Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith the Bush administration swirling around the drain -- get out the plunger! -- it's now time to stop hyperventilating about the "Iranian bomb." For goodness sakes, let it go!
Ever since the U.S. intelligence community concluded, in that famous National Intelligence Estimate a year ago, that Iran had halted its secret weapons program, assorted neocons and hawks have tried to continue sounding the alarm about Iran, with only limited success. With the election of Obama, now, the hawks are regrouping -- see, the formation of the bipartisan collection of hawks flocking together in United Against Nuclear Iran -- and the usual suspects at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) are venting their spleens. But it's clear that Iran isn't going to build a bomb next week, or next year, or even the year after, and that Obama will have lots and lots of time to deal with this problem in a leisurely manner. So relax.
Umm, Israelis? That means you, too.
Which brings us to the piece in the New York Times today about Iran's uranium. The story, by William Broad and David Sanger, is headlined: "Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon." Now, Broad and Sanger don't write headlines, but that one is a doozy. Here is the lede:
Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.
Note the important caveat, "with added purification." The fact is -- and the article points this out, as it meanders along -- to build a bomb Iran would (a) have to take industrial-strength uranium and spin it in those centrifuges until it reaches weapons-strength, (b) figure out how to make a bomb out of the stuff, and (c) figure out how to deliver it. And even then, it would have one bomb, and a small one at that.
How alarming is this? Not very. When and if Iran decides to super-enrich its uranium, it would have to kick out the IAEA inspectors and run all that stuff through the centrifuges, and we'd know about it. (To be clear: I'm not advocating a military attack on Iran, even if they do that. But it would be quite public what they're doing, and why they're doing it.)
Obama has said clearly and repeatedly that he will talk to Iran without preconditions, meaning that he won't insist on the bogus idea that Iran must first halt its refinement program before any talks begin. Even as it swirls down the drain, the Bush administration is still spouting that nonsense:
The White House accused Iran Wednesday of an "unfortunate and disappointing" failure to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog agency and effectively rejecting a US offer for high-level talks."The Iranian government's failure to comply with the IAEA and UN is unfortunate and disappointing," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said after the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Tehran.
"The door is open if Iran will suspend its enrichment activity, but they don't seem to want to walk through it," he said in a brief statement.
Israeli hawks are still bloviating about how ready they are to attack Iran:
Former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon, widely rumored to be weighing a run for Knesset on Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud list, said Monday that the military option for an attack on Iran still exists.
He's wrong. It doesn't exist. First, Israel doesn't have the capability to attack Iran effectively. Second, they can't get there without flying over the air space of U.S. allies and over Iraq, where they'd fly over 150,000 U.S. troops. And third, the political consequences of an Israeli attack would be devastating to Israel's standing overseas. (Example: India. Right now, nearly half of Israel's military sales abroad go to India, and India is trying to build good ties with Iran to gain access to its oil and gas, including through a pipeline across Pakistan. How would India react to an Israeli attack on Iran?)
Once in office, Obama needs to send an envoy to Jerusalem with a simple message for the Israelis: when it comes to Iran, sit down and shut up.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
kudos, mr dreyfuss.
as i've pontificated often,
a) what can we do ultimately? invade them?
b) israel has plenty of nukes, lots of folks have plenty of nukes - sure try to dissuade them, but ultimately when the possesion of nukes is the only guarantee we won't invade or attack...what is the incentive to not get some nukes?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2008 @ 10:56am
'At a recent Reuters Global Finance Summit former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead was interviewed. He was also Ronald Reagan's Deputy Secretary of State and a former chairman of the N.Y. Fed. He says America's problems will take years and will burn trillions. He sees "nothing but large increases in the deficit ... I think it would be worse than the depression. ... Before I go to sleep at night, I wonder if tomorrow is the day Moody's and S&P will announce a downgrade of U.S. government bonds." It'll get worse because "the public is not prepared to increase taxes. Both parties were for reducing taxes, reducing income to government, and both parties favored a number of new programs, all very costly and all done by the government." Reuters concludes: "Whitehead said he is speaking out on this topic because he is concerned no lawmakers are against these new spending programs and none will stand up and call for higher taxes. 'I just want to get people thinking about this, and to realize this is a road to disaster,' said Whitehead. 'I've always been a positive person and optimistic, but I don't see a solution here.'" Source: MarketWatch; Paul Farrell, 11/19
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:03am
America's credit rating may soon be downgraded below AAA Fed refusal to disclose $2 trillion loans, now the new "shadow banking system" Congress has no oversight of $700 billion, and Paulson's Wall Street Trojan Horse King Henry Paulson flip-flops on plan to buy toxic bank assets, confusing markets Goldman, Morgan lost tens of billions, but planning over $13 billion in bonuses this year AIG bails big banks out of $150 billion in credit swaps, protects shareholders before taxpayers American Express joins Goldman, Morgan as bank holding firms, looking for Fed money Treasury sneaks corporate tax credits into bailout giveaway, shifts costs to states State revenues down, taxes and debt up; hiring, spending, borrowing add even more debt State, municipal, corporate pensions lost hundreds of billions on derivative swaps Hedge funds: 610 in 1990, almost 10,000 now. Returns down 15%, liquidations up Consumer debt way up, now at $2.5 trillion; next area for credit meltdowns Fed also plans to provide billions to $3.6 trillion money-market fund industry Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are bleeding cash, want to tap taxpayer dollars Washington manipulating data: War not $600 billion but estimates actually $3 trillion Hidden costs of $700 billion bailout are likely $5 trillion; plus $1 trillion Street write-offs Commodities down, resource exporters and currencies dropping, triggering a global meltdown Big three automakers near bankruptcy; unions, workers, retirees will suffer Corporate bond market, both junk and top-rated, slumps more than 25% Retailers bankrupt: Circuit City, Sharper Image, Mervyns; mall sales in free fall Unemployment heading toward 8% plus; more 1930's photos of soup lines
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:08am
President Obama said Iran should be barred from importing gasoline. That´s a Declaration of War, the same as HR 362 and SR 580 which were shelved for now. Does Obama really want to go back to 1932 - and for no reason at all other than hysteria ?
Posted by claus at 11/20/2008 @ 11:10am
Government policy is dictated by 42,000 myopic, highly paid, greedy lobbyists China's sees GDP growth drop, crates $586 billion stimulus; deflation is now global, hitting even Dubai Despite global recession, U.S. trade deficit continues, now at $650 billion The 800-pound gorillas: Social Security, Medicare with $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities Now 46 million uninsured as medical, drug costs explode New-New Deal: U.S. planning billions for infrastructure, adding to unsustainable debt
Source: MarketWatch, Paul Farrell, 11/19
Maybe we should be asking for economic aid from Israel? More war anyone?
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:10am
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
huzzah fer aynrandian free market free for all!!!
unregulated capitalism - the only way to go!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2008 @ 11:13am
But the big shocker came from the new Treasury secretary two years before the meltdown: Bloomberg News reports that shortly after leaving Wall eet 'Goldman Sachs' CEO, Henry Paulson was at Camp David warning the president and his staff of "over-the-counter derivatives as an example of financial innovation that could, under certain circumstances, blow up in Wall Street's face and affect the whole economy." Yes, they knew. And still both Paulson, a Wall Street insider, and Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, a Princeton scholar of the Great Depression, stayed trapped in denial and kept happy-talking the public for months after the meltdown began in mid-2007. Get it? While they could have put the brakes on this meltdown years ago, our leaders were prisoners of their distorted, inflexible views of conservative Reaganomics ideology.' MarketWatch, Paul Farrell,11/19
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:16am
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:10am
"More war anyone?"
Yet this abject dunderhead acts as though none of what you detail above has any relevance whatsoever to his conduct of foreign policy. And now Hitlery Clinton as Secretary of State? It just gets worse by the day. We now see the perverse side of the Faustian bargain one willingly strikes with the American Likudists: Ownership.
Posted by john lowell at 11/20/2008 @ 11:18am
Now when you are financing two wars with Treasury debt, facing the economic realities of an impending collaspe just doesn't play well with neocon foreign policy advocates. Treasonous!
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 11:18am
Ya know, I think the neo-cons (on Iran) KNOW where they stand.
They never lay out any SPECIFIC plans, ever notice that? Just "keep all options on the table"?
Okay, so what does THAT mean, Bill Kristol? DO you favor a US attack on Iran...or support for an Israeli one? If so...why not just say it?
The reason?...because they know they have no support for another war and would get laughed off the stage.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:48am
notsofast with social security. social security has been running at a huge surplus, what with the baby boomers having entered their highest earning years. that surplus and the fund in general have been raided by successive administrations to fund current expenses. they have filled the fund with gov't IOUs. even Clinton's famous surplus would not have been one without the raided social security money. remember the lock box? those IOUs by the way are full tender backed by the USA, just like the gov't bonds it issues.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 12:01pm
don't get hysterical about a possible Iranian nuke. Pakistan has had one for years, and Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 12:03pm
The reason?...because they know they have no support for another war and would get laughed off the stage.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:48am
Dead on Mask. There are two reasons I can think of that they put this hysteria out there. One is to get their base all agitated and back in line.
The other is to keep pressure on Obama as weak on defense in hopes that he'll overcompensate to prove he's manly like the neocons. Being manly means feeding the military industrial complex it's red meat.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 12:05pm
don't get hysterical about a possible Iranian nuke. Pakistan has had one for years, and Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 12:03pm
Not to mention the loose nukes from the old Soviet Union.
Actually, the two nations that scare me the most with nuclear weapons are Israel and the United States. The USAF had nuclear bombs flying across the CONUS by accident!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 12:14pm
Yet this abject dunderhead acts as though none of what you detail above has any relevance whatsoever to his conduct of foreign policy. And now Hitlery Clinton as Secretary of State? It just gets worse by the day. We now see the perverse side of the Faustian bargain one willingly strikes with the American Likudists: Ownership.
Posted by john lowell at 11/20/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person
The "Matrix" is Real.
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 12:21pm
unregulated capitalism - the only way to go!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
"Rockafella style"
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 12:26pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 12:05pm
But their lack of specificity is quite revealing. Same for the bloggers...we'll get SJCHER, PONTI, etc. spouting Limbaugh talking points all day long on Iran.
But ask them "So, you think we should immediately bomb it?"....half say "Yes" and then have to explain away various Pentagon assessments showing how it would involve a series of massive sorties that would make the air war over Europe in the 40s look like a lone Tomahawk strike...
the other half clam up and say "I'm just saying we should keep all options open" and then feign ignorance as to what that REALLY means, because (like the Kristols, Cheneys, etc.) they know there is NO public support for such an action...even before Obama was elected.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 12:55pm
Fear is the goal here. Fear is a great political tool. Don't buy in.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 12:57pm
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration...
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 2:17pm
Don't confuse astonishment with fear Mask.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 2:51pm
I guess the left's plan for getting the Iranians to eliminate their nukes is to get them to use them. For the left, this would be good and rid the world of Isreal as a bonus. There will probably be a special place in hell for people like you - only time will tell. As for Isreal, they will probably have only one option. Roll the dice and let fate play it's hand.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what the f*** are you talking about?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 3:12pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 3:12pm
He doesn't have even the slightest clue.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/20/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 3:02pm
What strategery do you favor exactly?
Posted by Benchrest at 11/20/2008 @ 3:28pm
pyeatte-Your post made less than no sense and sounded like moronic far right wing paranoid hysteria.It's unlikely that Iran will nuke the dome of the rock and other muslim holy sites in Israel and Israel has more than enough nukes to respond by destroying Iran, as would we.Why would Iran use it's nukes to destroy itself?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/20/2008 @ 3:36pm
Unlike conventional bombs or missiles, Nuclear weapons are weapons of uncontrolled mass destruction. A nuclear attack on Israel would mean the destruction of the Palestinians, and parts, if not all of her neighboring Arab states. Syria has no use for nuclear weapons for an attack on Israel, because it would suffer suicidal collateral damage in such an attack. The same could be said for any of the Arab states. No Islamic country would risk the lives of the Palestinians, the Arab states, or destroy the holy city of Jerusalem using nuclear weapons. Similarly, a nuclear attack on Iran would cause collateral damage in neighboring countries. When you hit nuclear power plants, any number of Chernobyls will be created spewing radioactive fallout around the world, including Israel. Israel, the rest of the Middle East, or the world cannot afford any exchange of nuclear in the Middle East or anywhere!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/20/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 3:02pm
Thank you pye....for proving my point-
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 3:45pm
For countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc. nuclear weapons are basically insurance. Insurance that no one will invade.
For example, if Saddam actually had nuclear weapons, he would have rigged them to his oil fields and promptly told W and company that if his country was over run, he'd destroy the oil fields and there would be no black gold for Exxon, BP, and the others.
Think about it. If you are going to lose your country and die in the process, why hand all of the wealth of your country over to the nation attacking you. Fry them with a nuke and destroy anything and everything they were trying to take in the first place.....like I said, quite a deterent.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 3:49pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 3:02pm
If I may borrow from emile to respond to pyeatte...
whattaloadofcrap!
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 3:54pm
like I said, quite a deterent.
Sorry, should be spelled deterrent.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 3:55pm
What strategery do you favor exactly?
Posted by Benchrest at 11/20/2008 @ 3:28pm
The kill the anything that isn't Isreeeeeal (Israel) strategery. Them there Muslims folks are evil and them there Palestinians should fry in hell for existing right along with any leftist bleeding heart librols who voted for that black guy. Those left wingnuts have turned the U.S. into Saddam and Gonhorrea (Soddom and Gohmorrah)! LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 4:05pm
All I can say is thank God we never got John McCain as our new President...he would already be lining up the fighter planes and bombers ready for action on 21st Jan!!!! Remember his little "unfunny joke" ...bomb bomb bomb Iran and that is about the measure of his thinking. President Obama will do the right thing as he said, talking if necessary...we don't need this constant saber rattling anymore. Of course if there is no other option after serious discussions then I'm sure military action may follow....only as a last resort I'm sure and not like Iraq....bomb first and ask questions later!!!
Posted by Caj at 11/20/2008 @ 4:37pm
I think everyone would agree that nuclear weapons are insane. They are weapons that are not designed to actually be used. But used as a threat to act as a deterrent. They are the very real manifestation of evils released from "Pandora's Box".
In legend the only thing left in the box after it was opened by Pandora was Hope.
With all the loose nukes floating around and the careless handling by governments of these terrible weapons it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs. And the unplanned or planned detonation of a nuclear bomb takes place.
With all the suspicion and unrest in the world it is not inconceivable that this would lead to a worldwide holocaust. It's a good thing that at least Hope remains in the box.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/20/2008 @ 6:06pm
I love how it is always made to sound like that once you get some uranium a bomb will fabricate itself. You can't build a nuclear weapon out of gum, bailing wire, duct tape and weapons grade uranium. Even if you get the bomb you have to then find a reliable delivery system. The Iranians don't have one. What are they going to do, pick it up and throw it at us?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:35pm
Good point CC. But the real point of this all, as you know, is to get us afraid. I'm glad to see you're not buying it.
Plenty of people are saying that Iran could give it to terrorists! They'd bring it in to the US in a shipping container! Yeah, that's it! We need to act!
But make no mistake, there is great value to that fear, even to an Obama Administration.
It is funny what a frightened people will let its government get away with. I think TARP is the most recent example... Certainly not the last.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:57pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:57pm
Fear is how the government gains power. If people aren't afraid they start asking questions. It's how Bush got reelected. He'd made sure to infuse in everyone that if he wasn't elected terrorists were going to steal your babies in the night. People never stop to think that in the US you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice than you do of getting killed or even injured in a terrorist attack. I think we should be more afraid of lightning than terrorists. I propose nuking the sky to protect Americans.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/20/2008 @ 7:04pm
"With all the loose nukes floating around and the careless handling by governments of these terrible weapons it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs. And the unplanned or planned detonation of a nuclear bomb takes place."
Well, Chaoszen, as you know, it has already happened. Twice against population centers. Our government ordered it. The lesson? Unparalleled global prosperity for the financial elite and over a half century of world domination for the US dollar.
Golly, I wonder if any of our current crop of global leaders ever think about that?...
You see, Chaoszen, you are moral. Therefore unqualified for power.
"There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." --Edmund Burke
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 7:13pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:35pm |
Another thing that many fail to realize is that even after a nuke is constructed it must be tested. Usually more than once. At that point everyone knows whats up. And after that you have to make numerous tests with a delivery system.
The Iranians are years away from that. I worry more about loose nukes and careless handling.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/20/2008 @ 7:16pm
No CC, nuking the sky to protect us from lightning would lead to ever greater threats of the other boogyman invented to dominate us through fear and increase government's role in our daily lives - GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 7:23pm
Doesn't anyone here think it is odd that NOT ONE story in The Nation has discussed the merits of Hillary as Secretary of State?
The most important cabinet pick but not a peep out of The Nation.
What's REALLY going on, ROBERT DREYFUSS?
Posted by Metteyya at 11/20/2008 @ 7:42pm
Um, what are the merits of picking Hillary again? I've seemed to have forgotten...
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2008 @ 8:06pm
It's a dumb idea on a number of levels, one of which may in fact be unconstitutionality. Apparently, you can't be put into an office that you also were involved in salary raises for; Clinton, as a Senator, voted for cabinet salary increases. This may not end up posing an obstacle, but I've got to imagine that even then, the million practical reasons why this is dumb would.
I have to admit, though, I'm surprised Metteya's not upset about information being leaked.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/20/2008 @ 9:19pm
These fear comments are spot-on!
Iraq has WMD! scare scare
Iran is building nukes! scare scare
Wallstreet has to have 700 billion NOW! scare scare
Detroit has to have 25 billion NOW!! scare scare
fuck 'em all
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/20/2008 @ 10:06pm
Today, United Against a Nuclear Iran was using the New York Times article you cite selectively to put its members in panic mode about the impending danger from Iran. Read more about it here: http://www.groundswellonline.org
Posted by Becca240 at 11/20/2008 @ 10:38pm
I hope to party in Tehran after we work things out ---
Posted by winyahn at 11/20/2008 @ 11:25pm
Plenty of people are saying that Iran could give it to terrorists! They'd bring it in to the US in a shipping container! Yeah, that's it! We need to act!
Posted by freiheit1
Exactly! They will address that container to Wal-Mart (because Wal-Mart opposes searching such containers; too time consuming.) And...
So, if you are in your local Wal-Mart, in the clock aisle, and see a large thermonuclear device, you should probably call the Air Force. Or, at least tell the store manager.
Posted by koroviev at 11/21/2008 @ 01:36am
Or, at least tell the store manager. Posted by koroviev at 11/21/2008 @ 01:36am
They don't get paid well. Probably set it off out of spite.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 02:07am
Dreyfuss says:
>>> Iran isn't going to build a bomb next week, or next year, or even the year after ... So relax. Umm, Israelis? That means you, too. <<<
Iran's leadership has promised to wipe Israel off the map, and declared a willingness to accept the loss of millions of its own people, yet this Nation sage tells Israel to relax.
In 1947 Western intelligence estimated the Soviets were a decade away from the bomb. They had it in '49. To our amazement, in the summer of 1953 the Soviets set off a deliverable thermonuclear device. It took us until 1954 to have a working H bomb. China had an A bomb by 1964, years before CIA projections. Our intelligence failed to anticipate the Israeli, Indian or Pakistani nuclear programs, and was blindsided by NKorea. When Lybia came clean in 2003 an advance and entirely unsuspected nuclear weapon program was revealed.
In 1980 the IAEA gave Saddam's nuclear program a clean bill of health. A highly advanced nuclear weapons program was only revealed afte rthe first Gulf War and after screwballs like Dreyfuss castigated Israel for destorying the Osirak installation.
In 1995 Saddam's son in law revealed that the IAEA claim of 1993, that the Iraqis never touched, let alone, tried to build a bomb from safeguarded HE uranium, was false. Hans Blix admitted: "Saddam had us fooled."
But a pinhead like Dreyfuss tells Israel, not to worry because our NIE said, Iran shelved its nuclear weapon program in 2003. The previous year, incidentally, the Pakistani proliferator, Khan sold several countries an efficient A bomb design.
The irresponsibility, ignorance and downright stupidity of this twisted jerk is mind boggling.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 02:35am
(Not Lybia, Libya. )
Dreyfuss has the impudence to say, IDF generals, "bloviate" about a non-existing ability to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
If IDF generals are not known for anything, it is not for boasting but for achieving what no one thought possible.
He has no idea of the possibilities for crippling an extensive nuclear infrastructure.
He takes US control of Iraqi airspace as a hindrance rather than an advantage to an Israeli overflight. He is ignorant of the possibility of an Israeli attack launched from the Caucasus. He thinks, the chance of offending India, would keep Israel from responding to an existential threat.
I don't know if Dreyfuss is a twitching teenager with purple hair, or a senile geezer, but he is beyond doubt fully up to The Nation's standards.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 02:47am
Or, at least tell the store manager. Posted by koroviev at 11/21/2008 @ 01:36am
They don't get paid well. Probably set it off out of spite.
Posted by Cccomfo1
Just don't ask the floor person how the alarm works on this model.
Posted by koroviev at 11/21/2008 @ 05:01am
I don't know if Dreyfuss is a twitching teenager with purple hair, or a senile geezer, but he is beyond doubt fully up to The Nation's standards.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 02:47am
Since you believe the Nation to have no standards, and those posting here to be left wing nuts not beholden to Israel, why do you post here? Nobody buys into your B.S. anyway.
Are you and Pyeatte one and the same? I don't see much difference in your posts.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 06:59am
I just got back in town and see that the layout for the nation has changed. Can anyone tell me why the page appears as a column in the center of my screen and will not allow me to widden it. Also, does everyone like a grey background, I hat it!
Posted by Truthman at 11/21/2008 @ 07:45am
Forgive me for what I know is about to be an obnoxious comment, but...I was under the impression that one confronted an argument (all of the nuclear stuff) by answering it rather than attempting to mock it into nonexistence. After all, the worse the argument is, the easier it should be to beat. Conversely, the better it is, the more its opponents may find themselves compelled to mock it rather than actually engaging it.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:49am
Radical Islam has never been known for their moderation. The grand president of Iran has stated clearly that he would sacrifice half of his population for the destruction of Isreal. Until you live in the target area of a fanatic, you have no clue.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:06am
pyeatte-He would have to sacrifice all of Irans population in order to destroy Israel and would have to destroy most muslim holy sites,millions of muslims,,also and would destroy most of the middle east.Use reason and logic rather than just fear and stop listening to right wing propaganda.Lots of world leaders like to talk tough,but he does not have much power in Iran.The mullahs have the power..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/21/2008 @ 11:27am
Until you live in the target area of a fanatic, you have no clue.-----Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:06am
Living with a nutty President who keeps threatening to bomb a Middle Eastern country with no regard for his people's wishes?
Nawww....I can't imagine that at ALL!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:50am
Living with a nutty President who keeps threatening to bomb a Middle Eastern country with no regard for his people's wishes?
Nawww....I can't imagine that at ALL!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:50am
Ditto!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:17pm
Forgive me for what I know is about to be an obnoxious comment, but...I was under the impression that one confronted an argument (all of the nuclear stuff) by answering it rather than attempting to mock it into nonexistence. After all, the worse the argument is, the easier it should be to beat. Conversely, the better it is, the more its opponents may find themselves compelled to mock it rather than actually engaging it. Posted by Thrawn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:49am
I mock it because it's a ridiculous argument to begin with. It's more fear-mongering, propaganda and attempts to control people through fear. Iran does not have a nuclear device. The NIE point to them not even attempting to get one. Then on top of that Bush Co. and the rest of the right make it sound as if you can build a working thermonuclear device in secret. If Iran seriously wanted a nuke they would have just bought of one of the many that are "misplaced" around the world. They aren't going to make a bomb anytime soon and if they do we will know about it long before it is useable so what is the point of being afraid?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:21pm
Thrawn / CCC -- Both points are valid... The whole of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, I would suggest, involved way too much of BushCo/MSM establishing the "once upon a time", the beginning of the narrative and thereby boxing in the Dems. To respond rationally is sometimes one in the same with allowing the idiot's to establish the message.
Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 1:32pm
BTW...
"In 1980 the IAEA gave Saddam's nuclear program a clean bill of health. A highly advanced nuclear weapons program was only revealed afte rthe first Gulf War and after screwballs like Dreyfuss castigated Israel for destorying the Osirak installation."----Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 02:35am
Hugo, what year was that picture taken of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by winyahn at 11/20/2008 @ 11:25pm
Not much of a party town last time I was there. I wasn't in Tehran more than forty five minutes when I witnessed a guy get stabbed and robbed on the street by 3 robbers. They killed him and then picked his pockets.
In any case thats not the way I roll when it comes to a party..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/21/2008 @ 1:45pm
i'm nobody: While the Mullahs have the real power in Iran, there is a reflection in the President of Iran. These are not statements by the so called "right wing", these are public pronouncements, and while we can sit back and pontificate about how safe we are and how they would never do such a thing, Israel cannot afford that luxury. Something IS going to give.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 1:57pm
Dreyfuss' article is asinine. Did he ever stop to think that Iran may have halted its secret weapons program due, in large part, to the tough talk coming out of Washington and Israel?
Also, there are a lot of very sophmoric posts on this board, especially those of you who contend that Iran would never drop a nuclear bomb on Israel because (a) that would also kill Palestinians and destroy Muslim churches, and (b) Iran would get decimated by Israel in a nuclear war.
The first part is just plain stupid. Muslim terrorists have REPEATEDLY shown that, in killing Jews, they are not afraid to die and they don't care about collateral damage to other Muslims or Muslim churches. As for the second part, many Muslims probably wouldn't care about retaliation because they would believe they died as martyrs. In fact, Iran might believe that it can escape retaliation if they secretly give the bomb to a terrorist group and the attack is not traced back to them.
When Iran talks about wiping Israel off the planet while, at the same time, it is moving forward with plans to build a nuclear weapon, then it is just stupid for people like Dreyfuss to tell America and Israel to "shut up." The world (not just America and Israel) have a duty to step forward and tell Iran to stop what it is doing and, if not, Iran will be stopped BEFORE Israel gets hit, not afterwards.
Posted by GBGB at 11/21/2008 @ 2:23pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:21pm </i>
I think part of Hugo's point is that this ISN'T a perfectly reliable standard. Repeatedly, we've believed that a power was years away from a nuke, only to find that..surprise! they got it yesterday. That kind of indeterminacy, though I wouldn't even come close to saying it justifies any war with Iran (a terrible proposition on multiple levels), shouldn't be ignored. We can't blithely assume we'll know as soon as they get one; that uncertainty has to be figured into our policy analysis.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/21/2008 @ 2:29pm
When Iran talks about wiping Israel off the planet while, at the same time, it is moving forward with plans to build a nuclear weapon, then it is just stupid for people like Dreyfuss to tell America and Israel to "shut up." The world (not just America and Israel) have a duty to step forward and tell Iran to stop what it is doing and, if not, Iran will be stopped BEFORE Israel gets hit, not afterwards.
Posted by GBGB at 11/21/2008 @ 2:23pm
Since you are so consumed by protecting Israel, perhaps I have a solution for the problem.
The Palestinians were moved out of their homes and land to make way for the new Israel, then perhaps you wouldn't mind if the displaced Palestinians moved into your hometown and state.
The most recent Israeli settlers, about 25% of them Russian Jews from the former Soviet Union, are the new cheap labor in Israel and now Israel has no need for Palestinian labor anymore. People like you want to kick the Mexicans and hispanics out of the U.S. so we'll need cheap labor to keep your ever popular crooked corporate businesses hiring illegal immigrants so as not to have to pay minimum wage, social security, workman's comp, or any benefits.
The Palestinians would be ideal for such a venture. Not only could right wingers make a buck off their misery, but they could also screw over Muslims at the same time which is like getting to have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by GBGB at 11/21/2008 @ 2:23pm
Actually Wolf, I'd like to try something simpler (and prove again a theory of mine)....
GBGB, tell us SPECIFICALLY what we should do about "Iranian nukes"? Including "If A fails, then B, if B fails, then C, etc."
(My bet? He'll get no farther than "B")
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 3:26pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 2:40pm
I know you were being sarcastic but...i dunno...not a half bad idea.
With the Palestinians employed here, we won't need to defend Israel anymore.
With the Mexicans back in Mexico, we won't need NAFTA anymore. They can have their farms and economy back.
Sounds like a win/win for everybody.
Except Russia, where would they get their "mexicans" from? Hey! that'd make the right wingers happy too!
Maybe your really aren't a smart ass, but a political genius.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/21/2008 @ 3:28pm
when we hear fear mongering from the mis=administration, we must place it in the context of non-existent WMD in Iraq. maybe we won't be fooled again.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:13pm
Wolfgang1 at 06:59am said:
<< Since you believe the Nation to have no standards, and those posting here to be left wing nuts not beholden to Israel, why do you post here? >>
It is not that The Nation disowns standards like consistent reasoning and respect for the facts. It is rather, that even as it thumps its chest as a paragon of logic and honesty, its arguments are dishonest and unreasonable. Like this Dreyfuss, it takes the side of people who espouse genocide. And nothing underlines that better than the trail of posters who swirl in these fora.
You, Herr Wolfgang, are an example of the local slimeballs for whom the euphemism, "not beholden to Israel" maks a visceral Jew hate. Because you are "not beholden to Israel", you again and again side with those, be Iran's mullahs, the PLO or Hamas, who openly vow to erase a nation of Jews.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 4:19pm
Mask at 1:43pm asked:
<<< Hugo, what year was that picture taken of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? >>>
In November 1984 Washington and Baghdad resumed diplomatic relations. Donald Rumsfeld negotiated that resumption. He was the first US official to visit Iraq since 1967 when relations were broken.
Now you tell me the relevance of your question.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 4:24pm
I think part of Hugo's point is that this ISN'T a perfectly reliable standard. Repeatedly, we've believed that a power was years away from a nuke, only to find that..surprise! they got it yesterday. That kind of indeterminacy, though I wouldn't even come close to saying it justifies any war with Iran (a terrible proposition on multiple levels), shouldn't be ignored. We can't blithely assume we'll know as soon as they get one; that uncertainty has to be figured into our policy analysis. Posted by Thrawn at 11/21/2008 @ 2:29pm
Absolutely. But that is the difference between the position of the left and right on this issue. The left believes we should talk and monitor them. The right wants to go to war over what is at this current time a non-threat and make our country look like fools again when we scream about nukes and then end up finding nothing. Does this country need to be made the fool once again just to prove that the NIE was right in the first place? Why do we have intelligence services if we are going to throw their intelligence out the window?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
As everybody knows from my postings here, I am no fan of Barack Obama and the liberalism that is to come.
Having said that, however, I noted the following posting by John Lowell, up above, in a comment he made where he was slamming Barack Obama:
" I'd turn down any such "talks" until Stephin Fetchit can set aside the Mussolini - or is it Bush - imitation and behave with humility appropriate to the situation. Posted by john lowell at 11/20/2008 @ 11:05am "
Uh, John Lowell, has anybody ever pointed out to you that you are an absolute racist scumbag? You are a piece of filth. Go take a nap in a pile of horse manure, it will make the horse manure look better.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/21/2008 @ 4:52pm
In November 1984 Washington and Baghdad resumed diplomatic relations. Donald Rumsfeld negotiated that resumption. He was the first US official to visit Iraq since 1967 when relations were broken. Now you tell me the relevance of your question. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/21/2008 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[34] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[35][36] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.
that answer your question?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:09pm
They aren't going to make a bomb anytime soon and if they do we will know about it long before it is useable so what is the point of being afraid?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:21pm
Because that's how the fear-mongerers make their money.
Oh, plus a lot of this is just cold war blowback. Some of these people have lived their entire lives scared of nuclear bombs. This time it's just a different country.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/22/2008 @ 12:23am
They aren't going to make a bomb anytime soon and if they do we will know about it long before it is useable so what is the point of being afraid?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:21pm
Because that's how the fear-mongerers make their money.
Oh, plus a lot of this is just cold war blowback. Some of these people have lived their entire lives scared of nuclear bombs. This time it's just a different country.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/22/2008 @ 12:29am
emile duBois @ 5:09pm
Your presumptuous post, on behalf of Mask, twist the facts, and is moreover a non sequitur. It is not a reply to my question to him.
In any event I think I already told you to include me out. You don't even interest me even as a specimen. Save you amentia for the inmates on your ward and your clinician. Should I want you I'll rattle your cage.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/22/2008 @ 02:10am
A couple points:
1) Iranian president Ahmadinejad does not have the authority to start a war. He is not "Commander in Chief" of the Iranian military, nor does he even have the power to appoint his own cabinet. The "madman" theory of a reckless Iran simply does not hold up. In fact, Iran has not invaded another country unprovoked for something like 250 years.
2) In fact what Ahmadinejad said about Israel was that it would "disappear from the page of History" -- and he was quoting a speech made in the 1980s by Khomeini. This is just politics and rhetoric; it is not the overt threat of military action that many people have chosen to view it as. Under normal circumstances, Iranians have a tendency to be long on talk and short on action.
3) Nobody in the US intelligence establishment actually believes that Iran even had a serious nuclear weapons program *prior* to the 2003 date listed in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. There is no good evidence that an Iranian nuclear weapons program existed even at that time, but because US intel people don't like to stab each other in the back over past mistakes, the supposition of an earlier weapons program was left in the 2007 NIE because it had appeared in an earlier NIE. The 2007 NIE was a preemptive effort by the US intel establishment to put the brakes on a US-led attack on Iran, since they realized that the effect of such an attack would be disastrous for the US, and they didn't want to take the blame for it.
4) It will probably come as a surprise to some that most Iranians have no problem with Israel, and don't believe that Iran should be engaged on the Palestinian issue. Most Iranians' dislike toward Arabs in general far outweighs their dislike for Israel. It's a historical thing.
Posted by jblong at 11/22/2008 @ 05:49am
Our antagonism towards Iran serves Israels' interests, not ours.
It would bother me not at all for Iran to develop nuclear power. They will run out of oil at some point and they have every right to choose nuclear. As to Iran developing nuclear weapons, it's not happening any time soon, I think. But even if they did, at least then there would be some degree of deterrence to Israel. And isn't that much needed in th Middle East?
Posted by BYork at 11/22/2008 @ 09:23am
"..Second, (Israel) can't get (to Iran) without flying over the air space of U.S. allies and over Iraq, where they'd fly over 150,000 U.S. troops".
You're conveniently forgetting about the air spaces in Georgia that Russia destroyed after Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Those air spaces were planned to be used by Israel to reach Iran. It could not send missiles from Tel Aviv (too far) and these air spaces negated flying over Iraq.In return, Israel had conveniently armed Georgia to the hilt and promised (with fingers crossed) to help it if Russia responded to Georgia's assault by attacking Georgia.Israel is terrified of Russia ONLY. No one else. And Russian intelligence outsmarted the Israelis becxause they knew about the secret air spaces. That's good. You don't mess with Russia. Is McCain listening? One minute after Russia attacked IN RESPONSE to Georgia's outrageous attack, McCain launched his "October" Surprise which backfired and allowed Obama to win. Hard cheese, McCain, and hard cheese, Israel.Remember the USS Liberty in 1967 everyone? Admiral McCain participated in its cover up.
Posted by mystic at 11/22/2008 @ 10:52pm
Former Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter stated that Iran NEVER had a nuclear weapons program!
Posted by rebel1 at 11/23/2008 @ 06:38am
rebel1,
UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans By Con Coughlin Last Updated: 12:35AM GMT 19 Jan 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/worldnews/northamerica /usa/1419364/UN-inspectors -uncover-proof-of-Saddams -nuclear-bomb-plans.html
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2008 @ 8:05pm
BYork,
You say deterrence to Israel is much needed in the Middle East.
?????
Israel is surrounded by enemies that want it destroyed. They have never given up on this goal, they have never conceded one inch of that goal.
They have no intention of doing so. So far, no outside force, including even the U.S. has been successful in encouraging them or forcing them to do so.
When the president of Iran, who is proclaimed above to not be in charge, and who made statements that are proclaimed above to be just rhetoric, made incendiary statements about Israel at the United Nation, he was applauded by an audience that hates Israel.
So just why exactly is deterrence to Israel needed???
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2008 @ 8:11pm