# El Baradei:  West Should Disarm



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2006)

So, if cops got rid of their guns, the bad guys would be more likely to - at least according to El Baradei. :

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*West should also disarm, UN nuclear chief says*
Helena Spongenberg, EU Observer, 7 Jul 06
http://euobserver.com/9/22042/?rk=1

Turkey can help bring about a result on the Iranian nuclear enrichment issue by mediating between Tehran and the international community, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El-Baradei said, adding that *the west would be more successful if it also lay down its nuclear weapons.*

"You have close historical relations with the Middle East and Iran, and you also have close relations with the west and the USA. You are a NATO member. You can understand the position of these countries and have an important role in bringing them to the negotiation table," stressed Mr El-Baradei in an interview on Turkish TV on Thursday (6 July).

"We should also discuss the international community's concerns over terrorism and human rights with Iran. If we can do this in an early stage and if Turkey can help the parties get closer to a compromise, this will be in the best interests of not only Turkey but also the entire world," he suggested, according to TurkishPress.com.

Mr El-Baradei also noted that he is still optimistic that the issue can be solved. "A lasting and final solution can be found through diplomacy," he said, adding that a solution to the controversy could contribute to settling the issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

*The US, Russia, France, China and Britain should diminish their nuclear arsenals if they really want to be successful in their efforts however, Mr El-Baradei said, stressing that these countries should ban production of materials used in nuclear weapon production and refrain from underlining the strategic role of nuclear weapons.*

An informal meeting between Iran and the EU

At the same time in Brussels, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana met for dinner to discuss the planned talks on an international proposal for Iran, aimed at persuading Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program, which the west fear could give them nuclear weapons.

"We are going to continue on Tuesday, and I'm looking forward to getting this process going, [which] we think is going to be beneficial for both sides, for the European Union and many countries of the world and for Iran," Mr Solana told press ahead of the meeting.

"We are serious about continuing negotiations. And we are going to start next Tuesday our talks," Dr Larijani said.

Dr Larijani arrived last night in Madrid where he will meet with Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero today (7 July) to talk further about the situation.

The proposal

Mr Solana met Dr Larijani in the Iranian capital in June, submitting an international compromise package designed to get Iran to stop enriching uranium over weapons fears. 

The proposal was put together by the five permanent UN security council members - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - plus Germany.

It offers Iran direct talks with the US for the first time since 1979 and new reactor technology in return for a suspension of all enrichment activities that could support a weapons programme.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said Iran needed to give "a substantive response" to the offer before leaders of the eight leading industrialised nations - the G8 - meet in St Petersburg on 15 July.

Sanction threats are hovering in the air, but some western diplomats say options are limited if Iran fails to comply because Tehran's role as the world's fourth largest oil exporter means any sanctions could badly backfire.

On Thursday, Russian president Vladimir Putin said it was too early to talk about sanctions against Tehran.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2006)

*El Baradei = *


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

Nuke the League of Nations.


----------



## Red 6 (7 Jul 2006)

Yeah right, whatever...


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

For nearly half a century, the entire world was 30 minutes away from destruction with the US and the former Soviet Union squaring off against each other. While that was scary, the last time I checked, we were all still here. The reason being that while the Soviets talked the talk, they were RATIONAL and LOGICAL enough to realize that there was no point in getting into a shooting match that would result in their destruction. 

I don't think the same came be said for terrorist sponsoring rogue states (and we all know who they are) who are now attempting to acquire, and or have acquired some capability to inflict terrible damage on Western targets. Lets not fool ourselves. They don't need an intercontinental ballistic missile to accomplish this.

Here is a thought....

We SHOULD let the Islamic extremists into the club!, but not in the way they might think.

Perhaps the US should re-task all of their "excess" nuclear arsenal to target those who are currently presenting the threat. You can use your imagination to fill in the target blanks. I mean hey, they are no less than Russians right?? 

The US could guarantee the they and rest of us would never suffer a terrorist backed nuclear attack by simply stating that if any Islamic extremist group took credit for or was implicated in such an attack that the targets noted above (again use your imagination) would have 30 minutes till nap time. 

Here's to another 50 years of peace.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2006)

Stellar plan.   :

One of the bouquet of flaws in that idea is that radical Islamic types want to die for jihad and become martyrs.  They would probably be quite content to see the whole place go up in nuclear flame, and like the cockroaches, some would survive and thrive.


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

Well, perhaps not.

You see, most of these extremists claim they are acting on behalf of their god and prophet and doing their "good work". And since many claim that their ultimate goal is to establish a new world Islamic order with a Kalipha presiding over the whole thing then it would 
therefore follow that the top 2 targets should be: 

MECCA & MEDINA.

Would they ever risk the destruction of their holiest places??

Again, use your imagination to fill in the remainder of the target list.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

so all we have to do is give up the very things we're fighting to preserve? Brilliant.


----------



## Matty B. (7 Jul 2006)

;D


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> That is a gross idea to bomb these targets. Islam is the major religion in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, most of North Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and parts of East Europe.
> 
> I think you offended just about half the world with that red-neck comment. Maybe read up on Islam and learn that it has the same history as Christianity and Judaism.
> 
> There are a lot of Muslims in Toronto... some of them are good friends of mine. Watch what you say.


hi-jack

all of you stop using the term "red-neck" like an insult. 

As for numbers, if that's your criteria, then you should be aware that Alberta has the largest Muslim population of any province, and always has. Edmonton is the home of the first mosque built in Canada.

hi-jack ends


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

I guess that totally hypothetical scenario is just WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEADS!

NO ONE  is suggesting a strike here. Read the text a LITTLE CLOSER.

Why don't we take a hypothetical  just one step futher just like a lot of Hollywood action flicks have tried.  Lets just totally pretend that Osama Bin Laden manages to acquire a small device or devices. Again, use your imagination.

And what if you woke up tommorrow to find out on the morning news that New York, Washington, Chicago, LA and lets throw in London, ARE GONE as in incinerated in nuclear blasts.

The cable news networks are advising that Al Qaeda is already claiming that they are responsible and that they will in future continue more such attacks until all of the Western democracies fall.

(Oh and btw, your wife and 2 kids happened to be visiting your  American in-laws in New Jersey)

The news networks (the ones that are left) are showing images from all over the Muslim world of people smiling and dancing in the streets.

How does the West respond???? Its now too late. 

The hypothetical was meant to illustrate a point. Nuclear Armageddon has NOT happened up this point because the players KNOW what the rules are and the US was ON RECORD stating what the response would be if A attacked B and so on and so forth.


----------



## xenobard (7 Jul 2006)

Matthew Ash,

Although I agree with you that it would be completely unjustified to bomb Islamic holy places, I would suggest that you don't let people who suggest such actions get you angry.  I only caution you because there will undoubtedly be more such suggestions in the future. In fact, the more attacks Islamic terrorists conduct on western civilian targests the more western civilians will suggest such unjustified actions in retaliation, and if you are going to take them seriously, I fear that you'll just wear yourself out being angry all the time. 

Instead, I suggest you direct your anger against the Islamic terrorists whose blatant aim is to attack the West's most 'holy' institution:  terrorist attacks on civilian targets in effect are attacks on the very 'sacred institution' which unites western civilization: humanitarianism.  In otherwords, each time a terrorist indiscrimately and purposefully kills civilians he is blowing up the wests' Mecca.  Keep that in mind the next time you get angry.


----------



## Haggis (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> hi-jack
> 
> all of you stop using the term "red-neck" like an insult.
> 
> ...



Hijack continues:

Damn right, Paracowboy!

I've put a lot of effort into becoming and remaining a Redneck.  I am not prejudiced against anyone until they have earned my ire.  I have a college diploma, and a job, having served Canada for almost three decades at home and abroad.  I own guns, CB radios, a 4X4 and a paid off house that's not on wheels or blocks. I have an attractive wife with all her teeth and a loving family, all of whom went to school (one, my son, just joined the Army Reserve).  I like beer, pretty girls in t-shirts on summer days, hunting and watching NASCAR, the NHL playoffs and even the World Cup.   I do PT six days a week (sometimes my wife joins me).  I can see my feet and I don't wear suspenders with shorts or t-shirts without sleeves.

I am a Redneck!  Got a problem with that, Mr. Ash???

Hijack ends again.

(Edited because I don't spell check when I'm pissed off.)


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

Haggis that was priceless.

While I must admit that I am not a red-neck (not that there is anything wrong with that  ), 

I will say that it would be a cold in hell before a small minded knee jerk reacting insult hurler could ever make me feel small by calling me one.


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

LOL, it looks like "Matthew Ash" has suddenly become a FEMALE? without a NAME? (according to your new profile) who doesn't say anything.  

Anyway, "Matthew", are you a teenage girl?? I am only asking because you seem to think some things are "GROSS". 

BTW, I don't need to read up on Islam because I am WELL VERSED in its teachings. Do you happen to know that the Quran acknowledges the existence of Christ and that he is considered a prophet?

Do you like history? I could tell you about the Battle of Badr sometime if you like?

Anyway, I hope that you are recovering from your sex change operation. Its great to live in a free country like ours with such a great health care system isn't it?

Be Well


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2006)

Have I missed something in another thread?  Who is Matthew Ash, and where did that quote come from?   ???
In any case, even in the worst case scenario, nobody is going to nuke Mecca.  It has no tactical value, and all you would do is guarantee that all Islamics world wide would be after you.  
Anyhoo, as I recall there was a poster that argued for arming Iran with nukes a while back, and that line of thinking got crushed.  Pretty sure that isn't a viable option.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Have I missed something in another thread?  Who is Matthew Ash, and where did that quote come from?


used to be a young male, with confused ideas. Now, seems to be a female. He/she has apparently altered his/her profile - changed name to "..." and changed post to a smiley face. Wierd. I'm gonna give it some more time, and then delete the post if it stays like that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2006)

Why not just flush hesheit right now and save both bandwidth and frustration?


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why not just flush hesheit right now and save both bandwidth and frustration?


 morbid curiosity?


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2006)

Good enough, disregard last, out.


----------



## Echo9 (8 Jul 2006)

I believe that the correct androgynous pronoun is:

H'orsh'it

(short for he or she or it)
 ;D


----------

