Bully Boy and the "I" nations (no, not Iraq)

For a weekend, it's been pretty hectic. Maybe you missed some of the news?

From Australia's ABC:

The United States has signalled its apparent abandonment of the goal of nuclear disarmament "for the foreseeable future" as it embarked on a quest for a new generation of more reliable nuclear warheads.
Although the term "nuclear disarmament" quietly disappeared from the Bush administration's vocabulary long ago, the statement by Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, marked the first time a top government official publicly acknowledged a goal enshrined in key international documents will no longer be pursued.

From the World Watch Institute:

The security risks from the nuclear cooperation agreement reached yesterday between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh far outweigh the energy benefits of the deal, according to researchers at the Worldwatch Institute. Spending the same money on new, clean energy options would provide energy without increasing the risk that terrorists will get their hands on nuclear arsenals.
Proponents claim that nuclear power will be India's ticket to economic prosperity in this energy-starved country of 1.1 billion people. But according to Worldwatch's State of the World 2006 report, "Renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, and biomass are far more practical energy options for China and India. Both countries have vast land areas that contain a large dispersed and diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources that are attracting foreign and domestic investment as well as political interest."

From Ranjit Devraj's "India Deal Makes US a Nuclear Proliferator" (IPS):

Campaigners for a nuclear-free South Asia are aghast at the potential nightmare that lies ahead following the nuclear technology and fuel deal announced here this week by visiting United States President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
' 'This deal may have further complicated an already difficult situation in South Asia which has two rival self-declared nuclear weapon states,'' said N.D. Jayaprakash, lead campaigner for the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), which counts among its ranks well-known scientists and intellectuals.
''What is sad is that nowhere in all this did the idea that nuclear weapons are not safe in anybody's hands come up, and now, far from the disarmament debate, the clamor by other countries that they too be allowed to possess nuclear weapons has grown louder,'' he added.

From Jim Lobe's "Nuclear Pact with India Seen as Surrender" (IPS):

While U.S. President George W. Bush hailed Thursday's nuclear accord with India as a major breakthrough in forging a "strategic partnership" with the South Asian giant, the pact has been broadly denounced by non-proliferation experts here as a devil's bargain. The agreement, which must still be approved by the U.S. Congress, marks a significant blow to the prevailing international non-proliferation regime, according to the critics, who have argued that it effectively rewards India for behaviour that differs little from what Iran is trying to do today. "It's going to be tough to argue that Iran and North Korea should be denied nuclear technology while India -- which has failed to even join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- is given the same technology on a silver platter," said Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin.
"The deal is a disaster for the nuclear non-proliferation regime on the planet," agreed Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, a leading proliferation specialist in the U.S. Congress, who is expected to spearhead efforts to defeat the accord as signed.
"It blows a hole through any attempts in the future that we could make to convince the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or the North Koreans, or for that matter any other country in world that might interested in obtaining nuclear weapons, that there is a level playing field, that there is a real set of safeguards," he added in an interview with public television.

If you've been taking some down time, or if you missed RadioNation with Laura Flanders on Saturday, this may be news to you. You may have spent yesterday thinking that things were as they were, that the nuclear battles had been fought and won. But like the reproductive rights battles, they never really go away. In the end, for the bullies of the world, it's always about control. Control of women's bodies, control of regions.

Reviewing a June press conference by the Bully Boy, Ava and C.I wrote:

Yeah, it's a steal from Laverne & Shirley but imagine the opening credits as they skip down Pennsylvania Avenue singing "Give us any treaty we'll break it . . ."

Those words were never truer as we actively encourage the spread of nukes.

Meanwhile on Iran, IMC is reporting this:

US and Israeli governments plan a military attack against Iran, possibly using nuclear bombs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], possibly this month (March 2006) for reasons including: stopping the planned opening of an international oil-petrochemical-gas stock exchange for oil trade in euros [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]; control of Khuzestan province [1] [2] [3] where most Iranian oil lies, on the border with Iraq (US war plan OPLAN 1002-04); to distract attention from USA domestic political problems; and for Christian fundamentalist reasons - Bush says he was just following God's orders when he ordered the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
The official excuse for the attack is the possible nuclear weapons program in Iran: ex-CIA agents Paul Pillar and Ellen Laipson as well as retired United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix state that if Iran were really trying to build atom bombs, then the most effective way to stop this would be a guarantee from the US and Israel not to attack Iran.