Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iran's Statement to the UN today!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:01 PM
Original message
Iran's Statement to the UN today!
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 06:11 PM by Joanne98
Since it's is becoming clear that the FAKE war between Israel and Hezzbollah is just a PRELUDE to the real war planned by CHENEY, we should start paying more attention to the real show in the UN. The US is pushing for sanctions on Iran. I don't know what's in the resolution yet. But I hope somebody will pay attention to the "language" and see if there's a loophole "legalizing" an attack on Iran by either the US or it's allies. I had to get Iran's statement from Iran news because... Well because of the same old reason's.... Here's Iran defending itself....

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0607310922211239.htm
Iran-Security Council-Zarif
Iranian permanent Ambassador to United Nations Mohammad Javad Zarif on Monday reaffirmed civilian nature of Iranian nuclear program and Iran's commitment to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In his statement before the UN Security Council, he deplored the big powers meddling in Iranian domestic affairs and making the Security Council as a tool for their own political objectives in the United Nations member states.

"This is not the first time that Iran's endeavors to stand on its own feet and make technological advances have faced the stiff resistance and concerted pressure of some powers permanently represented in the Security Council. In fact, contemporary Iran has been subject to numerous injustices and prejudicial approaches by these powers.

"The Iranian people's struggle to nationalize their oil industry was touted, in a draft resolution submitted on 12 October 1951 by the United Kingdom and supported by the United States and France, as a threat to international peace and security.

"That draft resolution preceded a coup d'etat, organized by the US and the UK -- in a less veiled attempt to restore their short-sighted interests. The coup, which was obviously no longer disguisable in the language of the Charter or diplomatic niceties, restored the brutal dictatorship. The people of Iran did, nevertheless, succeed in nationalizing the oil industry, thus pioneering a courageous movement in the developing world to demand their inalienable right to exercise sovereignty over their natural resources.

"More recently, Saddam Hussein's massive invasion of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 22 September 1980 did not trouble the same permanent members of the Security Council enough to consider it a threat to international peace and security. Nor did they even find it necessary to adopt any resolution for seven long days after the aggression, hoping that their utter miscalculation that Saddam could put an end to the Islamic Republic in a week would be realized.

"Sounds familiar these days, doesn't it?
Nor did they deem fit to call for a withdrawal of the invading forces for two long years, until, the Iranian people single-handedly liberated their territory against all odds. Nor was this Council allowed for several long years and in spite of mounting evidence, to deal with the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military personnel, because according to former DIA officials, "The Pentagon was not so horrified by Iraq's use of gas? It was just another way of killing people."
"Tens of thousands of Iranians still continue to suffer and die from that carnage. And over the past several weeks, this august body has been prevented from moving to stop the massive aggression against the Palestinian and Lebanese people and the resulting terrible humanitarian crisis. Nor is it given the slightest chance of addressing the aggressor's nuclear arsenal despite its compulsive propensity to engage in aggressions and carnage.

"Likewise, the Security Council has been prevented from reacting to the daily threats of resort to force against Iran, even threats of using nuclear weapons, uttered at the highest levels by the US, UK and the lawless Israeli regime in violation of Article (24) of the Charter.

On the other hand, in the past few years, a few big powers have spared no efforts in turning the Security Council into a tool for attempting to prevent Iran from exercising its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, recognized explicitly under the NPT.

"The intention to use the Council only as a tool for this or even other more dangerous ends could not have been made clearer than in the statement by the permanent representative of the United States at AIPAC on March 5th this year:
"It is critical that we use the Council to help mobilize international public opinion. Rest assured, though, we are not relying on the Security Council as the only tool in our toolbox to address this problem." Mr. President,
"The people and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to exercise their inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and build on their own scientific advances in developing various peaceful aspects of this technology.

"At the same time, as the only victims of the use of weapons of mass destruction in recent history, they reject the development and use of all these inhuman weapons on ideological as well as strategic grounds. The Leader of the Islamic Republic has issued a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

"Iran has also clearly and continuously stressed that nuclear weapons have no place in its military doctrine.

"The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in his statement before the General Assembly last September, also underlined Iran's fundamental rejection of nuclear weapons, as well as the need to strengthen and revitalize the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also stressed that "continued interaction and legal and technical cooperation with the IAEA will be the centerpiece of our nuclear policy."
"In order to dispel any doubt about its peaceful nuclear program, Iran enabled the IAEA to carry out a series of inspections that amounts to the most robust inspection of any IAEA Member State.

It included more than 2000 inspector-days of scrutiny in the past 3 years, the signing of the Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003 and implementing it immediately until 6 February 2006; the submission of more than 1000 pages of declaration in accordance with the Additional Protocol, allowing over 53 instances of complementary access to different sites across the country; and permitting inspectors to investigate baseless allegations by taking the unprecedented step of providing repeated access to military sites.

"Consequently, all reports by the IAEA since November 2003 have been indicative of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

"In November 2003 and in the wake of sensational media reports on the so-called 18-years of concealment by Iran, the Agency confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons program."
"The same conclusion can be found in other IAEA reports, even as recently as February 2006, which states that "As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for."
"The Agency reaffirmed once again in paragraph 53 of the same report that it "has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
"Much has been made, including in today's proposed resolution, of a statement by the IAEA that it is not yet in a position "to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." "But the sponsors have conveniently ignored the repeated acknowledgment by the Director-General of the IAEA that "the process of drawing such a conclusion is a time consuming process," "They also ignored the Addendum to the 2005 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report, released in June 2006, which indicates that 45 other countries are in the same category as Iran, including 14 Europeans and several members of this Council," Zarif said.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0607310922211239.htm

It's sounds pretty TRUTHFUL to me. Anyway I have come to the conclusion that CHENEY is going to NUKE Iran. This is an OUTRAGE! I hope the left in ALL COUNTRIES will rise up to try and stop this madness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Everything
except a good reason it had 90 % plus enriched uranium (twice) and tens of thousands of gas centrifuges to create massive quantities of u 235.

Uranium Gun Device...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. "Tens Of Thousands Of Gas Centrifuges"
Source, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. They got them from Saddam
along with the fabled Drones of Death and assorted biological and chemical munitions.

These ME Bad Guy types stick together ya know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Pakistan actually
they can make their own as well. Not a terribly complex device.

See links upstream.

The UN gave them 31 days. China and Russia too.

This is the real threat.

The IAEA has enriched uranium in its possession from Iran. Head in sand does not do much for facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Link(s)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HIAASG0.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030827-rferl-172732.htm
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html

I wonder why france threatened nuclear retaliation to any nation that attacked it?

I wonder if this little war is a sideshow?

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

Uranium Gun Device
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. You Claimed They Have "10s Of Thousands Of Centrifuges"
Again, your source?

I did not ask about the TRACE of weapons grade material detected. I was well aware of this, and from what I recall the consensus seems to be the material probably came with the equipment from AQ Khan.

Also, what if they have cobbled together enough material for a Little Boy device? Are you saying the minute they get a bomb they intend to commit hari-kari by using the device?

I have no illusions that they are working on a bomb. So be it. If I were Mullah Loindelrio, with the legions of a power mad and incompetent moron on the march, I would also. However, everything I have read indicates that they are years out, and every thing I have read indicates that they are rational actors and want the bomb for the same reason every other country wants the bomb, for self-defense.


So, if you want to go for an Iranian petro-grab before they get the bomb, enlist.


For me, I support containment, diplomacy, engagement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Retired CPL
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 07:49 PM by Pavulon
NCNG have no urge to go visit fun places again.



I do NOT support war. I do NOT see any logic to their action..
If they want the bomb they should do what israel did and not sign the NPT.

They are 31 days out from sanctions.

read links:
The Natanz site is surrounded by a security fence and has many buildings, including underground facilities, representing a large uranium enrichment complex. Underground buildings currently under construction will be devoted to enriching uranium, and these well-protected buildings are sized to hold over 50,000 centrifuges.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Re-Up. I Am Sure They Need Your Expertise
If Iran is such a threat to the nation, I am sure it needs your help.

Oh, "Hold Over 50,000 Centrifuges" is not the same as having. This was the claim used in the Reich Wing propaganda outlets when they were trying to stir up Iran-a-fobia by saying "a bomb in 17 days". This was if they had 50,000 of those non-existent centrifuges operating full time.

Guess it was a virtual threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Well
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 07:55 PM by Pavulon
I don't care to drive a truck around another shitty country. Especially one were you can not pay someone to get beer or booze.

Seriously, I do not SUPPORT A WAR. Only a realistic approach.

Iran should pull out of the NPT (without getting it pregnant) or comply with UN requirements.

Obviously europe is worried, they aren't enriching virtual uranium right now.

Edit: The pay sucks, the hours suck, and my current work environment is much less stressful.

I am sure someone else can drive HETs. We were the poor fuckers mentioned in the last sentence of the news when someone died in a road accident. Usually because they fell asleep or drove off some fucked up road at 3.17 am that was mis marked on a worthless map.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. "I Do Not Support A War. Only A Realistic Approach"
On that we agree.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yep
I wish they would take the russian deal, the carrots on the table, and cool down.

It is getting very dangerous there now.

I am glad we agree on peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Still got an erection for war, huh?
Why am I not surprised.

You'll probably get your wish, so you should be feeling really good and aroused these days.

Hope you enjoy the show on TV when it happens, you o'l Patriot you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yep. Some People Around Here Got A Bad Case Of JDAM Blue Balls n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. It will be Europe
pulling the weight in that war, if it happens. Hopefully IT WILL NOT.

Hopefully the madman will take the russian deal.

Your personal attack is noted. I spent a year and 4 months bored out of my fucking mind in the beautiful former yugoslavia. Driving a shitty truck around hoping not to run over one of the millions of mines all over the fucking country.

At least they had alcohol there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's more.........
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 06:24 PM by Joanne98
The Times August 01, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2293860,00.html

Iran given a month to comply or face UN sanctions
By James Bone


THE diplomatic campaign to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb came to a climax yesterday when the UN ordered Tehran to halt all uranium enrichment activities and threatened sanctions if it failed to do so by August 31.
Previous appeals to Iran to suspend its enrichment work were made mandatory in the Security Council’s first resolution on the nuclear stand-off, depriving Tehran of its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop the nuclear fuel cycle.

The council voted 14-1, with support from Russia and China for the first time and only Qatar against. It expressed its intention to adopt “appropriate measures” if Iran failed to comply by August 31, but worded the resolution to avoid any threat of military force.



US officials say that Washington’s next step may be to seek UN sanctions banning Iranian imports of dual-use items, limiting Tehran’s access to technology and restricting travel by Iranian officials.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2293860,00.html

Iran has till August 31st to comply..."worded the resolution to avoid any threat of military force"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. August 31st hmmm... Never roll a new product out before fall...
Who was it that said that about selling a war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Rebuilding America's Defenses.....by PNAC
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 06:50 PM by Joanne98
Time to review Cheney and the neo-cons evil plan for the world..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

Rebuilding America's Defenses" – A Summary
Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony

Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.

Full text of Rebuilding America's Defenses here

Compiled by Bette Stockbauer

05/06/03: When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt.

What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve those ends.

PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.

Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. PAX Americana.......

Rebuilding America's Defenses

I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. Since the document is over 80 pages long I have created a summary of its major ideas in order to make it more accessible.

Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories: A. Pax Americana — outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony — pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for U.S. policy, C. Rebuilding the Military — plans for expansion of U.S. military might, and D. Future Wars of Pax Americana — the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

As much as possible I have used direct quotations followed by page numbers so that the reader can consult the original. My personal comments are in italics.

For further reading about the PNAC, see the following articles:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm (Information Clearing House has many excellent articles about the PNAC.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm (this article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the plans of the Bush Administration influenced by the PNAC.)
http://www.mail-archive.com/brin-l@mccmedia.com/msg12730.html
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

A. Pax Americana

"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).

The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.

Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.

Following is the preamble to the document:

"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

" a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s Statement of Principles).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Homeland Defense

Four Vital Missions

PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.

"Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.

"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.

"Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).

"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Unsurping the UN

On Usurping the Power of the UN

"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests.

"Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat. While they also demand personnel with special language, logistics and other support skills, the first order of business in missions such as in the Balkans is to establish security, stability and order. American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. Uh, Iran's government is every bit as dishonest as ours.
Not sure why people are lapping this crap up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC