Self determination
Posted on June 30th, 2005 on LogiPundit
Here is an interesting graph, since the end of the cold war the nukes in America have dropped to about 10,000 bombs , roughly the same as (or half of, depending on which estimate you believe) the Russians. This number will probably get lower, albeit slowly, once things improve in Russia. Another site shows Egypt as the number 1 recipient of US foreign aid. Butch has a point about non-proliferation. U.S. is not preventing other countries from non-proliferating, unless you think US should cave in to North Korean extortion, and by not doing so is a hurdle to non-proliferation.
With regards to the U.N., I think Scottie has pointed out the futility of this organization, at least in terms of global diplomacy, better than I could. The U.S. supports Israel but not Iran. Both have "clandestine" nuclear programs. Israel is an ally and Iran, well, isn't. US aids countries who aren't allies but are "neutral" and not developing nukes (Jordan, Egypt). Whatever protocol the US signs at the UN will have little leverage in the face of enemies developing nukes.
Weaponization of space entails developing defense systems capable of taking out nukes on the fly or in the home of the aggressor. To the extent this is proliferation, certainly this administration is in support of that. Japan, lets say, may vote against it in the UN but when the Norks or Chinese get testy they will be happy the US has been a hurdle to non-proliferation. The alternative is to allow Japan to arm themselves in the face of a Nork threat...in which case the US would undoubtably be criticized as "being the biggest hurdle to non-proliferation"
With regards to the U.N., I think Scottie has pointed out the futility of this organization, at least in terms of global diplomacy, better than I could. The U.S. supports Israel but not Iran. Both have "clandestine" nuclear programs. Israel is an ally and Iran, well, isn't. US aids countries who aren't allies but are "neutral" and not developing nukes (Jordan, Egypt). Whatever protocol the US signs at the UN will have little leverage in the face of enemies developing nukes.
Weaponization of space entails developing defense systems capable of taking out nukes on the fly or in the home of the aggressor. To the extent this is proliferation, certainly this administration is in support of that. Japan, lets say, may vote against it in the UN but when the Norks or Chinese get testy they will be happy the US has been a hurdle to non-proliferation. The alternative is to allow Japan to arm themselves in the face of a Nork threat...in which case the US would undoubtably be criticized as "being the biggest hurdle to non-proliferation"
 | Posted by scottie @ 07/07/2005 09:23 AM PDT | |
| Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid. Egypt receives considerable foreign aid, due to the Camp David Peace Accords, but Israel receives far more than any other country. I don't know where you got your data, but you need to be more thorough . I read an interesting article yesterday concerning China's military buildup. China has recently tested a longe-range missile (9000km range I believe), and the DOD here went ape-shit over the testing. Rumsfeld echoed concerns of the Chinese military build-up. The interesting thing I discovered was the country that sold China its high-tech components that drastically improved its long-range capabilities : Israel. What makes this data a double-whammy is that Israel's missile technology is a derivative of the US's , since we have armed that country to the teeth. Where is the outcry on Israel's treachery? To be clear, I never claimed that the UN should dissolve or disband, or attempted to trivilaize its existence. My point was that the actions of the US completely undermine the UN's efforts. The US does NOT respect the wishes of the General Assembly, does not abide by the votes where the US is in the overwhelming minority, does NOT respect some verdicts of the World Court, the UN's judicial component. And, not to make claims without proof, I offer the following headscratchers: (These votes are somehwat dated but to signify actions which counter the mainstream media's coverage of the US-UN relationship) : 1. in 1986, the US was found guilty by the World Court of international terrorism for its proxy war against Nicaragua. The US was ordered to cease illegal operations. The US , in fact, escalated the atrocities. 2. Soonafter this ruling, there was a Security Council vote calling on all nations to "observe international law". The vote was 11-1 (US). 3. After the security council vote , there was a General Asssembly vote on the same measure of "observing international law". The vote was 94-3 (US, Israel, El Salvador). Note the 2 countries that joined the US were client states. 4. A follow up vote on the same measure : 94-2 (US, Israel) Where is the media through all this? Are these votes not newsworthy????? In regards to non-proliferation and WMD, these votes might astonish the brainwashed .... In 1987, there was a General assembly vote banning weapons in outer space (star wars). The vote was 154-1 (US). Another resolution which unequivocally called on all nations to stop developing new weapons of mass destruction. This vote was only 135-1 (US). Another resolution for a nuclear test freeze : 137-3 (US, Britain, France). Simple questions to ask: 1. Why is this record not covered in the mainstream presses? 2. Why would the US vote this way? 3. Why is the story not that the US is virtually alone in the world? 4. Given the nature of the US's record with respect to non-proliferation, why does the US try and prevent other nations from acquiring them? 5. Why does no one discuss the double standard of Israeli nukes in the context of a nuclear-free Middle East? (I have covered this in a response to another entry from JohnnyB) 6. What gives the US the right to dictate which countries obtain nukes, since the US is still the only country to have used this type of weapon (on an enemy that already asked for a surrender, by the way). 7. Is the US as "benevolent" as it tries to portray itself? Cheers | ||
| ||
| Posted by Johnny B @ 07/08/2005 10:45 AM PDT | |
| I cited the OECD for the foreign aid stat...who do you cite Scottie? Funny you mention about Israel and China, since I read this not two weeks ago on Yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050619/ts_nm/arms_israel_usa_dc Condoleeza kept her eye on the ball as a good anti-commie. I can't speak for the american mainstream now that most all my news is off the web. Needless to say I am pissed that the Israelies tried to do this. I am not familiar with a successful sale of long range missile technology to China, Scottie, could you find that for me? Also, What do the Chi-coms need to go to a middle man for? They already developed long-range capability thanks to the Clinton admininistration. | ||
| ||
| Posted by scottie @ 07/09/2005 07:35 AM PDT | |
| U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact Summary Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000 Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000 Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630 Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000 Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200 this comes from WRMEA i have found other sources of data which support these figures Egypt is #2 behind Israel, but with a population far , far greater than Israel's, so the per capita aid is much, much lower cheers incidentally, if you want to know why the US gives Egypt considerable aid, i can explain in 1973, Egypt proved that it was a force to be reckoned with(it was basically a draw between israeli forces and egyptian forces, but not a rout as in 1967), and could keep Israel in check militarily that's why the negotiated peace between israel and egypt went through(5 years later), and the payments represent the method of keeping egypt out of the way, so to speak (and also served to lure egypt away from the soviet sphere and into the western sphere) cheers | ||
| ||
| Posted by Johnny B @ 07/15/2005 08:36 AM PDT | |
| Scottie, Don't forget access to the Suez Canal, probably the most cynical reason for keeping Egypt in the western sphere. Anyway everyone's seen those pictures with Sadat, Carter, and Begin, and heard about Sadat's heroism etc etc. When did Jordan get on board (tacitly) and start getting foreign aid? Wasn't it around the same time, or was this later? | ||
| ||