Obama and Medvedev’s signature of an new START treaty is a real achievement and should not be ridiculed. It will significantly reduce the number of nuclear warheads and guidance systems in the world. That is a good thing. Obama’s aspiration for a nuclear weapon free world is also a good thing.
Of course it does not do everything. It does not for example cancel the US project of a forward ballistic defence shield in Europe. It does however make ever more plain that this is an otiose project. I have come to the conclusion that it actually has no purpose at all other than to throw a nice meaty carcass to the US weapons industry lobby.
Nor has Obama tackled or even admitted the problem of Israel’s nuclear weapons. But Obama’s drive for worldwide reduction makes the elephant in the room impossible to ignore. Egypt and Turkey’s insistence on raising the issue has already caused Netanyahu to drop out of Obama’s planned nuclear conference. This further straining of the relationship between the US and Israel is a good thing, and on this issue Israel is self-imposing a pariah state status.
So I take the view that the commentators who ridicule Obama’s START treaty because of the things it did not do, have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. What it does is good, and its ramifications are still better.
Anything that makes the world less likely to commit MAD is welcome. Now, in the same zeitgeist, can we get rid of Trident, please?
Can’t help thinking that the real dynamic here is the financial situation and Obama and Medvedev are seeking to avoid MAB (mutually assured bankruptcy).
Personally I don’t think you can beat Being There, but Dr, Strangelove is Great for Winding Up Extreme Right Wing Americans who in their Youth were working for the NSA monitoring the Attack on The USS Liberty
Tony
He Ain’t Like This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
No But He Really is Like This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0
Now, you may think I am making this up, but I have been talking to this person on an English website, who he thinks are Right Wing Tories, but really they are Soft Liberal Old School Conservatives…
And Yes of Course He is American
He is Totally Tooled Up
No – You Don’t Understand
He Has Got Machine Guns and All Sorts – Completely Legal – In The State He Lives in the USA
And He has got all his EX-CIA Mates – and They Have Got Their Own Private Training Ground – where they Practice Shooting things with Bows and Arrows and Mortar Bombs and Stuff ( edit he has never publicly admitted to the mortar bombs )
And I say don’t be Fucking Silly
And I say I want to meet you, and I guarantee that if you invite me and let me have a go with your guns and stuff by the end of the weekend you will give me a cuddle
He said there is no way you will get a cuddle from me…
But please post on my website in America
And so I had a look
And thought
NO FUCKING WAY
Tony
“Obama and Medvedev’s signature of an new START treaty is a real achievement and should not be ridiculed. It will significantly reduce the number of nuclear warheads and guidance systems in the world. That is a good thing. Obama’s aspiration for a nuclear weapon free world is also a good thing.”
Neither is. START frees financial resources for conventional weapons. The “nuclear weapon free world” is never going to be achieved, because it would favor countries with the best conventional armies. It’s true purpose is to to paint Iran into a corner, like they are somehow mad for wanting nuclear weapons for their own defense.
“Of course it does not do everything. It does not for example cancel the US project of a forward ballistic defence shield in Europe. It does however make ever more plain that this is an otiose project. I have come to the conclusion that it actually has no purpose at all other than to throw a nice meaty carcass to the US weapons industry lobby.”
The “defence” shield is a republican project, whose goals are to keep europe divided, by playing to the fears of east european countries, while west european countries would rather develop closer ties to russia. The democrats seem to rather want a united europe, so they won’t implement this, in europe at least.
And so he and his American friends were posting details of all their weapons – pictures and all on the Conservative Vicar’s website (he can fly too)
And so I said
I Challenge You to a Duel
You with your silly little guns on the Ground
I will be in My Spitfire
Tony
FEEDING AMERICA
Posted in America
Why Don’t Some Rich Unemployed Former Investment Bankers Do Something Useful?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: opmoc on Nov 27, 2008 8:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently they are sat at home wondering what to do with their enormous great pile to make it even bigger before they die.
They probably are completely oblivious of the real world having spent their entire working life in a virtual casino.
Well they could start by filling out the donate form here
http://feedingamerica.org/
But that really is just scratching the surface.
Some of these guys have literally got Billions in personal wealth and they could – if they wanted to make radical positive changes to a very large number of the poorest people – by for example….
1. Purchasing large areas of unused or underutilised land suitable for growing food – preferably in a sustainable, traditional manner – using non agri-business techniques, seeds and animal stock to build up real diversity and food security.
2. Dividing that land up into parcels of appropriate sizes that would be sufficient to both provide all the food needed by the local community together with a major surplus to fund all other requirements.
3. Employ people to not only work the land – but also reward them with significant ownership via shareholding – such that if successful the workers of the land could ultimately become the owners of their own farms.
Such an enterprise could result in totally self sufficient communities who would have the potential to become “rich” in the ultimate sense of the word. Whilst they could start off trading using conventional dollars, it would be entirely feasible to gradually convert to an economic system that provided real protection from economic events outside of the community. They could for example trade in their own farm shares mirroring the traditional system of capitalism before it got corrupted by gambling and excess. Of course it would be necessary to comply with all laws, regulations and taxes – but in reality that should not be a significant issue – as there are also likely to be large numbers of unemployed accountants willing to do the bureaucracy for some wholesome food.
Such an enterprise should be seen as commercial with the potential to grow and displace industrial agriculture – whilst both empowering local communities and returning ultimate ownership to them.
Its utilising money to do something useful rather than something destructive.
Tony
View user’s profileSend private message
Gator
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 2005
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:02 pm Reply with quoteBack to top
That sounds like a great idea Tony.
By the way, I am sure you are “rich” by world standards. Why don’t you practice what you preach by buying land in Somalia or the Sudan (or someplace) and setting up farms for the poor? I am sure you could afford it.
_________________
A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living.
–John F. Kennedy–
View user’s profileSend private message
opmoc
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 775
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:16 am Reply with quoteEdit/Delete this postBack to top
Gator,
I had a bet with someone on a financial bulletin board in the UK about the share price movements of two different companies.
Whoever Won – Or Was it Lost
Had To Donate Real Money To The Winner’s Nominated Charity
And So I Donated CONSIDERABLY More Money To Starving People in AFRICA than I have to Starving People in America
I just sent $10 to America – and I didn’t buy any land in America
You see your response said so much about American Culture
Why don’t you practice what you preach by “buying” land in Somalia or the Sudan (or someplace) and setting up farms for the poor? I am sure you could afford it.
I don’t want to “buy” any land in Somalia
I want the people in Somalia OWN Their Own Land
But You Are an AMERICAN
And FCUKING STUPID
Though I know you are really inteliigent – and yes I am still up for it
I’m in the Spitfire though
Tony
I am one of those who will ridicule.
It is not how much more then what they need to kill everyone that counts, it is having enough to kill everyone that counts.
As long as both sides have enough to kill everyone what difference does it make?
There are other things that have far greater effects on annihilation.
Such as the missile shield.
If America feels Russia wont be able to hit back, they will be inclined to use nuclear warheads.
And if they are wrong, it would be mutual annihilation.
If Russia believes it will be Annihilated with the recourse to annihilate back after the missile shield, it might be inclined to opt for mutual annihilated before the missile shield is set up.
It should be: Annihilated without the recourse to annihilate back
obama: oh come on, help us isolate iran
medvedev: no way, we like a bit of counterweight against us dominance in the middle east
obama: weren’t you supposed to get rid of all those warheads? should we make an issue out of that?
medvedev: we can be persuaded…
obama: right, here’s a couple of billion in return for your support against iran. let’s call it the new start treaty.
It’s mainly intended to get Russian, Chinese and French backing for “stronger” sanctions on Iran though Craig, which are likely to have similar results to those on Iraq from 1991 to 2003, which killed around 5,000 children a month plus many adults, according to UN officials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm
Those sanctions are a prelude to US and Israeli plans to bomb Iran, with provisions for the use of tactical nuclear weapons by both countries against Iranian targets –
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-plan-for-air-strikes-on-iran-backed-by-brown-395716.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
something allowed by Obama’s new nuclear strike policy as it doesnt bar nuclear first strikes on companies the US claims to be not adhering to the Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-review
Sorry to intrude on all these personal ramblings and ravings, but I really think this topic deserves more serious centring.
(i) The US and Russia have been talking and done some deals to reduce nuclear weapons. That is great to me. Next (ii) Israel is being identified as a rogue nation for having unauthorised nuclear weapons and not signing up to the nonproliferation treaty. About time too. Finally (iii) we are seeing very good reasons for the UK not to spend 100 billion pounds on more nuclear weapons which are useless to us anyway. Only the LibDems will even discuss this, let alone Tories or New Labout and the election is less than a month away.
I simply cannot follow all this other stuff on your blog – maybe I need to smoke some illegal substances to understand it? Wading through all the waffle and building-site Jonathan Ross style bad language is so boring.
Craig,
We cannot ridicule some nuclear arms reduction by America and Russia I agree, but without sounding cynical, I found it ‘interesting’ that the opportunity was taken to target Iran, a founding member of the NPT, by President Obama in his speech to the world. This when Iran had already arranged a non-proliferation summit with some 60 countries on April 18th, many months before Obama’s announcement.
Exceptionally I take issue on America trying to coerce a number of ‘allies’ not to attend this nuclear non-proliferation get-together intended to strengthen the accord and give greater emphasise to it’s ideals, something lacking in the many years of the NTP’s existence.
I am incensed that President Obama directed a laser beam at Iran while completely leaving Israel ‘off the hook.’ To me that is blatant hypocrisy.
Netanyahu tried to create a straw man by saying the talks were aimed at keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of “rogue regimes”. He then asserted that no one would call Israel a rogue regime, so there was nothing to discuss. A clever piece of sophistry (one would expect nothing less), which will have proved palatable to those already on Israel’s side who want a fig leaf to disguise their bias.
Of course the real issue is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and in due course reducing the number of such weapons that already exist. It would be quite embarrassing if Israel were asked to sign the NNPT, which would commit them to not seeking what they have laready had for 40 years. It would also commit them to admit weapons inspectors and give them full access – refusal to do which was ostensibly the reason for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow and execution.
Tom,
Thanks for some good insight. Of course my stand-point is that Israel demonstrates by her overlording aggression and deception (British passports) that she is a rogue regime content with nuclear ambiguity and lacking the balls to attend the nuclear security council. Yes we remember clearly the weapons inspections in Iraq before the inevitable ‘Shock & Awe’ after Hans Blix’s humiliation and then tragically David Kelly’s untimely death for revealing the Dossier lies RIP – All to further Israel’s existence.
The whole matter of the Nuclear NonProliferation is a farce from beginning to end. If one takes the time to actually read even a synopsis of the treaty it quickly becomes obvious why Iran is supported by its neighbours in efforts to supply electricity to essential infrastructure like hospitals, water treatment and the like. The US has used every trick in the book to whip Iran for daring to throw of the yoke of its American supplied dictator and murderer many years back : including sanctions which remind me of the unceasing effort to penalize Cuba by its unilateral blockade condemned by every other country in the world.
Simply put, the ‘Change of Direction’ of American policy is a subtle shift of emphasis which is all wind and no substance : a propaganda coup.
The real nature of American – and UK – policy is to punish Iran first and make up a stream of inventions to justify it. Just think about the nature of nuclear armed nations whipping up fear of those who try to be transparent about their activities. It only ensures they are less able to respond to attack !
That’s what happened to Saddam Hussein : and justifies North Korea’s quip to the ‘Security Council’.
“There have been 2054 nuclear tests on this planet. We have made 2. You have done the rest.
And we are the villains ? What hypocrites !”
Now,admittedly, that’s only to the best of my recollection.
And I have collected a number of articles of related matters to try and make sense of the jumble. My conclusions are that, however wild the conjectures I may make are, a propaganda coup is in the basic nature of the NPT itself : an institutional farce.
http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links/
Informed Bias
The Mission in Afghanistan,etc. relates to a saved article from decades back. Related surfing sparked the Dec 4 post at Opit’s LinkFest! at Blogspot.com about the Hoax : which unfortunately includes Global Warming and genocidal policies.
I say unfortunately only because the Big Lie requires something seem so fantastical as to lack plausibility. That means credibility is stretched to the limit : regardless of the true state of affairs.
Looking at the file, I amalgamated it into a larger one including supplementary information
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/04/politics-of-perception-foreign-policy.html
John Pilger on Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezcr18NTOtA
Ohama is a conman of the very first water, like the model he so closely resembles, Tony Blair.
My thinking exactly, writerman. I’m not sure I go with the insinuation that he was CIA, but it’s not very hard to imagine.