UN Security Update Iraq - 13 May, 2013

Download Daily Security Update_13 May 2013

pl

Comments

[Imagine]

I predict this Tuesday is the day the Senate passes S.R.65. "Nuclear weapons 'capability'" [read: having a nuclear energy program] is now a casus belli, and to hell with the world's NPT. Israel attacking Iran in 'self defense' is now a casus belli. Congress froths at the mouth to attack and burn more trillions.

Question: If Congress wants to have war, but the President (who is the Commander In Chief) does not cooperate, who wins?

Second question: What happens if both Russia and China say that attacking Iran is completely unacceptable?

[Alba Etie]

What concrete facts do you base the prediction that we will throw out the NPT ? And Congress cannot start a war unless the USA declares war - or unless the Executive agrees to otherwise use the military . If President Obama does not want to go to Syria - we will not be going . My belief is that based on his actions thus far BHO does not want to militarily intervene in Syria . I would hope China & Russia would say attacking Iran is unacceptable - that would mean that BiBi and the "clean break crowd" might get to bomb Persia after all.

[Alba Etie]

correction ( new pair of bifocals ) BiBi and the 'clean break crowd " might NOT get to bomb Persia after all ,,,( I was trying to hit Preview and click on Post instead )

[Imagine]

SR 65: "reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;". I deconstruct. "nuclear weapon capability" means enrichment, of any sort, or perhaps even having a reactor. "take such action as may be necessary" clearly means attacking and going to war. "reiterate" is a subtle weasel phrase that basely implies we already have this policy as a standing rule. The NPT is a deal between the Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves "will not attack nor threaten to attack" the Have Nots, we are already in clear violation of this clause. In exchange, the Have Nots will not get out the pitchforks and torches and try to take down the Haves. In exchange for this, the Haves get to keep their nukes until they get rid of them, and the Have Nots get to use inspected nuclear power, without seeking bombs, and without being threatened with attacks.

Congress assumes it can have its cake and eat it too. But threatening to attack a Have Not simply because it has a nuclear program puts all other Have Nots in the crosshairs. And THIS puts both America and Israel in the crosshairs from all the 2nd-tier Have Nots of the world, including Brazil, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, even Scandinavia, the non-aligns, all the countries that want (more) nuclear programs but don't want to be next on the short list for military exercise. Thus I say this tears up the NPT for practical purposes.

Syria is an obvious quagmire, Obama should be able to avoid this one. Russia will insist on negotiations, which may be fair. The distraction will sate Israel / Congress for months.

With 79% of the Senate proposing SR65, even before the vote, and 95% of the House passing a similar resolution before, Congress is now an owned zombie server primed and already firing denial-of-service attacks, specifically aimed at Iran. Senators are now coming out of the woodwork and admitting that the goal is overthrowing the Iranian country all along. In the old days it was Congress who declared war, before they passed that responsibility off to the President, and now to Israel (read clauses 7 & 8). The question: If Congress follows Israel into war, will the Executive branch be able to stand against it? Or does Congress have the right to order the President to order the military to attack?

[Babak Makkinejad]

Imagine is correct; US has destroyed NPT.