Someone remind me of why this latest laureate is a bad guy?

Last I recall, he was being excoriated for the effrontery of suggesting that Saddam had no nukes and no nuke program.

Those UN sanctions he is weilding are, of course, only as strong as the United States wants to make them. If the UN threat is an empty one the reason is because the US government is not serious about the sanctions.

Anderson,

I don't think he is a bad guy. Naive, ineffectual and not worth much, sure. Bad guy, no.

Ken,

I think you missed another dose.

"Last I recall, he was being excoriated for the effrontery of suggesting that Saddam had no nukes and no nuke program."

So let's not make the same mistake with the (nonexistent) program in Iran, or North Korea...

"Those UN sanctions he is weilding are, of course, only as strong as the United States wants to make them. If the UN threat is an empty one the reason is because the US government is not serious about the sanctions."

Meanwhile, back here on Earth...

“Those UN sanctions he is weilding are, of course, only as strong as the United States wants to make them. If the UN threat is an empty one the reason is because the US government is not serious about the sanctions.”

Meanwhile, back here on Earth…

On what planet does the United Nations have a foriegn policy and a military sufficient to enforce it?

On the planet earth the United Nations is only as strong, or as weak, as the planets only hyper-power, the US, wants it to be.

So when the U.S. encouraged the U.N. to enforce its resolutions against Iraq, and they thumbed their noses at us... what universe would you say that took place in?

Let me spell it out: The U.S. historically has taken the lead in enforcing sanctions. The U.N. on the other hand, has historically been paralyzed with inaction, at the cost of many, many inocent lives.

Well, I think the guy faces an intractable situation as regards Iran. As pointed out, the UN has no army. The US used to have an army, but we broke it. The Europeans simply aren't going to believe that invading Iran is a fit response to an Iranian nuclear program.

So if Baradei's waving a wooden sword, that's not his fault. I personally don't think we have anything to gain from opposing an Iranian nuclear program, and we can certainly continue to alienate potential Iranian allies by saber-rattling (or worse, bomb-dropping). Just let the mullahs try to unite Iran without the Great Satan's cooperation in that endeavor.

As for "naive," Steve, as compared to who? Bush and Cheney? Not hardly.

The US used to have an army, but we broke it.

Meanwhile, back on Earth. The army is not broken. Near the limits of possible deployment, okay I'll probably buy that one, but broken...sorry no.

The Europeans simply aren’t going to believe that invading Iran is a fit response to an Iranian nuclear program.

Invading with what? Bureaucrats? The Europeans can barely start a rock fight in their own backyard let alone go several hundred miles to invade another country. Please.

As for “naive,” Steve, as compared to who? Bush and Cheney? Not hardly.

Considering you think the Euros actually have the capability of invading another country....

I especially like the idea of "potential Iranian allies". (Maybe if we just GAVE them a couple o' nukes?)

But then there's the most priceless comment
"I personally don’t think we have anything to gain from opposing an Iranian nuclear program"

Huh?