Nuclear Iran is now the world's #1 problem
This Washingtion Post lead editorial makes clear that Iran's nuclear interest is in bomb-making, not power generation.
They wrote the editorial because yesterday
Iran resumed Uranium enrichment, ending a diplomatic solution that was pressed by England, France, and Germany.
Basically, Europe said to Iran, "If you stop all uranium enrichment, and allow UN inspections, we will
give you enough radioactive fuel to operate nuclear power plants."
Iran's answer is to say no, and restart enrichment. The next step is at the UN Security Council.
My guess: Iran and N. Korea are going to go full speed ahead on nukes, figuring that the US can only go after one of them, if even that, due to our Iraq war.
This was posted previously in direct response to UT's topmost post:
Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.
Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.
You tell me. Is that Iranian leader evil or is he good? Because he actually does what Saddam only threatened, then does this Iranian leader deserve to be attacked, captured, and put on trial like Saddam for using WMDs on invading American troops? You tell me where morality lies? Who then is the good and who then is the evil one?
Of couse Iran is building nuclear weapons or other WMDs. Any honest and patriotic leader working for his people must do same if threatened as George Jr has the Iranian people.
At this point, it appears Washington is going to give India a pass on having to sign the
non-proliferation treaty. This is mostly because Pakistan won't sign it either.
Since we value India as a democracy in it's region, we will probably not hold sanctions against them.
If we refuse to sanction Pakistan and India, who have performed nuclear tests (Israel has not and is not officially a nuclear power), North Korea and Iran can make the valid claim that they are being treated differently from 'friends' of the US.
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.
Conventional Iranian weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.
Conventional Iranian weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.
Yeah, but nuclear bombs are so much more fun!
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.
There's stopped, and then there's stopped. I doubt Iran relishes the idea of becoming another battleground.
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.
That is your bias. Show me where said "the US is losing the war in Iraq". You have assumed a binary interpretation of what I have posted.
Conventional Iranian[ weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.
Using your same logic, the US was attacking Britain because most IRA weapons were obtained from American support. Selecting a Pentagon suspicion as if it were fact is again trying to interpret everything in 'Black and White'.
Need we return to Pentagon suspicions 30 years ago? Once numbers were summed, then we had killed everyone in N Vietnam three times over. The suspicion is interesting. It also forgets to mention weapons coming from Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Remember those high explosives left unguarded during the invasion? High explosives originally purchased over a decade ago to build a nuclear bomb? Why do they not mention all those munitions? I suppose all those unguarded and now missing explosives, carefully tagged by UN inspectors, and not guarded by US soldiers, suddenly don't exist? It’s called propaganda when they fail to mention all the sources of munitions. Remember who shorted the US invasion of troops before you cast all blame on Iran.
We would not be in this mess if a president was honest. Let's remember which one of us bought previous administration spin even about aluminum tubes and other WMD lies. It's called first looking at the bigger picture - and other simpler facts such as the numbers. That isolated Pentagon briefing is Pentagon suspicion. Hell, Pentagon officials cannot even identify who the enemy is, how large their numbers, what inspires them, how insurgent got back into Fallujah, or even why the country is in expanding turmoil. There are no large number of foreigners as some Pentagon officials once claimed.
Suddenly this one Pentagon briefing is a god-like fact? I suspect not. Just another suspicion probably based upon intelligence estimates ... and hopefully not perverted by White House propaganda. But then we can never be sure considering the reputation of this administration that has a long history of outright lying - be it welfare to drug companies and the cost of government medical benefits, social security, the $2billion from oil that was going to pay for this war, all the electricity in Iraq that does not exist, or even global warming. Its nothing more than Pentagon suspicion - from a source previously and repeatedly perverted by their boss' political and self serving agenda.
I don't recall ever being promised Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. There was some optimistic talk about it, but promises? Nope.
There's fair criticism of the Bush Administration's actions, and there is unfair. TW's is fanatically, furiously, rabidly and voluminously unfair. TW, when it comes to Republicans you have no ethics -- only one of the most inflated senses of grievance I've ever seen.
I'm sure Congress is happy to know that the testimony before it was just a bit of
optimistic talk.
What a wonderful excuse! "I never made any promises, that was just optimistic talk!" Is there anything that doesn't work for?
So do you hear any wrath from Congress about that? The art of the possible, HM, the art of the possible.
I never said Congress would actually complain about being lied to. That would be optimistic talk.
Basically, Europe said to Iran, "If you stop all uranium enrichment, and allow UN inspections, we will give you enough radioactive fuel to operate nuclear power plants."
Iran's answer is to say no, and restart enrichment. The next step is at the UN Security Council.
Well, we know where that will go. But playing the Devil's Advocate, perhaps Iran's government would rather have nuclear power in their own right than to be dependent on Europe, even for free.
Everyone agrees it's quite understandable. What gives the responsible people the sour stomachs and the night sweats is who the mullahs are in bed with.
Everyone agrees it's quite understandable. What gives the responsible people the sour stomachs and the night sweats is who the mullahs are in bed with.
The Radical Christian Right?
Oh, have you ever heard of a Radical etcetera that doesn't want Iran's mullahs decorating lampposts? At least a little bit?
1 August 2005 : According to The American Conservative (by Patrick Buchanan) : Cheney’s staff is now planning a nuclear attack against Iran that would follow an important attack against the USA (like 911). The responsible of this program is Ralph E. Eberhart (already responsible of air defence (NORAD) during the 911 : Thanks to this « succes » he was named chief commandant of the Northcom).
Imagination or reality ?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
Iran's President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map":
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication...
I think we should give the Isrealites a good part of Oregon. Then, they'd be safe and Oregon might get a little much needed culture.
We've basically given them New York--more Jews already live in NY than in all of Israel. Arguments of who's right or wrong aside, I think the Israelis should just get the hell out of there. But then again, I don't require specific land, buildings, or symbols to support my faith.
Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.
This is what happens when you sleep under a rock for 25 years.
Iran has been attempting to join the nuclear community since the early 70s. And one can hardly blame them since it was common knowlege in privileged circles that the US had long since quietly ushered Isreal into the nuclear age by then.
By 1977, The Shah of Iran had grown weary of waiting for the US to usher Iran into the nuclear community so the Shah, fiercely loyal to the US up to that point, had no choice but to turn to our cold-war adversary, the USSR for help in building a nuclear arsenal. And the dominos were set into motion.
Enter the CIA (who all but issued the blindfolds).
Exit the Shah.
Enter the now-empowered Ayatollah.
Fast forward to 2005.
"Iran's and Korea's nuclear self-sufficiency is W's fault."
Now, if you want to assign the blame for instability in the middle east on the United States then we have a basis for healthy and interesting discussion and debate. But if you want to lay Iran's and NK's nuclear ambitions and current capability at the feet of George Bush, then I'm inclined to recommend that you augment your basis for forming an opinion of world politics on something other than NPR's Morning Edition.
If you want to blame a US president for both Iran's nuclear power grab cloaked under the guise of a self-deterministic Islamic jihad against the west and North Korea's unapologetic, self-empowering nuclear ambitions then blame Jimmy Carter - a key player in both - long before conservative power brokers even considered a perpetually drunk W as an easily manipulatable figurehead for the advancement of neoCon policy.
George W. Bush, while perhaps the most incompetent president in U. S. history,
inherited a world where both Iran and NK are nuclear capable. Notwithstanding his role as a conduit for a reconstituted Pope Urban II model of world politics, putting the blame on W for NK and Iran's current nuclear capability is at best laughable and at worst doomed to repeat by propogating the idea that those who oppose it are responsible for it while issuing get-out-of-being-responsible cards to the weak-minded enablers who were either too naieve or too gutless to nip it in the bud when they had the chance. Bill Clinton, while hardly responible either, does not get a pass from the history books for looking the other way for eight long years while Iran and NK were unmistakebly taking giant steps towards arming themselves with atomic weapons.
So, let's all blame George. How is this position materially different from George's embarassingly simplistic view and and equally simplistic prescription for a solution?
W isn't the source of the problem, he's a sympton of the problem. The voters who elected the administrations who allowed this situation to fester and develop with their placating policies of carrot-but-no-stick are as much to blame for the current state of affairs as the voters who elected W in a desperate attempt to do something about it.
I'll take my share of the blame. Will you?
Iran "took it back" after the security council and almost all major governments condemned their statements:
Iran has moved to soften the impact of remarks by its president that Israel should be "wiped off the map", saying it stood by its U.N. commitments and would not use violence against another country.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its U.N. charter commitments. It has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement Saturday.
But not all the way back:
Friday evening, the U.N. Security Council condemned the comments by Iran's president but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.
In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."
In its own statement Saturday, the Iranian foreign ministry hit out at the U.N., saying: "The statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council was proposed by the Zionist regime to close the eyes to its crimes and to change the facts, therefore it is not acceptable."
In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."
Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman,....snip......"I certainly think that a country whose head of state calls for the destruction of any other member state of the United Nations does not deserve a seat in this very civilized organization."
Does that include the USA? :right:
Let Iran attack Israel. Israel responds, and then maybe one thing leads to another and we've got a whole lot of new glowing glass. Then we slant-drill for less-radioactive oil from the nearest upwind area.
I could care less if Iran has nuclear bombs. Merely having them does not make them a threat to us. It seems these days the only way America won't invade another country without justifiable cause is if they actually have nukes. Neither Iran, or any other nation on earth requires the permission of America or the UN to develop any weapons they choose.
Here's another view of Iran. It may surprize you. :dunce:
I've just seen an Iranian calligraphy exposure.
It was beautiful, graceful and peaceful.
Quite cool to forget nuclear threat, sometimes.
[QUOTE=tw]Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.[QUOTE]
ok. in my opinion...
because there are already nuclear powers in the world, other nations are automatically going to follow with their own nuclear weapons programs. as a leader of a nation in a world run by nuclear powers, it is only logical to arm yourself in defense of nuclear attack, especially when the power seeking unilateral hegemony has shown in the past it is not shy about using WMD; if we continue to raise the bar, other nations will only try to catch up. it's an arms race. if China developed a weapon that could control a localized black hole, we would undoubtly develop one ourselves, and iran, n korea, and others would follow as they desire to "play ball" with the world powers.
now, america has only recently complicated this by introducing the pre-emptive strike against iraq. If a nation can attack another nation on false intelligence and the UN allows it to happen without consequence, then it follows that ANY nation could by the same standards attack another nation and legally get away with it.
so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?
so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?
Don't stop there. You are introducing reasons for a potentially unstable world. Two more reasons. The first is universal unpopularity of the world's leading nations. These nations whose leaders wanted to permit torture by selected parts of the government. This anti-humanity attitude being another legacy of a mental midget president who created a 64% unapproved rating even in Argentina. When you promise to improve relations with S American nations and then do completely the opposite, then what does one expect? Demonstrations? Insurgencies? Breeding grounds for international terrorism? Concepts that 'we will bomb them into submission' extremists selectively void discussing to promote their own 'self serving' political agenda.
Another is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that George Jr, with his infinite wisdom, has decided to undermine. The concepts of the NPT are really quite simple, have been mostly effective, and are the only thing we have to stop a nuclear war. It was used successfully to stop nuclear bomb construction in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and even (in conjunction with other factors) in Libya. Furthermore, because of NPT, the sources of nuclear proliferation were exposed. A major source being Pakistan.
A major point of NPT is that a nation who violates or refuses to participate in NPT is denied access to materials even for medical purposes and power plants. Previous NPT actions are why Argentina, South Africa, and Brazil opted out of their nuclear bomb programs. But George Jr has instead decided to reward India with nuclear material cooperation even though India does not participate and refuses to permit NPT inspections.
So many reasons demonstrate that this president has the mental capacity of Dan Quayle. World wide instability is what happens when mental midgets even violate (are totally ignorant of) even basic world concepts and essential principles as taught in 500 B.C - Sze Tzu's Art of War.
He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space, attacked a sovereign nation with a 'smoking gun', conducted war without even a legal justification such as a Declaration of War, has declared himself a tool of god's will (always a reason for the worst of and most unstable times), is spending massive money on things that don't even work such as the anti-ballistic missile system, is building military bases throughout the world as if he wants another world war, lies - openly lies, and rewards others who would also contribute to world instability such as Pakistan. This is obviously a very abridged list of how George Jr wants Revelations to occur.
George Jr’s undermining of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty demonstrates why extremist, mental midget, and self serving leaders only make for a bad and unstable world. Don't stop there. You are introducing the reasons for a potentially unstable world. Two more reasons. The first is universal unpopularity with the world's leading nations. This being another legacy of a mental midget president who created a 64% unapproved rating even in Argentina. When you promise to improve relations with S American nations and then do completely the opposite, then what does one expect? Demonstrations? Insurgencies? Breeding grounds for international terrorism? Concepts that 'we will bomb them into submission' extremists selectively avoid discussing to promote their own 'self serving' political agendas - the world be damned.
Another is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that George Jr, with his infinite wisdom, has decided to undermine. The concepts of the NPT are really quite simple, have been mostly effective, and are the only thing we have to stop a nuclear war. It was used successfully to stop nuclear bomb construction in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and even (in conjunction with other factors) in Libya. Furthermore, because of NPT, the sources of nuclear proliferation were exposed. A major source being Pakistan.
A major point of NPT is that a nation who violates or refuses to participate in NPT is denied access to materials even for medical purposes and power plants. Previous NPT actions are why Argentina, South Africa, and Brazil opted out of their nuclear bomb programs. But George Jr has instead decided to reward India with nuclear material cooperation even though India does not participate and refuses to permit NPT inspections.
So many reasons demonstrate that this president has the mental capacity of Dan Quayle. World wide instability is what happens when mental midgets even violate (are totally ignorant of) even basic world concepts and essential principles as taught in 500 B.C - Sze Tzu's Art of War.
He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space, attacked a sovereign nation with a 'smoking gun', conducted war without even a legal justification such as a Declaration of War, has declared himself a tool of god's will (always a reason for the worst of and most unstable times), is spending massive money on things that don't even work such as the anti-ballistic missile system, is building military bases throughout the world as if he wants another world war, lies - openly lies, and rewards others who would also contribute to world instability such as Pakistan. This is obviously a very abridged list of how George Jr wants Revelations to occur.
George Jr’s undermining of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty demonstrates why extremist, mental midget, and self serving leaders only make for a bad and unstable world. Make globalization into something evil AND destroy treaties that took generations to create and establish world stability. Containment being a well proven example of why the world did not self destruct. Pre-emption being the classic and 'well proven in history' reason for death, poverty, disease, recessions, and mas destruction. If there ever were an anti-Christ, it would be leaders who just know only because of their religion - who didn't even know what countries border Israel.
you said "He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space".
you know, most people thought I was nuts when i was telling them about how the us was trying to implement a ballistic missle program for space that would allow them to stike any target the size of a mack truck (+) on any given point on the globe. then i read an article about it in an aerospace magazine in the waiting room of my doctor's office. now, i'm definitely no conspiracy nut. but that scared even me.
and this all brings me to a sudden thought now, why all the war mongering? i mean, i know about wilsonian idealsim, and how the war in the middle east is only about oil superfically; that the war is really about trying to set up a democracy in that region so that we can get them to play ball with everyone like south america. which is why we backed saddam in the first place until he decided to invade kuwait and everyone looked at the us like "uh, america, you're boy over there is acting up you know..." and we reacted like "ah shit...well...i guess we have to clean this up now" because after all, america isn't entirely evil. but i find it disturbing that we tend to cater towards things that fancy our own ends and interests while exuding this nationalist aura of a compassionate nation trying to save the world from evil doers. if that were entirely true, we would be more diplomatic, and the peace corpe would be worth a shit. anyway, i got off track...
why all the war mongering? ok, this war mongering, i think, stems from one of the greatest social delimas of modern times, one that is widely and tacitly recognized but greatly neglected: the problem of security. if anyone is curious about this, check out Foucault. i just recently picked up a book of his i had shelved. The problem of security, for us (citizens of the world population), is that the degree of security that is demanded (either by citizens or leaders, depending on the situation) is proportional to the degree of liberty that is granted. so if we want to be free from airplane bound terrorists, our airports have to be heavily policed and we have to wait in long lines and have personal searches. which isn't a big deal to me at all. but you can see where it goes from there.
recently at the mall i work at, someone was shot. security is slack, for sure, as my car has been broken into, an old lady killed, a rape, and now 3 gunshots since the 4 years i've been there. now, to secure the mall and it's customers from this, they could place metal detectors at all of the doors (which by the way can be unlocked with ANY key), cameras (which really only serve to give the criminal something to think twice about), city police forces who could implement profiling to pick the potential criminals out of the mass, and allowing the security gaurds to carry guns and legal use of them, not to mention the searches that would take place of suspects. Now all of this compromises everyone's liberty to some degree. it makes sense to implement all of this, sure, but hopefully you see my point. Foucault is better at it than i am.
so i guess all of this is to be defensive enough for a nation to ensure security, which only seems possible in a totalitarian police state, which is hardly what one would call a free nation, as liberty is decreased as security is increased. i feel it is by education alone that the world could be "saved". you may call me a dreamer, but i'm not the only one...
to secure the mall and it's customers from this, they could place metal detectors at all of the doors (which by the way can be unlocked with ANY key), cameras (which really only serve to give the criminal something to think twice about), city police forces who could implement profiling to pick the potential criminals out of the mass, and allowing the security gaurds to carry guns and legal use of them, not to mention the searches that would take place of suspects.
Or hand each person a loaded gun as they enter the mall. ;)
yeah, that would cut down on gun shots...
Keep in mind, Amnesiac, that Iraq had every intelligence service in the world fooled, and likely Saddam fooled as well. You don't tell a guy like Saddam that his greatly-desired nuclear program is an expensive failure if you enjoy a good paycheck and continued respiration. Saddam's Iraq did such a good job of controlling the available information about their nuke and gas programs that the entire UN figured they had them. That they didn't have much of anything left of either program was NOT for want of trying.
Barga, to polish your English a little: exhibit or expo in that context. An Expo is much larger, like a World's Fair. "Exposure" sounds more like geology, finding where the rock layers stick out.
yeah, that is true now that you mention it...
i guess it's sort of like how (i think this was mentioned in this thread, maybe right off the bat) about how the UN told Iran that if it wanted enriched uranium for nuclear power that they would provide it to them, but Iran declined the offer. which of course leads to: so is Iran using the uranium for something shifty like weapons or is there some catch in the deal with the UN's uranium (like crazy import taxes or some red tape like that which would be easier for Iran not to mess with), probably the first is everyone's guess i suppose.
of course, i still think it's every nation's right to arm themselves defensively. obviously the problem is that the bigger the stick we carry, the bigger the sticks get everywhere else, so our sticks get bigger and so on... a race to keep the advantage every time someone catches up. so instead of going totally insane, we just try to keep other countries from getting their sticks. well...it's tricky. nations should be able to arm themselves, but no one can promise they won't use their defensive weapons for offensive actions. all of this said, i'm really pretty ignorant about Iran and what their deal is.
it's tricky. nations should be able to arm themselves, but no one can promise they won't use their defensive weapons for offensive actions. all of this said, i'm really pretty ignorant about Iran and what their deal is.
It was never complex. What you call tricky is simply instability created by militaristic political (extremist) agendas that foolishly advocate preemption.
So much of what made the world stable - ie the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - was predicated on principles that the world's leading nations would operate in the interest of and using well founded international principles that create peaceful solutions. Included in that list of principles was containment (instead of pre-emption) and a smoking gun requirement to justify war.
Lets see. Since the Cold War has ended: China has followed those principles. France has conformed to those principles. Russia has maintained those principles. Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Netherlands ... Let's see ... even Algeria, Chile, Argentina, Benin, Mexico, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Guinea, Romania, Tanzania, Bulgaria, and Cameroon - nations on or recently members of the Security Council have endorsed and practiced such principles. So where is instability created? Which Security Council member has violated those principles that create world peace?
The US has even condoned - by inaction - the proliferation of nuclear arms by an ally (Pakistan). The US even proposes to reward India for violating the NPT. So you tell me which nation(s) has created instability? Which nation has made it necessary for Iran to build weaspons of mass destruction - especially nuclear arms? Which nation has only in the last five years done things to create world instability - to violate the principles on which world peace and stability were maintained? Which nation has all but declared it will invade Iran without justificiation and probably without even a declaration of war?
Once upon a time, the US was a benchmark for the principles of world stability. Now even the US Vice President wants parts of the US government exempt from restrictions on torture. Name a member of the UN Security Council who imprisions and tortures prisoners for years without even due process? Name a nation who creates a new category of human just so that fundamental human rights can be intentionally violated? Name a nation who does this openly and with contempt for the world?
Careful where you throw stones these days. That evil empire that one throws stones at may simply be the mirror image of US. Only the naive would think American unpopularity in Argentina is an isolated case. The United States people - which would be a majority of those in the Cellar - have even advocated the use of torture. When was the last time you heard Americans demand that Gen Miller submit to court martial?
After three years, only some are finally admitting a lesson from 30 years ago in Vietnam - "we have met the enemy and he is US". Most Americans still will not demand prosecution of top administration officials who advocated and condoned torture - often of people who we now know were not guilty. My god. The president even lies about the levees in New Orleans. Hundreds die as a result. Americans don't even demand impeachment? Americans can die. Yet that is not as evil as putting a penis in the wrong mouth? Please let me know when American principles become perverted?
What was Dr Zimbarto's famous psychology experiment in Stanford U suppose to demonstrate? Did we not learn? Apparently not. Americans have endorsed even torture as acceptable. The American president has declared an intent to 'fix' Iran. Why then should Americans expect to the world to act according to American decrees? An Iran that was not building nuclear weaspons would only be an enemy of Iran.
What is happening in Iran is quite simple as demonstrated by millenia of human history. It only gets tricky when one uses extreme right wing political perspectives which means ignore lessons of history to promote "god's" agenda. Eliminate the extremist perspective and suddenly the whole thing becomes simple. This is why Kennedy kept asking his advisors, "But what is he thinking? What does he see? What is he being told?" You exist only because Kennedy insisted on seeing another's perspectives - what right wing extremists such as Gen Curtis LeMay refused to do. Do as Kennedy did to appreciate why it is not tricky. It's all quite predictable because of an agenda originally defined by the Project for a New American Century.
TW, I'm going to undermine your grousing about US warfighting policy: just how would you go about winning the war against bigoted fanatics who would as soon kill you as kill me? You know we all look alike to them.
When your foe is a fanatic and wants your own personal heart's blood, you've got to be pretty determined if you're going to stop him. I don't see that kind of determination, at least not intelligently directed, from you.
... bigoted fanatics ...
For example GW Bush :eyebrow:
TW, I'm going to undermine your grousing about US warfighting policy: just how would you go about winning the war against bigoted fanatics who would as soon kill you as kill me? You know we all look alike to them.
I starts by first learning the basic facts. The expression goes something like "Know thy enemy as thy know yourself". And so we start with the enemy. You. You have extremist viewpoints based in a political agenda; not based in reality, history, or knowledge. Your viewpoints are exactly what got us into Vietnam and into Iraq. Your viewpoints blindly assume "they are bigoted fanatics" - and without one shred of evidence.
Therein lies the problem. We had to sacrifice 50,000 Americans to learn those lessons. And then you would dishonor them by not even learning those painful lessons? Instead you would hype militaristic rhetoric like a mental midget president? Did you not learn anything in the military. Oh. I forgot. You did not even attend the war college. Somehow you just know, anyway, that they are bigoted fanatics. Why? Rush Limbaugh told you.
Please learn something here. Learn the real meaning of "We have met the enemy and he is us." Somehow these lessons of history repeatedly escape Urbane Guerrilla.
yeah, what makes me mad about the UN is that no one ever stands up to the united states. it's like this new form of imperialism that's more about absorbing other economies into our own, consequently making them dependant on ours, than say, just walking in and saying "guess what we're taking it."
i saw this guy on cspan at like three in the morning when i was throwing up from really bad food poisoning, and he was talking about how you can literally draw a circle on a 2 demensional map of the globe connected by all of the major players in the world economy and all of the countries in the middle are the ones that they crap on, basically, and oddly enough contain most of the resources. and the problem in the middle east is that their econominc output is equal to the input, so they're perfectly self sustaining. of course the problem is that we want them to play ball with us, and they pretty much hate us for it, among other things. so setting up a democracy there, and hoping it will spread, is our foot in the door to finally getting some of that.
so all of this said, i wonder... we go into iraq, claiming that they have WMD and plan on attacking us. this turns out to be wrong. so then we claim our actions are justified because we're liberating the citizens, which i would agree we are but think that's a pretty sneaky and shitty excuse. now, we set up a democracy over there, and we're hoping this will spread?
my question, is it right to force another nation to change it's government & relations specifically in order to serve the interests of another?
the "other interests" being that america's goal (i'm assuming) is to consolidate world powers under one roof (obviously america's). which begs the question, what then? would the world really be a more peaceful, happier, free place? or quite the opposite?
I think that keeping everything as separate sovereign nations, each with their own unique identity, i.e., directly in opposition to the UN's goal, is what we're going for.
I starts by first learning the basic facts. The expression goes something like "Know thy enemy as thy know yourself". And so we start with the enemy. You.
You who cannot write a grammatical English sentence presume to lecture ME??? You who never copyedit a word you write presume to believe your writings are to be taken seriously? By a smart fellow like me?? You're a bigger fool than I thought. You are a dildo, a dodo, and a blowhard, as every clause you write demonstrates in abundance, even redundancy. You're just inferior. No wonder you take the leftist view in every identifiable case. You are subject to delusive thinking also. Avoid any delusions of adequacy, tw -- they won't reflect the reality of your miserable, misguided, cranky life.
"Not a shred of evidence," he says. Oh, is this going to be fun. Thirty years of calls for genocide against Israel in the Arab yellow press is not a shred of evidence, I suppose. "Israel must be wiped off the map" from the President of Iran two weeks ago isn't a shred of evidence, I suppose. My dear Large Stationary Target tw, these are utterances of the most bigoted sort.
I suppose I might make a hobby of beating you over the head with thousands of direct quotes in this vein, and not just about Israel. Phrases like "the Great Satan" are out of love-letters, no doubt, tw? Of course, you will ignore all the quotes I can dredge up, because to you your ego is more important than any truth -- this is the result of having a poor mind and a neurotic personality. Our foes are not emotionally sustained by hope of political gain -- all that drives these suckers is anti-Americanism and anti-Christian bigotry. You have no business objecting to my resisting people driven by these impulses.
You are a dildo, a dodo, and a blowhard, as every clause you write demonstrates in abundance, even redundancy. You're just inferior. No wonder you take the leftist view in every identifiable case. You are subject to delusive thinking also. Avoid any delusions of adequacy, tw -- they won't reflect the reality of your miserable, misguided, cranky life.
I do believe we are discovering how Urbane Guerrilla thinks. The basic logic on which he perceives the world.
Urbane Guerrilla for Director of FEMA? Sounds like he would be a good, loyal George Jr man. Just the kind of man this adminstration needs.
my question, is it right to force another nation to change it's government & relations specifically in order to serve the interests of another?
One nation cannot force democracy on another. The second nation must literally 'earn' democracy to appreciate its value. IOW, Iraq may need a civil war before it will appreciate a viable government. Currently, we are trying to force democracy upon them. Therefore the people will never have a respect for and therefore fight to preserve such a government.
Either we pull out leaving a threat of civil war is so scary that the Iraqi people get serious about government. Or the Iraqi people fight that civil war, like Lebanon, like Somalia, like Rwanda, like Cambodia, etc until they come to a more logical conclusion. That mindset - the purpose of war - is why wars are fought only to end the conflict with a political settlement.
Wars are fought to change a political mindset between warring parties. If Iraqis really want a democracy, then we could pull out and they would rise up to support a democratic government. Why do we not pull out? Because the people still don't have a respect for that type of government. People have so little respect that even the number of functional Iraqi battalions decreases. Then when in combat, whole Iraqi battalions disintegrate. Many troops just go home. If we pull out, the people may resort to the kind of government they really want - government by chaos.
Eventually government by chaos breaks down into a demand for a stable government - one the people admit they finally want. That may be a democracy. It may even be a dictatorial or communist type government. But they must first suffer enough before they will finally agree. And unfortunately, that is the purpose of war.
To create a government by military occupation, well, how many decades have we been in Haiti? How many decades was Syria in Lebanon? Are you prepared for a thousand American deaths every year for over ten years in Iraq with no promise that the people will even want a democracy ten years later? This is America's current mindset. Like it or not, we intend to militarily occupy Iraq for about ten years. Our leaders don't have the balls to admit this. And yet that is a well proven lesson of history. Try to impose a democracy? It did not work in Vietnam because the people did not want the corrupt government we were trying to impose.
What is worse, George Jr also intends to fix Iran. The ongoing plan to invade Iran in 2006 may be delayed - because finally a very slim majority of Americans are learning the folly of the Rumsfeld, Cheney, Urbane Guerilla mindset. Solutions by blind force do not work - as even France is currently learning with their civil unrest. Blind force only makes enemies. One cannot force a government upon a people - especially when one does not believe in nation building.
Only a fool believes 'might makes right'. And yet that is really the reason why we are imposing a govenment in Iraq. We are so blind as to even believe the majority of Iraqi welcomed us.
Iran: President Says Light Surrounded Him During UN Speech
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad says that when he delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, he felt there was a light around him and that the attention of the world leaders in the audience was unblinkingly focused upon him.
...
Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.
"He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."
Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.
"I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."
I don't know if you're allowed to call our new ally a kook.
Is that a Jihad I smell on the sirocco?
I don't know if you're allowed to call our new ally a kook.
Great, a born again crusader on our side and an Islamist who sees himself bathed in light on the other.
It's time to start pacing off that bomb shelter.
Israel makes clear they won't tolerate nuclear Iran:
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
...
"If we opt for the military strike,” said a source, “it must be not less than 100% successful. It will resemble the destruction of the Egyptian air force in three hours in June 1967."
Israel makes clear they won't tolerate nuclear Iran:
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
...
"If we opt for the military strike,” said a source, “it must be not less than 100% successful. It will resemble the destruction of the Egyptian air force in three hours in June 1967."
Worst case is an Israel-Iran war drawing in our troops stationed in Iraq.
Worst case is an Israel-Iran war drawing in our troops stationed in Iraq.
Since the US invasion of Iran may be in trouble, then it is possible that Israel may take military action. Possible. Not likely. But possible.
Appreciate what is happening in the region. The US is losing its occupation and control of Iraq. The US has lost bases in Uzbekistan that would have been necessary for the Iran invasion. The US is opening bases in Romania for military purposes. These would be necessary for supply operations but not sufficient for launching attacks.
If the US does not attack Iran as scheduled for about 2006, then Israel must reevaluate its strategic objectives. That could mean an attack on Iran. And that would mean the attack would require cooperation from the US – especially from the Pentagon.
Now normally, this would never be permitted. But we don't have a sane leader in the White House. The current White House routinely calls Arabs evil when contrasted with Israelis. The Israelis can do no wrong - even if Israel unilaterally (without provocation) attacks Iran.
And then we must ask when – not if – the draft will need be reinstated.
Remember why right wing religious extremists want Israel to expand their occupation (theft) of the West Bank. To religious extremists, this would bring about Armageddon – the second coming of Christ. Extremists see such war as good for the future. Who elected the mental midget president? Why does this president repeatedly encourage more war – and his preemption agenda? One reason – look at what religious right extremists want. Then ask yourself how an Israeli attack on Iran – that must require US cooperation – would go down.
No so sure the Israelis need our cooperation. What are we going to do, shoot them down? Fat chance.
They learned long ago, it's easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission. ;)
Better if they don't ask, it will only fuel the conspiracy theorists that the US controls all and has the final say over anything Zionist.
All they need to do is ask politely not to shoot during refuelling operations.
No[t] so sure the Israelis need our cooperation. What are we going to do, shoot them down? Fat chance.
They learned long ago, it's easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission.
Do you remember the USS Liberty? Mistake? My ass. Was it 52 or 53 Americans killed by the Israeli?
First, we should do anything necessary to stop this, up to and including full scale invasion. If they were to use a nuke, the US would incinerate them inside an hour.
Dont we still owe Iran an ass kickin, after the events of Apr79.
First, we should do anything necessary to stop this, up to and including full scale invasion. If they were to use a nuke, the US would incinerate them inside an hour.
Except that nukes are the big stick that no rational government would use, but then are King George and his court rational? How do we stop the nuclear fallout from drifting over countries that are friendly to us? I suppose it is easier to say "sorry about that" than to ask permission or even council beforehand. How might China react to us messing up their oil supply? How about North Korea who already have nukes that can reach our shores? Although that might be difficult if we go up against one of the largest armies in the world who might give us a little tougher fight than the third rate army in Iraq gave the US.
But on to the next "I" country. Watch out Ireland and Italy because your time is coming, but don't worry India because you are too big and have nukes too even though you got a lot of them there Muslims. Oops! Did I forget Indonesia? There's terrists there too.
All the questions that get in the way of good old red-blooded American revenge. Will the South rise again? I hope not since General Sherman was a direct ancestor of mine. What happens if our own Native Americans develop a virus that kills only non-Native Americans so they can take back the country in revenge for our ethnic cleansing ancestors? I'd be in big trouble again since my family has been in this country for nearly 400 years except maybe my Native American great grandma might help, but maybe 1/8th is not enough blood to help. Probably won't happen anyways.
Just think, the time will probably come soon when we look upon these as the good old days. We'll say to our kids and grandkids, "I remember when gas was less than $3 a gallon and you could still get it. We thought that we were the greatest and could do whatever we wanted to do. Of course that was before King George nuked Iran and China and the rest of the world helped to crush our economy. They said a Depression could never happen again, but here we are. As the Lord said, 'How art the mighty fallen'. I guess it's just us and the Roman Empire. Damn, learning Chinese is hard. Are there any beans left?"
Just think, the time will probably come soon when we look upon these as the good old days. We'll say to our kids and grandkids, "I remember when gas was less than $3 a gallon and you could still get it. We thought that we were the greatest and could do whatever we wanted to do. Of course that was before King George nuked Iran and China and the rest of the world helped to crush our economy. They said a Depression could never happen again, but here we are. As the Lord said, 'How art the mighty fallen'. I guess it's just us and the Roman Empire. Damn, learning Chinese is hard. Are there any beans left?"
Take a look at my post about
Three Days of the Condor. I might have to go see Syriana now as a sort of sequel.
BTW, this is my third backlink for today. I very rarely do this.
It's only a movie, Rich.
We (United States of America), don't go mucking about in other peoples national affairs.
We (see above) only offer truth, justice and The American Way as an example of what they might aspire too. :right:
How about North Korea who already have nukes that can reach our shores?
Demonstrated is why Rush Limbaugh must preach without providing details and numbers. Details expose logical and factual errors. N Korea has an ability to launch a missile against Japan. Whether that missile can carry a warhead is questioned. But it is only where extremists promote hype and fear that "N Korea has missiles that can reach our shores". N Korea is far from that threat. Nor is that the intent for developing such weapons.
Meanwhile it is this very limited N Korean ability that only recently anti-missile defense systems are being deployed in Japan. N Korea may have that ability launch a warhead at Japan in some years.
Don't forget reasons why both Iran and N Korea have actively promoted nuclear programs. Now that containment is not American policy - now that America will unlaterally invade nations without justified reasons - now that the US has outrightly stated intent to invade both Iran and N Korea - now that the George Jr administration subverted and destroyed previous programs to politically neotiate peaceful solutions. Why then would any sane nation not build nuclear weapons? Right wing military extemists get the war they want - to justify their anti-humanity perspective. It is why pre-emption is so dangerous to all Americans - and is so empowering to those who promote war.
Iran will go nuclear because only an insane nation in their position would not. The US has announced intentions to invade N Korea and Iran - which is why preemption only promotes rightwing extremist political agendas on all sides at the expensive of good people.
. . .which is why preemption only promotes rightwing extremist political agendas on all sides at the expensive [sic] of good people.
Which is another bit of evidence, if one was needed, that tw cannot acknowledge the goodness of the right, and that tw is only half bright.
Basically, Europe said to Iran, "If you stop all uranium enrichment, and allow UN inspections, we will give you enough radioactive fuel to operate nuclear power plants."
two things
1. they said they would sell them fuel not give them it.
2. put yourselves in their shoes
If the USA were given the following 'offer' by OPEC (but using oil as the barganing chip), namely close down all your US indigenous oil refining and production capacity, disarm your strategic nuclear deterrent and we'll sell you all the oil you want (at a price to be set by OPEC), Would you be rushing to scrap your nukes or for that matter shut down your own oil fields.
you see it's hardly the 'deal of the century' when you frame it correctly is it.
Dont we still owe Iran an ass kickin, after the events of Apr79.
nope i think what the vincennes did to iran air flight 655 more than made up for that don't you?...
nope i think what the vincennes did to iran air flight 655 more than made up for that don't you?...
Most of the people on that plane were fleeing the new regime. Ironically, it played into the hands of the Islamic revolutionary regime by taking out "dissidents" (to use the term loosely) and by providing additional justification for the anti-American sentiment upon which the revolution was based.
It was a huge mistake.
Most of the people on that plane were fleeing the new regime. Ironically, it played into the hands of the Islamic revolutionary regime by taking out "dissidents" (to use the term loosely) and by providing additional justification for the anti-American sentiment upon which the revolution was based.
It was a huge mistake.
Here is the article on Iran Air flight 655 at Answers.com. I had heard about the medals before but wasn't too sure.
What it comes down to is that we screwed up and took a 'you have to break some eggs' attitude towards the incident. The moral of the story is do not expect justice in a war zone. War is about killing people, and innocent people die. The people who start wars should take this into account and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Personally, I think we went overboard with the medals. Service ribbons are one thing, but commendations?
[size=4]Medals awarded[/size]
While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[5] According to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high ranking officers on successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement.
The incident continued to overshadow U.S.-Iran relations for many years. Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 six months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655. [6] The blame was later shifted to Libya.
The Flight 655 incident has often been compared to that of Korean Air Flight 007 interception by the Soviet Air Force in 1983.
Vice President George H. W. Bush declared a month later, "I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are."
Just in case the Russians manage to avert WW(#)
Condi has the next justification lined up.
However, she stressed it was not just Tehran's nuclear policies which were concerning, but also what she described as its support for terrorism. The neo-coms are on the march.
So being anti-nuclear proliferation and anti-terror is solely the neo-con position now? I would vote for that woman if those positions were the centerpiece of her campaign, and so would 70% of the nation.
So being anti-nuclear proliferation and anti-terror is solely the neo-con position now?
No, seeking a broader conflict in the middle-east is the neo-con position.
*clarification* Since increasing nuke proliferation and terrorism are the obvious outcomes of the Bush foreign policy the neo-cons must oppose what you link them to.
Right, the ones building the weapons and supporting the terror aren't seeking a broader conflict, but trying to prevent it IS seeking a broader conflict because it's so damn provocative!
Because calling something a "concern" or going to the UN Security Council is so threatening! But calling for the destruction of Israel, well that's just what nations do.
Because proliferation started the moment Bush was elected! And terrorism is not to be fought until it occurs!
/sarcasm out of control
So being anti-nuclear proliferation and anti-terror is solely the neo-con position now? I would vote for that woman if those positions were the centerpiece of her campaign, and so would 70% of the nation.
70% of the nation, I would hope, is smarter. The only reason why nuclear proliferation is a problem is due to neo-con - extremist - policies. Tell the ignorant that we must attack to stop nuclear proliferation - and all we then do is encourage nuclear proliferation and satanic mentalities.
Why are countries now building nuclear weapons as fast as possible? Because neo-cons, using a political agenda rather than raw intelligence and the lessons of history, have decided to fix the world. To fix the world in their images of Christianity, democracy, and some mythical nonsense about "righteousness".
History has proven that nuclear non-proliferation and other programs that make a safer world are found in a well proven concept called containment. Pre-emption is simply an excuse to impose our will and our religion on all others - and then call that "good". Pre-emption feeds the naive with a big penis attitude that we are good and righteous. Pre-emption is justified by same principles that created the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.
BTW, who has subverted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The United States. UT often forgets such details when he represents the neo-con mentality - of them is bad and we are good. Meanwhile, back to reality. We have literally rewarded countries who have violated principles of that treaty with nuclear assistance - in direct opposition to what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is about. Not done until this administration decided to 'preempt' rather than 'contain' what they call 'evil'. Some perverted idea that we are good and they are bad. Tell that to those who learned a lesson called Vietnam. We were right because god was on our side - in Vietnam. What happened? Reality took revenge.
Will N Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons? Of course - as they should because America has declared we will 'fix' them. This neo-con attitude does as Hitler did to gain power in 1930s Germany. It encourages and justified those who never learned lessons from history AND it promotes those - like UG - whose solution to all problems is 'Pearl Harbor' solutions and liberal use of physical confrontation. This is also what brought Hitler to power: 'sound byte' intelligence to the uneducated while disparaging those who better understand lessons of history and what is written here.
Containment works. So well proven that the world's worst war stayed mostly cold. Containment permits politicians to solve problems without resorting to all out military confrontation. Not only is the purpose of war to put a conflict back on a negotiation table. Its consequences should be enough for humans to learn why containment and political solutions is always superior to war. Need we demonstrate how smarter leaders even ended a Balkan problem? Milosevkic was literally negotiated out of power. However, UT's post advocates military solutions by pretending he would deter nuclear proliferation and terror. UT's agenda is what creates both problems.
But again, we only need return to principles even well proven in 500 BC and "Art of War" to appreciate why UT's agenda means more proliferation and more violence.
Neo-con's solution is big sticks used liberally. They always see enemies who are 'too dumb' or 'too evil' to negotiate. So why did George Jr literally destroy an entire N Korean solution? So why is a fanatic religious fringe now uniting to attack America rather then their local secular dictatorships? Why was the WTC and Pentagon attacked? Because neo-cons never bother to learn lessons of history; learn the purpose of war. Neo-cons even failed to plan for the peace in the Kuwait liberation -since they thought only war and confrontation are a solution.
Neo-con's 'god is on our side' mentality has got us into this mess - making it necessary for both Iran and N Korea to even build nuclear weapons. To literally subvert forces inside both nations that were once working for reform and that could have become friendly to the United States.
Will N Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons? Of course - as they should because America has declared we will 'fix' them.
:headshake I certainly have to disagree with that. Human bungling being what it is I don't trust ANYBODY with TEH BOMB. Not the US, not Iran, not North Korea. Now you may not care if one of those countries blows itself up, but when the radiation spreads... well, I hope you get the point.
(Sidenote: nuclear power is different since you don't have to launch a plant and they designed not to blow up)
About the only positive thing you can say about war is that it enables the filthy gung-ho rednecks of all nations to kill each other off and thereby improve the species.
Problem is the "filthy gung-ho rednecks" don't go. They send wide-eyed youth that forced the pay the price. :(
(Sidenote: nuclear power is different since you don't have to launch a plant and they designed not to blow up)
Theoretically designed not to blow up.
TMI and Chernobyl taught us otherwise. (TMI was stupidity, Chernobyl poor design, mismanagement and stupidity combined.)
[QUOTE=wolf (TMI was stupidity, Chernobyl poor design, mismanagement and stupidity combined.)[/QUOTE]
Plus, Homer Simpson. /sorry. you're all being serious./
I admitted Homer.
wolf: What do you do for a living?
Homer: I work the night shift.
wolf: no, I meant what's your job, what do you do on the night shift?
Homer: I work the night shift.
Several hours later, speaking to Marge ...
wolf: So, your husband wasn't able to answer some of my questions. What is it that he does for a living?
Marge: He's a radiation prevention specialist.
wolf: What?! (I know I didn't really just hear that correctly. She has to have said something else. That's the only possible explanation.)
Marge: He's in charge of the fuel floor.
wolf: You mean at the ...
Marge: Yes.
We're doomed.
*tenting fingers with evil smile*
Ex-hcellent!
Do Iodine tablets come in chewable flavors?
For 20 years, ze Nuke makes millions of kilowatts. Zen, two lettle oopsis, just two, and zay call Nuke ze big cork soaker. Sacre blu. :rolleyes:
(Sidenote: nuclear power is different since you don't have to launch a plant and they designed not to blow up)
What the powers that be don't like to discuss. Depleted uranium removed from power plants (and stored in mass quantities at all nuclear power plants) is about equal to uranium used in Hiroshima. It's still bomb grade material.
Uranium used in power plants uses maybe 2% of the fuel inside that material. It is why Yucca Flats is so necessary and why Yucca Flats is so problematic. That 'used' material contains too much energy concentration.
Years ago, if you did not know that Iran was collecting and enriching uranium for bombs, then you also believed the president's lies about WMDs. There was not, for one minute, anyone (in positions of relevance these past years) that did not know this. But saying it would be politically incorrect - albeit the honest answer. So everyone pretended that Iran was claiming they were only building nuclear reactors for energy. The honest answer - Iran was all but saying they wanted and needed to build a bomb.
The unspoken reality that everyone involved knew - Iran needs a nuclear bomb. Their intent was clearly undisputed when Kaddafi blew the whistle on a nuclear proliferation network and its most central figure - Dr Khan of Pakistan. Pakistan being the number one nation proliferating nuclear weapons. So America turned a blind eye - and instead blames N Korea and Iran. The administration hopes you don't learn such realities. Again, we are defining the honesty of our president.
Pakistan being number one is but another fact that the 'powers that be' will not publicly discuss because it is politically incorrect - albeit the honest answer. Iran must build a nuclear bomb. Pakistan is the major supplier of nuclear proliferation. Even used nuclear material from nuclear power plants is sufficiently enriched to make a nuclear bomb. None will be bluntly and honestly admitted by international negotiators - who instead want to be politically correct. You are expected to be sufficiently informed enough to have known these facts.
How do you provoke the west? Try
shaing the love.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists," said the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
No end to the fun on this one, it seems. :thepain3:
I know if I was the leader of Iran I'd have been working on a bomb post-haste. Nothing else stops the US invading you (hello, DPRK) when you're arbitrarily designated 'evil' by the same country that overthrew your only ever democratic leader (operation Ajax mean anything to anyone?) and plotted to overthrow your replacement for the brutal autocrat they put in power.
It's also clear it doesn't make much difference whether you're guilty or not, truth, justice & soverignty have no place in US foreign policy. So you may as well go ahead and nuke up.
:headshake I certainly have to disagree with that. Human bungling being what it is I don't trust ANYBODY with TEH BOMB. Not the US, not Iran, not North Korea.
Then we apply realities to that principle. An Iran that is not threatened would then have a strong reform movement that was opposed to nuclear bombs. An India that did not have a friend in George Jr then would not have uranium to build more bombs. A Pakistan that was treated accordingly would be punished - not rewarded - for proliferating nuclear bomb technology throughout the world. A Turkey would not have so much to fear - and not start a nuclear program. And a North Korea that once negotiated away their nuclear program in exchange for short term economic assistance and long term relationships with the world has now been forced back into a nuclear program - complete with proof solid that their extremists were right: that the world wants to destroy N Korea.
What could have been a safer world as a result of containment has now been converted into a world where more countries must now want and need nuclear weapons. This traceable to a George Jr administration who suddenly made the world unstable by advocating preemption, undermining reform and promoting extremists in those 'enemy' countries (the axis of evil speech), and even intentionally undermining what makes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty work.
Want to make the world more nuclear? Do what George Jr has done - from his 'axis of evil' to even giving India desperately needed uranium with no strings attached.
I don't like that they have it.
But, I don't like that Pakistan has them either... I don't like that anyone has them actually.
Hardly the #1 problem.
World hunger, poverty, disease... take your pick.
#1 problem for the rich who could care less about the have-nots perhaps.
It won"t be necesary to nuke Tehran. We have plenty of conventional weapons that will do the trick just fine. It's sad to see Russia jumping in to side with Iran, like that's going to help them at all.
I'm sorry, tw, but I gotta say it; his name is not "George Jr." He's not George H. W. Bush Junior, he's George W. Bush. I'm sorry, but that was just bugging me. I get a little OCD over things like that sometimes.
It's sad to see Russia jumping in to side with Iran, like that's going to help them at all.
I think Russia was offering to enrich the uranium for Iran so that it could be used for power generation. That way, the world would know for sure that the product Iran was getting could not be used for weapons.
I think Russia was offering to enrich the uranium for Iran so that it could be used for power generation. That way, the world would know for sure that the product Iran was getting could not be used for weapons.
The U.S. was suppose to be buying all that from Russia.'INSTEAD' but NOOO nobody would listen to Gore.
See this is what happens when people listen to spin and the religious right. We can't save all those unborn fetus's from the threat of nulear ingagement. We should have been thinking of the living first.
I'm sorry, tw, but I gotta say it; his name is not "George Jr." He's not George H. W. Bush Junior, he's George W. Bush. I'm sorry, but that was just bugging me. I get a little OCD over things like that sometimes.
Nope he's Bubba Dubya and does not deserve any more respect than that.
I think Russia was offering to enrich the uranium for Iran so that it could be used for power generation. That way, the world would know for sure that the product Iran was getting could not be used for weapons.
The U.S. was suppose to be buying all that from Russia.'INSTEAD' but NOOO nobody would listen to Gore.
Details to these stories go far beyond what is implied here.
First, uranium for a nuclear power station is sufficiently enriched to make a bomb. Even so called 'waste' can be bomb grade material. Yucca Mountain not being operational means potentially weapons grade 'waste' is sitting in pools next to all American nuclear power plants.
Current nuclear power plants are so inefficient as to use less than 5% of energy in that fuel. But worse, such plants required highly enriched uranium (HEU). There was an ongoing program to convert nuclear power plants all over the world to use LEU - less enriched uranium. Most of these unconverted power plants are in the old USSR. However, when George Jr began undermining relations with Russia, the program to perform these conversions halted.
HEU sufficient for nuclear power plants can make a Hiroshima bomb. Furthermore, it can be further enriched to be better bomb grade material. Can HEU fuel be made difficult to further enrich? I am not sure. Can further enriching be made detectable? If uranium enrichment is performed in Russia, then details such as amounts and other 'detectable' features can be known and used. One reason why uranium enrichment in Russia is desirable: makes further enrichment or diverting of uranium to bombs difficult to hide.
Return same principles used by Kennedy to avoid world wide nuclear destruction. But what does he see? What is he being told? What is his perspective?
One of Russia's best neighbors has been Iran. Indeed, Iran was little threat to Russia or other Iranian neighbors. What does Russia fear most - and for good reason? Pakistan. Pakistan had been one of if not the most destabilizing force in that region. Iran, on the other hand, has been very cooperative and very stabilizing to that region. Russia most appreciates that. Russia's one fear is that the entire region - especially due to American allies Israel and Pakistan - has become so unstable that all powers - even Turkey - need nuclear weapons.
Where are all those high explosives that disappeared from Iraq (because US forces did not guard them); explosive perfect for making bombs? Where are all those machine tools necessary for manufacturing bombs that completely dissappeared from an industrial complex while US forces moved on to Baghdad? These facilities were tagged and known to UN inspectors - and yet the US did not have sufficient forces to protect them? So where did all that material go? At least some metals from those facilities were discovered in a dump in the Netherlands. Where did all this bomb making material disappear to while not guarded by invading American forces? Unanswered questions that would make Russia nervous.
Best that Russia can do is keep accounting of what Iran is doing - ie process that fuel in Russia and build the Iranian nuclear reactor. Russia's proposals may have been some of the most stabilizing especially given that the United States has so destabilized the region using pre-emption, offering uranium to India without any strings, and not condemning Pakistan for proliferating nuclear technology.
Don't forget China's position. Pakistan (and India) both make China nervous. China also does not appreciate these instabilities created by US actions. It left me wondering why the President of China made that visit to the White House even without honors such as a black tie dinner. I suspect the Chinese leader needed to gauge George Jr because China is getting nervous about south central Asia, American trade, a dollar that is too high combined (while Americans instead demand Chinese currency to increase) and a few other hardening problems. From the perspective of this discussion, China also worries about instability created by United States actions including uranium to India without signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and without other restrictions such as inspections of their fast breeder project.
Both Russia and China need stability in South Asia where nuclear proliferation will only get worse given current political positions. Russia is doing what it can especially since Russia has no reason to trust US intentions. Any trust Russia has with the US was quashed by George Jr which is why Russia would limit any future nuclear cooperation with the United States.
If Russia builds Iranian reactors, would they be LEU type? Maybe. Just another way to stabilize the region. But without many of the above details, no one can make any assumptions as to Russia's (or China's) intents. Start by asking what their perspective is. The perspective in both Russia and China should be obvious. America is creating instability everywhere from Turkey to India; from the Indian Ocean to the K'stan nations (where American assets recently were thrown out of another country).
I cannot be sure of what Russia's nor China's intents are. But once a perspective is international, then their actions both imply stability in a region that appears to be getting ripe for nuclear war!
Nuclear war! a concept so adverse that explanation points are necessary. Both China and Russia appreciate that danger. Question is whether their actions might or even can avert such war!
I really say that the China/Taiwan problem is what we need to be watching out for. If things across the strait go to hell, we're all fucked. And I don't just mean those of us in Taiwan.
China invades Taiwan. Taiwan calls on America. America declares war on China. North Korea may or may not declare war on America... Etc, etc, etc. World War 3.
And I'm sure that someone is going to get itchy button finger.
I really don't think there's a good way to make sure Iran doesn't have the ability to clandistinely make nuclear weapons. The question I would really like an answer to is whether or not the rest of the world is in agreement over what the consequences would be if they ever supplied the weapons for or launched a nuclear attack on another country. Would we revoke the Iranian's right to self-governence for the next 50 years? Or would there be alot of mucking around and warnings?
I really say that the China/Taiwan problem is what we need to be watching out for.
That's only one of so many potential problems. You know about Sprately Islands?
As was demonstrated by a silly spy plane incident in Spring 2001, both sides had too many extremists inciting war. China's Zemin (the outgoing president) was working hard to keep his extremists in line. His efforts were little reported in the US. Making that hard for him were Senior White House officials even calling for retaliatory action; from opposing the 2008 Olympics and trade embargos to outright military actions. Powell finally stepped up and demanded all White House people shut up. It also empowered Zemin.
These little things can easily escalate because extremist minorities on both sides see enemies everywhere. What would happen if China's new leader was a George Jr type with a pre-emption agenda? The statistical possibilities are massive.
Too many - a minority - on both sides see 'them and us'; 'black and white'. One must recognize that China also has their Joseph McCarthy types. They also have Cheney's who viewed the entire spy plane incident as aggression against the United States. Currently, the 'powers that be' in China are working for cooperation. It would explain Hu's visit without a black tie dinner and corresponding honors. The Taiwan issue is widely touted and carefully studied. Instead worry more about other minor issues, not well understood, that could make two friendly nations into enemies.
Remember that Vietnam asked to be made a protectorate of the United States. But somehow socialism was spun into communism - and we eventually ended up in a war against a nation that loved and admired the United States. How much? The Declaration of Independence for Vietnam was a duplication of America's. But some in America instead saw enemies everywhere. It can happen in any nation.
nah, do it the Bush way..... bring Democracy to Iran, via the B52.....