Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

One thing which has been brought home clearly to me in reading history from Thucydides to the present is that there are never a lack of dupes who will attempt to justify the venal policies of powerful men. Not that it profits the dupes anything, but it does wonders for the powerful.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

seems to be to surrender to the prospect that if Iran wants nuclear weapons, they are entitled to nuclear weapons -- after all, the US has them, and we can't stop them if they are determined to get them.

It's a combination of the two.

First, we are not the arbitrater nor watchdog of what other countries can or cannot do. It isn't our place to do so. We have no special moral authority that other countries lack when it comes to the right to own dangerous weapons. We are not immune from using them in an illegal and immoral fashion. Why, not even 20 years ago, we were supplying Iraq with WMD to use against the Iranians - the same behavior that we currently say warrants invasion of other countries. We are somewhat hollow in that respect.

Second, I truly don't believe that we will be able to stop those who are determined from excersizing what is basically a physics experiment. HOw much effort, and how many lives will have to be lost to do so? The technology to build a small nuke isn't exactly anything new. They plans on how to do it are available; hell, we learned the basic theories and construction techniques in undergraduate Physics classes I took.

You cannot stop the spread of techonology or information! You can only work to see that those who acquire it use it wisely.

We could probably go to war with Iran and win, to stop them from getting nukes; but what then? What if Pakistan turns against us, something that could easily happen - they've got nukes and they hate Israel just as much as Iran does. What happens when smaller african countries start getting nukes? Are we going to invade and kill them as well, to stop that from happening?

Better to attempt to develop a policy for dealing with the problem, before it is too late.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops: We also aren't publicly stating that any particular country has no right to exist. We have also shown ourselves to be rather responsible with our nuclear weaponry. But you already know my feelings regarding your thoughts on this matter, and my belief that those who think like you ought never be charged with the defense of the US.

But what would you propose to ensure that all those who acquire nuclear weapons use them wisely? What is your suggestion for a policy to deal with this problem?

0 Replies

Quote:

But what would you propose to ensure that all those who acquire nuclear weapons use them wisely? What is your suggestion for a policy to deal with this problem?

Worldwide response using the force of a collected body.

Our current attempts to do so have been useless, because we haven't provided the leadership neccessary to get the squabbling bunch known as the UN on board. Those such as yourself would claim that this is a lost cause and foolish, but that's just ridiculous; you are giving up on the fledgling worldwide democracy just at the time when we need to support it the most. Just because the going is tough in the UN doesn't mean it can't work if the American people are willing to unite behind supporting it.

Economic and physical sanctions can be used.

I don't see any evidence that the Mutually assured destruction which has held off the Russians for so long will be any less effective against the Iranians or Norks. I doubt the Iranians want to kill Israel at the cost of all of their lives; kind of counter-productive, that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I note that rightwingnuts are dedicated to the notion of military action if necessary against the Persians, but have no similar proposal for the North Koreans. That makes sense, given that North Korea could put up one hell of a stiff fight. What the rightwing moonbats are missing is that the Persians can put up one hell of a fight, too. Objections that the Koreans already have nukes means little, since they do not threaten us with any credible delivery system, and, similarly, the Persians do not possess any known credible delivery system.

Of course, the rightwing moonbats then become hysterical about the possibility that the Persians would hand weapons over to terrorists. Other than the simple ludicrous nature of the contention that the Persians, as a nation, are suicidal, that ignores that the North Koreans can do the same thing. In fact, the North Koreans are already notorious for providing both weapons and expertise to anyone with the price of admission.

One of the most glaring failures of rightwing moonbat propaganda is their failure to apply the same standards to the Koreans and the Persians.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... you are giving up on the fledgling Iraq democracy just at the time when we need to support it the most. Just because the going is tough in Iraq doesn't mean it can't work if the American people are willing to unite behind supporting it.

I took the liberty of modifying your sentence a bit. I suspect you don't agree with it as modified.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't see any evidence that the Mutually assured destruction which has held off the Russians for so long will be any less effective against the Iranians or Norks. I doubt the Iranians want to kill Israel at the cost of all of their lives; kind of counter-productive, that.

Cycloptichorn

I don't necessarily disagree (although the current President of Iran has made comments that ought to give one pause about whether he is a rational, reasonable, or stable leader in that region), but the larger concern, imo, is the prospect that Iran might permit nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists bent on attacking the US or Israel. What evidence would you need to see before you recognize that threat?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
... you are giving up on the fledgling Iraq democracy just at the time when we need to support it the most. Just because the going is tough in Iraq doesn't mean it can't work if the American people are willing to unite behind supporting it.

I took the liberty of modifying your sentence a bit. I suspect you don't agree with it as modified.

Naturally, I wrote my sentence with entirely the intention that you would draw that parallel. It is to point out the hypocrisy amongst those who believe that we shouldn't keep trying to use the UN to deal with our worldwide issues. I am gratified to see that it worked so well.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't see any evidence that the Mutually assured destruction which has held off the Russians for so long will be any less effective against the Iranians or Norks. I doubt the Iranians want to kill Israel at the cost of all of their lives; kind of counter-productive, that.

Cycloptichorn

I don't necessarily disagree (although the current President of Iran has made comments that ought to give one pause about whether he is a rational, reasonable, or stable leader in that region), but the larger concern, imo, is the prospect that Iran might permit nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists bent on attacking the US or Israel. What evidence would you need to see before you recognize that threat?

The 'president' of Iran doesn't run that country anyways, as you well know. He is roughly equivalent to Bush - a figurehead.

I'm not sure what makes you think that Russia, or North Korea, won't sell WMD to terrorists. What makes you think that elements within Pakistan or India won't sell WMD to terrorists? How about a concerted effort by the Chavez government or the Egyptians?

You see, anyone could do the things you are talking about. The US sold WMD to Saddam just twenty years ago. To advocate the invasion of countries because they might develop WMD and sell them to terrorists shows a real lack of understanding about how the world works, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hey, ticomaya, many countries are developing WMDs. Who do you suggest we nuke first?

0 Replies

In fact, one Pakistani scientist is accused of selling nuclear technology secrets.

Abdul Qadeer Khan is called the "Father of Pakistan's Nuclear Industry."

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I suspect Kuvasz doesn't answer the question because it is not germane to the topic. Only rightwingnuts are getting their panties in a twist about Iran, the rest of the world is attempting to engage the Persians, and find a resolution to a situation which on one can control right now--and, of course, with no help and a good deal of hindrance from the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad.

Well, it's certainly evident that kuvasz has his panties in a twist about North Korea having nuclear weapons -- as well he should, BTW -- and he's ready to point the blame at Bush, but not at Clinton, where the real blame lies.

I find it very interesting that leftist moonbats are on the one hand crowing about blaming Bush for NK, while appearing to be either unconcerned about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or unwilling to support a military option, opting instead -- at least in the case of Setanta -- to appease Iran to the degree of Clinton's folly with NK.

So I find my question quite germane to the more relevant question of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Clinton had a window of opportunity to use a military option against NK's nuclear weapons program, and chose instead to negotiate with NK, which was a mistake. (Now, of course this is something we learned after the fact, and I'm not taking the position that Clinton was an idiot to take the course of action he did at the time, but we were on notice, at the time, that NK might not be a country that could be trusted. And because Clinton did not insist on a good verification measure, we ended up placing a good deal amount of trust on NK to comply with its promises ... which was a mistake.) Bush should not now take military action against NK, but should take military action against Iran while there is time to do so before Iran has entered the nuclear community. Repeating Clinton's mistake with regard to NK with Iran would be foolish. And anyone willing to believe that Iran is capable of being trusted is the picture of naivete.

Wow Tico. Your statements are filled wth so much bluster but you seem to know nothing about the process by which nuclear material for atomic bombs is produced.
North Korea's "cheating" had nothing to do with its nuclear reactors. There are 2 materials used for nukes, plutonium and uranium. Plutonium is produced in a reactor. Uranium is basically refined from ore. (Perhaps you can recall the Iraq centrifuges, yellow cake, and the present Iranian ones.) Taking out a nuclear reactor does nothing about centrifuges.
If the nuke that North Korea tested was from their "cheating" then it would have been uranium and not plutonium. However.
North Korean fuel was Plutonium
No plutonium was produced for a nuclear device while the Clinton plan was in place. The fuel rods were under IAEA supervision until Bush cancelled the deal and made demands of North Korea. After Bush did that they were then taken out and the plutonium was extracted.

0 Replies

I'm A2K'ing in my cell phone right now, so I will need to reply in greater detail at a later point, but I'd be real interested, in the meantime, to hear from anyone who wants to blame Bush for NK getting nukes -- the point of this thread -- but who doesn't think it's all that big of a deal to let Iran acquire nukes (a la Set or Cyclops).

Anyone?

0 Replies

I don't blame bush for letting NK get nukes, BTW - it is inevitable sooner or later that those determined to have a thing which is in reality not that hard to produce, will get it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Since no conservative moonbat here has read my opinion on the relative merits of either the Persians or the Koreans having nukes, any conservative moonbat who claims that a preference is my position is spreading lies. Which does not surprise me, considering the nature of conservative moonbats.

0 Replies

The conservative flies home for the holidays

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm A2K'ing in my cell phone right now...

And "A2K'ing" is a euphemism for ...?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Since no conservative moonbat here has read my opinion on the relative merits of either the Persians or the Koreans having nukes, any conservative moonbat who claims that a preference is my position is spreading lies. Which does not surprise me, considering the nature of conservative moonbats.

Because of your apprehension of the US using military strikes at Iran's nuclear facilities, I previously asked you whether you would prefer Iran -- a state sponsor of islamic terrorism -- to get nukes. You refused to answer the question, as I recall. Your position with regard to Iran having nukes is this: We ought to try international diplomacy, and if that fails the US should take no further action, certainly not military action ... and it is there where we disagree. Since my position is that the US, in that eventuality, ought to make military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, rather than simply allow Iran to acquire nukes, my belief is that your position of simply allowing Iran to develop nukes is an acceptance of their ability to obtain them if they want to. I think it reasonable to infer that you would find it acceptable ("not that big a deal") to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is reasonable.

0 Replies

Stating my position without actually knowing what my position is constitutes an exercise in lying. I'm not surprised to see that. Your having asked a question does not oblige me to answer, and the more so as you attempt to control the terms of discussion--and consistently misrepresent what other people write in aid of your obsession with ridiculing the opinions of others--even when you can't say to a certainty what the opinion is. None of that surprises me.

I had thought to come here and state exactly what my position is. I'm glad i didn't, because i have not the slightest intention of playing your dull-witted and dishonest games.

0 Replies

Tico, It doesn't matter who has nukes; it matters who uses it. Nuke technology is sold to anybody willing to pay the price, and that includes al Qaida. As somebody has already mentioned, nuke technology is not all that difficult. Like everything else in science and engineering, it's a matter of trial and error - and time. "Dull-witted and dishonest" is right on target.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Since no conservative moonbat here has read my opinion on the relative merits of either the Persians or the Koreans having nukes, any conservative moonbat who claims that a preference is my position is spreading lies. Which does not surprise me, considering the nature of conservative moonbats.

Because of your apprehension of the US using military strikes at Iran's nuclear facilities, I previously asked you whether you would prefer Iran -- a state sponsor of islamic terrorism -- to get nukes. You refused to answer the question, as I recall. Your position with regard to Iran having nukes is this: We ought to try international diplomacy, and if that fails the US should take no further action, certainly not military action ... and it is there where we disagree. Since my position is that the US, in that eventuality, ought to make military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, rather than simply allow Iran to acquire nukes, my belief is that your position of simply allowing Iran to develop nukes is an acceptance of their ability to obtain them if they want to. I think it reasonable to infer that you would find it acceptable ("not that big a deal") to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is reasonable.

I feel it is appropriate to inform you of the same things that I have lately told Ican:

There is no reason to suppose that you know a whit more than anyone else about military matters, or the probable affects of doing/not doing an action. War supporters such as yourself have been proven spectacularly wrong in their presumptions and predictive abilities over the last several years.

You've displayed no special insight or information that would lead anyone to believe that your predictions carry any weight at all. You have no information whatsoever that says that Iran will be any more or less dangerous to the US with a Nuke than they are today. All you have are your assumptions and predictions, neither of which has a track record of success.

Therefore there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously when it comes to foreign policy. None. The policies you support have failed, miserably. Those who have opposed your policies have been vindicated in many different ways. Thus, if you wish for people to take you seriously in these discussions, you need to come up with a better tack then 'I'm a serious foreign policy expert who understands the serious nature of these serious threats to the US,' because that angle is pretty much shot by now.

Shorter version: you're all wet.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Stating my position without actually knowing what my position is constitutes an exercise in lying. I'm not surprised to see that. Your having asked a question does not oblige me to answer, and the more so as you attempt to control the terms of discussion--and consistently misrepresent what other people write in aid of your obsession with ridiculing the opinions of others--even when you can't say to a certainty what the opinion is. None of that surprises me.

I had thought to come here and state exactly what my position is. I'm glad i didn't, because i have not the slightest intention of playing your dull-witted and dishonest games.

I'm not surprised to see you accuse me of lying, and you do it often enough that I feel no need to address it. You are like the little boy who cried wolf ....

Sure, keep your position to yourself ... you're safer that way. Wouldn't want you to go out on a limb or anything. But you've said enough for me to make the inference I have.

0 Replies

Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know