IRAN: To the Principal's Office, Please
 

TFP Presidents & Prime Ministers:

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts regarding The Islamic Republic of Iran seeking to step forward as a nuclear power in the Middle East. What is the World to do about Iran? Nothing? Anything? Do recent events make clear that Iran, as a sovereign nation, should simply be left alone and not meddled with? Are you concerned they might export their nukes for political agendas?

It's apparently become a significant enough concern for the IAEA to refer Iran to the UNSC for review. What would you like to see the UNSC do from here?

Is it hypocracy for the main nuclear weapon nations to force other nations to abaondon their nuclear weapon programs? Probably.

Obviously what this calls for is more resolutions /sarcasm.

What I'd like to see them do is impossible, because it would require the UNSC to have power, which it doesn't. So what I hope happens is the UNSC holds an international tea party, and forces the Iranian delegates to sit in a corner. I think they might be able to manage something like this, but I'm not sure. It does seem a bit aggresive for the UNSC.

I don't care who gets a nuclear power plant or 10, i just don't want to see anyone else get the bomb.. there's already enough to blow up the entire planet a few times over, thats more than enough.

It calls for some serious diplomacy (this does not preclude a military response).

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer... regardless of how you view Iran, we should be getting as close as possible to them.

The problem is, Iran has some very real reasons to not trust the US. It isn't like the US has been all that good for or to Iran.

Do you really think that Iran, who sits on billions and billions of gallons of sweet crude needs a nuclear generating station?

I'm sure they are as aware of the dangers of oil reliance as anyone else. Or maytbe they're waiting with torches. I'd want to get rid of oil on my land.

Additionally, given the different responses seen between Iraq and North Korea... If I was a "least favoured nation" on the "axis of evil" I'd be sure to get my nukes lined up super pronto.

The out of control United States federal government is more of a threat to the America than Iran is. I can't believe people are buying into this agenda AGAIN.

Unfortunately countries like Iran feel the need to have nuclear weapons in order to feel safe and not be invaded. It is also totally hypocritical for the worlds largest owner of nuclear weapons to criticize other countries who want these weapons, especially when America is developing new nuclear weapons i.e. bunker bustering nuclear weapons. Also I haven’t seen any pressure put on Israel to give up their weapons. One rule for one and another rule for someone else never works.

Good call. It irks me every time I see the specialy treatment Israel gets over anyone else in the Middle East. Basically it sends the message that if you're willing to unconditionally cooperate with the US, do what you want, in fact we encourage it.... but if you don't......

Wasn't Israel one of the nations that already had nukes when the non-proliferation treaty was signed?

Now that I think about it, does Israel have nukes... officially?

Of course its pretty ironic that actually attempting to aquire such weapons will certainly get them invaded by the US and make them less safe. But acquiring nuclear weapons isnt primarily about safety. Its about leverage.

Tell that to North Korea...

I'll tell it to Saddam while im at it.. oh wait. I think hes already knows.

This is going to be a very difficult issue to resolve, especially with the new Iranian president. Now sanctions are an option but they tend to be rather ineffective, remember that a large percentage of Iranians are in favour of continuing down the nuclear course and see the West's efforts to stop it as hypocracy as Willravel said above. Having said that I think it is very important that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. The situation is rather volatile, what if Israel decides to bomb the reactor as they did to Iraq's?

The religious leader of Iran has called a fatwa on any use of nuclear power as a weapon. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in response to a Time interview that "When he gives a fatwa, nobody can go in that direction anymore. It means the parliament cannot pass any laws, and the government cannot reserve any budget for that sort of activity because it is considered illegal and also against the religion."

If Pat Robertson were given this sort of credibility, I would laugh my butt off. The Ayotallah is an entirely different matter in terms of the legitimacy of his "word."

Like the rest of you, the hypocrisy of the U.S. is also making me sick. What I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is

a) isn't it naive for Iran to believe that threatening to enrich uranium is going to improve their situation, and

b) given a way to accurately report peaceful nuclear development* to the U.N., shouldn't the west back off?


*I guess this is a far-fetched concept.

Yes, they have nukes, that is a fact. Isreal, India and Pakistan all have nukes, and have demonstrated them, and possibly/probably NK as well. South Africa is, I believe, the only country to ever voluntarily give up their nukes once they acquired them (outside of the mess that is the former USSR, at any rate, but that's a different discussion).

At any rate, I'd be looking at a diplomatic solution. While I am uncomfortable with any new nuclear power emerging, they do have a right to pursue nuclear weapons. So I'd want to convince them otherwise but I see no reason to go to war over it.

Did Iran sign on to the Non-proliferation Treaty? I know that India and Pakistan did not.

Yes Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

Hmm we catch Iran giving arms to militants in Iraq... I wish we had the guts to do what Israel did to Iraq 20 years ago, and take out their facilities! Not that anyone ever will thank Israel for doing that..

Has everyone else forgotten that NK got their Nukes from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?

Yes, I forgot to add these to the poll:

The policy of Appeasement (What MM is accurately referring to)
The policy of Bribes (Iran-Contra)

I don't think the question is IF the Iranians go nuclear, but WHEN. IMO, Iran has no business having nuclear weapons -- none. They are a known sponsor of terrorism (Hezbollah), their own parliament revels in the chanting of DEATH TO AMERICA!, while their GDP is less than Mexico's. Undeveloped countries with nukes are a serious problem (AQ Khan, anyone?). Undeveloped countries with nukes and oil are time-bombs waiting to blow.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, there's Israel.

The "policy of bribes" actually occured under the Reagan administration, even though he promised not to do business with terrorists. Magically, the Iranian hostages were released after Reagan replaced Carter. Iran-Contra was under Reagan's watch.

You missed the point. NOTHING so far in US foreign policy towards Iran has worked. In fact, most - if not all - has backfired. Maybe its time to try something different?

--

Ironic Sidenote: I read the following headline just now, as I was listening to the Beach Boys "Good Vibrations":

This was in response to Hamas militants in Gaza firing 40 (FORTY) rockets into Israel -- a few weeks after Israel uprooted 10,000 Israeli settlers living in Gaza as a sign of a comittment to peace.

Which elicited this strangely perceptive response from the leader of Hamas:

Israel is said to have 200 Nukes, not officially, but if you remember there was some whistle blower who just got released from jail because he spoke out.

I don't see the hypocrisy with this either. Iran signed the treaty saying they weren't going to pursue nukes, nor would they posess them. It doesn't matter that we have them; It doesn't matter that Israel has them, Israel isn't party to the treaty: Iran signed on the dotted line.

Sadly the situation isn't the same as 20 years ago when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor, that reactor wasn't functioning, Iran's are.

So here we go again. Another shady country, that signed a treaty, not living up to it. Now with International resolutions calling for action, anybody taking bets that jack shit gets accomplished here?

I don't believe I have missed the "point" as you seem to believe. US intervention in Iran displaced the then current government with the Shah. That intervention led to the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage taking in the US Embassy. So what, exactly, do you think I am missing in your rightful criticism that nothing we have done there in the past has worked before?

I was saying that appeasement didn't work with North Korea, and bribery didn't work with Iran. (And containment didn't work with Hussein). NK went on to build uranium bombs, and Iran went on to become a rabid, fundmentalist theocracy.

Interesting, your use of the term "terrorists" to characterize the Iranians.
Unfortunately, the only thing I see getting accomplished is Iran going nuclear. For things to go any other way, China & Russia will need to hold Iran more accountable. It remains to be seen what the long-term strategy of these two are.

It was Reagan's term, not mine, but I should have specified that.

Containment did work in Iraq, or have you found the WMD's?

Russia and China's support of Iran is not a mystery. My local paper (BFE) covers their interests on a regular basis.

If NK has developed nuclear weapons, it is due to the efforts of our current expedient "friendship" with Pakistan.

Iran is not a "rabid, fundamentalist theocracy" as you claim. Iran's secular and religious leadership is something we can only hope for now in Iraq.

To the mods, I apologize for responding in kind with short responses that would appear to be opinion only. I certainly wouldn't want to burden anyone with a lengthy list of supporting articles to support my opinions. /end sarcasm.

The probem is: Russia can't/won't put pressure on Iran because of the billions (I think that's the amount, not positive) of money they have invested in Iran.

China can't either because Iran, pardon the expression, has China by the balls. I believe they recently signed some mutual oil/energy agreement.

Quite honestly, we need to stop seeing China as the enemy. By pushing them away all the time, they end up colloborating with folk we would rather they didn't. We need to support China and be more engaging if we want "cooperation" from them. Yikes, what if they needed more oil and decided to trade arms etc to counries that have oil (most of which are not exactly US friendly)?

I find it interesting that the US is once more in the situation where their meddling has come back to bite them in the ass.

I wonder what a place Iran and the rest of the Middle East might be if the US sponsored ouster of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s had never taken place.

There would be no so-called "Fundamentalist Theocracy" in Iran if the US hadn't squashed their naescent democracy.

I wonder what the world would look like now if Great Britain and France didn't carve up the Middle East for their own advantage after WWI.

Oh to wonder...

That too... I could have mentioned that but this discussion was more about the US having no luck at working things out with Iran... Is it any wonder considering how the US started its relationship with Iran.

You do recognize the irony don't you?

I assure you, it is not lost on me.

Yes, quite true, unfortunately. Energy needs trump just about everything, don't they: Morals, politics, economics, religion. Like drug addicts protecting their dealers.

Regarding China, does the US really see China as an enemy at this point? I was under the impression that relations between the 2 were cordial, or at least far from hostile.Right, and furthermore, why shouldn't the US and others have backed a progressive such as the Shah, a reformer and a moderate who had as his goals the economic and social modernization of his country in the mold of Ataturk of Turkey?

Oh I don't know... because the Iranians had democratically elected their first Prime Minister?

They did what the US and other nations did years ago and either got rid of or tempered their Monarchy with some democracy. The English didn't like it when the new Prime Minister decided to nationalize the oil industry (stop me if this sounds familiar). The English asked the US for help and the US organized the ousting of the PM by the Shah.

The Shah, ended up providing the nation of Iran with a represive regime that ultimately lead to the revolt in the 70s which brought Khomeni into power.

I'm a bit suprised the the TFP majority, especially in this forum, would select diplomacy. How well has diplomacy ever worked in the middle east, especially in the long term? Diplomacy to them, as a whole, not individually, does not function. It hasn't for thousands of years. Have any of you actually TAKEN world history courses? I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it just amazes me...

A logical result of Cold War politics. The agenda at the time was fighting the spread of Communism, which I believe was the right thing to do. The subsequent collapse of the USSR speaks to its obsolesence as a political theory in the modern world.

I wonder if those advocating Diplomacy realize there have been no diplomatic relations at all between Iran and the US for almost 30 years.

Or, maybe that is their point.

That's assuming you think the Cold Was was logical.

Iran wasn't communist but it sure was convenient for the US to justify their actions (it really isn't all that different from WMDs as they were used to topple Saddam... at least the US is consistent).

Diplomacy does work. It happens every day and it is successful. Why do you think the US doesn't invade Canada? It's because we have a good diplomatic relations with the US (it certaintly isn't because we have a powerful military poised to repel the US Armed Forces).

Except you can't conduct diplomacy or negotiate with a country whose leadership has a pathological hatred of the US.

So you bomb them into submission instead?

1) they have reasons for not liking the US
2) recognize these problems and apologize (for what it's worth)
3) open diplomatic ties and start talking

It may not work but at least it was an avenue explored.

This sentiment boggles my mind. Never mind that not everyone in Teheran has such feelings, but of course you can conduct diplomacy with those who hate your guts. Heck, that's where diplomacy is needed. Friends don't need it because they already agree, but it is those who are at each other's throats that need diplomacy to avert tearing into each other.

Of course you can conduct diplomacy with your enemies, and in fact unless you just happen to like war, then you'd better learn how. It can be frustrating for the novice diplomat, but trust me, diplomacy with those who consider you the greatest evil in the world is very possible, and even fruitful, when conducted by experienced, level-headed, and capable diplomats.

Generally, the neo-con New American Century group eschews such difficult paths for a more simplistic approach. This may be a wise tactical decision to circumvent their demonstrable weakness in the diplomatic arena, but it does not in the least demonstrate that diplomacy is impossible. Naturally the result of avoiding difficult diplomacy is an increased reliance on military response which is why I say unless you happen to be one of those who just enjoys seeing folks get blown up, diplomacy is absolutely an important arena to be skilled in.

Josh

I didn't say that diplomacy doesn't work. I said that diplomacy does not work in the Middle East. And there's a proven track record in history to indicate that I'm correct in that matter. Not just US - Arabic relations, but even Arab - Arab relations don't hold up too well. *shrug* It's just how things are!

Disagreed. Or at least partly...

Hate on principal is different than hate via "pathology" as describe above, or rather complete ideal. That would've been like trying to find a diplomatic friendship between 1940's United States and Nazi Germany. Not only is it unlikely, it really would not have been beneficial to either party. Maybe that's the core... diplomacy must be mutually beneficial. Relations between Western countries and Middle Eastern countries are hardly ever mutually beneficial, at least in the grand scheme of things. There may be short-term benefits like cheap oil for arms (Iran Contra anybody?) but those benefits are not lasting, and often create larger problems in the end. Yes, the US is a war nation, as are most middle eastern countries. The difference is that we don't just go to war for shits and giggles like they do. It's really a lot like impoversihed African countries with warlords and such. Replace poor people with people bred into hatred, and replace warlords with sheik, kings and other royalty, and you'll see it's not much different.


No, we don't just bomb them. But we can sanction the bejeebus out of them. I guess technically that's part of diplomacy, but not in the common sense of things. And yes, if need be we bomb the shit out of them. Why? Because they already hate us (mostly) and it does a helluva lot of good sometimes. Look at Afghanistan. Iraq is a poor example. If we'd left right afterwards it'd have been a GREAT example, though.

As logical as any other historical clash of ideologies in the history of mankind, no? What was illogical about the Cold War?

You don't think that Iran of the 50's was on Russia's list of countries to absorb into its sphere of influence? The Russians have meddled in just about every country 3,000 miles north-south-east-west of it. Today, Iran is to Russia, what Canada is to America (economically speaking).

How is Afghanistan a good example of bombing working? One city in the country is secured and Karzi is called the president of Kabul. I wouldn't say Afghanistan is a good example either, it is the forgotten country in the war on terror. Once Iraq went to hell, Afghanistan was put on the back burner to fend for themselves, even if the US didn't finish what they started there.

The main reason (should be the only reason needed for logical minded people) that Iran can't be allowed to pursue nuclear technology of any sort is their admitted disdain and non-acceptance of Israel and their admitted desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Seems to me that instead of setting up the authoritarian Shah they should have worked to become friends with Iran... a mutual customer. Oil for finished goods. Military support for their growning democracy in the face of Russian aquisitiveness...

Of course this is all hindsight. But I just feel that given the results of those action, perhaps they should try something else...

Wasn't the issue with Iran that they were going to nationalize the oil, putting them in Russia's camp? I thought that was our reason for backing the Shah.

Also people who keep saying Iran isn't a theocracy are being willingly ignorant, just last year their democratic elections had nearly 3,000 names wiped off the ballots because the overlord council didn't think they felt in with the Sharian mold. They had a moderate president, but he had no real power, and to make matters worse he was just replaced with a hardliner, a person who was involved in the Embassy situation.

Diplomacy is fine and dandy in some cases. But when you are trying to engage in it with people who have an irrational hate for you (say the like of Hamas militants or Al Qaeda), it's fruitless. For the record I'm not saying that is the situation with Iran, but it's still not a viable option at this point.

With few exceptions (W. Europe), the United States has consistently chosen to support dictators we thought we could 'manage' over democracies which we could not control or perhaps even predict. Invariably we allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that having 'strong leaders' at the top is in the best interest of the people, more so than allowing them to choose their own way. These layers of deceit can remain for years even after the exposure of the truth.

Democracy doesn't guarantee good decision making, far from it, but dictatorship is about as close as you can get to a guarantee for bad results. At least in a democracy, the people face the consequences of their own choices, instead of merely being forced to accept the brunt of an authoritarian's dictates.

I agree, it's time to try something else...

Israel is well aware of this, to be sure. Along with bombing the Iraqi reactor, in 1990 Israel's Mossad Intelligence service killed one Dr. Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist who developed the infamous "Super Gun" for Iraq -- an artillery gun with a range sufficient to allow Iraq's nuclear shells to reach Israel.

There was no further development of the gun.

Therein lies the catch: the Shah didn't resort to authoritarian means until he ran into hardline Islamic fundamentalists opposed to his efforts to modernize Iran. Ataturk ran into the exact same thing in his attempts to modernize Turkey.

For a complex combination of reasons, the Shah was unable to achieve in Iran what Ataturk was able to achieve in Turkey, ie. the successful modernization of an Islamic society. He outlawed the caliphate, established women's rights, the country was at peace with its neigbors, and Islamic extremists were driven from seats of political authority. (Rightly so, imo.)

Today, Turkey is thriving, while Iran remains a troubled, stunted country yet to modernize, on the verge of nukes, with vast fields of oil. Can you hear that ticking sound?

Friendship is not necessary for diplomacy to work. The U.S. did retain diplomatic contacts with Germany up until the declaration of war, even long after we were actively assisting the British. Even during the war, certain contacts remained. The goal was not friendship, but the achievement of specific objectives.

Diplomatic arrangements are never permanent, nor can one expect them to be. Diplomacy is about getting other nations to do what you want them to do without military force. Mutual benefit is nice to make it happen, but not necessary. Of course it all depends on how you quantify 'benefit'.

What the heck is a 'war nation'? One with a history full of war? Okay, but what's the point as that can describe a lot of countries and doesn't really mean anything. War is an omnipresent fact in a nation-state system with no heirarchy of authority.

This sentiment of yours indicates why you may have little hope in diplomacy. You appear to not be able to comprehend the position of the people of Iran or their leaders, and you are projecting a similar lack of comprehension on them, assuming they are closed to any diplomatic potential. I say this not to flame you, trust me, but comments such as thinking they make war just for shits and giggles indicates a distinct lack of understanding of the motivations and views of the people of the region. I have yet to see a war in my studies that was fought for 'shits and giggles'.

I highlight this not to denegrate you or your views, but to demonstrate a sentiment which you reflected which I feel is very much at the heart of why we continue to see the proliferation of military conflict, and that is this sense that war when prosecuted by 'us' is good and just and in a 'just cause', made necessary by our responsibility to justice, good, mercy, and all other virtues of the world, while war when prosecuted by 'them' is bad and evil, and the result of pathology, insanity, cruelty, greed, and all other vices of the world. This is only made possible by a fundamental lack of comprehension of the supposed 'enemy' and their beliefs, situation, and needs. This sentiment is of course feasted upon by those who wish to prosecute war to garner support.

Josh

The fact still remains that the elected govenment was in the process of doing the same sorts of modernization. Sadly the US seems to (historically) think that democracy is only good for them. Everyone else should have a controllable dictator in charge.

Had the US instead decided to support the elected goverment, I wonder how things might have gone.

(this isn't to say that the Russians didn't make a practice of this as well, it's just that it has proven to be a bad policy, time and again).

Hmmm, Iraq had an "elected" government. I wonder why we didn't just support Saddam. *sigh* Democracy is more than an election.

Perhaps a quick recap of history is required here.

The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was originally placed on the throne in 1941 by the British in replacement of his father, whom the British feared was too friendly to Germany. Internal unrest rose from the end of WWII until 1951, when the parliament, under Prime Minister Razmara, nationalized the country's oil resources. Razmara was assassinated by Fadayan-e Islam, and Dr. Mossadegh replaced him. The Shah gave assent to the promotion despite Mossadegh's determination to follow his predecessor in the move to nationalize oil.

The British responded by enforcing a naval blockade preventing oil exports from the country. The people re-elected Mossadegh in 1952, but the Shah refused to support him. He resigned and the Shah appointed Qavam as PM in his place. Qavam immediately announced plans to acquiesce to British demands, and massive national protests resulted, forcing him to resign. The Shah, fearful of the unrest, re-appointed Mossadegh.

Mossadegh was immensly popular due to social reforms and a strong sense of nationalism. He was supported not only by moderates, but also by Communist and Islamist parties. However, he was unpopular with the military, and they built ties with British and American agencies to get assistance in Mossadegh's downfall. CIA operatives exploited the differences between Mossadegh's supporters, painting him as a Communist to inflame the Islamists. Mossadegh assumed increasingly authoratative measures to counter these plots. As he came closer to making Iran a republic in 1953, as opposed to a monarchy, the Shah left Iran.

The nation dissolved into civil strife in 1953, and with the military on side, the Shah's supporters gained the upper hand, installing him at the head of the country. CIA involvement in the event is not questioned, and in fact many supporters praise the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation.

The Shah held power by continuing socialist reforms, including the siezure and dissemination to farmers of several large estates, the institution of women's rights initiatives, and the beginnings of a social security system. He also retained the support of the British and Americans by re-opening Iran's oil to their corporations, and becoming a client for their military hardware and other products. Meanwhile, dissent at home was quelled by the formation in 1957 of the SAVAK, or secret police, which were notorious for their brutal treatment of all perceived enemies of the Shah. Naturally, this led to ever increasing resentment of the Shah's authority, followed by ever more violent reprisals, and ultimately the ground support for the revolution of 1979. This revolution was at first broad based, but ultimately leadership was taken by the Ayatollah and his faction, resulting in the Iran of today.

The Shah follows a pretty typical path for the authoritarian governments we tend to support. He has definite plans to make his nation great, and even does a number of things that needed doing, but does so with a force of will as opposed to building national consensus for actions, and relies heavily on a combination of foreign support and draconian internal policies to maintain authority. In the end the only real difference between the dictators we support and those we demonize are whether or not they rely on foreign support. Those who go it alone or seek support from say Russia or China are going to be demonized, while those who tie their fortunes to American or British support are upheld.

Ultimately, these relationships fail, and any good that the dictator may have done for the country is wiped out by the conflict that inevitably arises out of their authoritarian governance, whether it be a revolution, war, or isolation and stagnation.

Dictators often appear sexy to many. They often begin with a strong will, and present a determination to put an end to the petty struggles of their nation and lead their country to reach for greatness. They often hold out the hope of overcoming old problems with bold dictates. To outsiders, they will often have a modern and moderated appearance, making us think they are elements for change, badly needed to help lift their nation up to into the modern world. But far more often than not, these dreams prove elusive, and ultimately, when they are finally at the end of their reign, their nations are not better off but worse, than when they began.

Josh

Yes, I think most people understand that. Saddam, elected by 99.9% or whatever, didn't constitute democracy. Iran, with actual elections is not as democratic as some countries, but there is no doubt that the election of their latest President reflects to some reasonable degree the real will of the Iranian citizens, and as such, despite the issues of irregularities and limited candidacy (don't forget those are issues in America too), I would have to say that Iran is more democratic than most Americans give it credit for. Not that this isn't understandable; Americans are raised to believe in the sanctity of Democracy (not that all believe it), and so the idea that such a different nation as Iran, a proclaimed member of the Axis of Evil, who considers the US a prime opponent (a feeling that is reciprocated), could also be a democracy is hard to comprehend.

That is hardly a foregone conclusion. It could just as easily be hypothesized that Communist Russia was preparing to "negotiate" with Iran to secure its share of oil. Yes, the government was elected, but it's a huuuge stretch to say that modernization was foremost on the agenda of the Iranians in the 50s.

Foremost? Depends on your parsing of the word I guess, but there is no doubt that social reforms were one the key pillars of Mossadegh's support during the period of his PMship (51-53), including ending the fuedal agriculture system that still existed in the country until that time. It was in fact the vast social reforms that were cited by the Army as a primary reason to seek his overthrow (portraying them as Communism to the British and Americans).

To be fair, the Shah continued many of these upon his return to power in 1953. Mossadegh by 1953 was assuming some authoritarian measures, including emergency powers, as a result of the myriad plots gaining momentum against him (fomented by the CIA). Thus it is not fair to present Mossadegh as a mere elected civil servant. He was fairly elected, jbut Iran was not as democratic by the time of his ouster. Of course it was still more so than at any time from 1953-1979. However, his determination to implement progressive social reform is not in question.

Josh

This is surreal:

IAEA, ElBaradei share Nobel Peace Prize

All we need now is for Bush to give the head of the US Army Corps of Engineers a Freedom Medal and all will be well.

I mean, most of the levees in New Orleans didn't fail.

During ElBaradei's tenure not every country developed nukes.

i do not see where the surreality of this choice resides, powerclown: care to explain?

What is there to explain? Some things just speak for themselves.