<h2 class="blog_title">Amy Goodman's New Column: "Presidential Race Ignores Arms Race"As the U.S. presidential race continues, so does the arms race worldwide. People—civilians, children—are being killed and maimed, on a daily basis, by unexploded cluster bombs and land mines. Thousands of nuclear missiles remain at hair-trigger alert. The U.S. government rattles its saber at Iran, alleging a nuclear-weapons program, while at the same time offering uranium to Saudi Arabia. And with the war in Iraq well into its sixth year, one of its architects, Douglas J. Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy under Donald Rumsfeld, has predictably penned a revisionist history of the war and the decisions behind it.

Feith said this week: "So while it was a terrible mistake for the administration to rely on the erroneous intelligence about WMD—and, I mean, it was catastrophic to our credibility—first of all, it was an honest error and not a lie. But even if you correct it for that error, what we found in Iraq was a serious WMD threat. Even though Saddam Hussein had chosen to not maintain the stockpiles, he had put himself in a position where he could have regenerated those stockpiles in three to five weeks."

In an interview I asked Hans Blix about Feith's comments. He was the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, in charge of the WMD search. Reflecting back five years, he said: "To prove that there is nothing is almost impossible. I think that if we had been in Iraq for a couple of months more, it would have been enough to make it extremely clear to everybody that the chances were real that there were no weapons of mass destruction." Instead of waiting for the inspections, the Pentagon was busy trying to discredit Blix. I asked him about the allegations that the U.S. was bugging his office and home. He said, "I wish to heaven that they had listened a little better to what I had to say, if they did listen."

Blix describes the current state of the world as a "Cold Peace": "It is hard to avoid the impression that—almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War—military calculations still dominate the long-term thinking about major global relations. Terrorism is formally made the chief enemy, but precautions are taken against the growing power of China and Russia." President Bush's nuclear-cooperation pact with India, Barack Obama's stated willingness to unilaterally strike nuclear-armed U.S. ally Pakistan, Hillary Clinton's promise to Iran to "totally obliterate" the nation of 70 million (should it attack Israel), and John McCain's hard-line position on Russia, including the deployment of a missile defense in eastern Europe, all point to a reliance on military solutions that Blix sees as a path to conflict and war.

In a remarkable demonstration of hypocrisy, the Bush administration has pledged to deliver enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia. Anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman said: "The idea of giving enriched uranium to the Saudis while threatening war with the Iranians for enriching uranium is astonishing. The idea that the Saudis are going to somehow lower the price of oil on the basis of possibly getting nuclear reactors in the future is just almost staggering to think about."

I asked Blix what is the single most important thing the U.S. could do to support world peace. Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said: "Then I think it's very likely that the Chinese, who have not ratified, will follow. If China does it, maybe India does. If India does, Pakistan does, etc. And the treaty would enter into force. It would be a great thing if we outlawed any nuclear-weapons tests in the future."

Nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass destruction. As I spoke to Blix, hundreds of people were meeting in Dublin, Ireland, to craft an anti-cluster-bomb treaty, the cause Princess Diana championed in the last years of her life. The Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions is dedicated "to negotiate a new instrument of international humanitarian law banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians."

The conference in Dublin has 128 participating nations. Absent is the leading producer of cluster munitions, the United States. Russia and China are also not there.

From nuclear proliferation to the use of cluster bombs—coverage of the presidential campaign should focus more on the arms race, less on the horse race.... http://tinyurl.com/546jr7

CAN SOMEBODY SHOW ME HOW TO POST LINKS?? I TRY BUT IT SOME TIMES WORKS MOST TIMES TURNS OUT LIKE THIS HORRID TRY!

Put a url tag around the link, like this:

{url}http://tinyurl.com/546jr7{/url}

Except use square braces [ ] instead of curly ones { }. Then it comes out like this:

http://tinyurl.com/546jr7As

I tried i guess i'm not yet computer literate !

The problem with that is you don't have a slash on the closing url tag, and you have a b (bold) tag inside it.

http://tinyurl.com/546jr7

You can also just paste the url directly into your message. When you post it the site's software will automatically link it.

Click the button just to the right of the smile face. The plus. Helper bubble says "insert link"
A window opens, enter the address into the text window and click OK, enter it again and click OK again.

Well, its a good topic interupted by instructionals.

Didnt I hear Obama give a speech about Arms reduction, for that matter, nuclear elimination possibilities? Seems like I did.

For what its worth, Im not sure I can find a way through the circular thinking of nuclear arms. Its nice to think we could just "disarm"...but we won't. It would be nice to think China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, England, France and others would disarm....but they won't. Even if the US played world leader in the matter...the others would not follow suit. Its one of those corals without a gate. It does sound nice....but it just won't happen.

And as long as Russia and China have them...nobody could seriously argue for us to lay them down. As long as we have most of the world hating us...seems laying them down would be....foolish. I cannot argue the justifications for the hatred...true enough. But I guess if you are going around making big time enemies, you better have big time sh*t to back it up.

Thanks to all of you I findly got it as you can now all read the post

Forget "disarm" for the next couple of decades. How about a nice compromise?
What say the US cut it's nuclear arsenol in half, without any further obligations on anyone else to follow suit?
The US would STILL have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over.

Actually, we did that already Under SALT 1 and 2. And while compromise is a good word and action, does anyone think China and Russia would....compromise? Do we think India and Pakistan would? Israel? The coup de grace...The US? Doubt it and as long as the others won't....I cant imagie the US doing it.

Who cares what China and Russia do as long as we can wipe them off the planet. (and ourselves along with them)
Cut todays arsenol in half. Even if China has twice as many as we do, so what?

I've been around this world for quite a while and my father back in the late fortys used to say Russia was not really an natural enemy of the USA they had fears of China you must remember we need an enemy so as to keep military spending at an excellorated pitch. Lets be clear! question how many nukes would it take to level any target?? then how many nukes can we take against us??And then who will clean up the mess after we bang the crap out of this beautiful world we've been blessed with??

Hey I was going to ask where are all the neo-cons I guess i've found one..Welcome ! but why the flaming finger I was under the impression this was an intelligent exchange of ideas and issues

May I interject with a little humour?

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end (OK, it's not rollon the floor laughing funny, but it is vaguely amusing and, above all, relevant!)


As for the discussion taking place I actually agree with Sky AND Abell.

The whole world should disarm, and failing that it should compromise by reducing the number of warheads each nuclear power has in its arsenal, and yes it would take a county like the USA to take the lead in that reduction (the worlds only remaining military and economic super-power). No offence, but I wont be holding my breath waiting for that kind of leadership from the US.

But Abell's right in suggesting that that's probably not going to happen in the current atmosphere.
The powers that be (corporations) have to much to gain from the proliferation of armaments of all kinds, including nuclear. So the first thing that would have to happen would be the removal of vested interests from the political decision making process. That in and of itself will take some doing.
Then there's the, by now deeply entrenched, notion of some kind of permanent enemy that people the wold over have been born into - be it East v West, Christian v Islam, and the laughable 'democrat' v 'commie'. (Yeah, I know that's covered in the first but I had to get t in - point being we're not democratic nations and they're not communist nations. Phew! glad I got that off my chest! ) Anyway, the main point is that it will take several truly forward thinking, enlightened, peaceful individuals on the world stage, each invested with the trust and authority of their respective nation, to even begin negotiating reduction in nuclear arms. Now, I'm not saying that could never/will never happen (I actually do believe it will happen one day, but probably POST nuclear war) it's just not likely to happen in the current international, political landscape.

Having said that....
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bb/index...showtopic=20695

Its a picture, nothing more nothing less, Grampy.

And No, Not a Neoanything. Why the intelligence comment? Seems reality to me but Im not the last word on anything.

The intelligence comment was about the flipping off of someone or thing to start an exchange of ideas is not a good way to get across a view point of an important issue..It's like saying f--k you before starting a conversation..

Abell is one of our resident conservatives. We keep him around because he is relatively intelligent, has good information and is fun to poke at with a stick.

I see your point, Sir. Do keep in mind that it is an Avatar and not necessarily intended for you or anyone in particular. It stays there on a permanant basis. Since it has been my avatar for quite a long time, and in light of the fact that you are not familier with me, the misconception of my intent is easy to see.

I guess I could have a nice puppy or fluffy cat as an Avatar....more fitting of my soft personality and loving demeanor.

OR! To put it another way:

Abell is our last remaining (unless Jubal decides to return) conservative. We find his input very valuable. He is intelligent, honest, forthright and always good for laugh and a joke. The alternative perspective he offers gives much food for thought.
In short, he's an asset to the forum! Place wouldn't be the same without him.

Wow....thank you.

I don't understand what Avatar is, but I excepted your explaination of the finger,forgive me but I'm new at computer lingo my grandchildren let me use my computer sometimes [HA HA]

That's what I tell them when they want me to give up my nuclear stockpile. Never. Forget it.