3
   

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:10 pm
I've been reading the comments and articles of a man named Spengler for a little over a year now. He has some interesting thoughts in this article regarding literacy and religious belief. This is just a brief example, but the entire article is worth-while reading. Also includes exhibits (charts) showing percentages of religious vs. literacy rates in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

Quote:
Most members of religious groups adhere to their beliefs because they were born into a faith and learned no other way to live. Traditional society admits of no heresy or atheism because religion governs the socialization of individuals. Once a traditional people has the opportunity to choose its beliefs, however, the result most often is a sudden fall-off in religious practice. We observe a close statistical relationship between literacy and the percentage of non-religious people in a population in the cross-section of countries.

Once the literacy rate reaches 90%, the percentage of non-religious jumps into two digits. That is as true for Muslim countries as well as for non-Muslim countries. Because the Muslim literacy rate is so far below the average, though, few Muslim countries have a high proportion of non-religious people.

Globally, we discern a clear link among literacy, secularism, and birth rates; the high birth rates of traditional society fall sharply with greater literacy and weaker religious belief. In the non-Muslim world (Exhibit 2), literacy alone explains 46% of variation in population growth.

In the Muslim world, however, the link between rising literacy and falling population growth is much more pronounced. In the Muslim world (Exhibit 3), variation in literacy explains nearly 60% of the variation in population growth, not a surprising result considering that the Muslim world begins with extremely high population growth and extremely low literacy rates.

Of all the large Muslim countries, Iran is most at risk, with a literacy rate of 71% and a population growth rate of 1.3%, projected to decline to zero within a generation. I have elaborated elsewhere on the devastating implications of a large population of dependent aged for a poor country (Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13, 2005). These considerations prompted me to predict early on that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad no more would shrink from confrontation with the West than did Adolf Hitler. But the rest of the Muslim world faces the same pressures.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:14 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Surely you're not suggesting they couldn't have been "more successful"? Do you feel like the world's in danger of being overrun by the Nazis or Communists of today?


Of course they could have been more successful, but then again, so could democracy.

I don't feel like the world's in danger of being overrun by any one ideology and that includes religion. That doesn't mean that communism or naziism doesn't maintain a strong following in many parts of the world to this day.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:23 pm
Quote:
Of all the large Muslim countries, Iran is most at risk, with a literacy rate of 71% and a population growth rate of 1.3%, projected to decline to zero within a generation. I have elaborated elsewhere on the devastating implications of a large population of dependent aged for a poor country (Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13, 2005). These considerations prompted me to predict early on that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad no more would shrink from confrontation with the West than did Adolf Hitler. But the rest of the Muslim world faces the same pressures.


Wait. Would that mean "Iran is most at risk" of becoming a literate, secular society with falling birth rates? Well.... uhm.... sounds like a good thing to me, doesn't it?

And re the "large population of dependent aged for a poor country": I wouldn't say that Iran is an especially poor country. I might be mistaken, but as the world's fourth largest oil producer the description "poor country" wouldn't be the first to pop up in my mind....

From these two points mentioned here, I find it a bit hard to follow the author's conclusion.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:36 pm
OE...did you read the entire article?

As for your opinion that Iran isn't an especially poor country...I dunno. I do know that they aren't spending particularly large amounts on their infrastructure ... except perhaps in Tehran?

How many die in Iran in general, for instance, as the result of a moderately strong earthquake?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:46 pm
I don't know how much they spend on their infrastructure. I don't know how many die in a natural disaster (like an earth quake), and I especially have no clue how Iran would do in comparison with e.g. the United States and death rates/response times/preparedness there. Plus I'm not sure if this can be used as a yardstick - just look at the last natural disaster in the US for reference.

Nevertheless, what the author seemed to be saying was that Iran was at risk of having a growing percentage of literacy, a declining percentage of religious people, and a declining birth rate. I fail to see the downside here, though.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:40 pm
The 2004 earthquake in Bam measured 6.3 and more than 26,000 people died as a result.

I don't have the size of the 1994 earthquake that hit Northridge, CA, but I do know the death toll was minimal, all things considered.

So...we know the Iranians don't spend their money on protecting their citizens and if the 71% literacy rate is accurate, it appears they don't spend much on education, either.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:41 pm
old europe wrote:
Nevertheless, what the author seemed to be saying was that Iran was at risk of having a growing percentage of literacy, a declining percentage of religious people, and a declining birth rate. I fail to see the downside here, though.
That in itself isn't the danger. The danger is the potential death throws of the rulers who won't have it any other way. Ahmadinejad is the nut job mouthpiece for a council of nut jobs who would keep the Iranian masses in the Stone Age forever if they could. Not only do their desires for WMD pose a clear and present danger, the good people of Iran deserve much better. Bottom line: WMD and nut jobs are a dangerous combination. JW's article correctly points out that education reduces the drawing power of fundi-foolishness. I would think the ABB crowd would happily endorse such a position. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 03:06 pm
[URL=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html]The World Fact Book[/URL] wrote:
Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write:
total population: 79.4%
male: 85.6%
female: 73% (2003 est.)
It would appear the author's numbers are a little behind.


[URL=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html]The World Fact Book[/URL] wrote:
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$551.6 billion (2005 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $8,100 (2005 est.)
Population below poverty line: 40% (2002 est.)
This paints a picture of a very poor country by civilized standards.


[URL=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html]The World Fact Book[/URL] wrote:
Internet users: 4.3 million (2003)
This is among the most troubling parts of the equation, IMO. To many Iranians lack the opportunity to inform themselves.

[URL=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html]The World Fact Book[/URL] wrote:
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
The good news for us (bad for your average Iranian) is they are severly overmatched by their enemies.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 03:15 pm
OCCOM BILL
Quote:
The good news for us (bad for your average Iranian) is they are severly overmatched by their enemies.


Don't get too excited...

Quote:
But it is Iran's unconventional weapons and tactics -- rather than its conventional military -- that would pose the greatest threat, according to the intelligence officials.


boston.com
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 03:19 pm
President Ahmadinejad's trap

by Daniel F., Feb. 8, 2006

I believe that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is goading the U.S. and Israel into attacking him. He knows he does not have sufficient military assets to attack Israel let alone America, but he knows he can win a defensive war and bring down the American empire. When America can no longer subsidize Israel, Zionism will be put to rest. I would like to make a few points about the insanity of attacking Iran.

1) Iran has Russian-made Sunburn missiles which can sink an aircraft carrier and shoot down an F-16. Are you prepared to lose all U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf? Do you realize what that loss would do to America?

2) Iran has the ability to shut down all shipping in the Gulf. Are you prepared to pay $300 to $400 for a barrel of oil?

3) Iran stopped recruiting suicide bombers when they had 40,000 volunteers. That many dedicated and educated young people could easily cut U.S. supply lines into Iraq, kill many thousands of our troops and destroy what is left of our military morale. Are you prepared to destroy the only army that is willing to defend you?

4) The air campaign against Iran would include targets 150 feet under Tehran protected by double concrete walls with lead lining. There would be enormous civilian casualties. How many suicide bombers would it take to blow up the oil refineries in your area? How many Americans would die if all the refineries in the greater Houston area were blown up? What would the price of gasoline be if oil were $300 a barrel and several dozen refineries were destroyed? What would happen to your country if gasoline were $9.00 a gallon? What percentage of Americans would not be able to afford to drive to work?

5) America does have a strategic petroleum reserve which could sustain us for a few months though we would have to build refineries to process it. China and Japan have almost 2 trillion dollars of absolutely worthless paper currency that they cannot spend. If they spent all the money they earn selling to us, the dollar would collapse from the sudden increase in circulating dollars. You must realize that raising the price of oil to $300 a barrel would destroy the dollar and the world economy. Look at a world map and ask yourself which of these countries both import oil and cannot afford to pay $300 a barrel? All of those countries will be destroyed economically and politically. And you will have no army to protect American citizens and property.

6) You must realize that your purchasing power is being propped up by China, Japan and a handful of other nations that are willing to accept absolutely worthless pieces of paper for cars, computers, and everything at Wal-Mart. Attacking Iran will bring all of those subsidies to a crashing halt. When that happens, everyone will protect themselves by dumping trillions of dollars into commodity and currency markets. I calculate that prices will go up 1,000%. That means a relatively well off pensioner with a 2005 income of $3,000 a month will have to live on $300 a month. That will not pay rent, buy food, pay for utilities and incidentals. Millions of elderly will have no choice but to commit suicide. I would expect an unemployment rate of 25% and real after tax wage cuts of 50% to 70%. Do you realize what would happen to your community if half the people could not afford to eat? Would you be willing to shoot people who had not eaten food for 3 days? a week? Would you be willing to shoot their children? Would you be willing to live in a country that did precisely that?

I repeat. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has thought this out. He knows what he is doing. He is so unwilling to live under the New World Order that he has decided to risk his life and the lives a few million Iranians. It is true that you can drop a few nukes on Iran and destroy it. But you must realize that your country will cease to exist as you knew it. Do you really want to destroy America?

Daniel F
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 04:30 pm
Shocked Rolling Eyes Laughing You've got to get yourself some better reading material. Laughing
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 07:49 pm
Here is an article from an email I got today. I don't personally know if Bush or Israel will do the following, but wouldn't be so surprised if one or the other did.


US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

By Philip Sherwell in Washington

02/12/06 "The Telegraph" -- -- Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.


They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 07:57 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.


bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.


What is the antonym of "bingo?" "Bingnot?"


nope. it's a bingstop.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 08:10 pm
JustWonders wrote:
The 2004 earthquake in Bam measured 6.3 and more than 26,000 people died as a result.

I don't have the size of the 1994 earthquake that hit Northridge, CA, but I do know the death toll was minimal, all things considered.


hey there jw !

can't remember for sure, but i think i remember it being around 6.8 or so. possibly 7.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 08:37 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Here is an article from an email I got today. I don't personally know if Bush or Israel will do the following, but wouldn't be so surprised if one or the other did.
I've been wondering which would be better for weeks now, and I think it's the United States. In the long run it will likely be seen as the same thing, so better to go with the weaponry that has the best shot at getting the job done. Since Bush has made it clear he would back Israel in any fight; I think the prospects of Iran's allies uniting in anything but saber rattling is lessened if such an attack were performed by the U.S. It would likely cost us a bundle, but it's tough to measure the cost of backing down. It could be down right horrific. It would be nice to see the world unite, for a change, if only to make sure Ahmadinejad knows he can't get away with bluffing. Of course, if he really is as crazy as he sounds, war may be a fore drawn conclusion. If so; I imagine the U.S. will likely have to go it largely alone because the Europeans won't want to suffer the backlash. So be it, if its work that needs to be done. We don't need any more Dear Leaders.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 08:56 pm
I'm guessing this is a story we intended to get out...






<Hey, DTOM...was out your way recently...waved...see me? Smile>
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 09:30 pm
JustWonders wrote:
<Hey, DTOM...was out your way recently...waved...see me? Smile>


is that what that fast moving blur of red was ??? :wink:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:26 pm
I personally think this would be the time for a multinational effort of some kind. After all, Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China agreed to bring the matter before the UN Security Council, and the IAEA absolutely endorsed the effort.

This would be an opportunity to act on a truly multinational basis.






But then, who cares about international relationships, right?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:29 pm
old europe wrote:
I personally think this would be the time for a multinational effort of some kind. After all, Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China agreed to bring the matter before the UN Security Council, and the IAEA absolutely endorsed the effort.

This would be an opportunity to act on a truly multinational basis.






But then, who cares about international relationships, right?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:31 pm
old europe wrote:
I personally think this would be the time for a multinational effort of some kind. After all, Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China agreed to bring the matter before the UN Security Council, and the IAEA absolutely endorsed the effort.

This would be an opportunity to act on a truly multinational basis.






But then, who cares about international relationships, right?
Shadow boxing there OE? I think we're all in agreement that a multi-national effort would be best... Even Bush for crying out loud. Confused
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:29:48