN. The UN is a forum for the world powers with many agencies, the IAEA a kind of agency of this international organization. However, without the force to back up the UN, it cannot act as a Leviathan. And the question I ask would be: do we really want a central, international Leviathan? The reason I ask is because I think we already have a Leviathan, but it is not the UN. It is the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
