Monday, November 08, 2010

There is a better method of practicing Non-Proliferation until there is a nuclear free world, without increasing permanent members of the UN Security Council.

This is President Obama arriving in India and being honored by the guard.

Increasing the number of Permanent Members to the UN Security Council makes it meaningless. 

What the UN needs to do is require, through a new Provision, that any country with nuclear energy, peaceful or otherwise, within their borders that SHOULD NOT have them, aligned in a PROPRIETARY relationship with one of the Permanent Members, of which their are five.

Russia has been trying to develope such a model even if unintentional.

In other words, through unscrupulous measures countries outside the Permanent Member status of the UN Security Council have accumulated nuclear capacity.  They did so against international and well accepted treaties.  Countries such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Iran should not have nuclear capacity except for peaceful pruposes.  Dr. Kahn has done a great deal of damage to the safety of global security and is an international criminal regardless of his populous status.

Many reasons why countries are becoming openly aggressive to their nuclear demands are due to the Bush / Cheney aggression of 2001 - 2008.  The Bush administration invaded Iraq illegally and have sought to occupy that country.  It wasn't until the moral citiznes of the USA elected President Obama did the number of troops come down in Iraq with complete withdrawal next year.  That aggression set the stage for fear and clamoring for nuclear weapon capacity.  As a result we have witnessed very hostile and ruthless regimes building capacity and flexing their nuclear muscle.

At one time on a global scale, ALLIANCES were defined by military cooperation, and NOT, economic domination.  The definition of ally changed to 'economic ally' under the H. W. Bush years when he called the international theater, "A Family of Nations" and ridiculed Saddam for not being a part of it.  The result of such 'pandering' to economic interdependence resulted in an invasion into Iraq when Saddam moved in Kuwait to secure 'water front' ports. 

No matter.  The point is this.

Every current Permanent Member of the UN Security Council has the capacity to MONITOR and SECURE all the nuclear facilitites in the world.  Five powerful members have the ability to return to military alliances with countries now trying to secure their own nations from the Fear Mongering of the Bush/Cheney years.  The countries with nuclear capacity, including Israel, need to sign a UN Treaty stating whom they are allied with and allow that country their own military installation in regard to the nuclear facilities.  SIMILAR to the 'idea' of UN Inspectors and Peacekeepers, but, with the clout of sovereign authority to act in the interest of the country ILLEGALLY possessing nuclear weapons.

THAT is a method of every Permanent Member a presence and a nuclear presence all over the world to establish global security and a balance of power UNTIL the point where disarmament is realized and there is NO nuclear threat anywhere on Earth, in its skies or in its 'outer space.' 

Currently, China, Russia, the USA, France and Great Britain tap into their national treasuries to 'grow' military prowess in other countries rather than having instillations they control.  What has occurred in many instances is a realtionship as with South Korea whereby they simply don't want a USA occupation for the problem it causes with its people.  However, when it came to realizing North Korea had nuclear capacity they were longing to use, South Korea was screaming for help.  A permanent installation that is budgeted annuallly by any of the Permanent Five Members will allow high levels of competency to handle disarmament and GLOBAL SECURITY and STABILITY.

To continue to grow nuclear nations only adds to the instability of global relations and endangers future generations explosed to 'unstable' whims of leadership such as the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld Cabal. 

If nations do not want permanent installations of alliance within their sovereign territory then they open themselves to aggression to bring those nuclear facilities under control and global scrutiny.  That would include bombing facilities established illegally.

It will work and it is enforceable.  Nuclear capacity is not a minor issue.  Russia has learned the hard way what lack of safety protections can do within a country and I am confident they dearly don't wnat it to occur again.

ENFORCEABLE is key and it is the only way to containment and reversal of the danger of nuclear proliferation.  I don't see invading forces so much as destruction by bombers agreed at the UN Security level.  RESOLUTIONS to destroy and informed intent need to be instrumental in such a paradigm otherwise a permanent member is opening themselves to war.

Speaking in India, Obama says terror safe-havens in Pakistan unacceptable (click title to entry - thank you)

November 8, 2010|5:23 a.m.

NEW DELHI (AP) — President Barak Obama says U.S. efforts to dismantle al-Qaida must succeed on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Speaking before India's parliament, Obama said he will insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable. He also says the terrorists behind the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks must be brought to justice.

Obama says no country has a greater interest in stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan than India.

Obama's remarks come on the final day of his three-day stop here.

"Morning Papers - Its Origins

The Rooster

It has ONLY BEEN two years, whom did everyone think they were voting for? 

There is no way a resurgence of Republican competency was going to happen in two years. 

It is the same old crowd with the same old priorities.  All they can do is repeat their mistakes, they have no other understanding of life.  They are locked into OLD PARADIGMS that contract opportunities for citizens and small business.  They are worse then ever.  Before the collapse they actually needed the people of the USA.  Now they don't need the Middle Class at all.  By every estimation the ONLY investment bank that should STILL BE STANDING is "Morgan."  Morgan is the only bank actually seeking any kind of relationship with the USA consumer.  Why?  Because it is part of THEIR BUSINESS MODEL and their stock prices allow 'average investors' to 'buy in' while acquiring larger numbers of stocks. 

Oh, well, here we go again.