Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFirst the Bush Administration undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by supplying India with nuclear technology, then it flirts with the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
The Administration's reckless nuclear politics has led thirteen of the nation's pre-eminent physicists--including five Nobel laureates--to join generals and intelligence officers as the latest to speak out.
In a letter to President Bush--barely reported in the media--the scientists call the planned use of nuclear weapons against Iran "gravely irresponsible" with "disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world." They note that "the NPT will be irreversibly damaged by the use or even the threat of use of nuclear weapons by a nuclear nation against a non-nuclear one…."
Further highlighting just how dangerously out-of-step the Bush administration is with a sane nuclear policy, one-time hardliner and Reagan administration arms negotiator, Max Kampelman, called for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in a New York Times op-ed on Monday. "I have never been more worried about the future for my children and grandchildren than I am today," he writes. (For a moment, I thought Kampelman was channeling Jonathan Schell's extraordinary Nation special issue calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.)
The hypocrisy of the Bush Administration in dealing with Iran is staggering. On the one hand it speaks of diplomacy while it also secretly plans regime change and the use of tactical nuclear weapons. And all the while the charge is led by a little man/would-be cowboy with a messianic vision who finds himself at the helm of the most powerful nation in history.
The least we must do as citizens at this critical moment is follow the lead of these wise physicists and demand that our representatives call for publicly taking the nuclear option against non-nuclear adversaries off of the table. And then we should heed Kampelman's call to bring back a measure of idealism to our politics, and "find a way to move from what 'is'--a world with a risk of increasing global disaster--to what 'ought' to be, a peaceful, civilized world free of weapons of mass destruction."
If a former Reaganite can summon the imagination to envision such a world, so must we.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Perhaps GW. Bush is trying to set up an insanity defense for his torture, wire tapping and treason crimes.
An attack on Iraq, given the disastourous consequences to the USA could only be considered by someone who is clinically psychotic.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 10:49am
Katrina,
Your article is the best and most thoughtful article that I have read on this issue. Randi Rhodes' web site, with the story of Divien Strake [therandirhodesshow.com], has been doing an excellent job highlighting this issue of Bush's nuclear insanity.
Most importantly is that you pointed out the fact that professionals, scientists,and other knowledgeable people have spoken out vehemently against the use of nuclear-weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:22am
KVH
I would dare point out KVH own hypocrisey, but why bother, she has no problem with it. I guess its ok for IRAN to threaten Israel with total destruction and the western world with threats to its security.
BUT how DARE WE THREATEN to fight BACK????? Oh thats right, this is liberal never never land where we do not fight back UNTIL are nose is broken and bleeding.
When do you guys think is a good time to deal with IRAN?? I am really curious.
Posted by CPT at 04/25/2006 @ 11:27am
ORAIBI
But its ok for IRAN to threaten destruction to all who dare oppose it? Where are the scientists and professionals denoucing that?
Posted by CPT at 04/25/2006 @ 11:29am
CPT,
I think you are bright enough to see through the bluster of the Iranian 'leadership'; so raise your level of discourse on the use of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is not a subject for trivial political retorts or empty-mindedness.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:37am
KVH
While I would be the first to agree with you that this administrations reckless disregard with respect to nuclear policy is potentially the most disastrous in a series of mindboggling policy blunders, calling Bush a "little man" and "would be cowboy" does nothing to legitimize your concerns. Name calling is subsophmoric and should be beneath the staff at the nation. Let the republicans be the party that continues to use this kind of dialogue........you only add fuel to the fire with these kind of napoleon like references, and it is beneath you.
Posted by jpolston at 04/25/2006 @ 11:49am
BUT how DARE WE THREATEN to fight BACK????? Oh thats right, this is liberal never never land where we do not fight back UNTIL are nose is broken and bleeding.
This article isn't opposing a threat to fight "back". It is opposing an ostensibly preventative NUCLEAR strike. Further, no one has said that it's ok for "...for IRAN to threaten Israel with total destruction and the western world with threats to its security", only that a military strike, especially a nuclear strike, isn't justified given that Iran's behavior, although justifying heightened suspicions, doesn't yet justify a military attack.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 12:00pm
What would justify a military attack? You'd need actual, positive proof that Iran had set up nuclear weapons production.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 12:01pm
Brunowe,
Although I would like to see limits on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I do not think the fact, alone, that Iran is developing or has developed nuclear weapons is a just cause for attacking the country.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:04pm
Brunowe,
Attacking them will not get rid of their program it will only embolden their program. It will also encourage other "rogue" countries to develop nuclear weapons (as N. Korea is safe from pstchotic George).
Arab states at the moment are permamntly afraid of both the USA and Israel. When (and it's not a question of if) Iran gets nukes there is a school of thought emerging that it will be sufficient for not only Iran to get a better feeling of security from the USA and Israel but for all of the Arab world to feel safer, helping to ensure stabilty and prosperity throughout the region.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 12:15pm
And so The Nation takes a brave stand against nuking Iran, genocide and drowning kittens in bags. Yet, Like MoveOn.org [counterpunch.com] and other democrat propaganda rags, it can't bring itself to condemn the more likely conventional attacks on Iran. Likewise it'll pimp hopelessly rigged democrat primary challanges as faux-liberal progress, but nary a word about real independent antiwar challangers.
Welcome to the new Regan-Democrat version of The Nation. It's motto..."Lipservice 'R Us!"
Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/25/2006 @ 12:23pm
Oraibi1952 and FreedomPlease
I don't think the Arab world (particularly the Sunni part) would feel safer if Iran had nukes. Further, although I don't favor hare-brained notions such a supporting Iranian "regime-change", I also don't want Iran to be able to offset our conventional power in the area with nuclear weapons. I'm also concerned about the possibility of a very small device being passed onto Hezbollah.
I think an Iran with nukes is sufficiently alarming as to legitimize the force option (although not necessarily as a first resort). An attack, although not fatal to their program, would certainly disrupt it some.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 12:24pm
Freedom,
Fear of the U.S. and Israel is not only leading Islamic nations of the Middle East to develop nuclear technology[kind of like Israel's fear of annihilation by the Muslim 'hordes'], but it is forcing them to build new strategic alliances; specifically with China and India.
The Middle East nations appear to be applying an old diplomatic tactic previously used by 'neutral' nations, and that tactic is to keep friends in both political camps.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:29pm
I will add that any policy designed to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state must also be accompanied by pressuring Israel into nuclear disarmament and signing off the NPT as well as a forswearing of a policy of regime-change in Iran.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 12:33pm
I also don't want Iran to be able to offset our conventional power in the area with nuclear weapons.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 12:24am
BRUNOWE - Your comment cited above describes, indirectly, the nub of the problem for the U.S.: Why do we need any type of military power presence in the Middle East? We both know the answer to the question just posed.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:33pm
I don't want US military force to be used to control oil, but I do want it available to keep it from being used as a weapon against us and to deal with the contingency of hostile Taliban-style regimes.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 12:43pm
BRUNOWE/ORAIBI
By that same token of Iranian bluster, let us not be fooled into actually believing a nuke strike is the first option that Bush would chose. Rational people know it is not in any way a first option.
The threat of such a strike has the Iranians rightfully considering the possibility, as any govt would do, this will give responsible elements in that govt, and i am sure there are a couple something to consider. Remember all Bush said was that:
"all options are on the table"
its still funny, that from this comment, the Nation gets its underwear in a twist, but has nary said a word from the real threats from Iran, albeit mainly bluster.
However, in this realm we should not allow Iranian knuckle-heads to cower us into limiting our options. If we show the carrot, they win, if we show the stick, they step back and re-evaluate.
There is nothing wrong in showing how big the stick is.
We are dealing with people who will only listen to and RESPECT strength.
Posted by CPT at 04/25/2006 @ 12:52pm
Brunowe,
Israel is not going to disarm as they feel scared (legitimately). But Iran also feels scared which is why they are getting nukes.
Perhaps Iran is five years away from getting nukes. Perhaps they are ten years away. Conventional airstrikes today would make it 7-12 years away but would make the hornets nest much more active. I'll take 5-10 years thanks.
A "tactical" nuclear attack would make it 10-15 years but it would also open the door for any nuclear nation to use nukes for their own purposes....including Iran (when they got them) and N. Korea & Pakistan & Israel & Russia et al.
A complete nuclear attack literally wiping Iran off the face of the earth would eradicate the world's fourth largest oil producer sending oil to probably $150/barrel. It would also very likely create two military "superpowers". The USA + Israel and perhaps the UK V the entire rest of the world.
An air attack followed by a military ground attack to occupy Iran and properly dismantle the nuke program would take the deployment of at least 500,000 extra US troops to the theatre for a minimum of 5 years. We would endure counter attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Iran would cease oil production. Under this scenario the American population would have to endure $6+/gallon gasoline and a significantly deep draft for at least five years.
I'm sorry but the spoiled brat that is American foreign policy is not going to get what it wants this time which is a nuclear free Iran. That ship sailed when Bush named the Axis of evil trio and then attacked the weakest of the trio.
Shitty decisions have shitty consequences.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 12:52pm
I don't want US military force to be used to control oil, but I do want it available to keep it from being used as a weapon against us and to deal with the contingency of hostile Taliban-style regimes.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 12:43am
BRUNOWE -- You have a lot of issues packed in the statement above. Do you care to expound on control of oil, oil as a weapon, Taliban-style regimes and the hostility of such regimes?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:52pm
CPT,
I don't believe Bush anymore than I believe the leaders of Iran; both political leaders show a tendency to mislead their countrymen.
Moreover, the nuclear-simulation test scheduled by the Bush Administration belies the argument that Bush doesn't intend to use nuclear weapons in a first strike operation. I don't believe we (the U.S.) have a vehicle capable of delivering 700 tons of conventional explosives.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:58pm
CPT
The use of nuclear weapons in a first-strike may have been acceptable doctrine in a last-ditch defense of Europe against a Warsaw Pact attack, but it's hardly justifiable given our tremendous conventional preponderance. Nuclear weapons are so qualitatively different from other weapons that you can't just lump them in with other measures that we can threaten with.
You have a lot of issues packed in the statement above. Do you care to expound on control of oil, oil as a weapon, Taliban-style regimes and the hostility of such regimes?
I suppose I mean something like--The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, possible Iranian actions against the oil flow, a Shi'ite fundamentalist regime taking power in one of the Gulf Emirates. What I don't mean would be a sovereign Iraqi government, if such a think ever happens, deciding to nationalize the Halliburton-built infrastructure.
FREEDOMPLEASE
Israel has a sufficient conventional preponderance that they really have no justification for nukes, unless Iran gets them. I'm not I agree that conventional strikes would only have a minimal effect. Take out the reactor at Bushehr, take out the uranium mines, etc. I suspect we could be do with a proper military analysis of this contingency, know where we can find one?
I agree that the other options s/b off the table but I think a retention of a conventional option with the other measures I mentioned is worthwhile to try.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 1:00pm
Brunowe,
I use the two years / five years numbers as time of itteruption flippantly, of course I don't really know how many days / weeks / years or decades the options would buy us.
But the fact remains that Iran deliberately buried their nuke facilities as they were legitimately concerned with Israel doing what Israel did to Iraq's nuclear reactor. Therefore, I cannot imagine that a facility designed to withstand a conventional bombing attack would suffer irreperable damage under a conventional bombing attack.
And besides, Iran's gains in the last fifteen years have been primarily research and knowledge gains.....unless we're killing the scientists and burning the records, we're not buying much time even actually destroying the reactor (which I still think is extremely improbable with a conventional bombing attack).
As Israel's policy is driven by fear so is Iran's. US foreign policy in this case appears to be likely to be driven by a "feeling of doing something". In other words, it might be tactically the best option to allow Iran to go nuclear but it appears we'll drop o bunch of ineffective bombs before they do as it will give us the illusion that we tried to do something.
End result either way is that they go nuclear but in one scenariuo it is without us having attacked them since we proxied Iraq to do that for us in 1980 and in the other scenario it is with us having attacked them in an unprovoked manner in 2006 so as to throw red meat to our own electorate.
Take your pick.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 1:16pm
BRUNOWE,
The major problem regarding oil, that I see the U.S. having, is a gluttonous tendency to consume more oil than any other nation on the planet. Fixing this problem would go a long way into easing tensions in the Middle East.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 1:17pm
ORAIBI
I totally agree
FREEDOMPLEASE
I think the conventional weapons have advanced since Osirak. I believe we have conventional bunker-busters.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 1:22pm
Bruno, your blood lust and your imperial pronouncements are thinly disguised.
the answer to the world's problems is NEGOTIATIONS and diplomacy, not being the baddest mo fu on the planet.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 1:29pm
An Aside:
Bush's Saudi friends seem to be at the terrorist game again.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 1:31pm
Brunowe,
Do bunker busters kill scientists and destroy off site data retention facilities also?
If not, take your pick as to whether you want an Iran to be nuclear using their current reactor or if you'd rather them to be really pissed off and go nuclear using a reactor buried an addition 20 yards deep.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 1:31pm
One of the follies of the ill conceived US attack on Iraq is that it helped elevate the price of oil to a now record $75/barrel. That has put billions of extra dollars into regimes that we perhaps would rather didn't have so much cash. Regimes such as Iran have the ability to now save foreign reserves so they can unilaterally withdraw from selling oil if they like. Regimes such as Venezuela can buy themselves more internal popularity. Every oil producer can funnel greater amounts of cash to fund terror if they so desire.
A high oil price is very detrimental to the usual paradigm of American foreign policy.
Shitty decisions have shitty consequences.
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 2:05pm
CPT
re: the real threats from Iran
Kinda like the "real threats' from Iraq? You know...as in WMDs that weren't there? (You DID watch 60 minutes right....Dubya KNEW the WMD argument was BS)
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/25/2006 @ 2:14pm
Shitty decisions have shitty consequences.
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/25/2006 @ 2:05pm
Freedom -- Latin phrase: mali principii malus finis serves as a kind of proxy for your maxim.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 2:21pm
Oraibi,
Thanks I'll have to remember that when I'm in the company of Latin speaking women!
Posted by freedomplease at 04/25/2006 @ 2:37pm
LOL
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 2:44pm
Another angle on the careless thinking about the use of nuclear-weapons and the planned, nuclear-simulation test in Nevada on 2006 June 2.
The nuclear-simulaton test will create a mushroom cloud similar to the clouds created during testing of real nuclear weapons. The problem with this nuclear-simulation mushroom cloud is that it may contain radiation-contaminated soil from previous real nuclear tests.
This contaminated soil will spread over a large area of the U.S. Southwest (e.g., Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and California are states that will be affected by the test) -- all depending on wind direction and speed. My guess is that 100 million people could be exposed to the radiation-contaminated soil thrusted into the atmosphere by Bush's planned nuclear-simulation test.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 3:08pm
"to deal with the contingency of hostile Taliban-style regimes"
the Taleban did not attack the US. the Taleban accepted a millions in US cash, as a reward for poppy eradication. the support the Taleban gave to Al Qaeda was not so different from the support they received form Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia.
let's also remember that it is THEIR oil in the mideast. most of Iranian oil goes to Europe. again, it's called diplomacy and negotiations.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 4:09pm
It takes a group of Nobel-winning scientists to teach us that nuclear weapons are bad? Well, whaddaya know?
For those who think that our threats to go nuts on Iran are going to impact their drive for nuclear development, I've got some acreage in bayou land that will be topnotch parcels for a new country club development. Battling insanity with insanity has not generally been a smart course of action. If we want international monitors to be all up inside their business, fine with me. But if the monitors are packing nukes, then I'm hoping to hop a ride on the next shuttle launch.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 5:20pm
the Taleban did not attack the US. the Taleban accepted a millions in US cash, as a reward for poppy eradication. the support the Taleban gave to Al Qaeda was not so different from the support they received form Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia.
let's also remember that it is THEIR oil in the mideast. most of Iranian oil goes to Europe. again, it's called diplomacy and negotiations.
The Taliban were close allies with al-Qaida, who did attack the US. That support was very different. There were al-Qaida personnel on the front line against the Northern Alliance, al-Qaida took out Massoud and there were marital alliances between Mullah Omar and bin-Laden.
Yes, it is their oil. I'm talking about an Iraq grabs Kuwait type of scenario.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 5:50pm
I will add that any policy designed to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state must also be accompanied by pressuring Israel into nuclear disarmament and signing off the NPT as well as a forswearing of a policy of regime-change in Iran.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 12:33am
I can't believe you're saying that after browbeating me for two or three days last week for saying the same thing with the exception that I advocated security guarantees for all states in the region, including israel.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 5:56pm
there are a lot more marital alliances between Bin Laden and the Saudis.there were no afghanis on the planes that attacked WTC. the war in Afghanistan was just a shuffling of warlords, and nothing is settled. we must remain alert to distinctions. you seem to have an imperialist mindset, and seem to believe that american military might is the solution to the world's problems
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 6:00pm
Bush's Saudi friends seem to be at the terrorist game again.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 1:31pm
From the article:
One of the questions facing Egyptian authorities is how is Al-Qaida smuggling explosive material into Sinai. The quantities of explosives being used make it clear that they do not come from dismantled mines, but from army units. The Egyptians are concerned that some of the explosive material is being smuggled into Sinai from Saudi Arabia.
A more likely source would be disaffected elements in the Egyptian army.
There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 6:10pm
There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/25/2006 @ 6:10pm |
Bin laden family had no ties to the Bush family. Hmmm.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 6:20pm
"deciding to nationalize the Halliburton-built infrastructure."
say what? we destroy the infrastructure, which was presumably nationalized in Iraq, and then you worry about Iraq deciding to nationalize Haliburton built infrastructure? which they haven't rebuilt?
I am opposed to US meddling everywhere in the world, as if america owned the world. take Lebanon, a semi sovereign country, the former prime minister is assassinated, and the US is interviewing the leader of Syria, a sovereign nation, in connection with that murder. what is wrong with this picture?
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 6:29pm
Birdy:"There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
nonsense, the Saudis have been buying off the islamic radicals in their country with money and madrassas. some of this money was surely used by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. as far as oppressed islamists in Saudi are concerned, Bin Laden is a freedom fighter who seeks to topple the repressive family regime.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 6:32pm
I am opposed to US meddling everywhere in the world, as if america owned the world. take Lebanon, a semi sovereign country, the former prime minister is assassinated, and the US is interviewing the leader of Syria, a sovereign nation, in connection with that murder. what is wrong with this picture?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/25/2006 @ 6:29pm
JR -- We (the U.S.) have fallen into the old trap that all imperialistic-minded nations get caught in; we find national interest in everthing because of greed for land or greed caused by one's economic system (capitalism in our case). The imperial trap brought down Rome and Great Britain, to name two examples of imperial greed.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 6:37pm
as Professor Eugen Weber has pointed out, the decline of empires is happening in ever shorter time spans. the british empire lasted as long as the decline of the roman empire, for instance. we are seeing that now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 6:43pm
Zbigniew Brzezinski says Bush should be impeached should he order an attack on Iran.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 7:31pm
JR,
I think people find empires to be detestable; empires represnt the greed of one nation and its leaders.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 7:33pm
there were no afghanis on the planes that attacked WTC. the war in Afghanistan was just a shuffling of warlords, and nothing is settled. we must remain alert to distinctions. you seem to have an imperialist mindset, and seem to believe that american military might is the solution to the world's problems
No, but the Afghans provided a secure base for the organization that put those people on the planes. Further, the Taliban, although not finished, are considerably weakened and al-Qaida was disrupted. More could've been done if the emphasis hadn't shifted to Afghanistan. No, I don't believe military force is the solution to all problems, but it was a legitimate solution in Afghanistan.
and the US is interviewing the leader of Syria, a sovereign nation, in connection with that murder.
My understanding is that the UN was investigating that, and with good reason, if Syria contrived the assassination of a leading Lebanese politician, that is exactly what the UN should be involved in.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 7:53pm
I can't believe you're saying that after browbeating me for two or three days last week for saying the same thing with the exception that I advocated security guarantees for all states in the region, including israel.
I thought I was the one being browbeaten. I have a problem with the idea that saying the above is a prerequisite for advocating sanctions on Iran.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 7:54pm
Amazing. Truly amazing.
haven't heard the term "nuclear madness!!!" since the silly days during the Reagan administration when the moonbats were trying to convince everybody that Republicans thought that thermonuclear war might be a good idea!
Rarely can a piece of writing be said to foam at the mouth. This fanatical, hateful, slanderous piece is an exception. Now they're trying to convince everybody that Dubya is seriously considering a tactical nuclear strike against Iran- because they themselves suggested it, and because the President- wisely- has declined to rule out any of his "options" in trying to deal with a fanatical regime not given to restraint or common sense!
In reality, of course, President Bush is no more considering a nuclear strike against Iran than he is considering skinny dipping in the Tidal Basin at high noon! But there is no bizarre accusation too macabre for the lunatic Left.
Nothing new about that, of course. We learned it all too well during the "madness!!!" of the 'Eighties!
No lie is too absurd, and no slander too vile, for the opponents of this President. But of course, we've long since learned that, too.
Note the incredible language: " the planned use of nuclear weapons against Iran!" Katrina Vanden Heuvel has truly given malicious paranoia a new definition!
Posted by Aquaeus at 04/25/2006 @ 8:21pm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD26Ak02.html
An interesting article in the Asia Times Online and the current political factions in Iran as their relation to the nuclear issue.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 8:45pm
There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/25/2006 @ 6:10pm
Bin laden family had no ties to the Bush family. Hmmm.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 6:20pm
Osama is a terrorist so, ipso facto, his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, and nieces become terrorists?
What do you call that? Genetic guilt?
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 8:48pm
Posted by AQUAEUS 04/25/2006 @ 8:21pm: In reality, of course, President Bush is no more considering a nuclear strike against Iran than he is considering skinny dipping in the Tidal Basin at high noon!
You whackjobs are all the same. How could you possibly accuse the Decider of considering skinny dipping in the Tidal Basin at high noon? Such mocking of our Leader during a time of war provides aid and comfort to our enemies. The Leader has deemed it necessary to task our military, the finest military in the history of the planet, to create plans for nuking the crazed Mullahs of Iran, and you have the treasonous audacity to mock him. You sir are an anti-American traitorous pig. Why do you hate America, Aquaman?
Posted by orwell2005 at 04/25/2006 @ 8:53pm
There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
nonsense, the Saudis have been buying off the islamic radicals in their country with money and madrassas. some of this money was surely used by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. as far as oppressed islamists in Saudi are concerned, Bin Laden is a freedom fighter who seeks to topple the repressive family regime.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/25/2006 @ 6:32pm
Did you mean to say, "Nonsense, but I don't have any evidence to back it up"?
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 8:54pm
Redbird,
I call that family connections.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 8:55pm
no solution in afghanistan, sorry bruno, Teleban evicted from Kabul, that had happened before and they came back. also al qaeda disrupted but not defeated, Osama not caught. what is the solution there? you are an apologist for Bush here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 8:56pm
Now they're trying to convince everybody that Dubya is seriously considering a tactical nuclear strike against Iran- because they themselves suggested it, and because the President- wisely- has declined to rule out any of his "options" in trying to deal with a fanatical regime not given to restraint or common sense!
In reality, of course, President Bush is no more considering a nuclear strike against Iran than he is considering skinny dipping in the Tidal Basin at high noon! But there is no bizarre accusation too macabre for the lunatic Left.
You know that Bush isn't-- how?? So Hersh is just making this up? That there aren't, at least, drawing up plans in case they want to use the B-61 thermonuclear bunker-buster bomb? And I think using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation ought to be off the table.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 8:56pm
no solution in afghanistan, sorry bruno, Teleban evicted from Kabul, that had happened before and they came back. also al qaeda disrupted but not defeated, Osama not caught. what is the solution there? you are an apologist for Bush here.
Sorry, the Taliban had never been ejected from Kabul before. They took it for the first time in 1996. Further, there is a difference between running the country and having to fight a guerilla war from bases in Waziristan. Likewise, although Osama wasn't caught, a some of his people were killed. Some have been captured in Pakistan, a move facilitated by the loss of their refuge in Afghanistan. A victory doesn't have to be total to be a victory.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 8:58pm
JR: and the US is interviewing the leader of Syria, a sovereign nation, in connection with that murder.
My understanding is that the UN was investigating that, and with good reason, if Syria contrived the assassination of a leading Lebanese politician, that is exactly what the UN should be involved in.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 7:53pm
What's "if" mean? The whole accusation is based on "informants" that were revealed to be totally bougus and wild speculation whipped up by the US. Very similar to "Iran is developing nuclear weapons".
It seems that you believe much of what is said by the most crooked President in US history and a press whose slavishness is rivalled only by Stalin's Pravda.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:01pm
I can't believe you're saying that after browbeating me for two or three days last week for saying the same thing with the exception that I advocated security guarantees for all states in the region, including israel.
I thought I was the one being browbeaten. I have a problem with the idea that saying the above is a prerequisite for advocating sanctions on Iran.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 7:54pm
I never said anything about any pre-requisite for sanctions on Iran. I said that a non-imperialist policy would most likely resolve any problems of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East which would make the idea of sanctions moot.
If I was browbeating you it must have worked because you've adopted my position wholesale. Jeezus.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:07pm
What's "if" mean? The whole accusation is based on "informants" that were revealed to be totally bougus and wild speculation whipped up by the US. Very similar to "Iran is developing nuclear weapons".
It seems that you believe much of what is said by the most crooked President in US history and a press whose slavishness is rivalled only by Stalin's Pravda.
No, I believe the UN, which implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials. You apparently believe that anyone disapproved of by the US must be as pure as driven snow.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 9:10pm
I said that a non-imperialist policy would most likely resolve any problems of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East which would make the idea of sanctions moot.
If I was browbeating you it must have worked because you've adopted my position wholesale. Jeezus.
I haven't adopted that position at all. I don't believe for a moment that Israel going nuclear-free is going to change whatever plans Iran may have. Further, I still think that sanctions will be necessary if Iran doesn't comply with what the IAEA wants.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 9:13pm
Bush's Saudi friends seem to be at the terrorist game again.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 1:31pm
There is also no evidence that any of the Saudi associates of Bush are tied to terrorism. That's why al-Qaeda is attacking them.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/25/2006 @ 6:10pm
Bin laden family had no ties to the Bush family. Hmmm.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 6:20pm
Osama is a terrorist so, ipso facto, his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, and nieces become terrorists?
What do you call that? Genetic guilt?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/25/2006 @ 8:48pm
Redbird,
I call that family connections.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 8:55pm
What you, in fact, are saying is that every Saudi is a terrorist because Osama Bin Laden is. That's a pretty lame statement and it sounds like you got your political analysis from Michael Moore's lame movie.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:17pm
What's "if" mean? The whole accusation is based on "informants" that were revealed to be totally bougus and wild speculation whipped up by the US. Very similar to "Iran is developing nuclear weapons".
It seems that you believe much of what is said by the most crooked President in US history and a press whose slavishness is rivalled only by Stalin's Pravda.
No, I believe the UN, which implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials. You apparently believe that anyone disapproved of by the US must be as pure as driven snow.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 9:10pm
Well, that clarifies a lot. Bogus witnesses are just dandy with you and if they aren't OK with me then I must think that anyone disapproved of by the US must be "as pure as driven snow". There's the driven snow analogy again, one of your favorites. The UN investigator's case against Syria is complete bullshit, very similar to Richard Butler's UN inspections in Iraq. My guess- they are both on the CIA payroll.
Forego your driven snow and explain the bullshit of bogus witnesses.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:25pm
I said that a non-imperialist policy would most likely resolve any problems of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East which would make the idea of sanctions moot.
If I was browbeating you it must have worked because you've adopted my position wholesale. Jeezus.
I haven't adopted that position at all. I don't believe for a moment that Israel going nuclear-free is going to change whatever plans Iran may have. Further, I still think that sanctions will be necessary if Iran doesn't comply with what the IAEA wants.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 9:13pm
You have a tremendous facility for saying that you didn't say what you did say and that I said what I didn't say. You're a waste of time and energy.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:28pm
I never thought there could be an issue that might make me think that the level of discourse on the left could be as stupid as that on the right. Apparently bringing out the nookyoolar threat on the part of our insipid president is just the thing to make us go all kookoo on each other. Dear God, let the right fight this stupid thing out to its rhetorical dead end. And let the left just say that nuclear weapons in the hands on anyone--sane or certifiably insane--is a horrible, unthinkable power to bestow upon anyone.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 9:33pm
To call Bush a little man is not an insult. I think it's a compliment.
Posted by alnowak at 04/25/2006 @ 9:40pm
Have a good evening.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 9:45pm
You have a tremendous facility for saying that you didn't say what you did say and that I said what I didn't say. You're a waste of time and energy.
Actually, that's your talent. I refused to say what sanction I'd impose on Israel, I did say that Israel shouldn't have nukes and should be in the NPT. I specifically said that Iran's build-up has more to do with deterring US conventional power than Israeli nukes.
The UN investigator's case against Syria is complete bullshit, very similar to Richard Butler's UN inspections in Iraq. My guess- they are both on the CIA payroll.
Your guess? Well that's useful. And which witnesses do you claim are bogus, and on what proof?
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 9:47pm
At the beginning of Dubya's presidency right wingers used to delight in making comparisons between Harry S. Truman and George W. Bush. Lengthy articles were written underlining the supposed similarities between Truman and Bush. What most of it boiled down to was that both were considered to be bumbling, plain talking little men ( albeit more inarticulate than plain talking in W's case ), who seemed too small and insignificant for the awesome responsibilties of the job. But damned if Harry didn't show the sceptics and by implication, if you believe that crap, little Georgie will too !
Lately the comparisons with Truman have started again because of Bush's diminishing popularity and the growing animosity against him personally. You have to hope to God that W. doesn't read his own press and try to top the list of similarities by joining Truman as the only other head of state in history to use atomic weapons against a sovereign nation.
Posted by msmuffet at 04/25/2006 @ 9:50pm
If a rube like Bush can frighten nuclear scientists and generals, maybe he will frighten other enemies as well.
Posted by marjon at 04/25/2006 @ 10:37pm
Here's the thing that pisses me off sometimes about those who post on this site:
Earlier this evening (several glasses of wine and beer ago) my wife and I engaged an older gentleman in a discussion at a local watering hole about current events, including the war. While he is a former (recently former) Marine and has sons and nephews in Iraq, and while he is still a diehard Republican, he is steadfastly against the president's policy in Iraq. Why? Neither he nor any of his military relatives can figure out what the fuck they are supposed to be doing in Iraq. He assumed, through our willingness to listen, that we were as he is--Republican, to the point that he ran to his car before we left the bar to give us a bumper sticker for his nephew who is running for the state legislature. The word "Republican" is larger than the man's name on this bumper sticker.
It's that bad in Iraq. That a fiercely Republican ex-Marine would assume that two other anti-war people in a bar would also be Republican, even though the male is bearded and wearing sandals. He was a thoughtful and passionate man, but completely wrong about our politics. We listened because he needed to talk. He said his family remaining in Iraq feels they are fighting the US Govt. as much as they are fighting terrorists. It was poignant and chilling listening to him.
And those on the right who darken this site think we are off-base when we speak ill of our idiot president. Trust me, if you're still on the Bush bandwagon, you best be drinking stiff ones. Logic, Truth, Facts, and Reality are no longer your friends. If you want a friend, talk to Jim, Jack, and Johnny. Whisky/ey might listen to you. The rest of us won't waste our time any more.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 10:48pm
And LL,
Go to hell with your partisan bullshit. The doors are open for you and your moronic, bitter spew is doing no good on this planet.
Off with you, now. Go.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 10:50pm
If bar banter in my little slice of red statesdom has reached the point where average white joes feel free to rant against the president, then you folks who cling to Bushies dingleberries should know just exactly where you exist within American society: that is, one good pelvic thrust plus one successful flush into oblivion.
The rest of us will enjoy the pleasure of the more fragrant air as a result of your demise.
Bye-bye.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 10:57pm
bruno, you are correct, and I'm not.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 11:09pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/25/2006 @ 10:44pm: But "only Bush is a dangerous cowboy" in the eyes of the left.
He's back! Love, I thought you said you were leaving us? I guess that was just a little more disinformation, courtesy of the LoveShack.
So, if I hear what your saying, Love, we should endorse the threat of nuking Iran because Liberals did not react strongly enough when Clinton threatened to nuke Libya. Apparently, Love, you see threatening to nuke a country and kill untold numbers of innocent people (spread across four different countries, no less) as just another opportunity to play a little red/blue talking-point darts. Ignoring the brilliant contortions of logic required to reach your conclusion from your premise, I simply can't recall Clinton threatening to nuke Libya. I assume that such a threat would have reached the major newspapers of record at the time, like the Times or the Post. Yet, your substantiation of this claim is a link to a recent article from an organization called "The Centre for Research on Globalisation". Frankly, I am ashamed to admit, I have never heard of the CRG. And, in any event, the cited article was written some time after the Threat, making it very difficult for it to have evoked a strong reaction from the Left at the time of the Threat. Could you point me to a contemporaneous reference to the Threat from a major newspaper, so that we can examine just how hypocritical we Liberals are? I mean, it must have been all over the newspapers at the time, right?
And, by the way, could you explain again, how it would follow that if the Liberals are hypocrites, threatening to nuke Iran is the right thing to do?
p.s. So, how are those gas prices hitting you with the SUV? Oh right. I forgot. We're all paying for your gas because you write it off.
Posted by orwell2005 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:30pm
LL
One, Bush is our President and Chirac isn't. Second, deplorable though Chirac's statement was, it wasn't the same as specific contingency planning regarding nukes on a specific country.
JR
Thanks, although I do wish Afghanistan had been more of a clear-cut victory.
Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 11:55pm
LL:
"something you cannot have nor even visualize anymore"
Your words LL. Credibility? Optimism? Relevance?
You are becoming bleaker by the week. I, for one will have no problem seeing you wake up someday soon wondering why you, and your pals have fucked this world so bad. Beter make sure your god has a good sense of humour.
Posted by doumer at 04/26/2006 @ 12:03am
LL,
Here's the thing. I have never been nostalgiac--I look forward rather than back. I may have a mushy brain, but if so, you are the first to find it in that state. As to my continued descent into anger and vitriol, well, it is in no small way connected to my hope that a determined stomping upon those who excuse the astonishing actions of our current administration will lead to a change in those who control our government. Such a change, ironically, is part of my sense of hope for life. And quite honestly, you have seemed to lose much of your steam lately, religating your posts to distractions and attacks unlike your earlier posts that were far more intellectual in content.
You and I have not bantered as much as you have with others on this site, but we both have a certain amount of respect for each other. I worry for you that you have moved away from reality to continue to make room for the missteps of the administration you coddle. You worry that I have attained an unhealthy and perhaps irrational anger toward the same. But I think we both know that in spite of what this or any other administration might try to inflict on the citizens of our country or those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere, we are blessed to experience all the joys and hopes that life has to offer. Where we differ is how our country impacts the potential of so many others in their quests to attain joy and hope for life.
It's late in the eastern time zone. I like you, LL, and (over)react to your posts often out of a childish spite. I think I know better than you what we can do to improve the lives of those who suffer. But I never doubt that you think seriously about the important issues of the day.
And I'm not just saying that because I've enjoyed a delicious pint-plus of a dark German beer I'd not tasted before and completed that tasting with two glasses of Zinfandel and one of Merlot. Such imbibing just increases my typing speed. Cheers, LVLIBERTY1!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/26/2006 @ 12:05am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/25/2006 @ 10:44pm | ignore this person
Typical Leave Liberty post... - liberalism = hypocrisy - Oh why won't Katrina stay "smacked down." - The French guy said it and nobody complained. - Clinton did it first. Does that about sum it up?
By the way Leave Liberty, next time you speak with God, see if you can get him to answer the question "Who would Jesus nuke?"
Posted by Lillian at 04/26/2006 @ 12:37am
LL:
Things to consider:
Democratic election of Hamas in Israel!
Six S. American countries now with center/left governments in power
Center/left govt in Italy!
Neutered government in Israel! Nervous bunch those Israelis!
Muslim Brotherhood gaining clout in Egypt!
Putin showing us the finger and laughing!
Exxon punted from Venzuela!
Coca Cola under fire!
China becoming more adept at capitalism than we are!
India stepping up and forcing a nasty nuke agreement!
NAFTA and CAFTA ready to be buried!
Musharaf ready to self-combust! Explode!
Ahmadinejad on a parade!
Karzai...Mayor of Kabul!
Did I forget China holding 1 trillion C-notes?
Japan holding the rest!
Life insurance sales to be outsourced to Bangladesh!
Yeah LL. And,ALL in the last five years. Only five years. That says it all. Life is good!
BTW: the bunker buster was first placed on the drawing board by your hero...and fellow warmonger....Reagan....not Clinton. get your facts straight.
Posted by doumer at 04/26/2006 @ 12:42am
A little mystifying if I may add.
India and Pakistan have been members of the club for several years. Do we demand inspections? Do we seek sanctions if those demands are not met? Did we request inspections of military nuke facilities? We know where they are and what they produce. We know what A Q Khan was up to, and did and yet...what? Nothing!
Iran has achieved (or so they claim) enrichment of U238 to a low level fisionable U235. With 64 sequenced spinning centrifuges, their tech achievement to date, they are able to enrich enough for several rods of reactor grade U. Nothing more.Enough to run a small power plant for 3 months. To produce fissionable U requires 10,000 arrays and, over one year may produce 1 kg of the stuff. A decent nuke weapon needs 4-6 kg.How many years off? With a competent Decider in Chief, no doubt that Iran could conceivably become an honorable ally and not foe.
N. Korea demonstrated capability to produce plutonium, technologically advanced from enriched U. What did our Decider do? Nothing. Did he threaten to nuke the peoples republic?
Bush is a pussy and weakling.
Posted by doumer at 04/26/2006 @ 01:32am
Just looking at what has happened the past few years with the Axis of Evil countries is instructive. We were worried about Iraq getting nuclear weapons, and we attacked them. We are worried about Iran getting a bomb, so we are talking about attacking them. North Korea has had a bomb, and there is barely a whisper about military intervention. I think its pretty clear in recent years and throughout the cold war that having nuclear weapons deters people from attacking you. With that said, if i was the Ayatollah, i'd be crazy if i DIDN'T want nuclear weapons with the United States talking about regime change, especially now with the United States tied up in Iraq. In my judgement, there is no good reason to consider attacking them considering that they are years away, and we are presently otherwise occupied militarily. And maybe they really do want nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Considering the impending run on oil, its really not a bad idea to hedge that by having alternative sources. Even King George wants more nuclear power here, so its not like nobody else has thought of this.
Just one more comment- you guys who say that we could strike Iran and at least set them back a few years are fools. War is not something you do half assed. Nuclear weapons are a bad idea because of the global climatic effect, but i don't believe in fighting wars with hands tied behind your back. Thats why we lost Vietnam, and are in deep shit in Iraq. The goal of war is a lasting and favorable peace. Better to just do what you have to do ASAP and get it over with. I look at it this way- if whatever caused the war is not a big enough deal to firebomb an entire city with little regard for human life, then its not something that is critical enough to send our citizens out to get killed.
Posted by jakesteed98 at 04/26/2006 @ 04:39am
At least by that standard we would have never gotten ivolved in some of the wars in the past 50 years.
Posted by jakesteed98 at 04/26/2006 @ 04:41am
TJ, no holding out here, we want details, which dark german beer, which merlot and Zinfandel?
excellent points Doumer. the Bush gang has two modes of operation, either ignore the problem, or the sky is falling hysteria.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 07:58am
JR,
It was something that my local bar had just put on tap. I think it begins with the letters "Spaa" or a single "a" that had an umlaut, but I could be wrong. I was seated some distance from the taps. It was as dark as an Irish Stout, but sweeter and more complex in flavor. My meager ability to describe it would combine Guinness or Murphy's with a Canadian beer that I love La Fin du Monde. The Merlot and Zinfandel were one of my favorite supermarket wines: Bogle (I think their wines are great and are only $9.99 usually). I'm amazed that as buzzed as I was last night that my last post to LL still actually makes a little sense in the light of day.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/26/2006 @ 10:17am
TJ, what you were drinking was probably Spaten, a venerable Munich brew. good stuff in dark or otherwise. look for their Oktoberfest brew and also their march beer, Märzenbier. those are all a bit stronger and very flavorful.
supermarket wines? not in this state, NY, our catholic blue laws do not permit such sinful commerce. I would have to cross the bridge to NJ for such civilized retail, and I have. until recently liquor stores had to shut on sunday here, ergo the trip to NJ.
we have become somewhat more enlightened, now the stores are permitted to open on sunday, provided they close another day in the week. also no beer sales before noon on sunday, the day of somebody's lord.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 10:32am
Thanks for the beer tips. I don't often drink German beers (sacrilege, I realize), but Spaten might just have whetted (or is the past tense just "whet"?) my appetite for more. As for the blue laws, funny that on Sunday morn, at the moment of the most holy imbibing of alcohol, the rest of us are prevented from purchasing our own secular version of Christ's blood. Blood of Christ, Nectar of the Gods, or good ol' fashioned hooch--there's no time like the present for a little taste.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/26/2006 @ 10:47am
JR,
I'm a Bitburger Pilsner fellow myself.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 10:52am
Tj, the german brewmeisters spread their wares far and wide, so if you drink a nice Mexican, or a japanese or chinese, or indian beer, chances are that they were started by germans.in my supermarket I go for the Czech beers, like Pilsner Urquell, but many others are cheaper and equally good. once in a while a wheat beer is a good change.
listen up everyone, here is the technique for wheat beer, or Hefeweizen: set the glass upside down on the opened bottle, then invert and slowly pull the bottle upwards, trying to minimize the foam, and when you get almost to the end of the bottle, stop and swirl the dregs around and then pour in glass, that's the yeasty part, and is not to be missed.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 10:58am
of course, Oraibi, here is a tip, though this may be difficult to find: Jever. which is a tiny town up near Bremen, nice. Prost!
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 11:00am
here in NYC we have little grocery stores bragging about 400 different beers they carry. ah, the big shitty.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 11:02am
JR,
Been to Jever; had a great time there.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 1:16pm
they are very proud of their beer there, which I'm sure you noticed, Oraibi. it was a very obscure brew, until the Bundesbahn, train service, added to the list of beers they serve. and somehow it made its way to my little korean grocery here in Washington Heights. go figure
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:29pm
JR,
Do you know the WWII story of Jever and Bremen?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 1:29pm
Talking about German beers is enticing me to go Octoberfest and Winefest.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 1:31pm
JR,
Bremen should be Bremerhaven.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 1:35pm
N. Korea demonstrated capability to produce plutonium, technologically advanced from enriched U. What did our Decider do? Nothing. Did he threaten to nuke the peoples republic?
Posted by DOUMER 04/26/2006 @ 01:32am
North Korea: nuclear weapons. North Asia: no israel, no oil.
Iran: no nuclear weapons or even the capability to produce them. Middle East: israel, oil.
It isn't about nuclear weapon proliferation.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/26/2006 @ 1:43pm
No, I don't. my uncle lived there and I visited him there, and also spent a week on Wangeroge, one of the east Frisian islands, which I enjoyed, despite of the fact that I almost drowned, while mucking about on the beach and being surprised by the rising tide.
so tell me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 1:47pm
look, let's just admit that the US under Bush has no credibility whatsoever as a non-proliferation leader and Bush really may be a loose-cannon first strike threat with nuclear weapons. one is rather left with the impression that the administration is eager to use weapons of mass destruction against what are best described as the nation-state enemies they have chosen for themselves.
Posted by ZERO 04/26/2006 @ 12:53am
To achieve a resolution that will make the world safer for everyone the US has to alter it's basic, bipartisan, israel-centric, deathgrip-on-the-oil policy in the Middle East. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.
The most likely endgame is increasingly unbalanced demands that Iran surrender it's sovereignty resulting in an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT and a sweeping away of the religious decree prohibiting nuclear weapons development when more realist factions are empowered by a political upsurge against the 'West'.
That will most likely be accompanied by miltary attacks against Iran and more terrorism and economic dislocation for the saps who allowed our domestic war party to drag them onto the war wagon.
Posted by fromredbird at 04/26/2006 @ 1:58pm
JR,
The story that the locals told me was:
During WWII, the allies were trying to bomb Bremerhaven. To prevent the destruction of Bremerhaven, Jever was disguised to resemble Bremerhaven. As a result of superb disguising, the allies bombed the hell out of Jever, but never touched Bremerhaven.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 2:05pm
P.S. The Allies never new about bombing Jever instead of Bremerhaven until after the war.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 2:06pm
CS Monitor Opinion -- an excerpt:
Despite the Soviet Union's demise almost 15 years ago, the US and Russia still maintain thousands of nuclear warheads ready to launch at each other. Recent improvements to the US arsenal aimed at achieving nuclear dominance are stimulating Russia to increase its spending on nuclear weapons. As a result, both sides are raising the likelihood of nuclear war, whether intentional or accidental. Moscow and Washington should renew arms-control talks to work toward soon reducing their stockpiles below 1,000 warheads.
Nuclear Power Redux [tinyurl.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/26/2006 @ 3:29pm
good story Oraibi
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2006 @ 4:26pm
MAKE PEACE NOT WAR.
Posted by Mad Plato at 04/27/2006 @ 11:35pm