Thomas wrote:Asherman wrote:I am philosophically a Federalist, and a voting Republican. Neither of those have anything whatsoever in common with either the Italian Fascists nor the German Nazi's. I'd appreciate you recognizing the difference and refraining from the insults.
I'd like to second this, speaking as someone who disagrees with Asherman more often than not, but who reacts allergically to gratuitous comparisons with fascism.
If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck ... need I finish???
What part don't you get?
The bigiory and the hate?
The prison camps, Guantanamo, Eastern Europe torture camps, Abu Graib
The illegal take over of soveriegn countries for their resources and power
The singling out of a race/religion to hate and energize the war machine
The squashing of the rights of the citizens of the country itself (USA)
The Uber-Nationality and single minded patriotism over anything moral
The Uber-Christianity, much like the Germans and the Spear of Destiny??
Tell me Thomas, which part did you miss??
Setanta ( notice I even spelled it right this time),
You can answer that too if you don't like my Fascist comparison of the USA and it's previous Brotherhoods
Anon
I can't speak for Debra Law but I am quite sure considering the latest revelations that she would change her view and admit she was wrong.
To pick out that one error in judgement and try to expand it to the entire argument, of course, is a classic strawman.
Lash wrote:It is a history of Iran being **** crazy.
Nuclear weapons will never be done away with. Somebody would lie and everyone else would be at their mercy.
That genie isn't going back in the bottle.
So we should just give up and keep building more and more rather than trying to keep a handle on it in a fair way? (by fair, I mean everybody, not just everybody but us and those we like)
revel wrote:not just everybody but us and those we like)
Trouble is, we stop liking them and they become mortal enemies ... then we have to destroy them before they destroy us
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck ... need I finish???
What part don't you get?
While I have views about the Bush administration, I am not here to discuss them with you. I am here to discuss Iran's nuclear weapons program, and what the US government will or should do about it. I am here to discuss it with people who disagree with me, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Asherman's conduct furthers this goal, whatever one may think of his views. Your conduct obstructs it, whatever one may think of your view. Your sniping and insulting is not appreciated, at least not by me.
I don't know why I bother writing this, but thanks for reading me out.
I have neither a like nor a dislike for comparisons of the United States with facist systems of government--i consider such comparison ridiculous and tendentiously partisan. I would suggest, however, that you would greately enjoy reading
The Iron Heel by Jack London.
You can read it here.
Thomas wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck ... need I finish???
What part don't you get?
While I have views about the Bush administration, I am not here to discuss them with you. I am here to discuss Iran's nuclear weapons program, and what the US government will or should do about it. I am here to discuss it with people who disagree with me, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Asherman's conduct furthers this goal, whatever one may think of his views. Your conduct obstructs it, whatever one may think of your view. Your sniping and insulting is not appreciated, at least not by me.
I don't know why I bother writing this, but thanks for reading me out.
Sorry you resent the truth so! I can't do much about that. Asherman represents what the real, massive problem we have here in the U.S. is, and he isn't going to change his mind regardless of how much you "debate" with him. The fact that you hide under the covers in some other country doesn't help us here. I have the feel that you are a U.S. citizen, maybe that is incorrect. We're here where the disaster is emanating from. If we don't stop it, the world will be the worse for wear, just as it was when our Fascist brothers tried to conquer it! People like you will whine "Why did all this happen, how did it come to this"??
Anon
Thomas is not yet, i don't believe, an American citizen. I believe, however, that he intends to inflict that upon us in the near future.
As I've said before here, it boils down to a hard choice after all diplomatic efforts fail:
(A) Intervene to destroy, or so damage the Iranian nuclear weapons program that it will not be a regional or world threat for years to come, regardless of the legal niceties. There is a saying among police officers, which I don't necessarily and completely approve of, "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". It may be illegal for a citizen to physically attack a confessed child-molester for giving the "eye" to his child and the children in the neighborhood, but it is understandable. When the stakes are thousand, perhaps a million lives, the decision of whether action or in-action is the better course will lie heavy on a Commander's shoulders.
(B) Accept the risk that an Iranian nuclear program will result in a first-strike nuclear strike on those Iran's religious leaders decide should be "punished". It is possible that having a nuclear arsenal, Iran may come to its senses. If this choice is followed, and I think it will be (see my rational posted a couple of times above), and Telaviv, or San Francisco, is later attacked with weapons allowed by inaction, there will be demands for retaliation on a massive scale. The net result of inaction may be the loss of many thousands, even millions of lives.
I feel fortunate that the decision is not mine to make, and do not envy the National Command Authority its responsibility to protect the nation. Whatever the decision might be, it will be unpopular. We can only hope that diplomacy will succeed, even though that seems only a remote possibility.
I remember Bush's speech, I believe it was called the 'Axis of Evil' speech, a little after 9/11. He made clear his intentions to at least four middle eastern states,his intentions were to attack them, and sadly, when a country is threatened, it reacts in a most natural way which is defense. Wether we like them or hate them, they have a right to defend themselves .
Quote:Nuclear Club
Arab Summit Opens in Sudan With Secretary-General Urging Arab Nations to Enter 'Nuclear Club'
By TANALEE SMITH
KHARTOUM, Sudan Mar 28, 2006 (AP)— Secretary-General Amr Moussa called on Arab leaders Tuesday to move toward a goal of "entering the nuclear club" and making use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
The absence of at least 10 heads of state, including President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, raised concerns of a lackluster summit in a year where many had hoped to see serious efforts at dealing with regional troubles.
The 22-member Arab League is contending with complex issues involving Iraq's future and how to deal with a Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories.
The U.S. State Department has urged Arab leaders to "be as supportive as possible of the new Iraqi government" by sending ambassadors and providing economic assistance to Baghdad.
For their part, Arab governments already suspicious of non-Arab Iran have been irritated by plans for talks on Iraq between Iranian and U.S. officials.
Moussa was particularly emphatic about Iraq in his address.
"Any solution for the Iraqi problem cannot be reached without Arabs, and Arab participation," he said. "Any result of consultations without Arab participation will be considered insufficient and will not lead to a solution."
Moussa called on Arabs "to enter into the nuclear club and make use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," a plea that comes as the world is wary about nearby Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In his opening speech, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, host of last year's summit, called on Iraqis to close ranks to avoid a sectarian conflict pitting the country's Shiite majority against the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority.
Iraq's neighbors, he said, should "honestly cooperate with the Iraqi people to preserve the country's integrity and unity."
The host, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, used his opening speech to praise Palestinian elections and denounce Israel and Western countries that have threatened to cut off aid in response to the victory of the militant Hamas.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1776012
Asherman wrote:As I've said before here, it boils down to a hard choice after all diplomatic efforts fail:
(B) Accept the risk that an Iranian nuclear program will result in a first-strike nuclear strike on those Iran's religious leaders decide should be "punished". It is possible that having a nuclear arsenal, Iran may come to its senses. If this choice is followed, and I think it will be (see my rational posted a couple of times above), and Telaviv, or San Francisco, is later attacked with weapons allowed by inaction, there will be demands for retaliation on a massive scale. The net result of inaction may be the loss of many thousands, even millions of lives.
I feel fortunate that the decision is not mine to make, and do not envy the National Command Authority its responsibility to protect the nation. Whatever the decision might be, it will be unpopular. We can only hope that diplomacy will succeed, even though that seems only a remote possibility.
We stand this risk as it is. I think that Iran can get a Nuke anytime they want it. I think they can put it wherever they want to. I think they can detonate it whenever they want to. If it "fizzles", I believe they can keep doing it until it doesn't.
If we nuke them first, the ONLY way to insure getting ALL the facilities, I think we insure that it happens. What do you want, risk, or certainty??
Anon
Nuclear weapons by either Iran or the DPRK are not "defensive", nor intended to deter attack. Neither is threatened by a nuclear power that could be deterred by a small arsenal of puny and obsolete weapons. These are weapons whose purpose is to threaten and blackmail neighbors and the world into submission to the demands of totalitarian regimes. Of the two, Iran poses the greater threat of actually using a nuclear weapon with little, or no provocation.
If Iran scrapped its bid to arm itself with nuclear weapons, the danger of being a target for an air strike or invasion would vanish in an instant. By pursuing this insane course of action, Iran has greatly increased the danger both to the world and to itself. The Mullah's are gambling, just as Saddam did, that the United States will not dare to attack. I don't belive any attack is imminent, nor do I believe that any decision has yet been made by the National Command Authority. That does not mean that continguency plans aren't being reviewed and updated. If the decision is made to intervene, we should see some shifting of U.S. military assets and a series of strongly worded warnings. I would expect that the matter will be pushed into the UN, even though that ineffectual body is the equivilent of throwing up our hands in dispair of anything being done.
Blackmail ... you mean like we do to everyone else??
Anon
I agree, Anon, it does seem a bit hypocritical.
Also I think Iran is is making more of their actual uranium power than they actually have.
http://www.juancole.com/
Quote:Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches
Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."
The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.
The crisis is not one of nuclear enrichment, a low-level attainment that does not necessarily lead to having a bomb. Even if Iran had a bomb, it is hard to see how they could be more dangerous than Communist China, which has lots of such bombs, and whose Walmart stores are a clever ruse to wipe out the middle class American family through funneling in cheaply made Chinese goods.
What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.
Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush's poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.
If this international game of chicken goes wrong, then the whole Middle East and much of Western Europe could go up in flames. The real threat here is not unconventional war, which Iran cannot fight for the foreseeable future. It is the spread of Iraq-style instability to more countries in the region.
Bush and Ahmadinejad could be working together toward the Perfect Storm.
Anon,
"We stand this risk as it is. I think that Iran can get a Nuke anytime they want it. I think they can put it wherever they want to. I think they can detonate it whenever they want to. If it "fizzles", I believe they can keep doing it until it doesn't."
Nonsense. They have only four options to acquire even a single warhead. (1) they can buy a blackmarket device gone missing long ago from the Soviet inventory, (2) they can work a deal with the DPRK, (3) they can obtain a Pakistani device, or (4) they can build their own. I've already discussed some of the problems with options 1-3. If buying a nuclear weapons was easy, then Saddam and Qudaffi would have had several tucked away. Additionally, if it were easy for Iran to acquire a weapon from any of these three sources, why risk attack by publicly building their own nuclear weapons program?
Building a bomb, even an obsolete model from old plans isn't all that easy. The largest problem is to obtain sufficient weapons-grade fissionable materials. Iran has the raw materials, but must refine and concentrate them. That takes time. They have publicly said that they have begun enriching the materials. In order to accumulate enough enriched fissionable materials to power a single bomb could take ten months, or more.
You believe that Iran has the capability to deliver and detonate a bomb anywhere? If they had that capability the risk and danger of leaving them unmolested would rise to intolerable levels. In point of fact, Iran does not have the capability to deliver a warhead outside the region. They have improved Scud missiles that can reach Israel. They do not have capability to deliver a large, heavy weapon by manned aircraft over long distances. They have access to ocean shipping and could transport a device secretly inside a well shielded cargo container to any American or European port. Iran is seriously constrained in how and where it can deliver a weapon. Can they detonate one at will? Perhaps, but the only way to know for sure would be to carry out one or more atomic tests. That would entail manufacture of multiple warheads, and that would push the danger out a little further into the future. If Iran conducts an atomic test, believe me we will know about it in short order ... and the risks goes up accordingly.
Fizzles are dangerous and should not be discounted. Even without blast, heat and EMP effects, the scattering of radioactive materials would be a serious matter, and would justify massive retaliation against any nation responsible for making the attack possible.
"If we nuke them first, the ONLY way to insure getting ALL the facilities, I think we insure that it happens. What do you want, risk, or certainty??"
A preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is the last and least likely option in front of us. Even a nuclear strike would not be a 100% guarantee of destruction Iran's nuclear facilities. To effectively reduce the threat it isn't necessary to achieve 100% destruction. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that a well planned and executed conventional strike could inflict enough damage to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions for 5-10 years.
I always prefer certainty, or at least a high degree of probability, but that isn't often the case in human affairs. Public policy analysis is a guide, and does not pretend that conclusions ever are a certainty. Everything entails some risk, and in our system the decisions are vested in those elected by the People ... even when we might think the decision-maker a fool.
The Persians purport that they are pursuing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes, and not for the development of weapons. Therefore, one must first assert that the government are lying before proceeding to other conclusions about what must or must not be done. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether or not one has good reason not to believe that their purposes are peaceful, risk assessment requires one to assess the probability of the use of nuclear weapons by the Persians if they are indeed lying. Asherman asserts, in a rather ex cathedra manner, that neither North Korea nor Iran develop nuclear weapons for purposes of self-defense. This is ignores the very real perception of an American threat on the part of Kim Jong-Il and the Imams. I know of no good reason to believe that the Persians are capable of delivering a nuclear strike against the United States by conventional means. There is very good reason to assume that North Korean has or is in the process of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking American territory.
Furthermore, Asherman asserts, with no more authority, that Iran poses a greater threat of actually using nuclear weapons, as he puts it, "with little, or no provocation." Absent any cogent reason to assert as much (and he provides none), i not only have little reason to believe that, i have a good deal of reason to suspect that the contention cannot be sustained. Kim Jung-Il is a megalomaniac raised in a culture of the cult of the leader, and having succeeded to the central focus of such a cult. He is master of a starving nation which cannot feed itself under its current political system, and which relies upon strident sabre rattling to attempt to supply its deficiencies through what is effectively diplomatic bribery. He was raised in and relies upon a paranoid propaganda, and we have no means of ascertaining whether or not he believes as much himself. His continuance of his autocratic, Stalinist regime with its concommitant cult of personality affords little reason to hope that he is personally stable enough to be relied upon not to attack others, nor to eternally resist the blandishments of the warped ideology in which he was schooled and which authorizes his autocracy.
Iran is, effectively, ruled by a collection of Imams and Mullahs who have taken all the reins of economic power into their own hands through the nationalization of resources and the incorporation of the control of those resources in their own hands. For any other than propagandistic purposes, there is no good reason to assume that the President of Iran and the Persian legislature control the nation's policies. The Persians are not a nation of desperate starving people. Although it may be alleged that anti-American propaganda is just as vigorous as is the case in Korea, there is also good reason to believe that the Persian people have much more access to other points of view and sources of news than is the case with the people of North Korea--who are effectively isolated in a "Big Brother" like state from whose dictates there is not only no appeal, but for which there is no alternative version of events and the state of the world.
The "Persian reign of terror" after their revolution seems on the scanty evidence available to have dwarfed the terror of the French revolution in scale at least. Nevertheless, the French, well before the rise of Napoleon, "exported" their revolution vigorously upon the occasion of threat and invasion by the conservative monarchies of Europe--the Persians never have done, despite being attacked and embroiled in an eight-year-long war with Iraq. One can point to their support of terrorism, but that is not conclusive either. Many nations of the world tacitly tolerate terrorism, others covertly support it, and some few have, at least from time to time, overtly supported terrorism. Syria has not only been known to support terrorism, but in fact made a significantly large military invasion of and occupation of the Lebanon during the unfortunate civil war which they endured--consequent to the invasion of that nation by Israel, the collective bête noire of Muslims in the middle east. Yet Asherman contends, without offering any substantition, that Iran is more likely to use a nuclear device than is North Korea.
Kim Jong-Il owns no loyalty other than to himself. His obsession with exotic pornography suggests a man so self-absorbed that there is no reason to assume that he looks beyond his personal wants. Were Kim Jong-Il ever convinced that he faced his own destruction, or merely the usurpation of his power, it is not at all difficult to imagine him attempting a nuclear gotterdammerung in the event. The Mullahs and Imams of Iran, as the corporate eminence grise of that nation's polity, cannot necessarily be considered to be such potentially unstable and dangerous persons, neither individually nor as a body. There is no good reason to assume that they would capriciously sacrifice themselves and their pesonal friends and their families on an altar of Islamic fundamentalism, and i assert there is good reason to believe they would not.
Therefore, i cannot for a moment accept a contention on Asherman's part that Iran can axiomatically be considered a greater threat to use nuclear weapons than can North Korea.
As to the question of whether or not the Persians are lying about the purposes of the nuclear program, i think it likely that they are. However, absent definite proof of that contention, unilateral military action can only be seen as the height of folly. Accusations of Persian intentions to develop and use nuclear weapons on the part of this administration would do nothing to convince me it were true given the record this admnistration has for veracity and sound intelligence analysis--nevermind their stumble-bum performance in military operations. An attack on Iran which does not succeed in destroying their capacity to produce nuclear weapons invites eventual, and likely sooner rather than later, nuclear holocaust in that region. The "smart money" among well-informed international observers believes that Persian facilities are located underground, requiring the use of nuclear devices to get even a slim assurance of destroying their facilities. This administration has resolutely followed an agenda articulated by the PNAC before the current President even took office. They have demonstrated an appalling venality and incompetence in pursuit of that agenda, and i don't trust them to either make a reasonable assessment in this matter, nor to proceed in an effective and intelligent manner to deal with it.
Once again, it may prove necessary to Asherman and others of like mind to accept that there are some things in this world that we cannot control, unless we are willing to descend into madness.
Asherman wrote:Anon,
"We stand this risk as it is. I think that Iran can get a Nuke anytime they want it. I think they can put it wherever they want to. I think they can detonate it whenever they want to. If it "fizzles", I believe they can keep doing it until it doesn't."
Nonsense. They have only four options to acquire even a single warhead. (1) they can buy a blackmarket device gone missing long ago from the Soviet inventory, (2) they can work a deal with the DPRK, (3) they can obtain a Pakistani device, or (4) they can build their own. I've already discussed some of the problems with options 1-3. If buying a nuclear weapons was easy, then Saddam and Qudaffi would have had several tucked away. Additionally, if it were easy for Iran to acquire a weapon from any of these three sources, why risk attack by publicly building their own nuclear weapons program?
You answered your own question by pointing out the problems with options 1-3. I do not find 1-3 unsurmountable though.
Building a bomb, even an obsolete model from old plans isn't all that easy. The largest problem is to obtain sufficient weapons-grade fissionable materials. Iran has the raw materials, but must refine and concentrate them. That takes time. They have publicly said that they have begun enriching the materials. In order to accumulate enough enriched fissionable materials to power a single bomb could take ten months, or more.
You believe that Iran has the capability to deliver and detonate a bomb anywhere? If they had that capability the risk and danger of leaving them unmolested would rise to intolerable levels. In point of fact, Iran does not have the capability to deliver a warhead outside the region. They have improved Scud missiles that can reach Israel. They do not have capability to deliver a large, heavy weapon by manned aircraft over long distances. They have access to ocean shipping and could transport a device secretly inside a well shielded cargo container to any American or European port. Iran is seriously constrained in how and where it can deliver a weapon. Can they detonate one at will? Perhaps, but the only way to know for sure would be to carry out one or more atomic tests. That would entail manufacture of multiple warheads, and that would push the danger out a little further into the future. If Iran conducts an atomic test, believe me we will know about it in short order ... and the risks goes up accordingly.
My Bolded area of your post ... would there be any other nice easy way to do it. Pack up a container and wave Bye Bye to SF, NY, LA, Miami ... or take a pick!!
Fizzles are dangerous and should not be discounted. Even without blast, heat and EMP effects, the scattering of radioactive materials would be a serious matter, and would justify massive retaliation against any nation responsible for making the attack possible.
"If we nuke them first, the ONLY way to insure getting ALL the facilities, I think we insure that it happens. What do you want, risk, or certainty??"
A preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is the last and least likely option in front of us. Even a nuclear strike would not be a 100% guarantee of destruction Iran's nuclear facilities. To effectively reduce the threat it isn't necessary to achieve 100% destruction. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that a well planned and executed conventional strike could inflict enough damage to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions for 5-10 years.
I always prefer certainty, or at least a high degree of probability, but that isn't often the case in human affairs. Public policy analysis is a guide, and does not pretend that conclusions ever are a certainty. Everything entails some risk, and in our system the decisions are vested in those elected by the People ... even when we might think the decision-maker a fool.
I think Revel has also lent considerable evidence to the fact that it would be easy for Iran to get a Nuke, if they don't already have one!
Anon
Asherman wrote:It is entirely within the realm of possiblity that a well planned and executed conventional strike could inflict enough damage to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions for 5-10 years.
Or in other words: next to nothing. Giving the downside of an American first strike, one has to wonder why this is even discussed. Certainly, you are saying that this would only be an option "after all diplomatic efforts fail". So here's my question: what exactly are those "diplomatic efforts"? So far, the United States refuse to even talk to Iran about this issue. Certainly, there are going to be talks about the situation in Iraq, but that's it. Uh, yeah, no date has been agreed upon.
So, again, I think one important issue in this whole discussion should maybe be: what diplomatic efforts can be made, before we ultimately arrive at the worst-case scenario? Would the United States, in order to avoid such a scenario, break in a near three-decade pause in direct contacts between US and Iranian officials following the country's 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent US hostage drama? Should the US do that?
There seems to be
some room for diplomatic efforts. Iran has been consistently claiming that all they want is nuclear power for civilian use. They have enriched uranium, but only to a degree where it becomes usable as fuel in a power plant. They are still years away from a heavy-water reactor that could produce plutonium.
So, what would be the possibilities towards a
diplomatic solution, and what could the United States do, in that regard?
