Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt isn't clear why, exactly, the United States and its allies revealed today what they know about a secret uranium enrichment facility in Iran. The New York Times, which broke the story, says:
"American officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to disclose the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the complex."
What "Western intelligence agencies" did to breach the secrecy isn't stated. But the revelation is devastating for Iran, guaranteed to raise suspicions about Iran's intentions, inflame the passions of bomb-Iran hawks, and vastly complicate the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 world powers scheduled to start on October 1.
Iran has informed the IAEA about the new facility, into which, the IAEA says, no nuclear material has yet been introduced, i.e., the site is not operational. Of course, it isn't surprising that Iran might build a hardened facility more impervious to military attack, given the drumbeat of warnings that the US and/or Israel might launch an assault on Iran's scattered nuclear installations. But the existence of the previously unreported facility, combined with Iran's apparent efforts to conceal it from the IAEA and the world community, will only add heft to charges that Iran is covertly seeking a military nuclear capability, i.e., an A-bomb.
That latter possibility is at the center of the new revelations, since it suggests that Iran might be seeking to construct a facility in which it could secretly enrich its low-enriched, fuel-grade uranium into high-enriched, weapons-grade material.
According to the Times, the facility is built into a mountainside near Qom, Iran's religious capital, and is designed to handle 3,000 centrifuges, i.e., about half of what Iran already has installed in its Natanz site. Worryingly, Obama said, without elaborating:
"The size and type of the facility is inconsistent with that of a peaceful facility."
Presumably, though it isn't known, Obama and the Western allies briefed the Russians and the Chinese about the secret facility, as part of their effort to win support for a unified position on Iran that might include a new round of UN Security Council sanctions if the talks don't make progress. French President Sarkozy has warned explicitly that Iran must face new sanctions by December.
The Russians have been dropping hints since last week that they'd be willing to consider new sanctions on Iran. So far, that message has been conveyed by President Medvedev, though (as Fox News reports) it hasn't been echoed by Vladimir Putin yet. It's been widely reported since last winter that Obama and the Russians had discussed an off-the-record quid pro quo: cancellation of the missile defense system in eastern Europe in exchange for Moscow's support on Iran.
Speaking to students in Pittsburgh, Medvedev said:
"I don't consider sanctions the best way to achieve results on Iran ... but all the same, if all possibilities to influence the situation are exhausted, then we can use international sanctions."
Still, analysts tell The Dreyfuss Report that while Russia and China might go along with another round of sanctions, it's extremely unlikely that they'd accede to draconian measures such as a prohibition on gasoline and refined petroleum products to Iran. Instead, they say, Moscow and Beijing would only accept far more moderate and targeted sanctions aimed specifically at Tehran's nuclear industry.
Gordon Brown, at Obama's side in Pittsburgh, said:
"The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."
Expect the pressure on Iran from hawks, neocons, and Israeli hardliners to ratchet up to the highest level now. Perhaps, hardliners in Iran -- above all, President Ahmadinejad -- are counting on exactly that to strengthen their position at home, still challenged by reformists, oppositionists, pragmatists, and many leading members of the clergy. Why else would Ahmadinejad reiterate his outrageous Holocaust-is-a-myth rhetoric on the very eve of his UN visit, if not to raise tension levels? And Bibi Netanyahu, his opposite number, responded in typical knee-jerk fashion, waving a copy of the German plans for Auschwitz's crematoria and gas chambers during his UN speech, adding that Iran represents the "marriage of religious fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction." And he said:
"The most urgent challenge facing this body today is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
FOR FURTHER READING Here's a partial text of a background briefing by "senior administration officials" on the secret Iranian facility:
It was evident to everybody, both the United States and our allies, that if the Iranians wanted to pursue a nuclear weapons option the use of the Natanz facility was a very unattractive approach; because the IAEA inspectors were there, it would be noticed if Iran tried to produce weapons-grade uranium at that facility, or if they expelled the IAEA inspectors, everybody would assume that they were converting the facility to produce weapons-grade uranium.So the obvious option for Iran would be to build another secret underground enrichment facility, and our intelligence services, working in very close cooperation with our allies, for the past several years have been looking for such a facility. And not surprisingly, we found one. So we have known for some time now that Iran was building a second underground enrichment facility. And as the President mentioned this morning, it's located near the city of Qom, a very heavily protected, very heavily disguised facility. We believe that it's not yet operational. We think it's most likely at least a few months, perhaps more, from having all of the centrifuges installed and being capable of operating if the Iranians made a decision to begin operating it.
Our information is that the facility is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuge machines. Now, that's not a large enough number to make any sense from a commercial standpoint. It cannot produce a significant quantity of low-enriched uranium. But if you want to use the facility in order to produce a small amount of weapons-grade uranium, enough for a bomb or two a year, it's the right size. And our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.
Now, as I said, we've been aware of this facility for several years; we've been watching the construction, we've been building up a case so that we were sure that we had very strong evidence, irrefutable evidence, that the intent of this facility was as an enrichment plant. We also learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised. So they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid. ...
Fairly recently -- and recognizing that they might then choose to disclose the facility themselves, we worked with our allies -- the U.K. and the French -- to put together a briefing, an extraordinarily detailed briefing, for the IAEA, because we anticipated that we would need to provide that briefing to the agency so that they would be able to conduct a proper investigation -- not just of the facility itself, but of the support facilities that are producing materials and equipment for this facility, what the Iranian decision-making process and intent was to build this facility. ...
Now, earlier this week, as President Obama said, we learned that Iran sent a letter to the IAEA which in very vague terms disclosed that Iran was constructing a "pilot-scale enrichment plant" designed to produce 5 percent enriched uranium, and that the Iranians would provide additional information in the future as appropriate. Well, based on that letter, we felt it was important that we proceed quickly to brief the IAEA so that they can conduct an adequate investigation. And as the President said, we carried out that briefing in Vienna yesterday. And the IAEA, I'm happy to say, is following up very vigorously. You can ask them, of course, but my understanding is that they're seeking access to this facility as soon as possible. And no doubt they will be reporting to the Board of Governors on the results of their investigations.
Now, we think, as the President said, this is another example, if we needed one, to remind us that the history of Iran's program is very disturbing. The Security Council -- several Security Council resolutions since 2006 has demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related activities. This program is obviously a violation of that -- of those Security Council resolutions.
The safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA requires Iran to declare nuclear facilities as soon as they begin construction. Now, in March of 2007, Iran unilaterally said it did not feel bound by that element of its safeguards agreement. And we know construction of the facility began even before the Iranians unilaterally said that they did not feel bound by that obligation.
So clearly this is inconsistent, in my view; obviously a violation of their safeguards agreement. The IAEA will obviously be investigating that and making a report to the Board of Governors as they pursue their investigation.
One last thing I want to say. This was very sensitive intelligence information. But nonetheless, in order to build a coalition with the P5-plus-1, we are taking the extraordinary step of sharing as much of the information as we can with the other countries that are part of this group -- the Russians, the Chinese, and the Germans. And they are studying that information. We'll be engaging with them. I think that it will benefit our diplomatic efforts to once again reveal that Iran is carrying out nuclear activities in secret in violation of their international obligations.
And I think you've seen that our strategy has already begun to bear fruit. As you all know, in the meeting earlier this week between President Obama and President Medvedev, President Medvedev talked about the possibility of needing to use sanctions if diplomacy failed. President Obama and President Hu also had extensive discussions on the question of how to deal with Iran, and obviously the October 1st meeting of the P5-plus-1 in Iran is going to be a critical test of Iran's intention. ...
I'm just going to mention a few things about the diplomatic track. As I'm sure most of you know, in April of this year, the P5 countries, the permanent members of the Security Council, and Germany, met in London to address the diplomatic track. They reaffirmed the proposal that's been on the table for quite a while since June 2008, and they called on Iran to begin engagement, to begin direct negotiations.
There was a lot of support for the policies of the new Obama administration for having a tough, direct dialogue with Iran. So this offer was made repeatedly. The Iranians refused to meet, refused to accept this offer. The President has been making clear for quite some time that it's important for the international community to take stock of the situation, and he specifically talked about September and the beginning of the U.N. General Assembly when world leaders would be coming together to evaluate Iran's seriousness in addressing the concerns of the international community. I think Iran was feeling the pressure that was being put on them, and they agreed to hold a meeting of the P5-plus-1 countries on October 1st in Geneva.
This is going to be a critical opportunity for Iran to demonstrate that it's willing to address the very serious concerns that have been raised about its intentions in the nuclear area.
I think all P5-plus-1 countries are united. Two days ago in New York, foreign ministers of those countries issued a strong statement. They demonstrated that they are unified. They reaffirmed what we call a dual-track policy, engagement on the one hand but pressure and sanctions if Iran does not negotiate seriously.
So October 1st will be a serious test of Iran's willingness to address these concerns, and as a result of the initiative taken today to reveal this previously undisclosed site, this matter will be on the agenda of October 1st. Iran will be pressed to cooperate with the IAEA's investigation of this very disturbing situation.
We hope that there will be tangible progress. But it's up to Iran. It's up to Iran to respond in a concrete way to the offers that are on the table and to address the concerns of the world community.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
But for months Mr Dreyfuss, you and the libs here have been berating Israel and those of us who said that Iran was engaged in more than was previously disclosed.
Israel and those of us making the same argument were right and once again, you and others defending Iran were dead wrong.
But none of you will admit it, especially the bloggers. They will find some way of still defending Iran and denouncing Israel and conservatives like myself on this issue. Others like Mask will ignore Iran's lies and just criticize conservatives.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
I don't recall berating anyone for having suggested Iran might be trying to make a bomb. I believe that some in Iran want exactly that. My argument is with those who think that bombing Iran is the solution. Also, as I've repeatedly argued, Iran is not close to having a bomb, in fact, it's years away. The facility revealed today isn't even operational yet. So there is plenty of time for diplomacy and deal-making to address the problem, as seems to be the view of President Obama, the entire P5 + 1, and the IAEA.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 09/25/2009 @ 12:34pm
I think the anticipated postings here about how the US is carrying Israel's water in this Iran nuclear development issue, and how AIPAC is controlling US policy, are significantly off the mark. I think that Saudia Arabia and Kuwait have the most at risk from an Iranian development of a nuclear capability. Iran's aggressive foreign and military policy in the ME, with syria, Hezballah, Hamas and some Iraqis as allies and surrogates, poses a potential substantial threat to the Sunni world, and more importantly to the West, Sunni oil. The West has a significant fundamental interest in ensuring the security of relatively pro-Western Sunni governments as long as Western citizens, like you and me, drive vehicles, watch tv on 50 foot screens, listen to home entertainment stereos, and surf the net on always surging computers, not to mention lights, air conditioning, refrigerators, etc.
Realpolitic may not be romantic or hip, but it is real.
Posted by gren at 09/25/2009 @ 12:38pm
The immediate issue isn't a military attack on Iran, but whether it would be productive to threaten, and implement additional sanctions against Iran if it is not forthcoming relatively quickly. I think that the notion that Iran is likely to be more cooperative without the threat of sanctions is naive. And if the threat doesn't work, you have to implement them or lose credibility in further negotiations.
Posted by gren at 09/25/2009 @ 12:43pm
Larry, I'm not ignoring anything....I'm listening to the sage wisdom of...
conservatives!!!!
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
Iran building numerous nuclear facilities in definace of the UN?...NOOOOOOO!!!!
Building more centrifuges than required for nuclear power needs?.....NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Iran proudly and loudly yelling to the world there was no holocost!!!....NOOOOOO!!!
Iran bragging thet Israel will not exist much longer?....NOOOOOO!!!
Iran being run by Islamo nuts, fanatics, and civil rights deniers?...NOOOOOO!!!!
Iran in bed with other peace loving, freedom loving, pricipled nations like N Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba?...NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sleep well, all in at peace. God Bless the UN....and US negoiters for Iranian non nuclear weapons talks(ah, course, they have no nukes..the problem is Israel, of course).
Anyone else see the huge support for the US position in the UN regarding Iran and N Korea? Anyone think anything will change?...NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iran building nuclear weapons?....NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
But I need govt health care now.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
On a semantic note, Dreyfuss is a blogger. People posting here and not originating articles are commenters.
" ...you and the libs here have been berating Israel and those of us who said that Iran was engaged in more than was previously disclosed."
Berating Israel for unilateral attacks on Gaza and threatening the same on Iran? This is called aggression.
The fact that Iran would want to develop a nuclear weapon after watching what happened in Iraq is not terribly surprising. In fact, it seems like the most prudent move. The United States doesn't attack countries like Pakistan or North Korea and the word nuclear has everything to do with it.
Of course, no one wants nuclear proliferation, and Iran definitely presents some problems. But, the criticism people make of the arguments of people like yourself and some in Israel is that Iran's goal is to "wipe Israel off the map."
The sane goal is to make it so that the United States or other countries would find the prospect of attacking Iran more than they had the stomach for. But, your argument is based on the insane goal of eliminating Israel.
See the issue? Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, and this dream you have about Ezekiel's war and Jewish holocaust is you reading in your fantasies into the Bible.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:19pm
"Building more centrifuges than required for nuclear power needs?.....NOOOOOO!!!!!!! "
Actually the point was they were building LESS centrifuges that required for nuclear power.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:27pm
Iran wasn't anti semetic, in fact Iran was an ally of Israel,.... until Carter help Kohmeni return and install a govt worse than the Shaw...worse for the world, worse for Islam,worse for peace, and worse for their own people...
Carter is a racist.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:28pm
But none of you will admit it, especially the bloggers. They will find some way of still defending Iran and denouncing Israel and conservatives like myself on this issue. Others like Mask will ignore Iran's lies and just criticize conservatives.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
Actually many liberals including ones on here have acknowledged long ago that Iran could be building a bomb. However the argument has always been that there is not a need for a preemptive strike because they are potentially years away from being able to make one. That diplomacy between us and our allies is what is needed not to start a third front to our war and continue to overstretch our military like the Romans did.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:29pm
All this hysteria is pretty funny considering that Israel has nuclear weapons but refuses to join NPT, and Bush just did deals with Saudi Arabia and India for nuclear development. I wonder how closely the Saudi program will be monitored, and everybody knows that India's deal is going to produce more enriched uranium for more bombs. How much military aid did Bush give to Musharraf - and where was that money spent. I'll bet a new nuke or two, don't you? Remember Mussharraf's main cocern was India - not Taliban.
Posted by OneVote at 09/25/2009 @ 1:30pm
Iran wasn't anti semetic, in fact Iran was an ally of Israel,.... until Carter help Kohmeni return and install a govt worse than the Shaw...worse for the world, worse for Islam,worse for peace, and worse for their own people...
Carter is a racist.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:28pm
Unlike the people who helped Saddam gain money and power? Please the US has been installing insane regimes for a long time under Democrats and Republicans. It's why the thought that we attempt to "spread democracy" is a load of BS.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
But I need govt health care now.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:10pm
So because Iran is building nukes everything in our country must stop? Are you that brainwashed that you are looking for just any reason you can to insult anyone you consider a liberal?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:28pm
So now...after 30 years of "Carter was a bumbling fool...a failure...an incompetent!"...
suddenly NOW he's a "diabolical racist mastermind who used his evil powers to oust the pro-Israeli Shah so that it would create Hezbollah to destroy Israel!!!!?!??!???
ROFLMAO....and people say "they can't get any crazier".
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 1:36pm
The United States doesn't attack countries like Pakistan or North Korea and the word nuclear has everything to do with it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
In a nutshell. Iran would be crazy not to develop a nuke. With US veto power being used to excuse Israeli atrocity, can Iran have any confidence in the international community to keep a level playing field? Nope.
Look what happened to the Goldstone Report.
Posted by OneVote at 09/25/2009 @ 1:38pm
Iran building nuclear weapons?....NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
But I need govt health care now.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
John...put down that GD bottle!
Posted by OneVote at 09/25/2009 @ 1:39pm
Glad to see I wasn't wrong.
Even Mask came through as always. No comments about sharing Obama's concern; nope...Mask has to criticize the conservatives.
Urmy, you are dead on. Mask is obsessed with conservatives so much that we own him rather than him addressing issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
. It's why the thought that we attempt to "spread democracy" is a load of BS.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
And I agree with you here...
the rest is tough in cheek..but Iran was never to be trusted after Shaw went down....
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
Larry, you are acutely aware, I hope, that air strikes alone will not be capable of ceasing Iran's nuclear program.
You know what will be required.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2009 @ 2:02pm
Mask,
Carter, 30 years ago or now..is a clown..in over his head....I am afraid thats how Obama will apperar before his term is over..and joins Carter, Bush 1 in the hall of 1 term wonders.
the racist remark is just a big a joke as is opposition to Obamas and Congress plan racist...
the water aint that deep there Mask!!!
But you gotta admit..had Carter helped Kohmeni's plane land a few hundred miles "short" of Tehran, the place might look a little more "moderate"...
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
And I agree with you here...
the rest is tough in cheek..but Iran was never to be trusted after Shaw went down....
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 1:59pm
Hell I don't trust any country because they are all working in their own interest. If I was any other country I wouldn't trust the US. Countries are inherently selfish. Iran is doing what many right-wing people claim the US should do. Which is say screw it to world opinion and do what they want. Except we get pissed when other countries don't listen to us. We somehow consider ourselves to be the ones who get to decide who in the world gets to have what. If we feel like we should be able to flout world opinion why should we complain when Iran does that same?
Or is it because we are actually concerned about our ties with Israel and protecting them? Even though man right wingers also say that we should withdraw from all of our alliances but for some reason Israel is one of the alliances rarely named in withdrawal.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:08pm
Glad to see I wasn't wrong.
Even Mask came through as always. No comments about sharing Obama's concern; nope...Mask has to criticize the conservatives.
Urmy, you are dead on. Mask is obsessed with conservatives so much that we own him rather than him addressing issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
I would say the same about you. Almost every post your write uses some phrase like "those on the left". Wouldn't that mean you fall into the same category?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:09pm
"Building more centrifuges than required for nuclear power needs?.....NOOOOOO!!!!!!! "
Actually the point was they were building LESS centrifuges that required for nuclear power.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 1:27pm
Not according to the Nuke experts on all the stations..all of them...stating the size of the facility is way too large for just domestic fuel needs...in the land of oil...and more being discovered everyday.
But I am sure you are correct, and they have no interest in weapons or even having some "fuel" become "lost" when they sweep up at night...
right?
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:09pm
I've never once seen you admit that the right wing opinion on an issue was wrong by the way. All you ever do is show how the REAL right wing opinion is the right one not the fake right wing opinion that was presented.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:10pm
Not according to the Nuke experts on all the stations..all of them...stating the size of the facility is way too large for just domestic fuel needs...in the land of oil...and more being discovered everyday.
But I am sure you are correct, and they have no interest in weapons or even having some "fuel" become "lost" when they sweep up at night...
right?
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:09pm
No you are misreading the article. My point is that it is too small a facility for industrial use. They couldn't enrich fast enough to keep up with fuel needs and therefore it could only be logically used for weapons. Reread the article and you will see the point I am making. This facility is only half the size of their previous facility.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:12pm
"Our information is that the facility is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuge machines. Now, that's not a large enough number to make any sense from a commercial standpoint."
See Jom. Which is why I was saying that that the point was that the facility was too small. Which meant it couldn't be used for commercial use. Not that the facility was too large.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:14pm
They aren't building MORE centrifuges than is required for enrichment, they are building to few centrifuges than would be required for industrial use.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:15pm
FOR A REAL BOMBSHELL, READ ON:
Dreyfuss article excerpt...
Gordon Brown, at Obama's side in Pittsburgh, said:
"The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."
End quote.
Now, without pooh-poohing the possibility (probably likely) that Iran is enriching Uranium for the purposes of creating a nuclear weapon, the level of hypocrisy coming from the U.S. and its allies (or perhaps more aptly, dupes) is breath taking.
First, everyone knows that Israel has (probably several hundred) nukes.
Second, there's this gem -- www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/-- from the American Conservative no less.
excerpt:
GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?
EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:24pm
cont....
One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.
GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?
EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.
End quote.
Oh what a tangled web we weave......
I'm still waiting for this story to break into the "mainstream media".
I'm not holding my breath.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:12pm
I stand corrected.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:25pm
I stand corrected.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:25pm
I get em right ever once in a while. But your other points were perfectly valid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Sanctions do not work with this regime .
Posted by realpatriot at 09/25/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
Backing off your post, John?
Now Carter "back to doofus"...while previously you were "hinting" that "due to his evil racism, he helped install the Iranian theocracy"????
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:38pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
Gee, Larry, I didn't realize QUOTING YOU....after YOU first mentioned me...
was "obsessing"?!??!?
BTW, nothing makes me happier than to see you and the "most liberal poster on this blog" (urmy) so tight.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:40pm
Glad to see I wasn't wrong. Even Mask came through as always. No comments about sharing Obama's concern; nope...Mask has to criticize the conservatives. Urmy, you are dead on. Mask is obsessed with conservatives so much that we own him rather than him addressing issues. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--right-wing media, and guys like you, happy, yourjomamma...you're all Mask cares about. He wakes up every day wondering how he can make you guys feel wrong...he has nothing else....I actually feel quite sorry for him, to tell you the truth. I rank on him a lot (deservedly), but this is how he will spend the rest of his life: wake up, listen to right-wing media, attempt to make anonymous blog commenters feel bad about who they are....
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 2:44pm
On the other hand, look at the result of actually building THE BOMB:
The USSR is no more, China looks to be splitting up as trouble rumbles in Tibet and Xinjiang (and their nukes can't even bully little Taiwan!). France and the UK have lost their empires and their world influence. Pakistan looks set to crumble. North Korea is starving. Israel is surrounded by neighbors tossing mortar shells and Katyushas. Even the US is drowning in trillions of dollars in debt.
Maybe the South Africans had the right idea when they put the centrifuges back on the shelf. Can the Iranians learn from them?
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 2:45pm
I would say the same about you. Almost every post your write uses some phrase like "those on the left". Wouldn't that mean you fall into the same category? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--no, hsubfools "proved" that that's poor logic...heheh!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm Gee, Larry, I didn't realize QUOTING YOU....after YOU first mentioned me... was "obsessing"?!??!? BTW, nothing makes me happier than to see you and the "most liberal poster on this blog" (urmy) so tight. Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person |
--all I know is Mask claims I'm not liberal but has NEVER shown me one post that "proves" his suspicion that I'm conservative...NOT ONE...maybe he who saves every post will come up with something someday...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 2:48pm
I get em right ever once in a while. But your other points were perfectly valid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
:-)
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:49pm Gee, Larry, I didn't realize QUOTING YOU....after YOU first mentioned me... was "obsessing"?!??!? BTW, nothing makes me happier than to see you and the "most liberal poster on this blog" (urmy) so tight. Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | --all I know is Mask claims I'm not liberal but has NEVER shown me one post that "proves" his suspicion that I'm conservative...NOT ONE...maybe he who saves every post will come up with something someday...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 2:48pm
I would like to ask you, myself, if you are a liberal, but I can't ask any more questions on this blog: it appears Mask has used up the last question mark.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
Backing off your post, John?
Now Carter "back to doofus"...while previously you were "hinting" that "due to his evil racism, he helped install the Iranian theocracy"????
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 2:38pm
You obviuosly missed the point .
Let it go. I have. Its not important.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm
I would say the same about you. Almost every post your write uses some phrase like "those on the left". Wouldn't that mean you fall into the same category?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 2:09pm
You aren't seriously suggesting that I don't write in depth on issues? That I only write in criticism of those on the left?
Cite a post where Mask has actually written in any depth how he views an issue and what should be done.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm
I've been waiting for the first courageous leftist, especially you Iran supporters who will step up and declare that Obama is lying (BTW, I don't think he lied).
"Obama said, without elaborating:
"The size and type of the facility is inconsistent with that of a peaceful facility."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:02pm
'Iran Bombshell...' -- Robert Dreyfuss -- 25 September, 2009
If only you hadn't used that unfortunate phrasing...
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 2:52pm
Why don't we stick with Iran? urmyguru's politic beliefs is about as interesting as a nap and any exploration is likely to increase the amount of rubbish posted to this thread.
If you've got masochistic tendencies, why not take out a craigslist ad right now for someone to come over and kick you in the crotch this evening? Then, you could write it up tomorrow in a blog post. I'd even read it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:07pm
Um, you write that we should stick with Iran, then the rest of your post is about craigslist and crotches?
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:12pm
'the rest of your post is about craigslist and crotches' -- Mistral
I think that both Craigslist and crotches are illegal in Iran.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:02pm
It's not hard LVL. It tells you right there in the original article that it is not consistent with a peaceful facility because it is too small. The size makes it only useful for developing weapons.
Of course, whether this information is correct is someone has to think about given the quality of our "intelligence" in the past, but I'm willing to go with it for the moment.
I'm not sure what the importance of a secret, non-operational, newly built possible nuclear facility is beyond the obvious that it would be in Iran's national interest to have a nuclear capability. The disclosure is a diplomatic move.
It doesn't mean we have to start reaching for the bunker busters, tactical nuclear weapons or whatever else makes up your Apocalyptic fantasies. And in fact, Obama is going to be yanking all your right-wing chains so that you foam at the mouth demanding attacks and God knows what else, and he looks like the strong moderate. You people are offering him the perfect foil, and he's playing you guys like a kazoo.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:18pm
Why don't we stick with Iran?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:07pm
Seriously, the point of my post was that if we could somehow get Iran to follow the Mandela route and drop the nukes as South Africa did, in favour of peaceful development we could see a brighter future.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:20pm
he's playing you guys like a kazoo.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:18pm
Keep away from my crotch and my kazoo. This isn't the Clinton adminstration.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:24pm
IRAN BEING DUPLICITOUS???
Well, I NEVER....!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:12pm
It's the perfect set: urmyguru's political beliefs, craigslist and crotches. Except, if I had to choose, I'd rather talk about craigslist and/or crotches.
If I could have worked on an Iran angle, I would have. Maybe urmyguru discovered his political beliefs in an Iranian crotch through an ad on craiglist? Just seems like a bit of a stretch.
Maybe we should start a fund to send urmyguru to Iran so he can explain his political beliefs to the Supreme Leader, although that might make the people of Iran think the people in America are crazy or perhaps mental.
Any other ideas how I could have worked Iran into the post? I must say on review, this doesn't look very good - although still better than a discussion of urmyguru's political beliefs.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:28pm
although still better than a discussion of urmyguru's political beliefs.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:28pm
Yes, wouldn't want to clutter up this blog with any discussion of politics or beliefs or anything like that...
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:20pm
Hey, we're all on board with that - so long as you aren't getting all nutty about it talking about pre-emptive attacks and Ezekiel's war.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:24pm
Hey, I can't know all your interests. But, I think craigslist can help you with your kazoo too. As for Clinton, I think he had a taste for cigars, not kazoos.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:31pm
We're not talking about any political discussion. We're talking about a specific political discussion - one that makes me want to talk about anything else including musical theory and kazoos. Where's Eric Alterman when you need him?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:38pm
Saddam Hussein killed 2,150,000 people from 1979-2003. From 1979-2004, the Iranian regime killed over 100,000 people.
Maybe it would have been better to have supported Iran in its attempt to oust Saddam in revenge for him invading Iran and killing a million people during the Iran-Iraq war.
I hate the Iranian regime, but it would be more useful as a friend and ally of America then, say, Saudi Arabia. It treats women better, is a staunch foe of AQ, opposed Saddam and the Taliban, and has worked very well with the US military and provided us a great deal of aid in ousting Mullah Omar. It condemned the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia and Syria caused far more trouble in Iraq then Iran.
Iran is much more sophisticated and beautiful and prosperous then most of our Arab allies. It is freer than Afghanistan. AQ clearly wants us to invade Iran as it would turn the pro-American Iranians against us after the whole Muslim world moved decisively against AQ and in favor of America following the Iraq war. Iran is not a base for AQ. We've rounded up and killed over 19,000 jihadists in Iraq. There is absolutely no rational reason to want to attack Iran, thus giving AQ a chance to attack American soldiers again. If the Iraq war took a disparate foe and rounded it up all in one place where it could be massacred, why should we expand the war and thus spread AQ out further while straining our military beyond repair? 70,000 Iraqis are saved every year thanks to improved healthcare provided by Americans, and Saddam would have killed 150,000 Iraqis by now based on his average rate of killing. I thus favor the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds. War with Iran, I think, would not be justified for humanitarian reasons. Iran wants a nuke only as a deterrent.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/25/2009 @ 3:39pm
Where's Eric Alterman when you need him?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:38pm
He's probably posting to some blog where people DO discuss politics or beliefs.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
You aren't seriously suggesting that I don't write in depth on issues? That I only write in criticism of those on the left?
Cite a post where Mask has actually written in any depth how he views an issue and what should be done.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm
My point wasn't about the depth of the post it was about the content. You write in depth but most of your in depth writings are castigations of the left. Almost every post involves the phrase "the left" in some variant or usage. It doesn't make a difference how in depth it is the in the end it's not much different than being beholden to the right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
Pakistan, Israel, and India have nuclear weapons. The United States has a history of meddling in Iran's internal affairs. The US invaded Iraq and has made threatening gestures toward Iran. As awful as it is, who can blame Iran for wanting to join the nuclear club? All this hemming and hawing over Iran's nuclear program is pointless and hypocritical. All we can do is to work toward making the world less threatening toward Iran and help ease their fears about what other nations might want to do to them. If Iran saw less justification for their nuclear weapons program, they might become less hell-bent on supporting it further.
Posted by raaustin at 09/25/2009 @ 3:47pm
Also like I said Larry. You have never once said anything that you and the right were wrong about. Not once have I seen a retraction. Instead you find new ways to somersault in order to foist the blame onto the left instead of taking responsiblity for being wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:48pm
My point wasn't about the depth of the post it was about the content. You write in depth but most of your in depth writings are castigations of the left. Almost every post involves the phrase "the left" in some variant or usage. It doesn't make a difference how in depth it is the in the end it's not much different than being beholden to the right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
Perhaps that's because I am here to debate and debate means presenting opposing views.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:51pm
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
God bless him. If I could find a blog that does that rather than pumping out half-baked sausage faster than people can read it, I'd go there too.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
There's a reason why building nuclear weapons is popular to one degree or another across the wide spectrum of Iranian public opinion. From the Mullahs to the exiled supporters of the pretender to the Peacock Throne (i.e., the late Shah's son), many Iranians believe the nation has the right to defend itself, up to and including the possession of nukes, especially when it is surrounded by nuclear powers to the North (Russia), East (Pakistan), South (the U.S. Fleet) and West (Israel).
Setting aside my low opinion of the Islamic Republican regime, and Mistral's interesting point about nukes being at best a mixed blessing, I can completely sympathise with this point of view. It is pure Neo-Imperialism for the world's current nuclear powers to insist that a Third World nation like Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. "Heaven's no, that would make it much harder for us to boss you around, bomb or invade! It would be bad for (our) business."
I would prefer a world with few, if any, nuclear weapons, but it is the height of imperialist hypocricy and hubris to demand that a country without nukes not build or acquire them while you and your chums have hundreds and thousands of them.
By the way, John, I would have been quite happy if the workers of Iran had not been misled into allowing their revolution to be stolen by the Ayatollah.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/25/2009 @ 3:59pm
Also like I said Larry. You have never once said anything that you and the right were wrong about. Not once have I seen a retraction. Instead you find new ways to somersault in order to foist the blame onto the left instead of taking responsiblity for being wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/25/2009 @ 3:48pm
Wrong. There have been occasions when I stated that I was wrong to another blogger.
I've certainly not been wrong about Iran which is this thread's topic. I'm certainly not wrong about Islam and the threat it poses to the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:00pm
Much as I hate to admit this, in the past Mask has written with depth and sincerity about Bush's assaults on both Iraq and Civil Liberties. On those few occasions, he let the mask slip a bit.
Ba-dump, bump.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/25/2009 @ 4:04pm
Berating Israel for unilateral attacks on Gaza and threatening the same on Iran? This is called aggression.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:19pm
What would you call my firing shots at random intervals at your house, not at the garage, not at the formal dining or living rooms, but the bedrooms at night, every few evenings? Right, I thought so.....just some kids having some fun!
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:06pm
The United States doesn't attack countries like Pakistan or North Korea and the word nuclear has everything to do with it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 1:19pm
And Pakistan's being an ally for as long as I've been alive, which is longer than you, has absolutely nothing to do with it. According to you, it's because Paskistan has had nukes for, oh, maybe 15~20 years....okie dokie!
And N. Korea....the fact there is an armistic that likely said nothing about developing nukes by NK....and the other inconvenient fact that NK has had nukes for even less time than Pakistan, also has had nothing to do with it.
Earth to Major SRJ......hello....hello....
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:12pm
Right, I thought so.....just some kids having some fun!
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:06pm
I think their argument is that they are oppressed and that is an acceptable excuse for firing katyushas at schoolchildren.
Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 4:13pm
Pretty funny.
I drop a genuine bombshell post here (2:24 pm), and it appears that no one even noticed. It's a microcosm of the American political scene writ large.
Dreyfuss himself is pretty funny too. After his atrocious job of covering (and essentially salivating over) the so-called Green Revolution in Iran, he continues as The Nation's primary ME presenter.
I came to The Nation as a sort of refuge of sanity in the wake of 9/11 and the mostly inept "mainstream" media performances. While there is still much that is worthwhile in the many useful columns and reportage here, the editorial voice of the magazine with its frequent lack of sharp, clear focus and concern for the disaster that the Obama administration is becoming has me, frankly, deeply disappointed.
When will The Nation begin to raise its collective voice in unison, inciting badly needed progressive mass activism to counter and engulf the Glenn Beck Berserkers?
The time is short people. Don't kid yourselves.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:19pm
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:06pm
I'd call it a bad analogy. Next.
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:12pm
Perhaps you've heard of the Durand line? Or the ISI? Or the fact that the US has to be careful about drone attacks in Pakistani territory because the U.S. isn't particularly liked in Pakistan - can't imagine why...
Let's play the what if game. What if Pakistan had no nukes and the U.S. believed Osama was in the tribal areas in Pakistan? Do you think there would be any hesitation? I don't.
As for North Korea, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps it is North Korea's 1 million strong military or the Chinese that make North Korea Round 2 less likely to happen? Ok, possibility. But, let's not pretend nuclear power ain't power because it is. And North Korea is taken more seriously not because of the army or the Chinese - but because of their nukes.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:24pm
....it is the height of imperialist hypocricy and hubris to demand that a country without nukes not build or acquire them while you and your chums have hundreds and thousands of them.
Posted by cka2nd at 09/25/2009 @ 3:59pm
There is a lot there!
So, maybe then, we should make a distinction between a country such as Georgia or Monaco-that hasn't threaten to `disappear' another country-from that of Iran?
Would you do what you could to prevent your Iranian neighbor from `disappearing' your Jewish neighbor? Could your Jewish neighbor be justified to blow away your Iranian neighbor at some point....as they are seen to be bringing in loads and loads of weapons?
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:26pm
I would like to ask you, myself, if you are a liberal, but I can't ask any more questions on this blog: it appears Mask has used up the last question mark. Posted by Mistral at 09/25/2009 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--yes I am liberal...and Mask used the question marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one-upped Mask what-what
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:27pm
Cite a post where Mask has actually written in any depth how he views an issue and what should be done.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--can't be done.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:28pm
Suspect election in Iran? Solution; have results verified by old pal Jimmy Carter... ;^) -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:29pm
Why don't we stick with Iran? urmyguru's politic beliefs is about as interesting as a nap and any exploration is likely to increase the amount of rubbish posted to this thread. If you've got masochistic tendencies, why not take out a craigslist ad right now for someone to come over and kick you in the crotch this evening? Then, you could write it up tomorrow in a blog post. I'd even read it. Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--we're all dying to get your interesting, anonymous take on the world...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:19pm
A bombshell? That Israeli intelligence is spying on the U.S. and manipulating people to get access to information? I'm sorry, but I read this, said "Of course." and moved on. It is so obvious as to not warrant comment.
Further, why do you think that The Nation - whose political conscience seems to extend only as far as the two major political parties - would be the source of any kind of profound insight? You might see the start of a mass left political movement eventually rear its head here, if it were ever to occur. But the idea that Glenn Beck lunacy needs a response is silly. That guy is going to shoot himself in the foot or morph into a standard Republican - all you need to do is step back and watch it happen.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:34pm
srjenkins: "It's the perfect set: urmyguru's political beliefs, craigslist and crotches. Except, if I had to choose, I'd rather talk about craigslist and/or crotches."
so an anonymous poster finds me uninteresting. fair enough. the next paragraph must get to the issues...
srjenkins: "If I could have worked on an Iran angle, I would have. Maybe urmyguru discovered his political beliefs in an Iranian crotch through an ad on craiglist? Just seems like a bit of a stretch."
--hmmmm...still talking about little 'ole me...The next paragraph, the hard-hitting issue development must finally get underway...
srjenkins: "Maybe we should start a fund to send urmyguru to Iran so he can explain his political beliefs to the Supreme Leader, although that might make the people of Iran think the people in America are crazy or perhaps mental."
--hmmmm...still talking about me! Surely, finally, srjenkins must have got down to business and put the insanely boring urmygyro talk away...
srjenkins: "Any other ideas how I could have worked Iran into the post? I must say on review, this doesn't look very good - although still better than a discussion of urmyguru's political beliefs."
--awwwww....shucks! well, the lesson is, if you find someone "boring" it's actually very interesting, ironically, to talk about them!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:35pm
What if Pakistan had no nukes and the U.S. believed Osama was in the tribal areas in Pakistan? Do you think there would be any hesitation? I don't.
As for North Korea, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps it is North Korea's 1 million strong military or the Chinese that make North Korea Round 2 less likely to happen? Ok, possibility. But, let's not pretend nuclear power ain't power because it is. And North Korea is taken more seriously not because of the army or the Chinese - but because of their nukes.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:24pm
Today, IF there is intelligence of OBL's precise location, I don't believe there will be any hesitation for us to drone in! Pakistan's nukes aren't relevant.
You said I made a bad analogy on shooting up your house as NOT analogous to Hezbollah firing loving "katyushas at schoolchildren" (from Mistral)....well, it's Friday and I'm heading for Sinc City...I'll give you a free pass.
On N. Korea....for NOT understanding what I was trying to say, you sure expanded on your caveats....the 1 million man NK army is worthless (see Iraq War)...but dragging in China was slick....you DO have a good sense to CYA....which is why it's more fun to dick w/you.......my crotch is covered!
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:30pm
If you spent more time saying something interesting and less time chapping on Mask, I'd be more interested in hearing what you have to say. As it stands, I can't remember a single post of yours that came anywhere near to say what cka2nd offered up in this thread.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:38pm
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 4:36pm
I'm not talking about drones. I'm talking about a "boots on the ground" drag his ass from a hole kind of effort. That's not going to happen, and it's not going to happen because of nukes.
As for N. Korea, you need to revisit your history books on the Korean War.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:47pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 4:30pm If you spent more time saying something interesting and less time chapping on Mask, I'd be more interested in hearing what you have to say. As it stands, I can't remember a single post of yours that came anywhere near to say what cka2nd offered up in this thread. Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--perhaps I spend too much time "chapping" on Mask...but when it comes to the Middle East I really don't have all that much to say (out of ignorance of the current details and extensive history of the region; and, perhaps my admission will make this sound unwarranted and/or give people reason to ignore me, but a belief that the Middle East is a quagmire, based on the fundamentalism re: religion, and that it will still be a quagmire as long as humanity exists...
--I think you will see that on many threads I contribute substantively. thank you.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:01pm
The time is short people. Don't kid yourselves. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:19pm
You're right b- no one is listening here.
Within all the confusion lies some sort of strange new determinism that needs to be identified.
The human condition now lingers in the twilight zone of wistful hopefulness counterbalanced by the capitalism of the fear mongers. How we can survive this is yet to be seen, to be endured, and hopefully some joys can be found as we slide further and further down the path of illusions. Otherwise all we have left is the horror, and that can be had for nothing except the cost of losing our souls.
Posted by ficheye at 09/25/2009 @ 5:02pm
SR Jenkins (4:34pm),
"A bombshell?" --read the American Conservative piece in its entirety and then get back to me.
Second, The Nation has a fairly prominent voice in the MSM and within the progressive community. I realize that they actually represent the left edge, roughly, of the MSM itself and as such, their editorial voice is co-opted by the same money and power that has DC in a stranglehold. Doesn't change the fact that The Nation should be strongly admonished for failing to make a serious effort to break loose from the straight jacket of Sunday talk show conventional wisdom.
Finally, as to "the idea that Glenn Beck lunacy needs a response is silly", I reiterate what Patricia Williams stated in her excellent new essay at The Nation,
"As Barney Frank put it--on what planet do these people spend most of their time? The answer to that, of course, means taking a serious look at the narrative worlds created by Fox News and AM radio, where Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the reigning kings. This is a world in which the president is not really American. The presidency has been stolen. The president does not believe in a Christian God. He takes his orders from a cave in Afghanistan. He wants to take away your guns, impoverish your children and kill your elders.
This is not the kind of speech that can be shrugged off...But I do think we need to take the growing power of this fear-fueled, alternative, imaginary universe more seriously. It has consequences for the physical world in which our real bodies reside."
End quote.
In other words, we ignore Glenn Beck and others of his ilk at our own peril.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:09pm
As Michael Moore said in his interview with Noami Klein (paraphrased), "There are 40 million Americans who are funtionally illiterate, and probably 40 million more with no reading comprehension skills".
We've essentially set up our society --with its spiralling out of control right wing ideology and masses of ill-informed, fearful, medievally religious fawners of uniformed (military and police) power-- for a rapid transformation into a "security" state. Economic malfeasance with its subsequent (and still unravelling) chaos will be the likely catalyst.
Our Lord Reagan-inspired lack of regulation of corporate power had simply lit the fuse.
Happy weekend all,
~B Kool
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:10pm
Thanks, a bunch, for the kind acknowledgement, Ficheye.
It's always good to feel like there are at least a few thoughtful and responsive readers out there --no offense to Jenkins, of course, who I respect greatly.
Sanity is certainly in the minority, but its very existence (I think ;-)is reason for hope.
Cheers, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:18pm
I'm talking about a "boots on the ground" drag his ass from a hole kind of effort. That's not going to happen, and it's not going to happen because of nukes.
As for N. Korea, you need to revisit your history books on the Korean War.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 4:47pm
I think you're wrong about "boots on the ground"! No, the US isn't going to stage a quarter-million troops like Dessert Storm and Dessert Shield...but I am almost certain we have Special Op. troops ready to go in with hard intelligence......again, who's to know this hasn't already happened with the successful targeting that has already happened?
To give you a bit of wriggle room, if we don't go in with limited Sp. Op troops when we know where OBL is, it could be due to any number of reasons.....the least of which, MIGHT BE Pakistan's having nukes.......say, 1% chance....and tha't being generous!
What did YOUR history book tell you about how NK values having (eventually) nukes in some distant future while China is their Nuke `card'?
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 5:38pm
-I think you will see that on many threads I contribute substantively. thank you.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:01pm
Hear, hear.....
We all enjoy, "substantively", your....."chapping" on Mask! You seem to have the time and youthful energy to do so......I think you'll wear him out.
He wore me out long time ago.....he's been consistently beaten for a good while, but he keeps sniping away...damn the little chihuahua! I think he's in his mid or late-30s'. Stay after him!
Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 5:43pm
In other words, we ignore Glenn Beck and others of his ilk at our own peril. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--sounds more like an excuse to become Beck-obsessed...you and Mask should have plenty of fun "conversations"...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/25/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:09pm
Thanks for reiterating. My first impression was clearly wrong. This American Conservative article makes a number of disturbing accusations:
1. Current members of Congress were directly involved in selling classified information for cash.
2. AIPAC and Turkish intelligence agents were working together for Israel and then turning around to sell information to the ISI in Pakistan.
3. The NYT just prints whatever is sent to them.
4. There were negotiations for attacking Iraq 4 months before 9/11.
5. The Turkish government managed to put plants in nuclear centers in the United States and sold nuclear technology to the Saudis and others.
6. CIA deals with the bin Ladens and drug smuggling going on in NATO planes.
7. These accusations are unlikely to be investigated by the Obama administration.
Very disturbing stuff.
As for The Nation, it's all electoral politics all the time. I cannot see how you would expect them to break out of that and become a real voice for change. It would mean changing their subscriber base and engaging in expensive investigative journalism. I don't see that in that cards.
As for Glenn Beck, I disagree there too. On one level, I think there are legitimate concerns about how our government operates. The American Conservative article above certainly raises question for me about who Congress serves and how the Defense/Justice Department goes about its business. So, I can appreciate the concerns on that level. However, we also need to acknowledge that this group is primarily driven by a profound ignorance.
But, I also think that the more Glenn Beck talks, the more people start showing up with holsters with guns, acting the idiot and town hall, etc. this movement will implode from its own weight.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 6:25pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 5:18pm
Just a personal note, you bring up great points, but the cutting and pasting frequently has me just skimming your posts that have that going on. If you could point out what's significant about the article with a key quote or two, it sure would help with readability and "getting it".
Although, maybe the problem is me. This might be a sign my attention span is atrophying. In any event, appreciate your contribution, as always - and appreciate calling me out on it. The respect is mutual.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2009 @ 6:37pm
Jenkins,
Thanks for the intelligent reply, SR. You're among the (fairly tiny) minority here that can capably engage in fruiful thrust and parry dialogue.
You've nicely summed up the blockbuster interview from American Conservative (a rare mouthpiece on the right with some genuine brains and balls).
In response to your point: "As for The Nation....I cannot see how you would expect them to break out... and become a real voice for change. It would mean changing their subscriber base and engaging in expensive investigative journalism...". There isn't any compelling reason for the magazine to remain generally obsequious to the Obama presidency other than powerful, moneyed players threatening to pull the plug on (likely significant) funding. The issue isn't really about subscriber base and levels of investigative reporting. All I'm really asking for is genuine integrity from The Nation. Is that too much to ask?
Lastly, in regards to, "I also think that the more Glenn Beck talks, the more people start showing up with holsters with guns, acting the idiot and town hall, etc. this movement will implode from its own weight", I hope you're right. But if the economy does another (even deeper) dive, as I suspect is a definite and significant possibility, then what we see now by way of insanity is simply the appetizer.
On that note, time to grab a bite.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 6:47pm
I'm off for libations, but before I go here's a bit of comic relief:
New Rule: If America can't get its act together, it must lose the bald eagle as our symbol and replace it with the YouTube video of the puppy that can't get up. As long as we're pathetic, we might as well act like it's cute. I don't care about the president's birth certificate, I do want to know what happened to "Yes we can." Can we get out of Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Fix health care? No. Close Gitmo? No. Cap-and-trade carbon emissions? No. The Obamas have been in Washington for ten months and it seems like the only thing they've gotten is a dog....
We weren't always like this. Inert. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law and 11 months later seniors were receiving benefits. During World War II, virtually overnight FDR had auto companies making tanks and planes only. In one eight year period, America went from JFK's ridiculous dream of landing a man on the moon, to actually landing a man on the moon.
This generation has had eight years to build something at Ground Zero. An office building, a museum, an outlet mall, I don't care anymore. I'm tempted to say that, symbolically, all America can do lately is keep digging a hole, but Ground Zero doesn't represent a hole. It is a hole. America: Home of the Freedom Pit. Ironically, it's spitting distance from Wall Street, where they knock down buildings a different way - through foreclosure.
That's the ultimate sign of our lethargy: millions thrown out of their homes, tossed out of work, lost their life savings, retirements postponed - and they just take it. 30% interest on credit cards? It's a good thing the Supreme Court legalized sodomy a few years ago.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23576.htm
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 7:16pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 7:16pm
Now THAT is getting it said!
I didn't detect any cutting and pasting whatsoever.
Progressives in particular are guilty of that complacency that so destroys us by inaction, while the capitalists scrabble around on the floor, trying to find every stray penny and taking it from grandma if they have to... she's just not moving fast enough, dammit!
The Freedom Pit! Are they conducting tours?
Posted by ficheye at 09/25/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/25/2009 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Great link on Sibel Edmonds.
Here is the bombshell that everyone should pay attention to:
'The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama's choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity's operation centered on Chicago'
Sibel Edmonds
Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi
The American Conservative
Anybody interested in the collaboration of mafias in Chicago should read Gus Russo's The Outfit, and later written Supermob, which details the history of The Jewish Mafia (predominantly Russian Jewish heritage) which thrived in Chicago, expanded to Southern California and Nevada, and now is firmly entrenched in Washington D.C., at the pinnacle of its power. Much of the Jewish Mafia are ardent Zionists, and launder much of their money through Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 09/25/2009 @ 8:46pm
one vote
Thankyou for the info.i read the report and was disgusted by the actions of those criminal mafiosi zionists.more is needed to expose those traitors who have shredded the american constitution on behalf of criminals like netanyahu and ehud barak.
Iran and iranians are being demonised simply because they do not want to give up their independence to the eastern european jewish land thieves.i applaud the iranian nation for their strong steadfast position against the thugs of goldman sachs ,aig and other zionist owned mafiosi conglamorates that have wrecked the world economy and the american in particular.
The criminal and inhuman zionists have only one goal and that is to engulf the entire world in chaos,destruction,war and death.this is the only way that these dangerous snakes can acheive their goal of establishing an empire of their own with the objective of controlling the entire world.
long live the USA and death to zionism.and may tom lantos the fake victim burn in hell for betraying the country that gave him refuge and comfort.
Posted by excalibur999 at 09/25/2009 @ 10:20pm
As itinerant symbologist, though hardly up there with Harvard professor Robert Langdon in Dan Brown's epic book "The Lost Symbol", I am prompted to inform the national conversation with a point: nukes are phallic symbols.
I, personally, would like to see Ahmadinejad get nukes. It's not fair for Netanyahu to hog them.
Posted by jones at 09/25/2009 @ 10:41pm
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
BOMB, BOMB,BOMB...BOMB BOMB IRAN
Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/25/2009 @ 10:42pm
Obama gets trumped... As for libs who love the separation of church and state, the church is the state in Iran, but muslims are OK. So Iran is OK. So they won't do anything, because it's only the Christian right who is evil. Obama loves him some Muslims, but hates him some Christians... Let's chat about it. We can work it out. Let's open a wonderful dialogue about how this world community cant get together and love each other if we only wipe the Jews off the planet with a bomb, then force the Christians to convert to Islam. Yeah see how great this can be.
Posted by apoorspic at 09/25/2009 @ 10:49pm
Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied....
Posted by apoorspic at 09/25/2009 @ 10:50pm
excalibur999 clearly hates Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/25/2009 @ 11:20pm
Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied.... Posted by apoorspic at 09/25/2009 @ 10:50pm
I would agree, but you are conflicted.
Posted by ficheye at 09/25/2009 @ 11:23pm
The six years I spent in Europe, in the Air Force and Army respectively, began with the Hungarian uprising and ended with the rise of the Berlin Wall. We would go briefly on alert during these various crisis and that was about it for American troops in Europe. Though not in my job description, I did see a tactical nuclear weapon near the flight line in France. In the Army, I spent little time near the Fulda gap, where Soviet Forces where expected, if the balloon went up. However, the 14th AC would have gotten in the way as they were stationed in the town of Fulda. These various events happened fairly often and became almost routine. However, I got back to the States in time for the Cuban Missile crisis which really made me pause. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were on the verge of a worldwide nuclear war. The lesson I learned is that you do not play games with nuclear weapons or get your self in a position that might provoke a nuclear conflict or accident. After the Soviet Union, I have a hard time being impressed by smaller countries, who may or may not, have nuclear weapons. If you want to stop the spread of nuclear weapon, eliminate, though diplomacy, any reasons to have them.Treat people with respect and you will get respect. Nuclear war or attacks on nuclear facilities are not a game. The Cold War was a victory for both sides, because no nuclear weapons were used.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/25/2009 @ 11:31pm
Are you kidding me? President Barack Obama used a press conference to announce that Iran is building a second uranium-enrichment plant? He had a golden opportunity as the chair of the U.N. Security Council to present the case against Iran. This could have been his "moment," a la Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, to present the irrefutable evidence that Iran, in violation of international law and treaty, has been building a secret uranium-enrichment plant.
Why did the president let slip away the perfect forum to bring the Iranians to task before the World Community? Isn't that what the Security Council is supposed to be for for? Is the case of nuclear proliferation by rogue regimes not important enough? The president most surely knew all the facts. This should have been debated, and Iran should have been called before the Security Council to defend itself.
The president was intentionally derelict or grossly negligent in this missed opportunity. He had the president of Iran in New York. He had most, if not all, of the world leaders who make up the Security Council in New York. All members of the Security Council should have had their feet put to the fire and either condoned this illegal activity or condemned it and sought serious measures to correct it. Sadly, Obama will turn out to be the Neville Chamberlain of our time.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 12:42am
excalibur999 clearly hates Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/25/2009
You lie. He doesn't clearly hate Jews. He clearly hates Zionist Jews.
Posted by jones at 09/26/2009 @ 06:42am
Interesting how the "everybody should have a gun" crowd is so het up over Iran getting "the bomb."
They're right.
Iran shouldn't have nukes, but neither should anybody else.
Nobody should own a gun, either.
If everyone owned a gun, that would stop the potential thief who knows he might get his brain splattered, right?
Ergo, if everybody had nukes, that would certainly deter anyone from getting ideas knowing the mutually assured destruction that awaits.
Since everybody else has them, why not Iran?
Posted by kennyboy at 09/26/2009 @ 06:53am
Since everybody else has them, why not Iran?
Posted by kennyboy at 09/26/2009 @ 06:53am
Because they are the world's top sponsor of terrorism.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:38am
the zionists are the sworn enemies of the USA.they want to fight the islamic world to the last american.screw the damn zionists.take care of america and americans and let those welfare recieving bums fend for themselves.sick and tired of seeing our tax money given to those terrorists while our working people lack health insurance and proper diet.
Posted by excalibur999 at 09/26/2009 @ 09:10am
I thought the US enjoyed that prestigious position...
Posted by twease at 09/26/2009 @ 09:56am
Posted by excalibur999 at 09/26/2009 @ 09:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
Splendid example being Zionist Eric Cantor.
Zionists have no problem with institutionalizing debt financed supplemental "war" appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, including direct aid to Israel, but when it comes to healthcare for the taxpayers who have and will pay for their agenda, it is 'let them eat cake.'
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/ video/youtube-cantor-to-uninsured-woman-get-an-option-like/
And for Eric Cantor, using taxpayer money is a "family affair."
'Mrs. Cantor is a Managing Director in a division of Emigrant Bank a subsidiary of New York Private Bank & Trust Corp. which was one of 47 private banks to receive bailout cash under the Troubled Asset Relief Program in exchange for preferred shares [24].' Emigrant Bank is the largest PRIVATELY OWNED bank in the USA.
Wikipedia
Emigrant Bank is owned by the Milstein Family, a family which ranks in the Top 400 of Forbes' list of wealthiest "American" families.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/ richlist07_Paul-Milstein-family_9126.html
Kind of makes you "sick" - pun intended.
Posted by OneVote at 09/26/2009 @ 10:13am
excalibur999, we can't, you know, oil and all.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:15am
Iran is a signatory with IAEA, and still the world powers are preventing them to use the nuclear technology for the peaceful purpose.They are threatening Iran with the sanctions . When Israel, threatening it's neighbors with their brutal powers including nukes, Iran can also make the same if they want.The world powers have no right to advise Iran.Before advising Iran , they must remove their own nuclear weapons . Or at least they have the obligations to stop the Israeli nukes, and other non-signatories like North Korea, Pakistan and India. Iran never attacked any country.And it is democratic one.Their nuclear plants are built by Russians.Even US helped them in the time of Shah.But he was his stooge.But not the present Iranian regime.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:32am
The Cold War was a victory for both sides, because no nuclear weapons were used. Posted by pjcasey at 09/25/2009 @ 11:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it was also a victory for both sides because they brought it to an end. there are many on this site who lament this end of the cold war, and would like to revive it by creating a world wide assault on muslims.
when you were stationed in the Fulda gap, my childhoot stomping grounds, (does Hanau ring a bell?) you and your fellow soldiers were a trip wire.being outnumbered by far by the Warsaw pact and soviet troops.
at the end of WW2, the russians, who had a huge land army at the Elbe, briefly considered keeping going and grabbing europe up to the Channel coasts. the west would not have been able to stop them, is the opinion of many military hstorians.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/26/2009 @ 10:41am
I liked the misspelling of childhood, more descriptive and apropos to my childhood, which certainly was a hoot.
LESS centrifuges............ well, you know
Posted by emile duBois at 09/26/2009 @ 10:42am
until Carter help Kohmeni return and install a govt worse than the Shaw..
just hopeless drivel. the Shah was installed. Khomeini's ascent was a popular revolution, which was in the works far longer than the Carter administration.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/26/2009 @ 10:46am
Santi -Why did you not include Saudi Arabia as Iran's partner. Their society is the saame type with their own morality police.Are they our friends because the faux pilots that blew up the Twin Towers were from there? Perhaps it is because they buy large quanities of our weapons? They help George Sr. with his portfolio don't they. You have odd notions of America's "friends", and I am an anarchist. Wake up and shake off the rust. EDUCATION is the key to future success.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 12:43pm
Moderate sanctions do no good - they just allow Iran to buy time while making the lefties feel good.
The fact that Iran has stated repeatedly their goal of wiping Israel off the map, and that the time was near, indicates their goal is the development of nuclear weapons married to ballistic missiles. Their claim that they are only trying to use nuclear power for electricity generation is only believed by the lefties.
Hopefully, our new President can wipe the fog from his eyes and see the world for what it is. There is an old saying - you are who you associate with. So far Obama seems to prefer the company of thugs and dictators over western democracies.
Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 12:59pm
If what you say was true then the reason Obama threw money at the Big banks was to strengthen them in order for them to bankroll the thugs and dictators. I think Israel can take care of themselves,they have shown that capacity for 60 years. Iran wants to be the leader of the "B" squad.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 1:18pm
Iran never attacked any country.And it is democratic one.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:32am
Kind of tells you everything you didn't want to know and more about this person.
The world's largest sponsor of terrorism "never attacked any country"? Laughable
Even more laughable "it is a democratic one".
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:22pm
Thanks, Mr. Dreyfuss, for the story behind the NYT story, which as we all know, is often just that. And thanks, b_cool_66 for the link:
www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
That made this loony forum worth reading, hope you don't mind me posting the link again. Hell, J. Edgar Hoover kept his 'undesirables' file on note cards in a file cabinet 50+ years ago. Does any sane toddler think that Israel and the zionistas here have not been doing the same thing for years, only with mega-computers? Still, maybe seeing it in print will help some Reichers to wake up. No...... scratch that...... how naive of me.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/26/2009 @ 1:33pm
Vice President Biden, eight days ago, explaining why the diminished threat from Iran justified the administration's decision to betray our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic by discarding a previously agreed upon missile defense system in Eastern Europe:
"[Biden said] Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat.
"I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.
"The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned -- much less concerned -- about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America," he said.
Boy, the Obama administration must have just been profoundly misguided and dangerously misinformed about Iran's capabilities and intentions. Right?
Astonishingly incompetent, perilously naive, or deliberately dishonest? Which is it?
Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 1:40pm
Iran never attacked any country.And it is democratic one.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:32am
Well sort of. Not really democratic, but more so until recently than given credit for, and certainly the subject of attack from Saddam who gassed their troops, and the US which said nothing about this use of WMD. So Iran does have legitimate concerns for its security.
Dreyfuss mentions the disclosure complicates the upcoming talks. So why make it an issue before the talks when the US has known about it for quite a while. Could have confronted Iran with it during the talks and gone public afterwards depending on the reaction.
There is something very aggressive about this administration over Iran. Maybe more so than the previous one. What is missing from both is any comprehensive nuclear disarmament strategy which can be counted to lessen anyone's fears anythime soon.
No friend of Iran, but should be understood that a lot of the developing world including most of South America (Brazil and Venezuela particularly) do not share the US antagonism toward Iran.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 09/26/2009 @ 1:42pm
Santi -Why did you not include Saudi Arabia as Iran's partner. Their society is the saame type with their own morality police.Are they our friends because the faux pilots that blew up the Twin Towers were from there? Perhaps it is because they buy large quanities of our weapons? They help George Sr. with his portfolio don't they. You have odd notions of America's "friends", and I am an anarchist. Wake up and shake off the rust. EDUCATION is the key to future success.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 12:43pm
Why? Because Iran and Saudi Arabia are enemies. Iran is Shia and Saudi is Sunni. Saudi Arabia fears Iran's military growth.
When did I call Saudi Arabia a friend of the US?
and contrary to your leftist website sources, George Sr. left Carlyle before 2001.
I agree that education is the key to the future which is why I support abolishing public education and let families put their children in either private schools or home schooling where they get a better education.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:49pm
Even if North Korea did not have nuclear weapons, it would still be a mark of insanity to attack them - the border with the south is lined with hardened artillery sites. The North could obliterate Seoul in a matter of hours simply with artillery fire.
Iran is a sophisticated and complex society. We should take care to avoid painting the entire nation in the colors displayed by its president. I think President Obama is taking the proper, measured approach. He is acknowledging their right to peaceful nuclear development while holding their feet to the fire in regards to their international obligations. I might also point out that the administration has been holding Isreal's feet to the fire regarding settlement activity. Their move regarding the missle defense installation in Poland and the Czech Republic appears to be greasing the wheels regarding Russia's support for Iranian action. I think China will be the challenge, particularly given the recent decision regarding tire imports.
These approaches display something the previous administration never displayed: strategic vision, as opposed to ideological knee jerk tactical responses.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/26/2009 @ 1:54pm
Then why did Saudi Arabia become a launching pad for the American military. They know that Iraq was the balancer of Iran.In other words there was an agreement made before the 1991 war. Why no public education? It is all about religion isn't it. Private schools are a luxury for the vast percentage of Americans. Stop the ideology. Teach kids about everything from soup to nuts. Let them expand their minds. I agree about a studied response on foreign policy from Obama. He has been better foreign policy wise than he has on domestic policy. Of course the Republicans seem to have a dearth of deep thinkers.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
Why no public education? It is all about religion isn't it. Private schools are a luxury for the vast percentage of Americans. Stop the ideology. Teach kids about everything from soup to nuts. Let them expand their minds. I agree about a studied response on foreign policy from Obama. He has been better foreign policy wise than he has on domestic policy. Of course the Republicans seem to have a dearth of deep thinkers.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 2:14pm
I said nothing about religion. I'm against public education because it's ineffective, it's subject to the dogma of the teacher's unions, and they no longer exercise any ability to control behavior (thanks to the unions and the ACLU).
You don't have to be wealthy any more to obtain a quality education at home or in a private school. I've posted frequently on the higher test scores by home schoolers and their academic achievements.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 2:20pm
Robert Dreyfuss,
You say up above ".......But the existence of the previously unreported facility, combined with Iran's apparent efforts to conceal it from the IAEA and the world community, will only add heft to charges that Iran is covertly seeking a military nuclear capability, i.e., an A-bomb. ......."
My Comment: Charges? It is more like blatantly obvious!
You also say ".....Expect the pressure on Iran from hawks, neocons, and Israeli hardliners to ratchet up to the highest level now........"
My Comment: I hope so! Somebody has to counteract the sentiments of people like you who seem to think, naively so, that this still could be settled peacefully somehow. Iran is jerking the world around, and there is no point in letting them jerk the world around any longer.
Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust didn't happen, and he has expressed the desire to wipe Israel off of the map. And he has now continued himself in office even though he had to ignore the will of the Iranian people to do so.
The world has attempted to engage this jerk in negotiation and dialog along with pressure through sanctions, etc....and it has not stopped Ahmadinejad from jerking the world around.
Continuation down that path will only result in Ahmadinejad laughing in delight and contempt of his adversaries as he continues to build his A-bomb.
The threat of force followed up by the application of force is the only thing that will stop him, and stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Yes, Mask ---- I know that supposedly Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be wiped off of the map because supposedly in the original Farsi he simply called for "regime change" in Jerusalem. But it is obvious to me that is just another way of saying "no Israel" in Jerusalem - it's obvious what he meant.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2009 @ 2:32pm
Because they are the world's top sponsor of terrorism.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:38am
You mean next to the good ol' US of A, of course, unless the handy term "shock and awe" is not a synonym for terrorism and the use of depleted uranium by the only country to ever use nukes for real is not a terrorist tactic.
Posted by kennyboy at 09/26/2009 @ 3:55pm
Again it is dogma,Marxism,teachers unions, and religion. You don't have to say it it is implicit in how you phrase it. My brother is a teacher in an area of the Twin Cities that is wealthy.Unfortunately for a number of his students they are products of divorce. Public education has that dynamic and it is extremely important.Private schools are very expensive I have a lot of friends with kids in them. Now if you are an athlete private schools are inexpensive. I only know one home schooling couple well. They are my cousins,there is religion involved in the situation. I guess I equate it to the Amish. They are in a time warp of sorts but happy in their chosen lifestyle.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 4:17pm
Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism, but that doesn't make it a threat to us. AQ is our main threat. Iran is their staunch enemy. Iran almost invaded Afghanistan to oust the evil Taliban religious fascists. It suported the Northern Alliance before we did. It funded them, condemned 9/11, and helped the US use military force against the Taliban. They were willing to work with the US military to destroy the Sunni religious sociopaths. They only fund Shia terrorists and are more likely an AQ target then sponsor. Iraq was a more likely friend of AQ. Iran does certainly fund terrorist groups which oppose Israel, which makes it a problem for Israel. Iran is no threat to us.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/26/2009 @ 4:32pm
By the way, the terrorists who DO pose a threat to us WANT us to invade Iran.
"A document found in Zarqawi's safe house indicates that the group was trying to provoke the U.S. to attack Iran in order to reinvigorate the insurgency in Iraq and to weaken American forces in Iraq.[49][50] "The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the West in general, of the real danger coming from Iran ..." The document then outlines six ways to incite war between the two nations.[51]"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/26/2009 @ 4:40pm
I don't want yet another war between "competing"religions. This is a big part of the equation. I am worried about a conflict of sects and peoples.This region is being eyed by a wide range of countries and alliances. What a powderkeg we must be very careful.
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 6:41pm
Where is the reporting on the IAEA demand that Israel allow nuclear facility inspections and join nonproliferation treaties?
It is time for moral consistency. Israel is a rogue nuclear state with submarines and missiles. While Israel collaborates with pro-Israel factions of our national security elites it does not behave like an ally. American support for the radical right of Israel distorts their otherwise broad range of political and social beliefs.
The utter failure of all media to frame the Iran nuclear situation in terms of a very real threat from the outlaw Israeli weapons is worse than disingenuous. It is a deliberate sacrifice of U.S. democracy's need for an informed public in favor of a brutal faction of a foreign power that defies human rights on a mass scale.
I'm with Naomi Klein--divest and sanctions now!
Posted by Truffledog at 09/26/2009 @ 8:22pm
"of a very real threat from the outlaw Israeli weapons is worse than disingenuous."
Ludicrous anti-semitic rant.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/26/2009 @ 8:36pm
Looks like Colin Powell has spent the last six years polishing his Photoshop chops, probably in some Pentagon basement or Israeli office. Expect another clipboard / pointer presentation of the now 'certain' Iranian WMDs on prime time TV, any day now.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/26/2009 @ 8:52pm
Has our 60years of support of Israel gone down the drain? They are now too war like for our taste? My thing is consistency. We gave them assistance and asked them to be our advance scout in the area. We can not now say you were too good at your job,we will leave you hanging. On the other hand the other states of the Middle East ran away from us when we got too close. We didn't have Israeli faux pilots killing us did we?
Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 11:37pm
it's all the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 10:00am
Emile, your funny!
Posted by Denise29 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:20am
It's not all the Jews fault, but there is a certain segment of the Israeli population where a lot of blame can be laid.
http://tinyurl.com/qskrxz
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 10:35am
So if we are a country with oil we can get away with being anti-semetic and become a nuclear power.We can play one country against the other (military technology) and win in a multitude of ways.Again I say how could we remove their political and military rival from the scene.
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 10:37am
so? what does that have to do with jews? jews do not equal Israelis.
I personally believe the settlements and the settlers should go, but 35 year old facts on the ground are not easily changed.
the Palestians' negotiating strategy has been, give us what we want, and then we'll talk. the Israeli gov't's the same, by and large.
we cannot define all Americans through the prism of the Bush gangster regime, so why should we do the same with Israel? or Iran, for that matter.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:21pm
Emile, your funny! Posted by Denise29 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh Denise29 scooby doo, thanks.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:22pm
one instance where the remake is better than the original.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:23pm
Emile, your funny!
my funny what?
just to be consistent.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:55pm
There are a number of elements to consider here: Isreal has nuclear weapons. Elements of Iran have called for Isreal's annihilation. Iran is allegedly seeking nuclear weapons. Should Iran get those weapons, the only logical response for Isreal is to take those weapons out by any means. Ahmadinejad occupies a largely ceremonial position, and is trying to change that in the domestic political scene by being both a radical, provacative nationalist, and a distributor of riches to poorer regions of the country. Wealthier and urban regions of the country consider him a fraud, and have openly revolted against his rule. Their economy is in the tank.
You do not (a) want to turn the growing opposition to Ahmadinejad and the regime in power against you by taking steps that would be seen as attacks against the Iranian nation; (b) allow a situation to emerge where Isreal will feel compelled to attack Iran (c) develop sanctions so crippling that the poor regions starve and become further radicalized. The best response is a measured, concerted international demand to Iran that it prove its peaceful intent or face sanctions aimed specifically at the coterie around Ahmadinejad, in an effort to isolate Ahmadinejad and the radical elements of the regime from its growing opposition.
Iran is a state with elements of both totalitarianism and democracy. Give it the right push, and the totalitarian side will lose. Give it the wrong push, and the nukes could conceivably start falling.
To date, the Obama administration appears to be giving things the right push, though I am concerned about the nature of the sanctions they are considering (see (c) above).
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/27/2009 @ 1:59pm
The key is concerted international action. Much of the growing opposition to the Iranian regime is centered around a desire for a less revolutionary government, and more active and positive engagement with the world. Such concerted action was impossible with the sabre rattling of the Bush regime. Obama, on the other hand, is carefully building an international coalition towards sucessfully isolating the Iranian regime. Right now, the wild card appears to be China. Such isolation, if sucessful, will play into the hands of the opposition in Iran, not the radicals. Iran is not North Korea - there are enough cracks in its semi-totalitarian facade that the people can induce change given the right circumstances.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Cracks in totalitarian political systems occur because of the internal contradictions based on a system of beliefs centered around profound lies (usually involving "purity": racial, free market, communist, religious). If Iran publically announces a nuclear weapons capability, it will have violated its own sacred Islamic code, which has clearly stated that nuclear weapons are not allowed. In a true totalitarian state, such contradictions are simply wiped clean - Iran is not such a state.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/27/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:21pm
I think the image does a good job of showing settler aggression. You cannot talk about Israel without talking about settlers, and you cannot talk about Jews without talking about the Jewish state.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 2:51pm
One of the notable elements of the recent demonstrations in Iran was the prominent role played by women, who continued to wear their head scarves as they demonstrated.
Someday, those head scarves will be seen as signs, not of oppression, but of liberation, and those young women and men will live in a proud nation not defined by clownish hatred, but by a deeply rooted faith in an Islam of tolerance, equality, freedom, and love: "In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever merciful." The international community can't impose this change - it can only try to develop the conditions that allow the Iranian people to make their own choices.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/27/2009 @ 3:00pm
Carter, by the way, did indirectly help install the Ayatollah of Iran. He funded him periodically with checks of $150 million while he was in exile in France with CIA protection. Carter praised the Ayatollah as "a Gandhi-like figure" in private conversations. Carter pressured the Shah to release radical Islamist political prisoners on the grounds that the Shah was suppressing dissent and that the US had to condemn his human rights violations of killing 10,000 people over 30 years. Carter, oddly, didn't care about human rights for, say, Cambodians, since millions of them were killed during this time without Carter issuing a word of protest. Against the advice of others in his administration who said the US should urge a clampdown on the radical Islamists/former-political-prisoners-who-should've-been-put-in-a-lunatic asylum, Carter argued that the Shah was no longer wanted by the Iranian people and that abandoning the Shah, refusing to aid him, privately condemning him, and essentially betraying him was the right thing to do due to Iran's "right to self determination". Carter regarded the Ayatollah as a peaceful, nonviolent freedom fighter and activist deserving of aid and sympathy and the Shah as an evil, cruel tyrant. He should be tried in a court of law for complicity in allowing the Mullahs to take power at a time when decisive American action could have and should have helped the Shah prevent such a revolt (which in and of itself was instigated only by Carter's obscene plea defending the human rights of imprisoned Islamists) and for indirect complicity in the slaughter of over 125,000 Iranians by the theocratic regime since 1979.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 5:46pm
Nobody has acknowledged the fact that both the U.s and her rabid dog israel are seeking to strip iran and iranian people of their independence.this whole game of demonization is all about domination.domination through brute force.this cruel and criminal force was used against the vietnamese people but did not succeed.at the end the oppressors were deafeated.
The zionist plan for the middle east is not just about having a homeland .it is about dominating nations of that region and that of course includes iran.this is a perfect colonial and imperialist plan which the zionist jews would love to implement and that can not be acheived without first conquering the entire institutions of power in this country.
Posted by excalibur999 at 09/27/2009 @ 5:53pm
Carter, like left liberals today, had a soft spot for jihad. He also funded the brave Islamist resistance to puppet government leaders in Afghanistan, which convinced the Soviets it was necessary to invade that country. The Soviets killed more than a million people. Carter acted shocked and cut off grain shipments to the USSR. The USSR withdrew in time, leaving Afghanistan to sink into a civil war in which (AGAIN) over a million people died. Then the Taliban took over, and attacked America on 9/11 after killing hundreds of thousands of their own people and leaving millions at risk of death by starvation and disease. And Saddam Hussein, hungry for Iran's oil, sensed that the new Iranian regime, still consolidating itself after the collapse of the previous one, was ripe to be conquered in war. Saddam's aggression against that country left another million people dead. Carter further funded Palestinian jihadists. He was by far the absolute worst President in American history.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:02pm
Carter made Nixon look good.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:04pm
But for months Mr Dreyfuss, you and the libs here have been berating Israel and those of us who said that Iran was engaged in more than was previously disclosed.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
A perfect example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
1. The IAEA were aware of this facility being built for over s year 2. Iran declared it even before it is required to. Under the NPT, no nuclear facility needs to be declared until fissile material is introduced, and the estimates are that Iran are 1 year way from making the new enrichment facility operational. 3. There is no evidence the new facility violates the NPT and certainly no evidence is has anything to do with a nuclear bomb. 4. Iran has involved the IAEA to oversee this facility, so it's hardly a dirty secret.
Israel the West are spreading false propaganda once again.
I hope that helps alleviate your massive ignorance Larry.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:12pm
#
Carter, like left liberals today, had a soft spot for jihad. He also funded the brave Islamist resistance to puppet government leaders in Afghanistan
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009
So did Reagan, who went one better and described them as freedom fighters representing American values.
They became the Taliban, who incidentally, have nothing to do with 911..
There was no risk of millions at risk of death by starvation and disease, or those at risk would have already died..
Saddam Hussein wasn't hungry for Iran's oil. He had plenty.
We funfed both sides of Saddam's war against the Iranians.
Carter did not fund Palestinian jihadists. Hams was created by Israel.
I hope that helps alleviate your massive ignorance rightwingnutcase.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:16pm
The immediate issue isn't a military attack on Iran, but whether it would be productive to threaten, and implement additional sanctions against Iran if it is not forthcoming relatively quickly.
Posted by gren at 09/25/2009 @ 12:43pm
So I take it Gren, that you are an opponent of the NPT and would like to see it abolished?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
"They became the Taliban, who incidentally, have nothing to do with 911.."
So, does bin Laden have anything to do with 9/11?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
"Saddam Hussein wasn't hungry for Iran's oil. He had plenty."
So what motivated him to kill 700,000 Iranians then?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:19pm
So, does bin Laden have anything to do with 9/11?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
Sure, but he was Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. And before you argue that the Taliban gave him a place to stay, the 19 hijackers were allowed to remain in the US for a year, even while outstaying their Visas. Does that mean Bush had anything to do with 9/11?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:21pm
So what motivated him to kill 700,000 Iranians then?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:19pm
Territory, not oil. Iraq had more oil than it knew what to do with.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
"We funfed both sides of Saddam's war against the Iranians."
No, we only funded Saddam on the grounds that revolutionary Iran was a greater threat and had to be contained. Given Saddam killed 2,150,000 people and in the same length of time but with more than twice as many people the Mullahs killed "over 100,000," that may have been the wrong choice.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
No, we only funded Saddam on the grounds that revolutionary Iran was a greater threat and had to be contained.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
No we funded Saddam as part of the Cold War and to hurt Iran, We then armed Iran, as part of Iran contra.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:24pm
I've been waiting for the first courageous leftist, especially you Iran supporters who will step up and declare that Obama is lying (BTW, I don't think he lied).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 3:02pm
I will.
Obama is doing what is politically expedient. If he had any curiosity about the matter, he would consult the experts, rather than regurgitate talking points from think tanks and the Israerl Lobby.
"The size and type of the facility is inconsistent with that of a peaceful facility."
On what basis? The facility, as it stands, is an empty building. What delineates a peaceful facility from a non peaceful one is what it is used for.
If it were not a peaceful facility, why would Iran invite the IAEA to oversee it?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:29pm
and contrary to your leftist website sources, George Sr. left Carlyle before 2001.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:49pm
So what? he's still a massive shareholder, just as Cheney is a massive shareholder in Halliburton.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:31pm
So what motivated him to kill 700,000 Iranians then?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:19pm
What motivated the US to kill 400,000 Iraqis and start a war that killed 1.2 million?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:33pm
Carter was the first liberal left radical Socialist pinko dove hippy America-hater jihadist to win the Presidency, and thankfully the only one. He supported Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ayatollah Khomeini, bin Laden, Saddam, and everyone else who hated America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:35pm
The world's largest sponsor of terrorism "never attacked any country"? Laughable
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:22pm
The largest sponsor of terrorism according to whom Larry? Oh that's right, according to the US, who under the definition of terrorism, is in fact largest sponsor of terrorism.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:36pm
"What motivated the US to kill 400,000 Iraqis and start a war that killed 1.2 million?"
The war has killed 150,000.
"Under-5 mortality in Iraq fell by 62% between 1997 and 2006 according to UNICEF figures [Table 5]. This equates to 71,000 lives.
At 1997 child mortality rates, 114,000 deaths would have been recorded in 2006. The actual figure was 43,000. The number of births was up by 156,000 to 937,000 in 2006 but the number of under-5 deaths was down by 52,000 to 43,000 - less than half the 95,000 deaths recorded in 1997 (2006 birth and child mortality data [PDF], UNICEF; 1997 birth and child mortality data [PDF], UNICEF, p.95)."
Without Saddam and the sanctions, with billions in US aid, and with new hospitals and water purification facilities, nearly 300,000 Iraqis have been saved, not even counting that, based on Saddam's average rate of killing, he would have killed 150,000 directly by 2010.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:39pm
I've certainly not been wrong about Iran which is this thread's topic. I'm certainly not wrong about Islam and the threat it poses to the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 4:00pm
But you have Larry. Very wrong.
You insist that Iran is making nukes or has a nuclear weapons program, but you can't produce any evidence of one.
You are a Zionist Islamphobe, with delusions about Israel harking the return of Jesus, so you are wrong about Islam in the same way that Jim Crowe was wrong about African Americans.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:40pm
During 2006, the bloodiest year of the war, Americans killed 226 Iraqi civilians, all accidentally. We killed 400,000? How laughable!!!!!!! How did Bush cover up so well and so completely such a massive bloodbath?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:42pm
The war has killed 150,000.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:39pm
The war has killed 1.2 million as that was as of 2008.
Mortality in Iraq is still higher than at any time under Saddam.
1 million died in the 90's due to the sanctions that the US was imposing.
Those deaths were the responsibility of the US, according to Madelaine Albright.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:44pm
Carter was the first liberal left radical Socialist pinko dove hippy America-hater jihadist to win the Presidency, and thankfully the only one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:35pm |
All rubbish of course.
Pol Pott came to power because of Nison's bombing campaign.
Nixon shook hands with Mao.
Ayatollah Khomeini,
Ragan supported Bin Laden, and called him a freedom fighter who represented the values of our founding fathers.
Ragan supported Saddam, abd set Rumsfeld to Baghdad to kiss his ass.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:47pm
How did Bush cover up so well and so completely such a massive bloodbath?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:42pm
Easy, by not doing body counts remember?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:48pm
Carter made Nixon look good.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:04pm
Bush made Carter look good.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 6:50pm
"so you are wrong about Islam in the same way that Jim Crowe was wrong about African Americans."
If it were up to you, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis would have needlessly died painful deaths, as would have millions of Afghans. You care nothing for Muslims. You support genocide against Muslims in Sudan.
You cannot hate a religion the way you can hate a randomly categorized group of millions of individual human beings. Islam is evil. The Koran is as bad as Mein Kampf. It explicitly says Jews are "the descendants of monkeys and pigs" and calls for them to be exterminated. It says all non-Muslims must be killed or enslaved or converted. It commands jihad. It supports the rape, beating, mutilation, and torture of women very explicitly.
Hating all Muslims is irrational because your cultural background is randomly and arbitrarily assigned to you in a purely accidental manner, and is not genetically determined or your own choice (keep in mind religion is simply an aspect of one's culture). A Muslim has the same potential as does any other individual human being on the planet, and is free to reject obscene passages in the Koran as a matter of principle. You irrationally encourage Islamist theocracies to torture Muslim secularists with electric drills and vats of acid by arguing that anyone who criticizes any Koranic teaching at any time for any reason under any circumstances is inherently a racist and a Nazi and a Christian fundamentalist who should be censored.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:57pm
"Mortality in Iraq is still higher than at any time under Saddam."
That's certifiably been proven to be an extraordinary lie as a scientific fact. We're saving 71,000 Iraqis a year thanks to improved mortality.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:59pm
"Bush made Carter look good."
I think one could make a strong case Bush was the best President we've ever had.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
"If it were up to you, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis would have needlessly died painful deaths"
They did. 1.2 million have needlessly died painful deaths since the invasion.
"Islam is evil. "
Only a delusional wingnut would believe an entire religion is evil or compare a Koran to Mein Kampf.
"It explicitly says Jews are "the descendants of monkeys and pigs" and calls for them to be exterminated."
Which proves you've never read the Koran.
"Hating all Muslims is irrational because your cultural background is randomly and arbitrarily assigned to you in a purely accidental manner"
But if you hate Islam, then you hate Muslims, which makes you irrational.
"You irrationally encourage Islamist theocracies to torture Muslim secularists with electric drills and vats of acid"
That was Reagan who was calling these extremists freedom fighters while they were throwing acid in girls faces.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:04pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:57pm
Notice any relatives in this photo?
http://tinyurl.com/y88844v
As for your projected death toll numbers, stop pulling nonsense out of your ass. As for Muslims, it's not the job of the United States to insure that the rest of the world's governments are treating people fairly. Why don't we start implementing social justice here - starting with our prison populations in supermax prisons and our justice system that puts 1/3 of black men in prison, and then we can talk about social justice around the world?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 7:05pm
I think one could make a strong case Bush was the best President we've ever had.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:03pm
You might think that but you'd be wrong. It's widely understood that he is the worst we've ever had.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:07pm
That's certifiably been proven to be an extraordinary lie as a scientific fact. We're saving 71,000 Iraqis a year thanks to improved mortality.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 6:59pm
No it has not been proven. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the mortality rate in Iraq was lower under Saddam.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:09pm
"But if you hate Islam, then you hate Muslims"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Incredible irrationality!
Wouldn't the people of Sudan and Saudi Arabia be better off without Islam?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:10pm
"puts 1/3 of black men in prison"
All who are there for drug use should be released. Any and all rapists, murderers, kidnappers, or child molesters should get life without any possibility of parole.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:12pm
"Pol Pott came to power because of Nison's bombing campaign."
Absurd lie.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:15pm
Why should Israel not be allowed to defend itself? I am not a fan of it's policies in the Gaza Strip. I don't think it's settlement policy helps the dialog in the"peace process".However Israel has been the focus of all it's neighbors since 1946. They all have tried to destroy it in one way or another. They all want to lead the charge against her. All of the parties have failed.What is best about Israel,she is a democracy and that makes her different from most countries in the region. We support monarchies in the region,theocracies make up other governments, and then there are the dictators of Egypt,Syria, and Libya to name a few. So again I say if we have one strong ally in the region why we imperil it with a war that could do at best destabilize the region. We as a country have the advantage of geography. No country in this region does. We did not think through that part of the equation.
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 7:21pm
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 7:21pm
"Why should Israel not be allowed to defend itself?"
Because an occupier is not defending itself when it uses military force to punish those resiting occupation. Does a rapist get to claim self defense if the victim fights back and he is forced to kill her to stop her inflicting harm on him?
"However Israel has been the focus of all it's neighbors since 1946."
That is also false. In 1946, Israeli terror groups were killing Palestinians and driving them from their homes.
Israel has started every war since then, with the exception of 1973, which was really a continuation of the 1967 war that Israel started.
"What is best about Israel,she is a democracy and that makes her different from most countries in the region.
Correction. Israel is a democracy to Israeli Jews, otherwise it is an apartheid state.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:26pm
Wouldn't the people of Sudan and Saudi Arabia be better off without Islam?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:10pm
What has Islam got to do with the people of Sudan? Sudan is an Islamic country in a civil war.
Would we be better off without Christianity?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:10pm
I think the people of Sudan and Saudi Arabia can decide for themselves what religion to follow.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 7:35pm
"Would we be better off without Christianity?"
Yes. I've openly stated I hate Christianity. Nonetheless, Christianity is better for the world than any other religion that might have replaced it, save possibly for Judaism. We would be better off if no religions were ever invented by man.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:36pm
SA might be better off without the Saudi Royal family, who are a vile example of humanity.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 7:37pm
"I think the people of Sudan and Saudi Arabia can decide for themselves what religion to follow."
Absolutely, I agree. Too bad their Islamist governments literally use the Koran as their Constitution, since as a result they are not allowed to do that.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:38pm
"What has Islam got to do with the people of Sudan?"
The anti-Christian jihad in Sudan killed 2 million people. The anti-black/Arab supremacist jihad in Darfur killed 400,000. Sudan is a radical bin Laden supporting theocracy that rapes, enslaves, mutilates, and tortures women just as the Koran demands.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:41pm
Well Shing you are obviously anti Semetic. Hey that's o.k.we treated the Jews worse than we treated Native Americans. We said no one gave a shit if you were killed(only 6,000,000)in the Holocaust.We are going to partition this barely hospitable part of the Middle East and if you survive you can live there. They were lucky and they survived. They have been under attack in one form or another since 1947. The Palestinians have not been helped any more than the minimum by their Arab neighbors. It is a good spot to lob bombs into Israel from though. If our country had been bombed by Hamas as Israel was I am sure we would have steamrolled it(see Iraq). Israel has been attacked during times of national holiday(Yom Kippur) .They have been attacked by multiple nations at once. They have earned the benefit in defending their nation. I am not a war guy but I support Israel.
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 8:10pm
Too bad their Islamist governments literally use the Koran as their Constitution, since as a result they are not allowed to do that.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:38pm
Correction. The governments use a perverted interpretation of the Koran.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 8:10pm
The anti-Christian jihad in Sudan killed 2 million people. The anti-black/Arab supremacist jihad in Darfur killed 400,000. Sudan is a radical bin Laden supporting theocracy that rapes, enslaves, mutilates, and tortures women just as the Koran demands.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:41pm
Christians have killed tens of millions throughout history, especially the dark ages.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 8:12pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 7:38pm
Your religion cannot be dictated by government. The experience of the Jewish people, among others, illustrates this fact.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 8:10pm
You are an ignoramus. For a start, I am Jewish, so you put your foot in your own mouth from the start,
Yes, we treated Jews badly, but unlike the Native Americans, Jews enjoy much respect these days, and for good reason.
Israel of course, is not "The Jews". In fact, most Jews prefer not to live in Israel.
The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust, so why are they being forced to pay the price for the evils of the West?
Land that was home to a million Palestinians was taken from them and given to a handful of immigrants.
The Zionist founders weer plotting to drive out the native Palestinians from their land 50 years before Israel was created.
Israel has NOT been under attack since 1947. Israelis terror groups were terrorizing the local population, and carrying out atrocities, such as those at Deir Yassin, in order to drive out the Palestinians. You see, the Zinioists were not content with their own state, they wanted a Jewish majority, which would have been impossible given that Palestinians were overwhelmingly in the majority, even in the Israel partition.
It's true that the Palestinians have not been helped much by the Arab states, but then again, the problem was created by Israel's ethnic cleansing and land theft, so it's Israel's crime.
As for Hamas bombs and missiles, Israel fired more shells into Gaza than in 12 months than all the rockets Hams have fired. If our was being occupied and blockaded, we would be retaliating too. In 1967, argued that a blockade was an act of war. Israel has been blockading Gaza for 2 years.
You are a typical Zionist hack. You pretend to be impartial, then reel out all the Likud talking points verbatim.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 8:25pm
Shingo, as a liberal American Jew, what exactly is it that you find so personally appealing about global jihad?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 8:37pm
"Correction. The governments use a perverted interpretation of the Koran."
You're a joke. The Koran explicitly commands genocide and slavery in no uncertain terms. You are in denial. There is no other way to interpret it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 8:44pm
Shingo, as a liberal American Jew, what exactly is it that you find so personally appealing about global jihad?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 8:37pm
Nothing, but then I don;t find anything particularly appealing about the Jewish Taliban settlers in occupied Palestine either.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 8:59pm
You're a joke. The Koran explicitly commands genocide and slavery in no uncertain terms. You are in denial. There is no other way to interpret it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 8:44pm
Please provide a quote of passages from the Koran, as translated by an Islamic scholar, that explicitly commands genocide and slavery in no uncertain terms.
Failure on your part will render you a liar.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 9:02pm
Shing, I will tell you what I am. I am just a 51 year old guy that considers himself a WW2 buff. I worked at a meat company for 20 years. It was owned by 2 Jewish brothers. I read probably 200 books on the Holocaust.I do not have a personal interest in having a family member slaughtered during that time frame. It is too bad you don't care about others of your faith. I could care less about Likud or any of the politicians.This is my personal opinion based upon reading. If you are ashamed to be a Jew so be it. If you also believe it is a piece of cake to live there,so be it. The countries that surround Israel sing it's praises every day don't they . This was an allusion to psychological war but that's o.k. you probably have your feet up right now. The partition of 1947 was set up by whom? Zionists,please come up with something better than that. Not too often do I have people calling me an idiot because I stood up for their faith. Who has the money,Israel or the Palestinians? This is the best buffer zone the Arab states could ever have. Just think a dirt poor existence,hatred and vitriol,and money for your family if you would suicide bomb your enemy just across a fence line. What I would do as a Jew is tell a Methodist like me that I am a Zionist hack. Iwould turn my back on friends and relatives because someone who doesn't know them supports them. You call me an ignoramus,well I am not sure what to call you,how about a traitor to your people and faith .
Posted by whatozz at 09/27/2009 @ 9:05pm
Seems pretty simple to me. Iran doesn't play fair. They are guilty of more than just their nuclear ambitions. Put into perspective, when we were in danger of losing hundreds of thousands of our troops in the battle for Japan in WWII, Harry Truman did make the difficult decision to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It ended the war and saved all those troops. We warned Japan's people to get out of those cities before the bombs were dropped.
Now, Israel faces a similar threat but instead of it coming from an American President, it is coming from a mdaman who wants to destroy Israel. It won't take much. Israel is a tiny country. The madman also doesn't believe the holocaust happened. Soon it will be too late for Israel to even take military action.
Sanctions or a blockade will be considered an act of war by Iran which will end up in military action anyway. Iran is asking for it.
We have a weak President now who doesn't understand the threat of a madman. He needs to read some history books.
I am hoping that Israel sidesteps Obama and secures their own country. If that means bombing the hell out of Iran, so be it. Iran has been decieving the west and Israel for years now. Iran's leaders should meet the same fate that Saddam Heussein and his son's did. Only this time it's Israel's turn to mete out the punishment. I say, warn the people and let the bombing begin. These threats against the world need to be neutralized, the sooner the better.
I hope the Barack Obama gets the hell out of the way.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:07pm
whatozz,
My regard for others is not limited to those of my faith. I judge people on their merits, not based on what religion or ethnicity they belong to. As you would agree, there are good and bad in all of these categories.
Being Jewish is consequence of a random event, thus I don not regard it as a basis for pride, nor is it any reason to be ashamed. I take pride in my life's achievements and my contributions to my community, not an arbitrary religion. My allegiance is to my family and friends. They are my people.
Israel's neighbors may not praise it, but then why should they? 22 of them have signed a peace initiative to not only recognize Israel, but normalize relations with Israel. It is Israel that has rejected the offer, because it means returning land that does not belong to her.
Meanwhile, Israel has taken on the traits of the very worst aspect of humanity and become what they most feared. They are a murderous state with shamefully racist policies. Why should I be proud of such an entity?
I never claimed that the partition of 1947 was set up by Zionist, in fact, Ben Gurion sated that Israel would superficially accept in but would reject it once Israel was legitimized.
If your opinion is colored by the fact that you have known good Jewish people, so be it, but don't confuse Judaism with Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 10:09pm
Seems pretty simple to me. Iran doesn't play fair.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/27/2009 @ 10:07pm
Simple minded is more like it.
Iran has signed the NPT, unlike Israel, Pakistan or India.
Iran has opened it's facilities to pervasive IAE inspections, unlike Israel, Pakistan or India.
Iran has not developed nukes, unlike Israel, Pakistan or India.
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel, whereas Israel have not only threatened to attack Iran, but were stopped from launching an attack last year, by the US president.
The fact that Israel is a tiny country is irrelevant. it has the 4th most powerful military in the world and 200 nukes.
In 1967, Israel considered sanctions/blockade an act of war, and acted on it, so Iran would be justified in doing the same.
If you are hoping that Israel sidesteps Obama and secures their own country, then let them do it on their own. They wanted to do so last year, and Bush said no. I guess that makes him a weak president too.
"Iran has been decieving the west and Israel for years now. "
They said the same thing about Iraq.
Name one IAEA or US intelligence report that supports your claim, or do you know something that the IAEA and US intelligence does not?
"I say, warn the people and let the bombing begin. "
Does that mean the US comes to Israel's rescue when Iran retaliate, or does staying out of Israel's way mean allowing them to throw a sucker punch and then running and hiding behind our skirt when the other side responds?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 10:26pm
Muhammad commanded his jihadis (holy warriors) "to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Quran 9:5) and "Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them" (Quran 47:4). He taught that those who reject Islam are the "vilest of creatures" and deserve no mercy (Quran 98:6).
Given that the Koran says all non-Muslims must be killed, I believe that killing billions of non-Muslims would be genocide.
It is believed that the death toll, over a period of 14 centuries, from the Muslim slave raids into Africa could be as high as 112 million.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 10:59pm
"They wanted to do so last year, and Bush said no. I guess that makes him a weak president too."
Actually, that was the right call. AQ wants us to invade Iran.
I think that Bush's big error and moral failing was that he didn't stop the evil genocidal jihad in Sudan. Omar al-Bashir is the most unspeakably evil man in all the world save for Kim Jong-Il.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:05pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 10:59pm
"Muhammad commanded his jihadis (holy warriors) "to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them""
Can you provide the source of this quote, an the name of the Islamic scholar who interpreted it please?
This quote belongs to a much longer passage that qualifies that the non believers are to be slain if they have killed and have not repented.
The Bible says pretty much the same thing. Kill non believers and those who disrespect their parents for example. That a man who rapes a girl has to marry her.
"It is believed that the death toll, over a period of 14 centuries, from the Muslim slave raids into Africa could be as high as 112 million."
You believe, meaning there is no facts to back it up.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:09pm
Actually, that was the right call. AQ wants us to invade Iran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:05pm
I agree entirely.
"Omar al-Bashir is the most unspeakably evil man in all the world save for Kim Jong-Il."
I though Saddam was. Time to look for a new boogie man I guess.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:11pm
"Can you provide the source of this quote, and the name of the Islamic scholar who interpreted it please?"
Osama bin Laden.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:12pm
"I though Saddam was."
He's dead. And actually both Bashir and Kim have killed far more people then he did.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:14pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 10:59pm
Here is the correction of your Islamophobic mis-interpretation.
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191 YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
002.192 YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
002.193 YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to respond. The context is very clear on that, the theme comes into play on verse 190, not verse 191 which Islamophobes quote alone. Islamophobes should quote from verse 190 onwards, and once doing so will see this refers to defensive war, not an offensive one. If people attack Muslims then Muslims have the right to fight back.
The verses goes further, and says that if the people who started the fight stop and make peace, than Muslims too must also stop and make peace as well.
Verse 191 does not advocate terrorism or genocide, it advocates self-defense.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:24pm
And actually both Bashir and Kim have killed far more people then he did.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:14pm
Sure. Saddam only killed 300,000 in 24 years after all.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:27pm
"Can you provide the source of this quote, and the name of the Islamic scholar who interpreted it please?"
Osama bin Laden.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:12pm
Too funny, but you prove my point.
OBL is not an Islamic Scholar, but a purveyor of a distorted and extreme interpretation of Islam, that is widely rejected throughout Islam.
OBL is regarded in the Muslim world as a loon the same way we regard David Duke/Pat Robertson, only with a lot fewer followers.
Anyway, I have already corrected your ignorant mis-representation.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:30pm
The State Department estimated that Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds and 60-90,000 in 1991. After the war, it was estimated that at least 61,000 Iraqis were killed in Baghdad alone by Saddam. Based on that, we could estimate Saddam killed a minimum of 300,000, true, as you suggested, but that would not be counting a more likely estimate of 150,000 Kurds and 150,000 in 1991 (HRW says between 90-230,000 died). This would give you 600,000 dead as a minimum total. However, if estimates vary from 600,000 to 1,000,000, then 800,000 is the most likely estimate. Based on what I've seen, most human rights organizations say Saddam killed 500,000 not counting 300,000 in genocide. That gives you an average of 33,333 per year. However, since there is no way of knowing if Saddam would have committed genocide again, we can only know for sure that he would have killed 500,000 divided by 24 every year absent our intervention. This gives you 20,833 every year, supported by The Weekly Standard's estimates. By 2010, he would have killed nearly 145,831 people. However, this number would go sharply upward if you counted the sanctions.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:32pm
Saddam killed 1,000,000 people by invading Iran in addition to this 800,000. Add in 350,000 or so starved to death by the manipulation of the sanctions regime, and Saddam killed 2,150,000 over 24 years.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:34pm
Kim and Bashir both killed more than that many in the 90s alone.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:35pm
"The Bible says pretty much the same thing. Kill non believers and those who disrespect their parents for example. That a man who rapes a girl has to marry her."
Why, you racist Christianaphobe!!!!!!!!
This is a gross mistranslation of a message of tolerance and love for all mankind! What evangelical Christian do you cite in order to verify that your interpretation was correct and intended by God?!?
You clearly want to bomb Christian countries just to kill innocent Christian babies for fun. You hate all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and want to kill them all, especially if they have blonde hair or blue eyes!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:41pm
The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:32pm
The State Department estimated that Saddam killed 300,000 people in total throughout his rule.
Half a million were killed during the Iraq/Iraq war, in which we armed and financed both sides.
The 350,000 or so starved to death was the responsibility of the US as admitted by Madelaine Albright.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:46pm
The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:46pm
Again, you are deliberately cheery picking phases from sentences to conflate their meaning and context.
The Book of revelation is full of statements about fire and hell and wrath and mass murder.
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:48pm
Why, you racist Christianaphobe!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:41pm
I'm not a Christianaphobe, I hate all religions.
"This is a gross mistranslation of a message of tolerance and love for all mankind!"
It might be, but the literral translation suggests that a woman who has been raped deserves to suffer for the rest of her life as a slave to her assailant.
That's exactly what you were doing by mistranslation a message of self defense from the Koran.
"You clearly want to bomb Christian countries just to kill innocent Christian babies for fun."
No I don't advocate bombing anyone or any countries. where as you do.
"You hate all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants"
Not all, just the racist, ignorant, xenophobic ones. Blond hair and blue eyes? Are you that mentally deranged?
Posted by Shingo at 09/27/2009 @ 11:52pm
""This is a gross mistranslation of a message of tolerance and love for all mankind!"
It might be, but the literral translation suggests that a woman who has been raped deserves to suffer for the rest of her life as a slave to her assailant.
That's exactly what you were doing by mistranslation a message of self defense from the Koran."
Notice how clueless Shingo is: It doesn't even occur to him that my comments were sarcastic and designed to use his own vulgar PC hysteria against him. He actually thought I was SERIOUS!!!!!!!
You are one thick little child.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:59pm
"I'm not a Christianaphobe, I hate all religions."
You are willing to point out pro-rape Bible quotes but cover your ears and start humming when someone points out pro-rape quotes from the Koran.
Are you afraid the jihadists might behead you?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 12:02am
"No I don't advocate bombing anyone or any countries. where as you do."
You make that sound so humane.
You don't advocate war on Sudan. NO MATTER HOW MANY MILLIONS BASHIR KILLS, you'll always turn the other cheek. How moral! How ethical!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 12:04am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/27/2009 @ 11:59pm
Your attempt at humor failed miserably, as do most of your arguments.
I have no time for PC.
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 12:06am
You don't advocate war on Sudan. NO MATTER HOW MANY MILLIONS BASHIR KILLS, you'll always turn the other cheek. How moral! How ethical!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 12:04am
What you can't get though your tiny right wing brain is that war kills more people. Wingnuts think that you can save villages and countries in order to save them.
In Iraq, we started a war that killed more people that Saddam killed in 24 years. How is that ethical?
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 12:09am
"Wingnuts think that you can save villages and countries in order to save them."
True.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/28/2009 @ 12:14am
That line was meant to say, wingnuts this you can destroy villages and countries in order to save them.
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 12:27am
How is it a secret when Iran formally notified the IAEA of the facility's construction not 6 months before completion, but 18 months?
The US and Israel are in a panic.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Under the NPT, Iran has a legal right to build nuclear power stations and to produce the fuel for them. Under Article IV, the international community, including the United States, is supposed to help them do it.
Under IAEA rules, any nation building a new nuclear facility must notify the IAEA 6 months before any new facility becomes operational. Iran's new facility is still 18 months away from completion, but Iran notified the IAEA last Monday in accordance with the NPT rules.
This revelation is embarrassing for the US and Israel for two reasons.
1. Contrary to face-save propaganda, the US and Israel probably did not know about this facility. It would have advanced the US and Israeli agenda to create war with Iran by revealing the facility before Iran could formally notify the IAEA. That would have put Iran totally on the defensive about the facility. That the US and Israel did not do so suggests they were caught totally off guard (which also casts doubt on the so-called intelligence sources that claim Iran is building a weapon).
2. Iran announced the new facility to prove it is playing by the IAEA rules. Iran did so probably to underscore the fact that Israel just told the IAEA and the United Nations to go to hell, following a request by the IAEA and the United Nations for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and submit to IAEA inspections.
So once again, Iran is playing by the rules, and Israel and the US are not.
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 01:09am
Despite the endless list of officials in the Bush and Obama Administrations who have presented Iran's nuclear weapons program as something known with absolute certainty, top members of the US intelligence community have said as recently as last week that they in fact believe with high confidence that Iran doesn't have an active nuclear weapons program.
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 02:01am
Sorry, folks, but Obama's bombshell and the clamor from the marionette chorus (Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, et al.) is a put-up job. The secret facility is not a weapons facility but an enrichment facility of the kind that Iran already has in operation, under IAEA inspection, and which will also be open to IAEA inspection and monitoring. As the Iranians have pointed out, there is no nuclear material presently at this facility, which is under construction. Iran's obligation to notify the IAEA under law and agreement is 18 months prior to operationality, and Iran will be in compliance and pretty clearly always meant to be in compliance. Read Scott Ritter's September 27 coverage in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifameri ca/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant- inspections Obama's announcement and tut-tut rhetoric constitute yet another opportunistic play to mobilize political sentiment against Iran through scare tactics; Dick Chaney couldn't have done better. But we should ask: what is the real concern about Iran's secret facility? Why was it kept secret? And why is Iran building it? That's fairly simple. The difference between the new facility and the existing facilities is that this one is less vulnerable to military attack by Israel and/or the U.S. That's the sum of the "threat" from the Iranians. And what's the real concern about Iran's nuclear program? The intelligence and monitoring agencies know that Iran is not aiming at constructing nuclear weapons, which would be stupidly suicidal, but at reducing its domestic dependence upon petroleum by shifting to nuclear power. That would free up a lot of Iran's petroleum for sale abroad - for instance, to the Chinese. Worse yet, other might get the point and follow suit. There's the real horror!
Posted by mikjall at 09/28/2009 @ 02:19am
Posted by mikjall at 09/28/2009 @ 02:19am
Excellent post. Once again, the right wing has been had, just as they were with the Iraq BS. It just goes to prove, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 02:27am
US and Co will support any dictator , as long as he obeys them. When Saddam Hussain killed Kurds in Iraq with chemical weapons, this so-called super powers did nothing against it.Donald Rumsfeld was a regular visitor in Iraq. Even the weapons were supplied by them. If the super powers are allowed to explore the Iranian oil, they won't utter a world against Iran.They are only interested in countries, where natural resources are seen abundant.Democracy and WMDs are just excuses to attack or interfere other countries for them. IRAN IS THEIR NEXT TARGET. But they forget the fact IRAN withstood 8 years of war with Iraq which was supported by West and the some Arab states.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/28/2009 @ 05:06am
Why do we want any war to start? Why are different geographical points so good or bad? How about the philosophy or religion in or from those areas. This group of killing estimations and weapons capabilities rivals the years of stupidity in Northern Ireland. It is time for everyone to wake up. The underlining bottom line here seems to be of an economic nature,surprise surprise.
Posted by whatozz at 09/28/2009 @ 08:12am
Forgive me for not responding to Shingle. I've outted him as a nutcase a while ago. My opinion hasn't changed.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 08:43am
that can not be acheived without first conquering the entire institutions of power in this country. Posted by excalibur999 at 09/27/2009 @ 5:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I have here a list of 150 Zionists in the state department.
McCarthy lives
Posted by emile duBois at 09/28/2009 @ 10:30am
Forgive me for not responding to Shingle. I've outted him as a nutcase a while ago. My opinion hasn't changed.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/28/2009 @ 08:43am
Outed me to whom? Do you think the voices in your head qualify for an audience?
Posted by Shingo at 09/28/2009 @ 6:25pm