Saturday, April 17, 2010

New PA Poll - Should Alaska Democrats Support President Obama and Make Israel Join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Yesterday, President Obama called upon Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since being elected, he has suggested it would advance world peace for Israel to join the treaty.

Violations or suggested violations of that vaunted treaty led, more than any other lie, to the Iraq war. Since then, successive Israeli governments have constantly purported that Iran's obligations, as being a signatory to that treaty, and the possibly mythical perceptions that Iran is violating the treaty, are enough reason to bomb the latter country in such a way as to eliminate its capability to produce such weapons, without regard to what damage nuclear debris might cause Iranians and adjacent countries.

Israel's official position on its own nuclear profile is to farcically insist that it is a unique country, in that it has a right to claim an ambiguity on its nuclear weapons, by refusing to acknowledge what has been obvious for a generation - that it possesses one of the most devastating first strike thermonuclear capabilities on the planet. Yet they demand our country wage war against others who might seek a deterrent against a country that has repeatedly and - often without substantial provocation - attacked each of its adjacent neighbors, and other countries as well, including the USA.

Here is what the President said:

Whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important," Obama said. "And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government, even prior to my administration.

Already, members of congress, being fed foreign-originated talking points, are preparing to defend that same foreign country against our president's concerns on this matter. This past week, Alaska Democratic Party Senator Mark Begich co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that sought to undermine the president's ability to stop expansion of Zionist settlements, in violation of international law and US policy, in lands the USA and all countries except Israel consider to be occupied.

I objected.

This coming week, Sen. Begich will probably be approached by these foreign agents' cutouts to sign a similarly scripted letter admonishing Obama or one of his employees for daring to demand Israel put up or shut up regarding the treaty's importance.

Should you and I start saying "Enough already!" to this bullshit?

This is an important enough issue to me that thinking about the dissonance of
baying at the behest of a foreign country by leaders of the party I've chosen to join makes me physically ill.

Here's my poll question:

Should Alaska Democrats support the president in his efforts to demand Israel join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

If the margin for supporting the president be substantial, I may consider going to Sitka and bringing this issue up at the floor of our 2010 convention.

I'd also like to challenge my colleagues in the Alaska blogging community and progressive audiovisual community to join me in this effort by linking to this poll.

I put the odds of getting help from my colleagues on this - or from my party - at about 75 to 1 against help.

Prove me wrong.

Update - 2:10 a.m: I've changed the odds to 40 to 1, based on comments.

42 comments:

metanoia2k said...

Hell yes! Why should Israel be exempt from all the rules of Nations? For crying out loud, Israeli espionage stole the technology in the first place.

CelticDiva said...

Yes, I absolutely believe that Israel should join.

Chris said...

Metanoia2K,

Actually, based on most of what I've researched, the French were vital in transferring the technology and materials for the early Israeli nuke program at Dimona. I've also seen some discussion about South Africa's potential involvement, especially with testing. Now, the mossad is really good at what they do and it is quite possible that some tech was stolen, but I think it is pretty well known that France's assistance was probably the single most vital external assistance to the program. Why steal stuff when you can just buy it?

If you have any sources that suggest heavy mossad involvement I'd be genuinely curious to read them (esp books).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Cheers,
Chris

Philip Munger said...

Chris,

join or not....?

Philip Munger said...

CD,

I dare you to write a post at your new niche at the flats and allow me to comment there without being put in moderation for half a day.

freeper said...

True to form, Chris jumps up with some half-baked idiocy.

Obviously Chris knows squat about what he spouts off on again.

He comments as if history is something he thinks he can revise to suit whatever fantasy he's dreaming up at any one moment.

He has no comprehension of Operation Plumbat, the intelligence front group Lekem or it's association with the Mossad.

Even though Lekem and Mordicai Vanunu is referenced in probably the only article he's ever seen on the issue.

The Lekem was established and attached to Mossad in the 60's.

Lekem's function is the collection of scientific and technical intelligence.

This isn't any kind of new expose', it's common knowledge.


Traditionally Lekem has focused on two areas, that of military technology and that of nuclear technology, with some notable success in both areas. Their main claim to fame was stealing fuel for nuclear enrichment.

Perhaps Chris could give us his summation of Israel's Operation Plumbat or the Mordicai Vanunu affair ?

That would be entirely uproarious and likely just more half-baked ill-conceived claptrap like we're used to seeing from Chris.

...

Phil,

Count my vote as a yes, Israel should be forced to sign onto the agreement.

;

Anonymous said...

Count me in, Phil. No nation should be exempt, none.

Older_Wiser

Kat_from_HI said...

A resounding yes from me too Phil.

Chris said...

Re the mossad/cladestine involvement:
- Plumbat obtained a few hundred tons of yellowcake. That, along with the miraculous escape of some naval missile boats out of France, were pretty well-done ops... Or, they were done with tacit approval of the Belgians/French for full deniability.
- Compare that -- one op to acquire raw materials -- to the years of overt French assistance to build the critical infrastructure Dimona, and I'd say that the clandestine stuff, while cool and exciting, was probably less important to the overall program's success than the overt aid.
- Vanunu's kidnapping by the mossad did nothing to advance the program. That was purely retaliatory. It didn't help Israel develop their nuke program any, unless it intimidated other scientists/techs who planned on defecting.

I don't doubt the effectiveness of the mossad, but the Israelis had plenty of overt help to build their program -- especially at the early, critical stages. Clandestine operations are expensive and risky.

Chris said...

Phil,

I think it would be very difficult to coerce Israel into joining the NPT. They appear to have a survivable nuke triad and have invested significant resources into their program. They're not going to give it up willingly without something in return. What are we willing to give them as far as carrots go?

Some carrots Israel might be interested in would include huge sums of money, tech transfer (probably something like F-22 level transfer, which we wouldn't do), verifiable disarmament of Syrian and Egyptian conventional forces and a cessation of US arms sales to the Saudis and Gulf States. I don't see any of those happening anytime soon; heck, we just announced a plan to give Patriots to Kuwait, UAE, Saudi, and Qatar to balance out Iran's BM programs. We've recently sold some nice stuff to countries in the region (new F-16s to UAE, for example) and I don't see that stopping anytime soon.

"Sticks" are also limited. I suppose we could lead the world in imposing crippling economic sanctions. I don't know how effective that would be, though. Israel will sell weapons and tech (pretty good stuff, too) to anyone with a dump truck full of cash so how do you persuade Israel's clients (some of whom are rather influential -- cough cough China veto security council power) to go along with it? What's in it for them? How much will we need to bribe China and France and the Russians to go along with the plan?

I think the military option (i.e. airstrikes on Dimona and delivery platforms) is certainly off the table; from a practical point of view, you don't seriously talk about declaring war on countries that lack conventional strategic depth and who own survivable nuke triads unless you're ready for all the consequences that entails.

Diplomatic pressure is probably also pointless. Israel is already an international pariah. They will never be looked favorably upon by the UN or most any regional organization in their area. We might be able to poison their relations with Turkey and Pakistan, but even that might be tough. The US could stop providing top cover for them, but there's a decent chance that they could get someone else to provide top cover, and even barring that they just might not care.

We could extend a nuclear guarantee to Israel's regional enemies. That is, we could publicly promise to utilize our own nuclear weapons against Israel if the Israelis utilize nukes against Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States; or even if Israel wages conventional war against those states (just like we do for Japan and South Korea). The problem again being that Israel has a nuclear triad of their own and the JERICHO 3 reportedly has the ability to range in North America, and it is designed to defeat BMD. I just don't see the American people seriously being willing to trade NYC for Damascus or Natanz.

So, bottom line -- I don't see the point of paying all the costs of trying to make Israel play by the NPT rules when it is not likely that we'll make much progress. We don't insist that India live up to the NPT, either (although for different, equally pragmatic reasons). So you can chalk me up as a pragmatic "no, not worth the costs." I'd prefer to focus on getting North Korea into compliance first, which is already clearly a very difficult task itself -- and it is likely easier than the Israeli challenge would be, most likely!

Cheers,
Chris

snowbilly said...

Chris wrote: "I think it would be very difficult to coerce Israel into joining the NPT. They appear to have a survivable nuke triad and have invested significant resources into their program. They're not going to give it up willingly without something in return. What are we willing to give them as far as carrots go?"

Does the NPT require them to give up their nuclear capability?

Isn't Israel capable of voluntarily joining the NPT?

Polarbear said...

The first sentence of the PA article does not appear to be accurate. To be fair, I have not been able to find the complete, original text of Obama's speech to the summit. Based on reporting of the summit, I do not believe Obama singled out Israel in his speech. If Obama did single out Israel in his speech, then I apologize in advance.

What appears to be the case is, President Obama called upon ALL nations to join the NPT. In his remarks to the summit, President Obama did not single out Israel. This is also consistent with his speech about one year ago at Cairo University (4 Jun 2009).

After his summit speech, several reporters asked President Obama about Israel and the NPT. Obama's response was to acknowledge that Israel is included among ALL countries, advised the reporters that the real point of his speech had to do with US leadership on this issue, and then shifted his response back to the summit, citing his desire that the USA join other nuclear powers in leading the NPT effort from the platform of the United Nations.

Those reporters then turned President Obama's after-speech remarks into a headline about Israel. How the practice of journalism has declined...

My conclusion is that President Obama does not have any special, specific effort afoot to convince Israel to unilaterally sign the NPT, right now.

There will come a time when the Middle Eastern nations are willing to collectively sit down and talk about the entire region joining the NPT. When that step has been reached, then I would support applying some leverage to Israel to join the discussion.

I like President Obama's approach to the NPT problem, and I especially approve of his effort to push the United Nations a bit toward more leadership on non-proliferation. It looks like Obama has won the support of both Russia and China for his approach, which is a major victory for a measured, global approach. To me, these accomplishments fit well with the Nobel Peace Prize.

metanoia2k said...

On the general topic of Israeli espionage activities in the US, read The American Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jun/02/00006/

Not pretty.

Anonymous said...

Begich is a real estate agent who whores from $$$$$. Zionist money will get to him just like Berkowitz- don't expect progress from either

freeper said...

Well Polarbear, Israel doesn't agree with your assessment that Obama wasn't singling out Israel.

Suffice it to say, no one who understands the import of Obama mentioning Israel by name, and continuing to single out Israel in regards to joining the treaty, and who has the barest understanding of either the history of the issue or diplomatic speech, has agreed with the false narrative you're pushing that it's only something pushed by reporters.

The US for years has pushed Israel to join into the non-proliferation treaty.

The UN has put forth resolutions calling for Israel to join. The US signed onto those resolutions.

GW Bush pushed Israel to join and that was widely reported also.

The US has been pushing Israel to join since at least the Johnson years. It's nothing new.

In June of 2009, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller urged Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to sign the pact.

She named those countries and caused a shitstorm in Israel by publicly stating the US position.

There's nothing erroneous about the subject of this post.

Your 'conclusion', polarbear, isn't backed by any substance, Obama, like previous US administrations have consistently done, is urging Israel to join.

Why do you think Netanyahu's last meeting with Obama ended in Netanyahu cutting short the meeting and then following that up by refusing to attend the summit ?

Do you suppose all the western diplomat's analysis that he did so as a means to retaliate to US pressure to join the non proliferation treaty are somehow completely off base ?

When Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak said recently said "Israel would not join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty despite high pressure",
that he wasn't responding to Obama's call for Israel to join ?


Polarbear, it's ok with me if you want to create a fantasy narrative that ignores reality.

Just don't try to pass it off in public expecting not to be ridiculed and laughed off the stage.

Polarbear said...

"No Obama Pressure on Israel Nuclear Policy: Minister

JERUSALEM - US President Barack Obama during this week's nuclear summit put no pressure on Israel to shift away from its policy of deliberate ambiguity on its atomic programme, a minister said Wednesday.

"The policy of ambiguity is the foundation of Israel's security, it has always been and will continue to be. President Obama did not ask to change it in the current period," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told public radio.

He spoke following the international nuclear summit Monday and Tuesday in Washington, which Ayalon said saw "no changes in policies towards Israel and no new demands from Israel."

Asked about Obama's statements that Israel should sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Ayalon said the request was not pressing.

"When all threats, from near or far, against Israel will be definitely removed, then we can consider this question in a positive manner," he said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had announced at the last minute he would not take part in the conference, sending instead one of his deputies.

The Maariv newspaper said Netanyahu was pleased with his decision not to attend. "His satisfaction stems from the fact that the attention of the summit's participants was diverted from his presence and from Israel's nuclear policy," it said.

"Israel did not stand at the centre of the events," Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, who headed the Israeli delegation, was quoted as saying.

"We weren't mentioned by any of the speakers, even those who we feared would talk about us."

Foreign military experts believe Israel has an arsenal of several hundred nuclear warheads, but Israel has never publicly acknowledged having atomic weapons, maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity since it inaugurated its Dimona nuclear reactor in 1965.

In 1969, Israeli leaders undertook not to make any statement on their country's nuclear potential or carry out any nuclear test, while Washington agreed to refrain from exerting pressure on the issue.

Like nuclear-armed countries India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel is not party to the NPT in order to avoid international inspections."

© 2010 Agence France-Presse

CelticDiva said...

1) My response to Phil (while it hasn't changed) was based upon the blog post without looking into the issue myself. After doing so and reading Polarbear's comments, I tend to concur with him -- the emphasis on Israel seemed to come from the "journalists" rather than the President himself. And as Chris pointed out, there are other non-participating countries we do not directly pressure for some of the same reasons as Israel.

That being said, I would expect Israel to join the rest of the world on NPT but would also expect us to put pressure on Israel when it is most appropriate. Unfortunately, I'm not privy to that information but I trust that President Obama and his advisors have a better handle on it.

2) Phil, I love and adore you--you know that. However, your response to my supportive comment was a bit inappropriate. Yes, I am now a contributor to Mudflats. However, when a challenge is made in that tone, I won't write the piece...as much as I may have been inclined to do so before the challenge.

Like I said, I love you, Phil and I always will...but you need to remember the old "catch more flies with honey" saying...at least when it comes to your friends!

Chris said...

[[I wrote: "I think it would be very difficult to coerce Israel into joining the NPT. They appear to have a survivable nuke triad and have invested significant resources into their program. They're not going to give it up willingly without something in return. What are we willing to give them as far as carrots go?"

Snowbilly Wrote: Does the NPT require them to give up their nuclear capability?

Isn't Israel capable of voluntarily joining the NPT?]]

The three fundamental pillars of the NPT are non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. The first pillar only acknowledges the US, PRC, Russians, Brits, and French as nuclear weapons states. Non-nuclear weapons states (i.e. those not in the club) must accept IAEA monitoring of their facilities to ensure that they are not getting weapons. Given the secrecy that Israel has cloaked Dimona in, I don't think they'd be wild about invited inspectors in!

Moreover, the NPT also calls for disarmament. While the language is vague it would be one more thing for Israel to have to comply with. Right now, unlike North Korea (which broke its NPT obligations and then withdrew), Israel is not in violation of any treaty obligations because it never agreed to them. It may or may not be in opposition to the "international community's" opinion, but that is a different matter.

There is really nothing for Israel to gain by voluntarily joining. Call me cynical, but most countries don't do what they "ought" to do. Most countries do what they perceive to be in their best interests. They would have to be bribed or coerced. If there's one thing I think maybe we learned during the GWB years it is that US foreign policy capital is not unlimited. We must carefully pick and choose our strategic objectives to avoid squandering our money, prestige, and influence on secondary issues.

I think it is fair to say that Pres Obama is putting more pressure on the Israelis than the previous administration.
- Routine visas for Dimona reactor technicians and scientists are now being denied (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/04/dimona-nuke-reactor-employees-having.html -- sorry for the blog links, but I don't read Hebrew and am relying on slanted sources and Google Translate for the translation...).
- The US has stopped providing technical materials to be utilized at Dimona.
- POTUS said this: "As far as Israel goes, I'm not going to comment on their programme," he told reporters. "What I'm going to point to is the fact that consistently we have urged all countries to become members of the NPT." (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/15/worldupdates/2010-04-14T234223Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-476954-1&sec=Worldupdates) -- So, not too much pressure by any means, but some.
- And obviously the pressure on settlements, Gaza, etc.

However, it is certainly no full court press.

The Israelis reply:
"Israel says it would consider entering a deal to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction once there is comprehensive regional peace. Some of its neighbours insist Israel must disarm first."

I'm not going to hold my breath for a comprehensive regional peace in that area of the world. As I discussed above -- that would be the carrot they demand, and we're not in a position to offer it.

Cheers,
Chris

freeper said...

So, Polarbear searched for and found one quote from one deputy minister that might seemingly be taken to mean what that one deputy minister wants you to think.

He made a statement that there was no pressure.

He provides no evidence that his 'opinion' can be substantiated in any manner whatsoever. It's nothing but a crafted response. An opinion, without any evident support.

As if that 'opinion' could be taken as credible, conclusive and not questionable in any case, consider his next response, and I quote:

"'Asked about Obama's statements that Israel should sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Ayalon said the request was not pressing.

"When all threats, from near or far, against Israel will be definitely removed, then we can consider this question in a positive manner," he said."

Here in his response, you can all see, (or should be able to see), clearly he not only recognized the direct request that Israel sign the treaty, but he goes on to confirm that he only considers that direct question to be something they don't consider in a positive manner.

So, what did the news article convey ?

The deputy heard the direct request from Obama.

He spoke in the manner proscribed to downplay the question and in fact cast aspersions that the request should be considered as a negative.

Does that support this deputy's contention that there was no pressure ?

Hardly.

And it ignores completely that the US has consistently called for Israel to enter into the non-proliferation treaties over several decades of public announcements and reporting.

continued...

freeper said...

Despite Celtic Diva's glomming onto Chris's unsubstantiated and false claim, we, the US has a long history of pressuring all nuclear nations to join the non-proliferation treaties.

In fact, as noted in this thread, Obama's Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller publicly and officially urged Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to sign the pact in June of 09.

quote:

""
"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States,""

Our policy can't be stated any less concisely than that.

And the headline response in Israel at the time ?

quote:

""Jerusalem officials were surprised to learn on Wednesday of a U.S. call to Israel to join the the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons. ""

Key words, ' a US call to Israel to join the NPT'.

US policy = call on Israel to join the NPT.

Israel response = clear acknowledgment of that call.



And that call for Israel to join the NPT was repeated by Obama in September of 09, and in fact, Obama spoke directly to the US intent to apply pressure to all nations that don't join the NPT.

quote

"'All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences.""

No pressure ? No direct question put to Israel ?

No similar question put to the other nations ?

Bullshit.

As the deputy's statement below:

""In 1969, Israeli leaders undertook not to make any statement on their country's nuclear potential or carry out any nuclear test, while Washington agreed to refrain from exerting pressure on the issue.""

This is an age old reference to a supposedly 'secret agreement between Nixon and Golda Meier that Israel maintains exists, yet there is no record of any such an agreement, and Israel has never produced any evidence of such an agreement when asked.

And just to cement the deal, since this thread connects to the AIPAC letter row recently referred to, AIPAC, the Israeli lobby of record highlights the US pressure put on Israel to join the NPT.

Reporters ginned this up out of thin air ?

Then explain how AIPAC came up with this back in 09 at their Washington DC gala dinner and dining extravaganza.

Quote:


Headline:

REPORT FROM AIPAC: U.S. PRESSURE ON ISRAEL TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONCESSIONS GROWING DAILY

Text:

""And now — just in the last 24 hours — the administration has begun to pressure Israel to join the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ""

That was 2009, no reporter ginned up the notion that the US was pressuring Israel to join, the US has a history which precedes those 'reporters'.

Chris, Diva and Polarbear haven't a clue what it is they're speciously burbling about.

A creation of some reporters ?

What utter idiocy and nonsense.

Thankfully, Chris, Diva and Polarbear remain far from having any effect on reality.

Uninformed meatheads are free to form whatever ill-conceived and false opinions they may wish, but thankfully, reality isn't required to conform to those idiotic and moronic opinions.

..

freeper said...

Does the Carnegie Mellon Scaif triad think there is anything new in the Obama administration's call for Israel to join the NPT ?

Nope, they don't.

quoted response to Goettemoeller's statement:



""The U.S. has sought universal adherence from the beginning of the Treaty's entry into force.

GW Bush administration Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf also mentioned Israel by name in his speech at the NPT conference in 2004.

Thus, Goettemoeller's speech reflects a bipartisan and long-standing U.S. position on the NPT, even if that position has not been articulated as frequently and loudly as others.""

Again, this analysis, from the well known usually pro-Israeli right wing think tank predates any fictional concept that 'reporters' ginned up anything at all.


One can only hold fictional opinions if one ignores the reality that disproves the fictions which spawned the false and fictional opinions.

To attempt to hold onto fictional and false opinion is utterly moronic and idiotic.

But you won't convince morons and idiots of that verity, their commitment to their own delusions negates their being capable of comprehending any reality which might burst their fantasies.

The real world cannot intrude on their delusion.

They go to great lengths to preserve their illusions and maintain their insanity.


..
..

jim said...

Celtic Diva:

The mudflats blog simply doesn't allow substantial disagreement or dissent (from their published point of view). If you disagree, you're out. I've heard that from other folks who I respect too. I think the mudflats blog paints a nice picture of itself while hiding that it may be basically flawed.

I'm still pondering criticizing mudflats in order to point out the difference between blogs and journalism, as well as the need for disclosure when it is relevant. I think the filtration there has been beyond excessive.

I've got some concerns about ethics too-- especially when they don't disclose direct or family involvement in groups that they describe as "they" or "them." They could have, and should have, disclosed. Truth and disclosure is always better than the other options.

I get especially cynical when people come back and call me a "mole" or a "troll" because I voice my honest concerns. I'm a liberal guy who thinks left wing blogs have been very important, but I was one of the people who was misled when Mudflats didn't give us the whole story, but instead just a convenient part of it. They used "they" and "them" when they were into it themselves apparently up to their necks.

Frankly I don't trust mudflats.

Chris said...

Freeper,

I never argued that we haven't stated Israel should join the NPT. I also agree that Pres Obama has been pushing the issue harder than the previous administration. Pres Obama is much less supportive of Israel in many ways than the previous admin.

However, the question I addressed was, "should we coerce Israel into joining the NPT," not "what have we said in the past and currently about Israel joining the NPT." There's a difference between holding a position and actually taking action to force another party to comply with that position. Unless you take action it is all just talk.

DFTT,
Chris

freeper said...

You're a 'self-described' liberal guy, Jim ?

The kind of 'liberal' that suggests The Concord Coalition is a source of sane policy ?

You're going to have to explain the utter conflict and disconnect.

I'd find it highly amusing for you to explicate and illuminate how you can consider yourself a liberal, and at the same time, elucidate and clarify that you espouse policy and ideology that stands in direct defiance of what it means to be liberal, policies that are the antithesis of liberalism.

I'm imagining your being successful in such a pandora's box such an endeavor would be unviable,

but the attempt ought to be farking hilarious...

(Oh, and jim, ....before you decide not to attempt the impossible, ......just think of all the rest of the fops who claim to be liberals but are capable only of spouting the inverse, ....think of the service you'll be doing for similarly reality impaired individuals if you can find a way out of your paradox ..... ?)

..

freeper said...

Chris ignores the fact that what Diva referred to has nothing to do with what Chris now wishes to say he never did.

Diva said,

"And as Chris pointed out, there are other non-participating countries we do not directly pressure for some of the same reasons as Israel. "

Trouble is, no quote from Chris can be construed to be honest or factual in regards to what Diva seems to have concluded.

And no quote from Chris can be construed to be factually accurate in terms of how Chris would like to assess his analysis of how we address non-member states.

Chris goes so far as to say the US doesn't " insist that India live up to the NPT", a statement that neglects to acknowledge that the US couldn't and wouldn't, in any case, insist India live up to terms of a treaty that India hasn't signed on to.

As far as pressuring India to join, there's no lack of evidence to show the US has consistently used both diplomatic and other means to pressure India into joining.

We, the US, do have a bilateral nuclear accord with India. It specifically recognizes India's defacto status at the same time it imposes similar non proliferation constraints on India.

To imagine that 'the US does not directly pressure other states to join the NPT, and especially that the US doesn't do that, 'for some of the same reasons as Israel' (such as Diva attributed to Chris), isn't accurate nor is it substantively credible.

That kind of statement is simplistic uninformed nonsense that flies in the face of the multiple and intricate complexities one must take into account before pretending to pronounce oneself capable or equipped to reach such a superficial and naive presumption.

..

jim said...

Freeper:

Which Concord Coalition policies are against liberalism? Why?

Perhaps the group has degraded since I was following them. I haven't paid much attention since Tsongass (who I admired) died. Have they mutated into a branch of the Tea Party? Or are they different?

By the way, happy I could help you learn their name-- saw you used it correctly this time. Good job! Now that you know their name, I'll have much more faith in your analysis of their policies than I did yesterday when you couldn't even say their name correctly.

Anonymous said...

I would think...

if you had been 'following the Concord Coalition' as you so facetiously claim, you'd have answered the question and been able to provide an answer that supports your opposing contentions to be both liberal and promoting the Concord Coalition.

It's a much better probability that you have no idea what the Concord Coalition proposes, nor have you any clue as to what liberalism mean.

Insensible incantations of the name Tsongas aren't sufficient. Tsongas was never a liberal.

In fact, Tsongas was widely recognized to be a Reagonomics advocate and tended to favor corporate deregulation.

When you're asked to clarify your own stated position, it's pointless at that point to start asking questions which demonstrate you don't know what it is you've been talking about.

That only confirms you're a moronic idiot who will make senseless pronouncements about issues you can't define.

And jim, ....piss off.

freeper

Chris said...

See Jim, personal attacks are Freeper's first and final word on most subjects. He claims that savaging your personal character and motives is not an ad hominem attack so long as he also disagrees with you.

In his world, this is not a personal attack: "You are a moronic alcoholic heartless/mindless idiot-drone, and I vehemently disagree with you (but refuse to provide evidence), therefore you are wrong." That is not an ad hominem attack for him.

So much for a "big tent" -- attacking and alienating your own partisan allies and potential independents is not a great strategy for political relevance. So, keep it up, Freeper!

Meanwhile, there are folks on the left like Phil who are open to new ideas on at least some subjects, are willing to treat fellow citizens who they have differences of opinion with respectfully, and who are willing to reach across party lines on issues of mutual agreement.

DFTT,
Chris

jim said...

Chris:

I was entertained with that person's long-winded defense of dumb spelling. I don't know if I've ever read such an extended essay about a spelling error. Also he/ she didn't answer my earlier question. Just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

I don't worry about anonymous personal attacks. We can have useful discussions while putting bad ones in the compost bin. Just have to sort through the stuff. I appreciate all your feedback and insight.

jim said...

Chris:

One other thing:

Although the posted name has changed, the writing style seems consistent with other posts I've read in the past. Unfortunately I'm not sure if this person is in a good situation.

Anonymous said...

Neither of you two clowns are either independent nor are you allies.

You both are thoroughly delusional.

Chris said...

I agree, Chen and 李惠玲 seem to be launching a coordinated spam attack. They don't seem independent to me either.

Oh, wait, Anonymous is talking about those of us capable of engaging in civil discourse...

Anonymous said...

You have to be capable of understanding simple reality in order to be equipped to engage in civil discourse,

,..that rules you out.

.

Anonymous said...

Switching from loon watch...

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/those_were_the_weeks_that_were_nuclear_spring/

Chris said...

On a substantive note, for all those who voted "aye," I am curious as to if you think the odds of forcing Israel to join the NPT are actually reasonable, or if this is just a symbolic statement. If you think the odds are good that Israel can be made to join and comply in the intermediate future (let's say next 5-10 years), how would you see that scenario unfolding?

DFTT,
Chris

Anonymous said...

Your 'curiosity' isn't substantive.

Anonymous said...

Chris,

I did not know prisoners had access to the internet. Or did you get an ankle bracelet?

Freeper

freeper said...

anon at 12:25 is hoping he/she can pass off this charade in hopes he/she could convince someone that he was me.

Just another fool.

A pitifully ill-equipped and incompetent fool at that.

Not unlike all the rest of the fools unable or unwilling to attempt anything more than to call attention to themselves and then bask isolated and content in the self-delusionary and self-generated glow of their own anonymous idiocy.

..

jim said...

Freeper:

Are fools like morons? Seems like your world view is full of fools and morons. But I haven't seen a single rational soul in your world other than you. You must feel lonely.

I'd rather socialize with morons and fools than with you.

freeper said...

How about you explain how the Concord Coalition economic policies are sane ?


You're the one calling himself a liberal and then advocating for anything but a liberal policy.

With that evidence of how your mind works, not being able to discern something as evident as the difference between black and white, what makes you think I'd waste time answering your pretentious bullshit?

And I don't give a rat's ass who you'd socialize with,

.....unlike you I'm here to discuss reality,

unlike you, I'm not here to pretend I'm still in jr. high burbling nonsense in an attempt to make sure everybody likes me.

Got anything to contribute besides announcing how insecure you are ?

How about you provide the evidence to back up your assertion that America is going to become a 'theocratic democracy'.

You do know that a theocracy and a democracy are impossible to join together, right ?

One means pretty much the opposite of the other.

It's about as nonsensical as saying you think it's possible for there to be a right wing leftist.

I can't wait to hear how you reconcile the paradoxes you keep creating for yourself.

...

Here's your chance to shine, jim, show everyone you're not foolish and stupid.

Come on, I want to hear how black can be white too. How up can be down at the same time.

It's your assertion, you certainly wouldn't run away from your own creation would you ?

jim said...

blaablaablaa:

You're the one calling himself a liberal and then advocating for anything but a liberal policy.

((Huh? Hey thanks for the undocumented Fox News Style slander. You're a pro. You should send them your resume))



With that evidence of how your mind works, not being able to discern something as evident as the difference between black and white, what makes you think I'd waste time answering your pretentious bullshit?

((Seriously: Do you really know how minds work? Really? What's your background? High School?))


And I don't give a rat's ass who you'd socialize with,

((Are Rat's asses like your ass? I hope not.))



.....unlike you I'm here to discuss reality,

((Really?))



unlike you, I'm not here to pretend I'm still in jr. high burbling nonsense in an attempt to make sure everybody likes me.

((I have a terminal graduate degree, but anyone, including people who may have not even graduated from junior high, can still make comments on blogs, insult other human beings, and God forbid also vote))



Got anything to contribute besides announcing how insecure you are ?

((Yea. I think you suck. And where did I announce I was insecure? But I see you repeating this announcement several times daily with your long winded diatribes.))



How about you provide the evidence to back up your assertion that America is going to become a 'theocratic democracy'.

((I'm predicting the religious right will win at some point and then move to restructure our government into a religion prioritized bureaucracy. Pardon my post college education.))



You do know that a theocracy and a democracy are impossible to join together, right ?

((Uh, Huh? Please clarify. If you're right, whew! Happy to hear the news.))



One means pretty much the opposite of the other.

((Huh? Duh? Really? Frankly I don't think you know what the Hell you're talking about.))



It's about as nonsensical as saying you think it's possible for there to be a right wing leftist.

((Speak for yourself, Can brains get scrambled like eggs? Were yours?))



I can't wait to hear how you reconcile the paradoxes you keep creating for yourself.

((Good luck reconciling you with yourself, Buddy))

...



Here's your chance to shine, jim, show everyone you're not foolish and stupid.

((Yea, sure, whatever. Go shine yourself so we can all see how bright you are))



Come on, I want to hear how black can be white too. How up can be down at the same time.

((black and white? Sounds racist.))



It's your assertion, you certainly wouldn't run away from your own creation would you ?

((If I were God, and if there was a God, I'd apologize for you If I had to take responsibility for creating you. If I was God I'd run away from you as fast as I could.))

jim said...

blaablaablaa:

Sorry, your comments are literally too long winded. Don't have time to read your essay. Next time try to keep it more brief and to the point. Can't you efficiently make your point? My heavens you spend a lot of time at your keyboard. OUCH!