What irks me....

[Blog Note: It is my intent in this blog to be non-combative, but rather insightful and thought proviking. My better half has pointed out that perhaps, this blog post was a bit.... combative. I've revised some of the wording to make it less inflammatory....]

I must admit that I get really tired of misguided points of view. In this case I'm talking about a
post from our friends at Greenpeace. I've just finished reading the most worthless piece of echo-propaganda:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/features/details?item_id=226498
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=740724

What irks me?

That George Bush is somehow blamed for all of this. There is plenty of blame to go around, and a good part of it is squarely sitting at the feet of President Clinton.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

but this is no surprise at all. Our leftist buddies at Greenpeace are not about to bite the hand that feeds (supports if you prefer) them, particularly with Mrs. Clinton poised for her run for the white house.

Also, GreenPeace is squarely to blame as well? Why? Because of this type of mentality (my comments are enclosed in parens):

Here's what we want to see out of this round of the NPT:

* North Korea should abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons and rejoin the NPT.
(yea, right.... like that's going to happen)

* States should reject the use of military force to resolve proliferation concerns, and uphold the value of multilateral legal mechanisms.
(I'm ok with this as long as everyone can agree that the enemy will target ONLY Greenpeace locations. Seriously, ... so, these guys don't want there to be nukes, but if some rouge state determines they are going to have one....we need to send in the lawyers. The lives of millions of people are at stake here, who are these bozos and why does anyone listen to them? This flies in the face of all reason.)

* States should reject the "first strike" use of nuclear weapons, and agree legally binding security assurances.
(I agree with this for the most part, with some very limited exceptions. If the only way to remove a threatening, rouge state, nuke is to nuke it, then I think that's a viable option to be considered.)

* All nuclear weapon states should commit to the goal of eliminating their illegal nuclear arsenals and halting the development of new nuclear weapons or the "refurbishment" of existing ones.
(Sounds great.... how do we enforce this? How do we make sure someone (like North Korea already has) doesn't cheat? Good luck!)

* States should agree an emergency mechanism to deal more swiftly and effectively with future crises such as North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT.
(It's called military force. The only complaint I have about Pres. Bush is that I think he should have parked 100k troops on the border of S. Korea, along with a nice big naval armada and told the North to give up the nukes or else. Unfortunately, we no longer have a military that can support such an operation in more than one theatre of operation).

The bottom line is that these bozo's need to get real, and understand that these are real physical threats to everyone. I'd love a nuke free world, and I think there are ways of getting there, but until we deal with rouge states that decide that they are going to play by their own set of nuclear rules, that day will never come.

The solution is complex, to be sure, but in this case Greenpeace does not offer a viable solution.