One word for you, in a vain attempt to calm the hysterical UN bashing.

Diplomacy.

One this word and the full weight of what it requires from international diplomats may seep in.
 

Hi Col-

My problem is when they couple idiotic rhetoric with a performance mediocre enough to make observers wonder if the rhetoric represents a dynamic at play. Making nice isn't going to convince any state leadership that sees more advantage in pursuing nukes than not pursuing them to give up such programs. What matters are incentives and costs.

I couldn't care less what ElBareidei *said* in public if what the IAEA did in *private* was first rate rather than third rate.
 

We do seem to be the policemen of the world...but only metaphorically, and not by ourselves (For instance, we solicit aid from [dictatorial] gangbangers and no doubt reap the rewards...Hey, does that mean we're "on the take"? Or are we just a "police state"? Heh.)

I think perhaps Elbareidei means merely that he's worried about any state having nukes -- as if we could go back to a time when no nation did. On the other hand, perhaps he's aware that a democracy was the only nation to actually use such a weapon against a nation's populace.

--C. G. Devilsadvocate
 

First, I am unconvinced that if one removes the current axe grinding (by esp. the US Right which verges on delusional in these areas) that IAEA has in fact done a "third rate" job within the context of its core mission and actual capacities. Perhaps there is a non-axe grinding analysis that would convince me, else I continue to regard this as part and parcel of the idiotic anti-UN disease that the US picked up.

As to rhetoric, well, IAEA is an access based agency supposedly with a neutral reputation. It certainly lacks an army. Saying things that cement a careful, non-partisan stance, even if they sound silly to you, is called clever diplomacy. Again, the full meaning of the word seems to escape you.
 

"Clever diplomacy"? Yeah, right. Just as clever as the oil for food scam that ripped of the Iraqis for billions of dollars while enriching Kofi, Kojo and several others, to include the "clever diplomats" in France.

If you're "unconvinced" that IAEA has done a third rate job then you're either ignorant of the facts or deliberately ignoring them. Surely you recall the "shock" when it was discovered that Sadaam was just months away from a nuclear bomb when the Gulf War erupted?

And you call the "right" "verg[ing] on delusional"!
 

Curtis wrote:

"On the other hand, perhaps he's aware that a democracy was the only nation to actually use such a weapon against a nation's populace."

True and with good reasons, notably worse albeit non-nuclear alternatives.
 

Mark,

I'm not arguing the case, either way, on the WWII finale. I'm just stepping into my imaginary construct of ElBareidei's head. Who knows?

It is a fact that a democracy such as the U.S.'s has a structure allowing for the dropping or planting of nuclear bombs on the basis of predictions of alternatives. Disregarding for a bit the actual instances that have occurred, we might imagine future scenarios and future democratically elected governments -- i.e., I found it a bit humorous that certain bloggers blasted Spain's "democratic" decision to pull out of Iraq while using "democracy" as the justification for being in Iraq. (I'm excluding all who are currently present at ZenPundit, have a handful of other bloggers in mind.)

The label of "democracy" takes many forms and is no guarantee of infallible policies and endeavors. However, any sane man should realize that a dictatorship does not have the same safeguards in place that [most?] democracies have.
 

Ah, a looney tune.
\
"Clever diplomacy"? Yeah, right. Just as clever as the oil for food scam that ripped of the Iraqis for billions of dollars while enriching Kofi, Kojo and several others, to include the "clever diplomats" in France.

First, of course, oil-for-food ripped off largely not the Iraqis as such, (who on the governmental side were on the scam), who were getting a service (access to things via sidepayments), but the process (one can argue the population, but your average Iraqi was rather more concenred with the embargoe than his government engaging in on-the-side illegal commerce which is rather par for the course in the region) Billions is an exageration, I may add.

Of course, on a factual basis, Kofi Anaan is not accused of personal corruption or enrichment in this area, per the Volcker report, so the clumsy ideologue's smear is rather sad in this connexion.

Finally, of course, the dig at France is stupid and childish (and as far as I know, no French diplomats are in fact accused of personal corruption). The actors were largely private, and of course included all nationalities.


If you're "unconvinced" that IAEA has done a third rate job then you're either ignorant of the facts or deliberately ignoring them. Surely you recall the "shock" when it was discovered that Sadaam was just months away from a nuclear bomb when the Gulf War erupted?

Amusing, I am being called ignorant when the idiot cites to Sadaam being 'months away' from a nuclear bomb when the past war erupted, in fact not true at all, mere fabulation on the part of the current American Admnistration.

Again, if someone has an objective, non-ideological axe grinding assessement of real performance, please do share, else I put this down to more American isolotionist nuttery with respect to the UN.

And you call the "right" "verg[ing] on delusional"!

No, I call the American Right delusional in large part with respect to the UN; not the old guard internationalists to be sure, but the neo-isoloationists and related odd-balls.

Of course, you presume that taking a whack at the US Right I am a leftist. Quite the contrary, indeed very much the contrary, I merely have contempt for delusional ideological demogoging.