did he say anything about mushroom clouds and smoking guns?

OT: it's old and boring, Al. stop wasting your time.

Well, if it's gonna be 2009, then the Bushies don't care: just like Iraq and the budget deficit, it'll be somebody else's problem.

Useful for now to scare up votes and boost the profits of military contractors, of course, but other than that, not anything I'd expect any serious policy work or other investment in.

Heard on AA radio the news that Israel alleges Hezbollah is trying to transfer the Israeli hostages to Iran. Fill in the blanks...

But maybe there's a 1% chance aliens will land in Iran and give them a bomb in 2007- in which case we must treat it as an absolute certainty!

Luckily for us, the people around both Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad seem to have eerily similar visions of the final conflict and End of Times.

For the disturbing background, see:
"Iran, Bush and the Second Coming."

Did a post by "Al" get deleted?

What about a decapitation strike? Take out the government buildings of Iran, and their nuke plants. The internal chaos will be so great that Iran won't be a threat for a very long time.... and we can always kick over the ant hill again. Rinse, repeat.

AvengingAngel:

Same exact observation could have been made (but no patriotic American would have) about FDR and Hitler.

Did a post by "Al" get deleted?

my comment was pre-emptive

If the Mullahs get the bomb, will the Pope want one, too? And Jerry "Falwell? Maybe Pat Robertson already has his.

The US created the first atom bombs in 4 years, even though they had no computers and had to develop the entire science and engineering from scratch. So, a 3 year estimate for Iran sounds plausible or even optimistic.

The world has never seen a terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

....Although these estimates include significant uncertainties, they reinforce the view that Iran must foreswear any deployed enrichment capability and accept adequate inspections. Otherwise, we risk a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region.

You have to love the moral elements of "balance of power" considerations. And, if it's so obvious that there will be a "seismic shift" in the balance of power in the region if Iran gets one nuclear weapon, you'd have to wonder why a self-respecting people like the Iranians wouldn't go ahead and do it. Or do they prefer taking commands from us?

Thanks for the heads up, cleek.

The world has never seen a terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

The Soviet Union, China, South Africa -- all had nuclear weapons and all could be argued to have been "terrorist" states as they all operated by terrorizing and oppressing their native populations as well as those they occupied (and all three of them supported, armed and financed terrorist groups).

I'm too lazy to figure out who this David Albright guy is, so...

If he's a librul: He's a traitor giving away our national secrets! He just told the Iranians how to build a nuclear weapon. Why not just draw it out on a cocktail napkin for Osama?

If he's a conservative: Only those on the far far left will scoff at the dire threat that the Iranian regime represents. Brave souls like Albright are on the front lines and have shown us the true heart of darkness that propels the Islamofascistics.

The world has never seen a terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons.

Aside from Pakistan.

Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

Judging from Pakistan, I'd say the results will be "a terrorist state that is free to sponsor terrorists, even those targetting the US, right up until they carry out an attack the US which causes mass civilian casualties, at which point it will be given the opportunity to outwardly repent and become a major US ally and get access to US weapons, etc., while still sponsoring terrorists connected to the same groups who continue to attack nearby democratic states, so long as they avoid getting caught directly sponsoring the exact terrorists that are believed to be targetting the US."

Plus, of course, a state that gets a slap on the wrist for proliferating nuclear technology to other rogue states.

I have an honest question for you liberals. If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, and did exactly what Bush is going to do in Iran, would you be complaining as much?

Never mind Iran, how long until WalMart sells nukes?

and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq...would you be complaining as much?

No, of course not. I'd be too busy dealing with the pigs flying out of my ass.

Anyone else?

ex-liberal: The world has never seen a terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

We see one right now, and we still don't know what the ultimate consequences will be. I'm referring, of course, to Pakistan.

Pakistan's a hell of a lot more in cahoots with actual terrorists than Saddam ever was: they've been forbidding us from entering Pakistan near the Afghan border - the very region where we've long assumed bin Laden is hanging out. And it wouldn't surprise anybody if a Pakistani group turns out ot be behind the Bombay bombings; Pakistani terror groups have attacked India before.

And the Pakistan problem isn't just terror groups.
If Pakistani groups keep pulling this shit without any visible government retaliation, India will eventually go to war with Pakistan. And if that happens, Pakistan will be sorely tempted to go nuclear. When our people wargame India-Pakistan, it almost always heads in that direction.

And then there's the fact that Pakistan has also been the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear proliferation, sharing their expertise with North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

No country in the world has done more than Pakistan, over the past decade or so, to make the world a more dangerous place. And to Bush they're an ally.

Bush is not going to do anything in Iran. Cooler and wiser heads will prevail.

Thanks Doug.

Actually, Iran is being referred back to the UN as we speak (are those the "cooler heads" you refer to?). How about the hypothetical President Gore, Jimm, as to Iraq?

Of course, I'm talking about Bush doing something "in" Iran, in terms of military action. There are better ways to deal with the prospects of Iranian nukes, and overall nuclear proliferation, though keeping the "balance" of power with us being the 2 ton elephant on one side of the teeter-totter against a group of small lemmings on the other isn't the way to go, and neither is having a nuclear proliferation regime that openly allows countries to mock and defy it (as has been the case with Israel, India, and yes, the United States).

No one is concerned with the possibility that Iran can just buy nukes from other sources? There are at least two potential suppliers: the old Soviet stuff from black marketeers, and North Korea. Maybe China, if they think it'll be in their interests to arm Iran. So, why the focus on their timetable to produce one?

*yawn*

When you pundits bother to acknowledge the problem posed by Israel's nukes in destablizing the ME, then I will be able to be bothered by Iran having nukes.

Until then, all whining about Iran having a nuke is little more than racist garbage.

President Gore would not have invaded Iraq, but he certainly would have targeted and not deviated from the target Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

I opposed action in Iraq for a number of reasons, but easily the most scandalous stuff was the bogus intelligence and what not we used, which never would have happened with a Gore Administration. Perhaps someone could have made the case for a war against Iraq...I never heard that case openly and honestly made. Instead, I saw a bunch of lies - essentially a fraud perpetrated against the people of America.

I am against murder, especially civilians in unjust military excursions. Ponder that, and tell me your position.

There's a "balance of power" in the Middle East? Really? Where? I thought there was an imbalnce of power?! Silly me!

I have an honest question for you liberals. If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, and did exactly what Bush is going to do in Iran, would you be complaining as much?

The question is preposterous -- it simply would never have happened this way. But if Al Gore had twisted the country against itself after the trauma of 9/11, then used that attack as an excuse to invade an entirely unrelated country, then lied about his reasons for invading, then screwed up the occupation, then used it as an excuse to undermine the constitution and turn the American military (I mean the NSA) against Americans, then yeah, damn right I'd be complaining about it.

Probably not as loud as you or Sean Hannity though.

Ferd-- That would be awesome. Robertson, the Pope, the Falwell, and the Mullahs all go to an island with nukes strapped to their chest. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOm. get rid of the nuts....

Thanks for your consistency, zeeeej.

Jimm:

President Gore would not have invaded Iraq . . .

Stick with the hypothetical, and I will gladly give my position on just vs. unjust wars.

Anyone else?
Charlie, if Bush had done what Gore would have done about Iraq, we would not be having these discussions.

Doug M wrote: I have an honest question for you liberals. If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, and did exactly what Bush is going to do in Iran, would you be complaining as much?

That's not an honest question. It's pure trollery.

If that's how you feel, you don't have to answer then, SecularAnimist.

But if Al Gore had twisted the country against itself after the trauma of 9/11, then used that attack as an excuse to invade an entirely unrelated country, then lied about his reasons for invading, then screwed up the occupation, then used it as an excuse to undermine the constitution and turn the American military (I mean the NSA) against Americans, then yeah, damn right I'd be complaining about it.

Probably not as loud as you or Sean Hannity though.

Great answer zeeeej, and I'm going to second it. It's funny how right wingers always assume that anyone who posts in these comment threads is a strict ideological Democrat, especially along the lines of strict ideological conservatism, which your point about Hannity makes for a simple example.

So turn the question around and answer it yourself. If Al Gore had been president and done all that Bush has done, would you be patronizing conservative blogs, proudly defending Gore against his critics?

RT wrote: Pakistan's a hell of a lot more in cahoots with actual terrorists than Saddam ever was...No country in the world has done more than Pakistan, over the past decade or so, to make the world a more dangerous place. And to Bush they're an ally.

I agree that Pakistan is a big danger. I think Bush's diplomacy deserves a lot of credit for making them our ally, even with the limitations RT points out. The alternative would be a nuclear-armed Pakistan fully supporting our enemies. BTW that alternative could easily come about with a change in Pakistan's government -- a frightening possibility.

For, as the Hannity example notes, noone is more of a relativist than a Leninist-influence right winger only concerned about power. If Gore had done what Bush had done, there would be a revolution fomenting amongst Hannity, who would likely be quoting Bastiat and Madison nightly. Instead he's defending Yoo and Cheney for putting a lockdown on classical liberal rights doctrine.

If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, and did exactly what Bush is going to do in Iran, would you be complaining as much?

Hard to say without information on which your hypothetical is silent; on the one hand, I'd be more upset about the Iraq things in particular, and, therefore, ceteris paribus, probably complaining more. OTOH, I'd expect, given only the assumption that Gore would do exactly as Bush on Iraq, that Gore would be much better in lots of other areas, in which case I would not view the things angering me about Iraq as being as symptomatic of broader problems in the Administration that were dangerous to the future of democracy as I do with Bush, so I might be complaining less for that reason.

OTOH, its rather irrelevant; Gore is not president, and Bush's policies should be challenged, or defended, on their own merits.

Aside from Pakistan.

Pakistan is not a terrorist state, at least according to the State Department, which keeps a list with the US government's official view on the subject.

zeeeej:

I'm still thinking about it.

cmdicely:

The hypothetical may or may not be relevant, but I'd be interested in what you think it is silent on.

Hey, Doug--if President Gore had fucked up every single policy beyond what had previously been imagined possible, ran a completely corrupt White House, and lied to you about anything and everything, would you support him as much as you do President Bush?

Yes, we have seen the rise of the "Big Government", "nanny security state" conservative. Yet, this style of conservative still fancies himself a conservatarian. The cognitive dissonance would be crippling if not for a narrow focus on economics and finance (in terms of what should be "liberalized").

Once Democrats inevitably win again, we'll see the same clowns suddenly regain their "principles", and start worrying about big government again. But we know what it's really about...it's not about big government or centralized control, but only who's in control of the centralized big government. There's no principles at all, and Hannity is the worst of the bunch.

I'm definitely a Democrat. I'm just confident that Gore wouldn't do anything nearly as stupid as this administration does, over and over again.

Remember, it wasn't conservatives protesting in the millions during the Vietnam War while LBJ was president.

The hypothetical may or may not be relevant, but I'd be interested in what you think it is silent on.

I thought that was pretty clear in my response about what it was silent on—everything outside of "on Iraq"—and what relationship that had to the answer.

Pakistan is not a terrorist state, at least according to the State Department, which keeps a list with the US government's official view on the subject.

Pakistan is, in fact, a state sponsor of terrorist groups, including those linked to al-Qaeda, particularly those targetting India.

That the US State Department chooses not to recognize this is an illustration of what we can expect for a nuclear armed terrorist state in a strategically important region.

I'm only referring to "strict ideological" Democrats, not whether anyone chooses to identify as a Democrat at any particular time, usually for reasons that they find the most commonality with that political alignment of interests.

I've rarely met a Democrat who just altered his stances and beliefs to be aligned with whatever his dear leader and party were currently doing. There's plenty of people paid to do that, to rally behind the Democratic party and leader, but from my vantage point in the grassroots, there isn't any such trend of fealty to authority amongst liberals and progressives (see how many votes Nader got).

You guys are wasting your time answering his stupid questions. It's not even an honest question. Conservatives have been moaning for 4 years that George W. Bush is the only person with enough balls to do what he did. Al Gore is the pussy that would have surrendered on 9/12, remember?

The recent incursions by Israel into Lebeanon are not about some kidnapped soldiers. It is setting up the attack against first Syria, then Iran. US troops will act as the anvil against Israel's hammer. Iran will then either intervene on Syria's behalf, or be seen as toothless loudmouths. Should they intervene, Israel will take out the nuclear facilities.

If Gore had been as stupid as Bush has been, he'd be a Republican.

There's no principles at all, and Hannity is the worst of the bunch.

Let's give Sean some credit. I mean, for shifting principles, Limbaugh is neck-and-neck.

Charlie, posting as "Doug M", wrote: If that's how you feel, you don't have to answer then, SecularAnimist.

If you recall, I have been on your "Ignore List" for the last few years anyway.

Calling All Toasters:

Of course not (I don't believe Bush has done that though).

jeeeez (and Jimm):

I've thought more about it, and honestly, I might have second thoughts about Iraq if the same 2,500 American troops died, after Gore lied. But, I would not be protesting Gore on that. He would be the Commander-in-Chief -- I'm O.K. with "big government" during war, regardless of which party the President happens to belong to -- I would have been FOR World War II even though FDR was a Democrat. I don't know that I would be defending our hypothetical President much more beyond that though. I can at least respect Democrats who disagree with Bush, but refrain from criticism during war.

To be fair, our hypothetical would also include Joe Lieberman as Vice-President (and, presumably, the front-runner for 2008), so that throws another dimension into the pot that Cheney doesn't. Since cmdicely rightly points out he would be in favor of everything else our hypothetical Gore would be doing, I guess I would be just as opposed.

cmdicely:

Thanks for the clarification.

enozinho:

I am a conservative, but even I grant there's a 1% chance Al Gore (or Al Gore's Brain, Lieberman, in our hypothetical) would have had the balls to do it. See how easy it is to answer questions?

Alf:

Are you suggesting our hypothetical President Gore would have had to "seem the light" and switch parties to be re-elected?

US troops will act as the anvil against Israel's hammer. Iran will then either intervene on Syria's behalf, or be seen as toothless loudmouths.

Hmm. I'd say, if that were the case, they'd settle for being toothless loudmouths, and go back to building nuclear weapons for a while. With Israel and the US having taken out another major Arab power and regional rival of Iran's, and likely being bogged down in the same kind of escalating violence that the US is already facing in Iraq, on a larger scale, with more opportunities for Iran to build influence quietly courting groups opposing the occupation and/or puppet regime put into place in Syria, it seems like all upside for Iran.

Then again, I doubt Israel is planning that.

Since cmdicely rightly points out he would be in favor of everything else our hypothetical Gore would be doing

I didn't say that.

I said most likely I'd be, on balance, more in favor of the other things Gore would be doing than the other things Bush is doing, presuming that the hypothetical identical behavior applied only to Iraq.

"SEEN the light" as in Road to Damascus moment.

Fine, cmdicely -- same would go for me in reverse.

Look Ma. These Islamofascist gay Iranian illegal immigrants of are burning the American flag under my bed.

You forgot to mention that Iranian uranium ore is contanimated with molydenum, which is difficult to separate, portponing the "bomb" by another indefinable time, probably years--for the worst case scenario.

Doug M.: I have an honest question for you liberals. If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq...

Internal contradiction: Clinton's stance on Saddam didn't involve doing what Bush did in Iraq, which is why it's not an honest question.

If you've got a cite supporting the notion that Clinton's "stance against Saddam" was that the U.S.A. should do the regime change itself (as opposed to supporting regime change from within, or for tossing some light armaments Chalabi's way if he could come up with the troops), then please produce it.

I've never seen one, and I've pointed out this weakness in the "Bush's stance on Iraq was no different from Clinton's" argument any number of times in the past four years.

I have an honest question for you liberals.

Since Charlie's question is based upon a false premise, it is not an honest question.

But we knew that.

I sometimes wonder if Charlie knows or even cares that his/her/its constant and abundant stream of intellectual dishonest GOP talking points -- but I repeat myself -- do nothing but spotlight the threadbare nature of the Republican position and the paucity of honest means of defending Bush's mendacity, incomeptence and corruption.

eCAHNomics:

I read that too, in Science magazine, but that was speculation by an unnamed official at the State Department. If, in fact, Iranian UF is tainted with large amounts of molybdenum and other heavy metals, these oxyfluoride impurities “might condense” and thereby “risk blockages” of valves and piping, another unnaned IAEA specialist told Science. That's a lot of "IF's" there to be gambling with a billion people's lives. And, the article brought up the obvious implications regarding Russia or China being able to solve Iran's molybdenum problem anyways, as well as what that could mean to North Korea's nuclear program, or vice versa:

http://www.pircenter.org/data/resources/iran_enrichment.pdf

RT:

Prior to 9/11, Bush's and Clinton's stance on Saddam was EXACTLY the same. My hypothetical picks up with President Gore reading My Pet Goat all the way through to this morning's referral of Iran back to the UN.

With Israel and the US having taken out another major Arab power and regional rival of Iran's, and likely being bogged down in the same kind of escalating violence that the US is already facing in Iraq, on a larger scale, with more opportunities for Iran to build influence quietly courting groups opposing the occupation and/or puppet regime put into place in Syria, it seems like all upside for Iran

Except Syria is the ONLY regional friend Iran has. None of the other middle eastern governments are even remotely fond of the terrorist networks Iran has created to ravage the Middle East. Hezbollah or Hamas could turn on any of them just as easily as Al Qaeda has done. These organizations know nothing and can do nothing but kill. It's why they exist.

If for example Iran does get the bomb the next two to join them in the club will be Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They will hardly sit still as Iran tried to control the region. Liberal seem to thing the Middle East is a united region with a history of cooperation. The truth is the exact opposite. They might be united against Israel but they are united on little else.

It is an insult for a Persian to be called Arab and for an Arab to be called Persian. The Sauds, Egyptians, Kuwaitis and other regional players might not care for the West publically (they do in private) but they'd care a lot less for Iranian dominance.

Much as the NK craziness is serving GWBs cause by revitalizing Japanese nationalism against it's regional enemies Iran is likely to do the same. Their neighbors will have the choice of building their own bomb or do as Kuwait and Qatar have done and 'invite' the USA to participate in their defense.

"I've rarely met a Democrat who just altered his stances and beliefs to be aligned with whatever his dear leader and party were currently doing."

That's why we have Republicans.

I never liked Clinton very much until I had to endure six years of these yahoos treating every monosyllabic utterance of this shit-kicking redneck who couldn't find oil in central Texas as if it were coming from some combination of Churchill and FDR, if not the Almighty itself.

I now understand how fully these cretins have bought into a vision of America that provides religion for the masses and hereditary opulence for a lucky few. I will never publicly denounce a fellow Democrat. Unless that Democrat's name happens to be Joe Lieberman.

My hypothetical picks up with President Gore reading My Pet Goat all the way through to this morning's referral of Iran back to the UN.

And a pony. Everyone gets a pony.

Sheesh, Charlie, your "hypothetical" is even more a fantasy than rdw's deluded ravings, and that's a bold statement.

I have an honest question too. This one addressed to conservatives and their cohorts.

When will you stop blowing your dear leader?

New countries are going to acquire nuclear weapons. We've pretty much shown that having nukes is the one thing that keeps a country from being bombed or invaded.

Why's it a big deal for U.S. security--as opposed to Israel's security--if Iran has nuclear weapons?

brewmn:

I'll be the first to admit Bush does not communicate as well as Clinton. As for Lieberman, you are aware there are more conservative Democrats in Congress, right?

nut:

I've never started "blowing" my dear leader. Now, can you answer my honest question?

I never liked Clinton very much until I had to endure six years of these yahoos treating every monosyllabic utterance of this shit-kicking redneck who couldn't find oil in central Texas as if it were coming from some combination of Churchill and FDR, if not the Almighty itself.

Excuse me, that should be "shit-kicking Andover-Yale-Harvard educated multi-millionaire faux redneck."

Carl:

Oh, I don't know, what if Iran gives a suitcase nuke to terrorists who proceed to detonate it in Manhattan (apart from the irony, of course)? And, North Korea may soon become the first nuclear-armed country to be bombed.

nut, I blow in my wife's ear every night and won't stop anytime soon. Just answering your question.

Here's something interesting, Nancy Pelosi is now taking roll call in house Democrat policy meetings because of the fact that less than 25% of the 205 members have been showing up.

What was that about being united and coalescing?

Who cares if Iran has nukes or Israel is being bombarded.

Just send the Israelis some of those miraculous anti-missle systems that US conservatives say is readly and able to protect the US from even long-range missles from North Korea.

Or do conservatives not believe their own rhetoric?

But, I would not be protesting Gore on that. He would be the Commander-in-Chief -- I'm O.K. with "big government" during war, regardless of which party the President happens to belong to -- I would have been FOR World War II even though FDR was a Democrat.

You know, if this were 1975, I might believe that. But in 2006, I'm not buying it. These days, Fox News, Limbaugh, Savage and all the Limbaugh wanna-bes pound the drums 24/7. If Iraq had been Gore's war, they'd have you righties in a froth about it. There would be no talk about the infallibility of the president during war.

We don't have to look any farther than the war in the Balkans for evidence of that -- Hannity and Limbaugh hammered day after day on what a mistake it was, how Clinton was an unfit commander in chief, how he was weakening the military. These same guys will accuse anyone of treason for doing the same thing. They gladly cut their friends' throats for deviation from the party line.

And please stop with the WWII thing. There are almost no parallels. If that war had been run like this one, Germany and Japan would be third-world backwaters today.

Doug. I have a hypothetical for you. What if countries like Iran and North Korea based their policies on what they percieve to be their own national interests on not on some cartoonish action movie plot? Would you still support this administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq, Iran, N Korea etc?

ex-liberal:The US created the first atom bombs in 4 years, even though they had no computers and had to develop the entire science and engineering from scratch. So, a 3 year estimate for Iran sounds plausible or even optimistic

Yeah, except that the US had a huge industrial (US) and scientific (US+ex-German+ex-Italian+ex-Hungarian+UK) base to draw upon, and wartime defence budgets to fund it.

Knowledge and computers aren't the issue, it's industrial-scale facilities and production that are. If Iran is going to build an enriched uranium bomb "in 3 or 4 years" they need to build something equivalent to Oak Ridge, which is neither small nor easily concealed and defensible.

By all reports, if Iran really is intent on getting the bomb, they're going about it the wrong way (U vs. Pu from fast breeders). But if their real interest is in power generation, what they're doing makes sense.

Or maybe they ALREADY HAVE ONE from the FSU, and they're just constructing a cover story. Attack, and I bet we find out.

For instance, brewmn:

Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu "supported" the Iraq war too -- are you pushing for their defeat too? When the Democrats in the Senate considered two resolutions calling for a calendar timeframe and setting arbitrary dates for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, Senator Nelson voted against both:

http://www.bennelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=257620&&

And please stop with the WWII thing. There are almost no parallels. If that war had been run like this one, Germany and Japan would be third-world backwaters today.

Actually, if that war had been run like this war Germany and Japan would have won.

Pakistan is not a terrorist state, at least according to the State Department, which keeps a list with the US government's official view on the subject.

A GOP troll citing the State Dept. to support his point? Never thought I'd see the day.

We don't have to look any farther than the war in the Balkans for evidence of that -- Hannity and Limbaugh hammered day after day on what a mistake it was, how Clinton was an unfit commander in chief, how he was weakening the military.

Yes, no talk back then from them about how you shouldn't criticize the Commander-in-Chief while American troops were in the field.

We don't have to look any farther than the war in the Balkans for evidence of that...

God certainly played a cruel joke on the Middle East. First he put all of our oil there. Then he failed to make all the people white Christians.

rdw wrote: ... the NK craziness is serving GWBs cause by revitalizing Japanese nationalism against it's regional enemies ...

What with rdw's lunatic ravings that resurgent Japanese militarism "serves GWB's cause" (and we know that the only thing the sociopathic rdw cares about is what serves GWB) and Charlie's inane and pointless and irrelevant hypotheticals, the right-wing idiot brigade has once again sabotaged any serious discussion on a thread that might have been pretty informative about the technical realities of Iran's nuclear program.

The only thing these guys know how to do is be assholes, but they are good at it.

Such a typical statement from Stefan. Let's review some facts.

From our awakening on Dec. 7 1941 to our first bombing run on Germany on January 27, 1943 to VE day May 8 1945, it's estimated that 62 million lives were lost because of WWII.

In fact in less than 4 years America lost over 400,000 soldiers to WWII despite that fact that Hitler was not an imminent threat to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

So Stefan wants us to believe that the loss of 2500 soldiers in our efforts of establishing a permanent gov't, a constitution, and recruiting and training 250,000+ military, is not quite the valiant effort put forth during WWII.

Do you wish there were more dead Stefan?

Now now enozinho and secualr, are your comments any example of the big liberal tent welcoming diversity and opposing opinions that your leader Howard Dean speaks of?

I feel unwelcome. Don't you care what others think of you?

Doug M:

The slap against Lieberman was meant to put a knowing smile on my fellow liberals' face.

But I'm not surprised you took it seriously. Conservatives' are generally too stupid to get humor that doesn't involve somebody getting kicked in the balls.

By all reports, if Iran really is intent on getting the bomb, they're going about it the wrong way (U vs. Pu from fast breeders).

Or, better yet, buying one from Pakistan, or one of those Russian bombs Bush keeps shorting the funding to protect.

In fact in less than 4 years America lost over 400,000 soldiers to WWII despite that fact that Hitler was not an imminent threat to the US.

Germany declared war on us, dumbfuck. How much more imminent does a threat need to be?

Jay:

How liberals can be sissy appeasers and dogmatic fascists at the same time is beyond me. I didn't spend the last six years calling half the country traitors. You are entitled to your views and I'm am entitled to call you and idiot.

The only thing these guys know how to do is be assholes, but they are good at it.

Relax and lighten-up! If you can check out the WSJ editorial today. GWB has been pursuing an aggressive campaign to unite the worlds largest democracies to bypass the UN with a large and honest coalition, as a bullwark against terror and the old leftist religions like socialism that are not quite dead.

By 2015 the worlds most powerful millitary alliance will be the USA-India-Japan-Australia and then possibly the UK and/or Germany and/or Canada.

As we've seen confirmed today merkel in Germany is staking a much different course than France in the middle east and moving distinctly toward the USA. East Germans are aware of how powerful 'nuance' is with the Russians. The Japanese are about to elevate their defense minister to full cabinet status and remove article 9 with it's military limitations from it's constitution.

Japan is the worlds 4th largest defense spending. They are of course far more efficient than the Chinese and Russians and inder no conditions will allow the Chinese or Russians to become dominant. After Clinton they won't rely on a democratic regime in the USA to look after their interests. Japan will re-emerge as a major military power with offensive capabilities and be a full partner with the USA.

Merkel has the same ambitions as Schroeder in terms of a UN security council seat but is not so stupid as to piss off GWB. She is also ambitious for a united Germany able to defend itself against Russia. She will not rely on the EU or UN to deter the whackjobs in Iran who can now reach Berlin.

The world is changing and GWB is way out in front. Japan has absolutely decided the USA is a much better ally than the UN. India and Germany are clearly leaning. They will NOT meet terror with nuance. They will not rely on he UN. The will re-arm and partner with other democracies.

DougM's "question" is stupid because when Lyndon Johnson pulled that kind of stuff, it was the liberals and Dems who took him out. We would have been out of V-N too, but the Repubs elected Nixon, who kept us in V-N for another five years, even though he and Kissinger never believed we could "win".

Bush needs a "threat" that isn't really a threat because it isn't really a problem. NK is not the answer, because that really is a problem. Iran will have to do.

Are you suggesting our hypothetical President Gore would have had to "seem the light" and switch parties to be re-elected?

Not at all. Now here's a question for you that's just as relevant: If Al Gore and George Bush each ate several bean and cheese burritos, who's farts would be more likely to be classified as a WMD, prompting a Mexican invasion of the U.S.?

I have an honest question for you liberals. If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, and did exactly what Bush is going to do in Iran, would you be complaining as much?

You got way more consideration than you deserve. It's a bullshit question. It's pretty fucking obvious that Bush has pursued policies that are not only radically different than anything Gore would have done, but pretty much the opposite of decades of American foreign policy practice. Why not ask how we'd feel about Bush if he could resurrect the dead?

I gotta figure that bullshit questions emerge from bullshit people. So go fuck yourself, Doug M. Just because that moron Al decided not to toss in his standard boilerplate idiocies doesn't mean that you need to fill in the void.

I'm glad to see Israel's bombs mentioned here. Don't hear it much in the mainstream press, do you?

In fact in less than 4 years America lost over 400,000 soldiers to WWII despite that fact that Hitler was not an imminent threat to the US.

It takes a special kind of stupid to offer up this nugget.

You may not recall, but there was this event called "Pearl Harbor", where major portions of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk.

The raid on "Pearl Harbor" was conducted by a country called "Japan." "Japan" was an ally of another country called "Germany" (this is where Hitler ties in - he was the leader of "Germany") in a global war that the U.S. was not yet part of.

After "Pearl Harbor", the U.S. declared war on "Japan" and all of its allies in that global war. Among those allies were "Germany."

Good job finding Wikipedia. But it sounds like you have some more reading to do.

Doug M:

If Gore invaded Iraq, you'd better believe all liberals would be howling mad. I think that's unquestionable.

The threat from Iran is real, but clearly, Bush doesn't give a damn about WMDs. Bush should be focused entirely on Iran and N. Korea - but clearly, he isn't. Face facts, conservatives - Bush never, ever, ever cared about WMDs. He only wanted to remove Saddam. Bush has no military contingency to attack Iran - that is why Iran is acting the way its acting. It has no fear.

After "Pearl Harbor", the U.S. declared war on "Japan" and all of its allies in that global war. Among those allies were "Germany."

Slight correction, zeeej. It was actually Germany which declared war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor, and not vice versa. But that fact is even more damaging to Cut 'N Run Jay's bizarre rant above.

If you can check out the WSJ editorial today...

What? No Rush Limbaugh?

Three years is not that much time. Better get serious soon.

If Iran gets it's hands on the anarchist's cookbook, they could build a bomb within a few weeks using the "put uranium in a bucket, tie rope to bucket handle, and spin" method. Also, they could get high off of baking bannana peels and create thermite.

Pakistani officials enjoys warm and cordial relations with Kashmir separatists. The bombing in Mumbai was most likely the work of Kashmir terrorists based in Pakistan, according to Indian authorities. Didn't Bush say something about making no distinction between terrorists and states who provide safe havens for terrorists?

Doug: Prior to 9/11, Bush's and Clinton's stance on Saddam was EXACTLY the same.
Are you sure?

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Back to you, Doug:

My hypothetical picks up with President Gore reading My Pet Goat all the way through to this morning's referral of Iran back to the UN.

Assuming 9/11 happens at all with Gore in the White House, which I doubt it would have (radically different reaction to 8/6/01 PDB: Gore shakes trees, FBI agents agitating from below are suddenly their bosses' tickets to promotions), the fact remains that there was never any operational connection between Saddam and the wider world of Islamic terrorism. After 9/11 (if it happened), regime change in Iraq would have been Gore's absolute last priority; between al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, life would be far too interesting for a President even without backing Chalabi's Commandos in Iraq.

Instead, we invaded Iraq, and we're out of options with respect to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. And nearly five years later, Osama's still on the loose.

Actually you're all wrong. Germany declared war on the US on May 11, 1941 only after the US began the policy of hostilties towards any German warship that we encountered. Until that time, Germany was of NO threat to our borders. I mean isn't that your benchmark.

And please spare me with your implications that all of you are OK with WWII. Had anyone of you been around, you would have all been screaming louder than Cindy Sheehan.

Didn't Bush say something about making no distinction between terrorists and states who provide safe havens for terrorists?

he also said something about "no nation building". the fool can't keep his word about anything.

What? No Rush Limbaugh?

He's off this week! He's got to use up all that viagra.

The WSJ has had an Asian edition for over a decade and been a close follower of Asian economics and politics for longer much than that. While well known as champions of supply-side their board is just as strongly in support of bypassing the UN and setting up an alliance of the worlds largest democracies to push democracy throughout the world.

They are very supportive of Japan removing Article 9 of their constitution and joining the USA as a major military power with not constitutional limitations. They should also get a security council seat and have a diplomatic voice equivalent to their economic voice.

If Merkel keeps warming up to GWB we may see Germany join our 'club' of trusted allies. Think about the power of an alliance of the USA-India-Japan-Germany-UK-Australia-Poland-Italy and our other coalition allies.

Jay: I think you mean December 11, 1941.

No claims to be a historian from me. I do understand some of the basic facts of that war, unlike, apparently, Jay.

But I will say in my own defense that the U.S. delared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941, then on Germany and Italy on Dec. 11. Germany also declared war on Dec. 11, and judging from its declaration, it was after the U.S.'s.

But the door is wide open to the possiblity that I've got the order mixed up ...

My mistake - Roosevelt states in plain language that he was responding to Germany's declaration of war. Should have read closer.

Jay: Like me, Roosevelt was a Democrat. He was the leader in pushing this country into the war, despite heavy opposition from most of the public, especially the Republicans. They smartened up and supported the war after it actually started.

I know it's your M.O. to assign motives where they don't exist then attack based on that, but you're simply miles off track.

My bad. Dec 11, 1941.

Even the declaration from Germany cited the US's policy of open hostilities towards their warships as their cause to declare war on the US.

Jay wrote: Don't you care what others think of you?

I don't care what you think about anything. I doubt very much that anyone cares what you think about anything.

rdw wrote: If you can check out the WSJ editorial today.

Ah. That you get your information from the professional crackpots who write the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes a long way towards explaining your delusional disconnect from reality.

Actually you're all wrong. Germany declared war on the US on May 11, 1941 only after the US began the policy of hostilties towards any German warship that we encountered. Until that time, Germany was of NO threat to our borders. I mean isn't that your benchmark.

Of course they weren't a threat. Their u-boats weren't threatening, and sinking, our flagged vessels sending supplies and war materiel to the UK.

They also weren't violating our maritime borders with those u-boats, either.

zeeej, are you telling me that there is no philosophical difference in the Democrat party of Roosevelt, or even Kennedy, vs the Democrat party of today?

Are you saying that Reid, Pelosi and Dean are of the Roosevelt mold?

zeeeej:

You are also miles off track in what my reaction would be to President Gore in Iraq.

brewmn:

Glad to hear YOU are not serious about Lieberman, but more than a couple Democrats trying to defeat him in the primary are.

RT:

You really don't understand the concept of "hypothetical" do you? I get to say that Gore did everything EXACTLY as Bush did in Iraq, and you get to say whether you would be complaining as much or not?

P.S. enozinho -- I'm not ignoring your questions -- at least not any more than you mine. You first.

SuckularAnalist is a nazi antisemite.

Stefan, pay attention to what Habby just said. He/she states that Germany was a threat to us because of their continued hostilities towards our flagged vessels supplying the UK with war supplies.

Yet just a few days ago, you stated that Saddam had every right to fire on our patrol planes over the no-fly zone and was not a reason to escalate hostilities.

Considering your logic, wouldn't Germany have every right to fire at those ships in the defense of protecting their area and their efforts?

Even the declaration from Germany cited the US's policy of open hostilities towards their warships as their cause to declare war on the US.

take that Blame America First shit elsewhere.

My hypothetical picks up with President Gore reading My Pet Goat

Wait, so now reading "My Pet Goat" was an action "on Iraq"?

Yet just a few days ago, you stated that Saddam had every right to fire on our patrol planes over the no-fly zone and was not a reason to escalate hostilities. Considering your logic, wouldn't Germany have every right to fire at those ships in the defense of protecting their area and their efforts?

In the first case, Iraqi batteries were firing at foreign warplanes invading their airspace, i.e. Iraqi forces were defending Iraqi territory. In the second, German forces were attacking neutral ships in the Atlantic, i.e. they were not defending their territory from incursion but were engaged in an act of aggression. Most peop...correction, most sane people can see the difference.

Jay -

1. The u-boats were within our maritime border, thereby negating your claim that Germany wasn't threatening our borders. They certainly were. They were also sinking our flagged shipping vessels.

2. You can't compare the no-fly zone with what the Germans were doing.

First, Saddam was protecting his airspace. The Germans weren't protecting their territory; they were encroaching on ours.

Two, Saddam was firing on military craft. The Germans were attacking unarmed merchant vessels.

Lastly, Saddam was technically at war with the U.S., since it hadn't conformed to the UN terms or surrender. Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S. when it started to attack our merchant vessels.

Considering your logic, wouldn't Germany have every right to fire at those ships in the defense of protecting their area and their efforts?

If such a right existed, it had nothing to do with the logic under which Saddam had a right to fire on the armed invaders of Iraqi sovereign territory.

Jay: Even the declaration from Germany cited the US's policy of open hostilities towards their warships as their cause to declare war on the US.

Well, if Hitler said it, it must be true and accurate!

I guess that means that when OBL said that the US started the hostilities, he was also being morally and factually accurate!

Jay quotes Hitler's declaration of war as a source of respected truth.

How apropos for a racist neo-Nazi like Jay.

Bush has no military contingency to attack Iran - that is why Iran is acting the way its acting. It has no fear.

GWB has contingencies for everything. The military has several colleges devoted to developing them. Both NK and Iran serve positive purposes.

The world can continue to sit back on let the US solve it's problems and then start bitching about it or the USA can let the UN and the rest of the world get off it's ass and do something.

We see Japan getting very serious about NK. Wouldn't it be very nice to see this huge, nature democracy with a powerful unfettered military prepared to meet and destroy NK if threatened? We could pull every single soldier out of Japan and Korea. We not have Japan sharing the expense of Star Wars and adding expertise. This is a huge asset for GWB.

It also seems the Germans are taking another look at their place now that they no long host American combat troops. The watched the Russians cut off Gas supplies to the Ukrane and woldn't you now it their East German PM has memories of Russia that are less than fond. Ann Merkel is also way less than thrilled Iran has missles than can easily reach Berlin and has already made threatening statements.

Today we saw Merkel and Chirac part ways on Israel. They made distinctly different statements with Germany on the same side as the USA, across the road from France and Russia. Merkel has been of a different mind than Jacques all along.

If we think back to German and French history we have two distinctly different cultures. The French appease. The Germans attack. Now that the Germans stand for the 1st time in 60 years solely responsible for their own defense they have some decisions to make. It would not seem to be in the German culture to rely on appeasement.

Japan is clearly much closer to a serious remilitarization. Already the 4th largest defense spender they have a bill in their legislature to elevate the defense secretary to full cabinet status and will soon consider removing all constitutional limits. 90% of Japanese favor an aggressive stance toward North Korea and are none too comfy with China.

Ann Merkel is just starting out but it's clear she's no Gerhard Schroeder. Wouldn't it be cool of the Germans followed the path of the Japanese to provide for their own defense with a military commensuarte with their economy? Think of an alliance of the USA-Japan-India-Germany. All large democracies with a great deal in common.

That's 4 of the 5 largest economies on a purchasing power basis with 37% of global GDP.
All have a reason to limit Russian-Chinese influence and Islamic terrorism. All are threatened by rogue states and groups.

GWB is well ahead of his time

zeeeej:

You are also miles off track in what my reaction would be to President Gore in Iraq.

That may be in your case. There's no chance I'm wrong in the case of prominent conservatives, as they've already demonstrated. And you don't really strike me as a break-the-mold Republican. But I don't know you.

rdw: GWB is well ahead of his time

He would be, if we were living in 1400 A.D.

As usual, rdw continues to lie without regrets and offer opinions unsupported by fact or reality.

rdw: This is a huge asset for GWB.

And we know that all you care about is your Dear Leader George W. Bush.

First of all they were "patrol" planes protecting the no-fly zones in Iraq which were created to protect the lives of the Shi'a and the Kurds.

Secondly Habby has and stated that "technically at war with the US since it hadn't confomred to the UN terms of surrender" Beautifully stated.

Using all of the preceeding logic, this is, in and of itself, reason for war and debunks all of your contentions that this is an illegal occupation. Well done Habby!!!!!!!

Second paragraph should have read:

Habby stated that Saddam was "technically at war with the US since it hadn't conformed to the UN terms of surrender".

So if Bush did as Clinton did (you remember the blowjob thingy) would you be screaming impeach? and AL gore would have gotten Osama and that would have changed the whole dynamics of terrorism.Most terrorists would had seen that there was nowhere to hide.That is what Preasident Al Gore would have done.Bush would have done somthing stupid like invade Iraq or somthing like that.

Mann Coulter, global warming is much more of a threat to us than jihadism. C'mon man, where have you been?

Ah. That you get your information from the professional crackpots who write the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes a long way towards explaining your delusional disconnect from reality.

The WSJ is one of our national treasures. Getting 2x's as many subscribers as the NYTs most of whom actually read the editorial page, the WSJ is uniquely influencial. More than any other outlet the WSJ is responsible for the dominance of supply-side economics here and around the world. A majority of those states adapting a new tax regime after the collapse of the USSR adapted a flat tax due largely to the advice of the WSJ.

All are prospering. Among the many problemsfacnig the French within the EU is in getting these flat taxers and low taxers to raise their rates because the French can't compete.

The WSJ is also a regular source of news and alanysis for Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and the blogs. They also publish different editions in Asia, Europe and South America spreading the gospel around the world

I'm not ignoring your questions

Look Doug. If Gore had done exactly what Bush did, the both of us would be calling for his impeachment.

I'm not like you. I didn't vote in 2000 because I was unaware of politics at the time. I bought the line that we should move on from the florida recount and give Bush a chance. The first speech I ever saw Bush give was on 9/11, and like the rest of the country, I was hoping he would do what was right for the country. He didn't. He failed the country when it needed him most, and I will never forgive him for that.

The world has never seen a terrorist state armed with nuclear weapons.

Present company excluded.

another parody troll? sigh

I agree with the commenter above who complained about how the wingnut wackos routinely hijack potentially interesting threads. I'd love to have heard from people (with actual knowledge, and not circular, counterfactual hypothetical arguments) who know something about nuclear weapons development.

The only decent comment in this regard came from Grumpy Physicist above, and it barely registered.

Hitler! The UN! Black helicopters! The Second Coming! Bush and God hang out and drink beer together!! That's all we seem to get...

rdw wrote: The WSJ is also a regular source of news and alanysis for Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and the blogs.

Like Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and yourself, the writers of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page are liars and frauds.

You are nothing but a delusional crank who, in addition to being completely disconnected from reality and steeped in ludicrous right-wing bullshit mythology, exhibits all the slavish hero-worshiping personality traits of the classic fascist brownshirt. Reagan defeated communism! George W. Bush is the world's greatest visionary and geopolitical mastermind! What a load of crap.

You are good for a laugh, that's all. And it's a sad laugh at that -- the sadness of observing just how debased a human being can become when they force-feed themselves a steady diet of lies.

Not to mention most of our problems come from there other hero Reagan.He made Osama what he is today.Oh yea he also made Saddam what he is today.Thank you R Reagan.

The WSJ is also a regular source of news and alanysis for Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and the blogs.

Nooo. Say it ain't so.

That's what I like about your posts secular, all facts and no personal partisan attacks.

You're a fine example of why the left keeps losing elections.

The WSJ is one of our national treasures. Getting 2x's as many subscribers as the NYTs most of whom actually read the editorial page,

Er, no. Speaking as someone who actually works in the Wall Street sector, people read the WSJ for the financial news, not for the screamingly insane editorials.

Stefan wrote: Speaking as someone who actually works in the Wall Street sector, people read the WSJ for the financial news, not for the screamingly insane editorials.

It's obvious that rdw does the opposite.

Jay wrote: You're a fine example of why the left keeps losing elections.

You are a fine example of a Bush-bootlicking neo-fascist brownshirt mental slave who is incapable of doing anything but regurgitating the turds that you gobble from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that you slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News.

You are a very immature hate filled young man secular. One day you may mentally mature and become a conservative. Then again, maybe not.

Have a nice day.

Er, no. Speaking as someone who actually works in the Wall Street sector, people read the WSJ for the financial news, not for the screamingly insane editorials.

Er, yes. I worked in the Wall Street sector which is how I came to read the WSJ. Savvy business people cannot allow themselves to become divorced from politics and no paper covers fiscal and monetary policy as well nor Tax and trade policy.

As many people buy the NY Times for the sports and entertainment pages as buy the WSJ just for business summaries.

The WSJ is the most influencial newspaper in the world.

Like Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and yourself, the writers of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page are liars and frauds.

Do you get up in the morning and wonder why the entire rest of the world is against you? If you are not you haven't been paying attention.

rdw wrote: The WSJ is the most influencial newspaper in the world.

The writers of the WSJ editorial page are liars and frauds. No one but other right-wing cranks takes them seriously. That you rely on them for information and analysis helps explain your delusional ignorance which approaches mental illness.

rdw wrote: Do you get up in the morning and wonder why the entire rest of the world is against you?

No, I don't wonder about your idiotic delusions, in the morning or at any other time.

rdw wrote: ... the NK craziness is serving GWBs cause by revitalizing Japanese nationalism against it's regional enemies ...

What with rdw's lunatic ravings that resurgent Japanese militarism "serves GWB's cause" (and we know that the only thing the sociopathic rdw cares about is what serves GWB) and Charlie's inane and pointless and irrelevant hypotheticals, the right-wing idiot brigade has once again sabotaged any serious discussion on a thread that might have been pretty informative about the technical realities of Iran's nuclear program.

The only thing these guys know how to do is be assholes, but they are good at it.

我向大家推荐:要想寻找天线宝宝信息请访问 天线宝宝 网，各种天线宝宝应有尽有。您想要了解 白小姐 吗？请到中国白小姐网来寻找白小姐。中国 排列5 网，打造排列5领域专业搜索平台，提供全球排列5品牌公司及产品展示。北京 排列3 厂向广大客户提供排列3产品及排列3服务。要想寻找七星彩信息请访问 七星彩 网，各种七星彩应有尽有。要想寻找福利彩票信息请访问 福利彩票 网，各种福利彩票应有尽有。您想要了解 双色球 吗？请到中国双色球网来寻找双色球。上海 福彩3D 公司专业生产福彩3D产品，欢迎选择福彩3D。您想要了解 3D福彩 吗？请到中国3D福彩网来寻找3D福彩。六合彩 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的六合彩,丰富六合彩行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找六合彩信息请访问 六合彩 网，各种六合彩应有尽有。

rdw:
ignoring, for the moment, your crazy assertions about the business value of the WSJ editorial page, could you explain your ongoing fascination with a re-armed Japan, and more specifically how and why you think they're going to get rid of article 9?

Japanese public opinion polls, without exception, show overwhelming support for article 9, and overwhelming opposition to any effort to amend that article of the Showa Constitution. The LDP had to mount an extensive campaign in order to get minimal support for sending unarmed election observers to Cambodia, and there was no constituency in favor of sending troops to Iraq during the first Gulf War, or during the current conflict.

The WSJ editorial board may wish, with all its might, that the Japanese would rearm. However, Japan's neighbors, its politicians, and its citizens have a different set of wishes. You may be surprised to learn that, despite its vast global influence, the WSJ's wishes are distinctly unlikely to be realized in this case.

keith wrote: The WSJ editorial board may wish, with all its might, that the Japanese would rearm.

Whatever the WSJ editorial board wishes for, becomes in rdw's mind the absolute truth of what is, will be and must be.

You're a fine example of why the left keeps losing elections.

Keep your eyes peeled this November, Jay.

Because you're a fine example of a bloodthirsty rightwing lunatic whose addled brain is consistent with respect to just one topic: Violence.

I do care a hell of a lot when dirty scum roam the world and kill innocent men, women and children. (if only they could set their sights on many of you here though I might be pleased).

I will keep my eyes peeled obscure. Bilbray's win in CA was a precursor of things to come.

And jeez I hope my tongue-in-cheek comment didn't offend you. You know how I hate to offend liberals. Please accept my apology.

The LDP had to mount an extensive campaign in order to get minimal support for sending unarmed election observers to Cambodia, and there was no constituency in favor of sending troops to Iraq during the first Gulf War, or during the current conflict.

You are looking at old data. The PKO Cooperation Bill, passed in the Diet on June 15, 1992, the bill allowed the Japanese Self Defense Forces to join PKOs, including peace keeping forces (PKFs). As early as 1997 47% of Japanese favored removing the article versus on 37% keeping it.

And this is before NK had missles flying over Japan or had fissionable material. Japan now has 500 troops in Iraq. They also just took part in the largest naval exercise in the Pacific since WWII with the USA. They are partners with the USA on developing Star Wars and have installed and successfully tested a ship-based system on a Japanese cruiser. Japan also hosts a large site in the North for a new radar system to monitor NK.

Koizumi was elected as a hawk and has governed a hawk. He recently submitted a bill to the diet to make the defense chief a full cabinet position and this week his cabinet issued two of the most aggressive statements toward NK for their test.

90% of Japanese support an aggressive approach toward NK. Koizumi is the most popular Japanese PM in 40 years and aside from Howard in Australia and Blair has been GWBs strongest ally.

GWB also has removed 17,000 of 19,000 troops stationed in Okinawa at the request of the Japanese. We are moving from the post-war mode to a full and equal partner mode. GWBs diplomacy has been brilliant and far sighted. He seeks to align the large, mature, capitalistic democracies especially those with common interests in terms of global terror and Chinese/Russian dominance.

Think USA-India-Japan-Germany-UK-Australia. Forget the UN.

He's so far ahead of the democrats on this it's not even funny.

rdw -

There's more nuance than that. The majority of the Japanese are against Iraq. The only reason they favor a strong stance against NK is because they are directly threatened. Koizumi also visits the memorial where class A Japanese war criminals are buried. Japan has yet to come clean on its atrocities of WW2, as Germany has done. Don't be so quick to embrace Japan as an equal partner.

Jay: Please accept my apology.

I'll accept a retraction if it is offered.

As for your tongue being in your cheek...

Ha. Ha.

A couple of points.

1) Iran hasn't yet broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2) There was a recent story that AF generals were balking at bombing Iran because it wasn't clear that there were any targets.

Mr. De Mille, Iraq is ready for its close-up.

andy,

I'm not in on the amount of PC groveling Japan must complete to satisfy it's critics. To be honest, I think it's intellectually daft to attempt to hold this generation accountable for the sins of it's fathers. I'm no more responsible for the sins of my father than I am for your sins and I'm not about to apologize for either one of you.

Koizumi is a hawk. The memorial is not just for war criminals. It's also for war heroes and they are the people he honors. They deserve to be so honored. One doesn't ignore a deserving hero because they have the misfortune to have been buried next to scum. That doesn't make any sense. This is one of those classic manufactured 'scandals'.

That Koizumi is a hawk is why he is the most popular PM of the past 40 years. Japan has atoned for WWII and is moving on. The USA is encouring them aggressively to do so for very obvious reasons. It is time to Japan to take it's rightful place as a leading liberal democracy and an economic powerhouse. They would be an extremely powerful asset to the USA in a critically important region.

It's also only common sense that Japan needs to arm itself against the grave threats it faces with both NK and China. I am not interested is paying for their defense when they are wealthy, technically astute and have a strong military culture.

It also makes sense for the Germans to make this trip. We are out of Europe. They are now responsible for their own security. Iran could launch missles into Berlin tomorrow and for all we know they could be nuclear armed. The Germans also watched Russia try to freeze the Ukrane. They are a wealthy, nature democracy perfectly capable to assuming responsible for their own defense and they have enemies. The Germans are not Nazis. They are Democrats.

Think about that: USA-JAPAN-GERMANY as powerful military allies.

I'll add one more name that could travel the same path. GWB has backed off SK considerably. He will not hold one-party talks because he's holding the regional powers equally responsibile for any settlement. SK will not longer hold the USA responsible for it's security. They will be responsible for their own and will increasingly fund it. GWB has removed about 20% of our troops from SK and moved a large number out of the DMZ and out of Sueol. SK favors an appeasement path. If it goes that way they will take the risks. The 1M NK regulars will over-run the SK manned DMZ and probably Sueol before US troops enter any defense.

Doesn't that make sense? Shouldn't SK, a wealthy mature democracy lead in the talks and shouldn't they bear the consequences of their decision? Won't that make for clearer thinking when making the decision?

Look for this new responsibility to focus their thinking. And to get them to pay for their own defense. If they choose appeasement and it's successful God bless them for being so wise. If they choose appeasement it'll be a pity but it will be their pity, not ours. A 3rd possibility is the weight of responsibility will drive SK to a more aggressive security posture knowing they must defend themselves. They can help fund star wars research and relieve the pressure on the USA elsewhere by joining an alliance of mature democracies.

According to current treaty obligations, wouldn't South Korea's pity be our own too?

The Rising Sun Also Rises

The news this morning that Japan is considering a pre-emptive strike on North Korean missile bases comes as no particular surprise to me. It also would come of no particular suprise to learn that the Japanese have been and are far better armed than the world ever thought they were. The most powerful and closest military alliance is no longer NATO and has not been for a quite a while. The most powerful such alliance is the USA and Japan. Not far out on the periphery of this alliance are India and Israel.

Posted by Roger L. Simon at 10:03 AM

I don't think the left even realizes NATO is nothing more than a shell.

According to current treaty obligations, wouldn't South Korea's pity be our own too?

Absolutely! I'm not hoping for anything here. But the fact is assuming the worst case scenario of a NK attack I'd much rather the DMZ be manned entirely by the SK while US forces be stationed at the southern tip with the maximum time to respond. This will force the entire SK population to look at the problem more soberly. It's their kids in the lime fo fire. Residents of Seoul will most definitely pay a severe price if they judge wrongly and don't prepare adequately. Methings they'll be more cautious and far less critical of the USA.

There's another diplomatic issue here I didn't cover. SK in the 90's became progressively more anti-american blaming us for the problems rather than NK. The younger the more likely to hold resentments against the US. The older the less likely, the more likely to remember and appreciate our losses and efforts and appreciate what would have been without them.

Young SK's have the arrogance that comes with youth and no responsibility. The idea is to give them the responsibility and with it the risk. Meaning move our guys out of harms way and making it clear the SKs get to enjoy the benefits or the consequences of their actions. This time there will be no blaming everyone else.

It's a bit too easy when someone else is doing all of the heavy lifting. This is a normal and welcome transition. Korea is a wealthy and mature democracy. Their citizens elected as president a anti-american candiate. We have little choice but to respect their decision. I think we are doing better.

I don't think an invasion by NK is remotely likely but they will jerk the SKs unmercifully and SK will likely end up humiliated. The Japanese will arm themselves and show little patience. NK want's to play. GWB ain't playing. Koizumi ain't playing. Eventually SK will stop playing.

The most likely scenario is NK dicks around for a few more years and Japan remilitarizes. SK doesn't go that far but sheds it's anti-americanism and starts to consider more aggressive defense spending. GWB will be pulling more troops out. NK grows poorer, weaker and possibly nuttier.

A much less likely scenario is NK comes to the table and makes a deal. This will require SK appeasement. GWB may be willing to spend money on humanitarian elements but only if extensive searches are allowed as part of any deal. GWB will transfer a great deal more risk to SK. We'll pull a majority of troops out and all those who remain will be out of harms way.

The least likely is NK does go bonkers and pours over the border. This is obviously bad for everyone but suicidal for NK. Their poorly equipped army will deal a blow to SK troops within 200 miles but at great cost. Then USA troops will wipe them out. They are so lethal they'll wipe out all NK troops massed in groups of 20 or more.

If I had my way we'd not have a single body in Korea. They elected an anti-american candidate. I can take a hint.

It's also only common sense that Japan needs to arm itself against the grave threats it faces with both NK and China. …rdw 10:01 PM

the left even realizes NATO is nothing more than a shell. Rdw 10:17 PM

Mike,

Japan has been threatened by China and Korea for 2,000 years. They've never been pals. Japan has threatened them as well. Why Japan is threatened is beside the point.

GWB will talk to NK. He won't take to them without SK and Japan who have a more vital interest. This is a regional problem and it will have a regional solution.

NATO is a shell. The US does not have troops committed to NATO sitting around for NATO to define a mission. Afghanistan is a perfect example of how missions will define the coalition. Those members of NATO willing to participate in Afghanistan have committed troops using the NATO command structure. The US has it's own troops inside and outside NATO and there are many non-nato coalition members in Afghanistan. NATO is there because that's how Germany and Canada use their troops.

Spain is also assisting through NATO in Afghanistan http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/07-july/e0710a.htm

I agree with rdw's assessment of NATO, since Afghanistan is their "number one" priority, according to NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who stressed the importance of the mission in the context of the fight against terrorism.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html

Through its leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), NATO is helping establish the conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a representative government and self-sustaining peace and security.

NATO took over command and coordination of ISAF in August 2003. This is the first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area in NATO’s history.

Initially restricted to providing security in and around Kabul, NATO's mission now covers about 50% of the country's territory. The Alliance is currently in the process of further expanding its presence and role.

. . .

The political direction and co-ordination for the mission is provided by NATO's principal decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Based on the political guidance from the Council, strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's top operational headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium.

Getting 2x's as many subscribers as the NYTs...

The WSJ is distributed in bulk to business districts all around the globe. Most of its readers don't have to decide whether to buy it or not.

rdw, less than 75 years ago Japan, Germany, Italy were dreaming up a grand alliance that would dominate Earth. How did that turn out?

rdw: our big-picture guy.

The hawks argue that Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb within three years, while the more sanguine members of the international intelligence community say it could take 10 years.

Iran will create - can create - its nuclear bomb in five to ten years. adult friend finder

The WSJ is distributed in bulk to business districts all around the globe. Most of its readers don't have to decide whether to buy it or not.

You are confusing the WSJ with the USA today which in bought in bulk and distributed free in hotels and other tousist/traveler locations. The WSJ is sold by individual subscription.

rdw, less than 75 years ago Japan, Germany, Italy were dreaming up a grand alliance that would dominate Earth. How did that turn out?

75 years ago Japan, Germany and Italy were not mature democracies based on a well established rule of law. You can live in the world as it was 75 years ago or 150 years ago or 750 years ago. I'll live in the present.

This is what makes GWBs moves so impressive and for the most part, undiscovered by liberals. They look at the world through the rear view mirror. Liberals can't see what is happening because they still see Germany and Japan and Italy thru WWII. Italy and Japan have been marvelous in the GWOT.

The MSM has no clue about events in Japan. They are unware Koizumi has submitted a bill to the Diet to upgrade the defense chief to full cabinet
status. They are unware of the intense efforts on Star Wars. They did not report of the successful test of a ship-based system on a Japanese cruiser. They report on Koizumi at Graceland ignoring the series of trade and security deals between the US and Japan.

The MSM reports on GWBs refusal on direct talks as if it's just a pique over NK getting it's way. Consumers of the MSM have no idea why he's insisting on a regional settlement. It's a function of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) which almost always works to GWBs advantage.

GWB has been able to accomplish an awful lot flying under the radar. Possibly much more than if the left had a clue. They'd want everything to stop until Japan issued more apologies for 65 years ago. Additionally, it's another example of the rot in the MSM.

Consider last weeks release of the Network ratings showing even larger decreases in ratings. It's not just getting worse. It's getting worse faster. With an all-time low of 21M viewers the network news is down over 20% in just 5 years. People want a balanced story and they know it's not coming from the networks.

Just think of what this means for the next election. In 2004 the MSM told Kerry they'd bury the SBV's while Dan Rather and others did their best to bury GWB. Today Dan Rather can't get a decent cable job and Kerry is the most bitter person in Congress. These dumb bastards really though they'd make GWB pay for Kyoto and the ABM treaty.

Few American have a clue as to the extensive changes in diplomatic and trade relations with Japan and India yet they will define the next 2 decades. Few Americans have a clue as to the dramatic shift in US-EU relations. They don't understand the nature of what are fundamental and permanent changes the result of fundamentally different world views. That's why it's permanent. This was never just about GWB. Things are never going back to the past.

rdw: our big-picture guy.

You won't find out in the NYTs.

Nuclear proliferation is an extremely depressing fact of our times, something which I see no way for the United States, as it is currently conducting its foreign policy, to stop. The US has ignored its own responsibilities under the non-proliferation treaty, under which we are obligated to get rid of our own nuclear weapons eventually. Instead, we reserve for ourselves the right to continue to develop and create nuclear weapons, as well as defenses against nuclear weapons, while expecting everybody else to accept our absolute weapons superiority. Then, under this president, we threaten multiple countries with invasion and regime change. If I were an Iranian patriot, I might well support my country's development of nuclear capability. Indeed, this is one issue that unites Iranians across the board. That huge population of young people who want liberalization of their government and a return to modernity support standing up to the United States in this way.

rdw wrote: Few American have a clue ...

Few Americans are subject to hysterical deranged hallucinations as you are.

rdw: In 2004 the MSM told Kerry they'd bury the SBV's ...

In 2004, the RNC organized and financed liars who called themselves the "Swift Boat Veterans" were all over the mainstream media, which not only allowed but facilitated their despicable and dishonest smear campaign against Kerry -- which, again, was crafted and orchestrated word-for-word by Republican Party operatives -- and refused to critically examine their claims, which were readily revealed as the lies they were by even a minimal examination.

Not only do you live in a completely delusional imaginary world which has no connection to reality, but you constantly praise liars, thieves and murderers. Your posts increasingly resemble the rantings of deranged supporters of the 1930s German Nazi party in both your delusions and your embrace of outright evil. It's no wonder that your fondest wish appears to be a revival of the imperialistic fascist Axis dream of world military domination, only this time, with the USA leading the way rather than fighting against it.

That's the beauty of Iraq: there are many wannabe concentration camp guards in every generation, but now many are shouting it to the rooftops. Isn't it better to know?

SA,

The SBVs did not make up the Xmas in Cambodia story. That was entirely John Kerry's creation.

It has to be a rather odd sensation for you to attack the Germans as facists considering their social programs and foreign policy is almost identical to the liberals ideal.

Ann Merkel is no Adolph Hitler. Nor is she Gerhard Schroeder. She is a sober adult with experience living under a typically rotten socialist regime. She understands the importance of freedom and understands it can't be preserved by nuance.

While Japan is very far along their transition to a post-WWII state ready to take it's rightful leadership position unencumbered by the PC of liberals Germany still has far to go. They have had a dramatic cold water bath. The American security blanket is gone. They understand they will provide for their own security. Or they won't. Either way, the risk is entirely theirs.

NK has sent missles flying over Japan and committed a series of war crimes in the not too distant past. It's only last Winter Russia cut off the natural gas supplies to the Ukrane and only a few months back Iran issued subtle threats and made it known they can reach Paris and Berlin with missles.

It's only two years ago NATO was dramatically revamped and the EU constitution was rejected. The Germans have had much to consider. Merkel is only in office 8 months and has a divided Govt. There's clear distance from France. They are in Afghanistan. They are serious about Iran. They are waking up.

rdw wrote: It has to be a rather odd sensation for you to attack the Germans as facists considering their social programs and foreign policy is almost identical to the liberals ideal.

You have severe reading comprehension problems, but we already knew that. I did not "attack the Germans as fascists." I wrote "Your posts increasingly resemble the rantings of deranged supporters of the 1930s German Nazi party in both your delusions and your embrace of outright evil."

You are a fascist.

rdw:

I don't know where you get your information regarding Japanese public support for Article 9, Koizumi's status as a "hawk", and Japanese participation in peacekeeping operations, but you're almost completely wrong. Congratulations, that's quite an achievement.

1. As recently as April of 2006, public opinion polls showed that a majority absolutely supports Article 9 as written and another one-third support amending the article to recognize the existence of the SDF. That's not the same as "removing" the article, and it leaves only about 20% who favor amending it in any stronger fashion. In fact, almost one-third of Japanese say that the part of the Constitution they most support is Article 9!

2. Koizumi Junichiro ran as a budget hawk, which allowed him to draw support not only from several factions within the LDP but from politicians outside the party. He most certainly did not make military hawkishness a major part of his campaign. It was not even clear whether he would continue the policy of paying respects at Yasukini jinja, and in fact his popularity dropped the first time he did so.

3. The Japanese participation in peacekeeping operations is entirely neutral (they sent minesweepers to the Persian Gulf after the cessation of hostilities in the first Gulf War, and the bill authorizing participation stipulated that forces were only to enter non-combat areas, and were denied the use of weapons except in the case of self-defense. Even these provisions proved so controversial that, in actual fact, participation in peacekeeping operations will be limited to logistical support, medical care, and transporting of goods and services (i.e. in Cambodia, Angola and Mozambique).

As for the Yasukuni issue, where to begin? Suffice to say that the enshrining of Class-A War Criminals was done in secret, and that LDP Prime Ministers have made no efforts to differentiate their support of the deceased soldiers and sailors (since the Sino-Japanese War) and the "secretly" interred war criminals.

As for Japan having been threatened by Korea and China for 2000 years, there was no Korean state 2000 years ago, and it was in the context of an alliance with one Korean state (against Tang China) that the first Japanese state was brought into being... something like 1300 years ago.

Ya know, you might want to acquire just a little bit of knowledge before posting on a subject.

The PKO Cooperation Bill, passed in the Diet on June 15, 1992, the bill allowed the Japanese Self Defense Forces to join PKOs, including peace keeping forces (PKFs). As early as 1997 47% of Japanese favored removing the article versus on 37% keeping it.
Koizumi was elected as a hawk and has governed a hawk.
Posted by: rdw on July 13, 2006 at 8:28 PM |